Harper's Transfer of My Taxes to Other Peoples' Kids/Wives

Smallc · December 2, 2014

They don't seem to. The only thing that has caused the Conservatives to go down is the the (potentially temporary) popularity of Justin Trudeau.

overthere · December 2, 2014

Correct, I favor having as few subsidies as possible. Having children is in virtually all cases, a choice. You either choose to conceive, or choose to not use birth control before becoming sexually active, or choose not to use it right after (morning after pill), or choose not to abort, etc. There are virtually zero incidents where a woman is both raped AND ALSO forcibly prevented from using birth control.

I believe you pay for your own choices. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to take the $320/mo for my kids, I'd be stupid not to, but I fully support getting rid of it for everyone. I would also get rid of all childcare subsidies, mortgage subsidies (CMHC), sports subsidies, corporate subsidies, etc. I'd keep universal heath care because I believe there's a reasonable economic argument for it, although I'd allow two-tier.

CMHC is not a subsidy. It is a self supporting insurance scheme, and in combination with a restrictive Bank Act has allowed many millions of Canadians to own homes, almost all of whom would have never been able to save the requisite 20% down. More recently, the mandatory national mortgage qualifications of CMHC saved our collectives asses in the last global recession. The subprime loan fiasco was exponentially smaller here than in the US. Oh, and CMHC does not have a monopoly on insuring high ratio loans, there are at least two other insurers, both private sector.

Public education has an excellent economic argument too.

guyser · December 2, 2014

I don't think anyone likes Fantino.

Well, theres his wife and his mother I suppose.

But beyond that.....nope, dont think anyone does. He has been a disaster anywhere he went

Michael Hardner · December 3, 2014

Well, theres his wife and his mother I suppose.

Wait... that's two people right ?

overthere · December 3, 2014

Lets not forget the 38,000 people who voted for him. He crushed his Liberal opponent.

Maybe that has something to do with it.......

jbg · December 7, 2014

They don't seem to. The only thing that has caused the Conservatives to go down is the the (potentially temporary) popularity of Justin Trudeau.

Hopefully that popularity dims when people really think of handing him the keys to government.

Topaz · December 7, 2014

True or false, ALL the money the feds are going to give to families is going to be "income" and therefore will be taxed back to the feds and now since the feds have surpluses from all the cutting they have done, shouldn't they also cut income taxes because they wouldn't need all that money.

scribblet · December 7, 2014

Tax credits and tax refunds from income splitting are not taxed back at all, I don't think any of it is.

Everyone has gained something, naturally those earning more and paying more in taxes will gain more, but everyone has gained (unless they don't pay income tax)

http://linkis.com/globalnews.ca/news/1/TnQaC

OTTAWA – Canadians are saving more than $30 billion in federal taxes— or a little less than $1,000 per person — due to tax changes introduced in the past decade, Canada’s budget watchdog says in a new report.

The calculation from the Parliamentary Budget Officer shows the accumulation of tax relief that has come about since 2005, when the then-Liberal government reduced the minimum income tax rate to 15 per cent from 16 per cent.

Keepitsimple · December 7, 2014

Fraud is serious.

People care.

.

There you go with your emotional drive-by smears again - making things up as you go along. Amusing at times - tiresome sometimes.

Smallc · December 7, 2014

Tax credits and tax refunds from income splitting are not taxed back at all, I don't think any of it is.

Everyone has gained something, naturally those earning more and paying more in taxes will gain more, but everyone has gained (unless they don't pay income tax)

http://linkis.com/globalnews.ca/news/1/TnQaC

OTTAWA Canadians are saving more than $30 billion in federal taxes or a little less than $1,000 per person due to tax changes introduced in the past decade, Canadas budget watchdog says in a new report.

The calculation from the Parliamentary Budget Officer shows the accumulation of tax relief that has come about since 2005, when the then-Liberal government reduced the minimum income tax rate to 15 per cent from 16 per cent.

You were right ghe first time - everyone has gained, because the universal child care benefit has increased by $60 for children under 6 and to $60 (from 0) for children over 6.

hitops · December 8, 2014

CMHC is not a subsidy. It is a self supporting insurance scheme, and in combination with a restrictive Bank Act has allowed many millions of Canadians to own homes, almost all of whom would have never been able to save the requisite 20% down. More recently, the mandatory national mortgage qualifications of CMHC saved our collectives asses in the last global recession. The subprime loan fiasco was exponentially smaller here than in the US. Oh, and CMHC does not have a monopoly on insuring high ratio loans, there are at least two other insurers, both private sector.

Public education has an excellent economic argument too.

CMHC is a subsidy. It is not self-supported, ultimately if it fails, the taxpayer backs it. That's not self-supported. It makes it possible for people to get massive mortgages, and this itself massively inflates housing. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It drives home prices up, therefore making it necessary for people to have CMHC insurance to buy homes. In the long run everyone is hurt by this. Just in the last few years, its profits fell from a few billion to barley profitable. This correlates exactly with the loosening of the rules in the mid-2000's and subsequent increase in defaults.

CMHC did not save anything. If fact it just dug our hole deeper. Today we are now the most over-valued home market in the world (according to OECD). We over-built a ton of homes during the recession. That's not real prosperity, it's just creating incentives for people to spend big time on homes. It doesn't mean they have, or make, any more money than before. It just means they spent now, and will have less to spend later.

There's nothing wrong with mortgage insurance, the taxpayer just shouldn't be on the hook for it. CMHC should be sold to private interests or abolished.

Edited December 8, 2014 by hitops

overthere · December 9, 2014

CMHC is a subsidy. It is not self-supported, ultimately if it fails, the taxpayer backs it. That's not self-supported. It makes it possible for people to get massive mortgages, and this itself massively inflates housing. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It drives home prices up, therefore making it necessary for people to have CMHC insurance to buy homes. In the long run everyone is hurt by this. Just in the last few years, its profits fell from a few billion to barley profitable. This correlates exactly with the loosening of the rules in the mid-2000's and subsequent increase in defaults.

CMHC did not save anything. If fact it just dug our hole deeper. Today we are now the most over-valued home market in the world (according to OECD). We over-built a ton of homes during the recession. That's not real prosperity, it's just creating incentives for people to spend big time on homes. It doesn't mean they have, or make, any more money than before. It just means they spent now, and will have less to spend later.

There's nothing wrong with mortgage insurance, the taxpayer just shouldn't be on the hook for it. CMHC should be sold to private interests or abolished.

CMHC has annual profit of around $2 billion and a miniscule annual default rate around .3%. It is the lowest risk investment imaginable for the taxpeyers, and the results of the last 65 years support it. And wiothout it- generations of Candians would be renting and our economy overall would be much poorer.

You have not been able to get CMHC insurance on any property with >$1,000,000 for more than two years, and the private insurers who have 25% of the market are even stricter.

Everybody has to quaify on the same criteria and they have gotten much stricter the last few years.

You think that causes problems in the Housing market?.

Its nothing compared to what happens when you lend money to people that don't qualify. Banks fail. Didn't happen here. CMHC was part of that.

It drives home prices up, therefore making it necessary for people to have CMHC insurance to buy homes.

Rubbish, and backwards rubbish at that. They still must qualify, still must be able to pay, and every federal govt uses CMHC as a tool to speed or slow the economy. The rule changes in 2012 and other years had immediate effect on housing markets.

Without mortgage insurance, almost nobody would be able to buy a home. then or now or tomorrow. And by forcing banks to limit their uninsured lending to 80%, the Bank Act protects them from their own greed. By contrast, the free for all in the US had the results we saw there and did not see here.

hitops · December 10, 2014

CMHC has annual profit of around $2 billion and a miniscule annual default rate around .3%. It is the lowest risk investment imaginable for the taxpeyers, and the results of the last 65 years support it. And wiothout it- generations of Candians would be renting and our economy overall would be much poorer.

You have not been able to get CMHC insurance on any property with >$1,000,000 for more than two years, and the private insurers who have 25% of the market are even stricter.

Everybody has to quaify on the same criteria and they have gotten much stricter the last few years.

You think that causes problems in the Housing market?.

Its nothing compared to what happens when you lend money to people that don't qualify. Banks fail. Didn't happen here. CMHC was part of that.

CMHC doesn't prevent money from being lent to people who don't qualify, it encourages it. It guarantee's the risk for the bank, which makes the bank care less about back risks. It doesn't protect the borrower, it protects the bank.

The reason people aren't walking away from homes here is not because of the CMHC, it's because the rules that have nothing to do with the CMHC, are different here. In US you can give the bank the keys and walk away. The bank eats the loss. Here, if you give the keys and walk away, the bank can sell the house and come after you for the difference if it takes a loss.

Rubbish, and backwards rubbish at that. They still must qualify, still must be able to pay, and every federal govt uses CMHC as a tool to speed or slow the economy. The rule changes in 2012 and other years had immediate effect on housing markets.

Without mortgage insurance, almost nobody would be able to buy a home. then or now or tomorrow. And by forcing banks to limit their uninsured lending to 80%, the Bank Act protects them from their own greed. By contrast, the free for all in the US had the results we saw there and did not see here.

Not even close. Without the CMHC, the home ownership rate would be slightly lower, but homes would be far more affordable. It's very simple math: when the CMHC guarantees the loan, the banks are willing to lend more because their risk is gone. When they lend more, that means far more people can access large amounts of money to buy a home. When far more people have access to far more money, by simply supply and demand, prices go up. Prices have risen like crazy in Canada, far out of proportion to wealth, incomes or rents. We now have the most over-valued housing in the world, according to several studies. Firth and Moody just issued reports saying we are dangerously over-exposed. The IMF says we are in a precarious situation.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0H51OC20140910

Look at any graph of debt to income ratios for Canada and the US. Until the US housing crash, they are identical. When the crash hit, the Canada line just continued to rise at the same rate. We are now far more over-exposed and bubbled than they ever were. Because you can't walk away, it makes a crash less likely. But for the exact same reason, we can't escape housing debt. The CMHC is the largest reason for this. Due to it's availability driving prices into the stratosphere, homes are more unaffordable than ever to the poor and people entering the market for the first time.

Edited December 10, 2014 by hitops

cybercoma · December 11, 2014

Tax credits and tax refunds from income splitting are not taxed back at all, I don't think any of it is.

Everyone has gained something, naturally those earning more and paying more in taxes will gain more, but everyone has gained (unless they don't pay income tax)

Everyone has gained except for those who didn't. :lol:

Well, you've got the Harper doublespeak down.

cybercoma · December 11, 2014

You were right ghe first time - everyone has gained, because the universal child care benefit has increased by $60 for children under 6 and to $60 (from 0) for children over 6.

And about the Conservatives slashing revenues to give back to the richest Canadians yet again?

Smallc · December 11, 2014

And about the Conservatives slashing revenues to give back to the richest Canadians yet again?

You mean to lower the higher taxes they pay? How terrible.

Argus · December 11, 2014

And about the Conservatives slashing revenues to give back to the richest Canadians yet again?

I just sent my quarterly payment of $30,000 off to CRA this morning. I don't see the government giving me a damned thing.

TimG · December 11, 2014

And about the Conservatives slashing revenues to give back to the richest Canadians yet again?

Harper raised the income tax on the top bracket last year. How is that a "give away"? Edited December 11, 2014 by TimG

cybercoma · December 11, 2014

I just sent my quarterly payment of $30,000 off to CRA this morning. I don't see the government giving me a damned thing.

Cry me a river. How on earth do you live making half a million a year and only being able to take home around $380,000 of it?

Edited December 11, 2014 by cybercoma

Argus · December 12, 2014

Cry me a river. How on earth do you live making half a million a year and only being able to take home around $380,000 of it?

I don't make half a million a year.

eyeball · December 12, 2014

I just sent my quarterly payment of $30,000 off to CRA this morning.

That was decent of you, thanks.

I don't see the government giving me a damned thing.

It's hard to imagine what anyone who can afford to pay $120,000 a year in income taxes could possibly ever need from the government.

Argus · December 13, 2014

That was decent of you, thanks.

It's hard to imagine what anyone who can afford to pay $120,000 a year in income taxes could possibly ever need from the government.

The statement was: And about the Conservatives slashing revenues to give back to the richest Canadians yet again?

eyeball · December 13, 2014

I should have said, It's hard to imagine what ELSE anyone who can afford to pay $120,000 a year in income taxes could possibly ever need from the government.

Argus · December 13, 2014

I should have said, It's hard to imagine what ELSE anyone who can afford to pay $120,000 a year in income taxes could possibly ever need from the government.

The claim is the government is helping richer Canadians. I'm still waiting for my help. Not that I'm rich, btw.

Rich people are the ones living in mansions. I live in a bungalow. The people this will help are not rich.

cybercoma · December 13, 2014

The claim is the government is helping richer Canadians. I'm still waiting for my help. Not that I'm rich, btw.

Rich people are the ones living in mansions. I live in a bungalow. The people this will help are not rich.

Where you live is irrelevant. You are by all measures rich. Your income taxes alone are nearly double the household income of 50% of Canadians. Where you choose to live and how you spend your money is inconsequential.

Edited December 13, 2014 by cybercoma