Federal Budget 2015

[Ash74]

So tell your wife to get a job. It's your choice to support someone who's not working. Regardless, even if that was the case, you would still be making more than most households.

Why?

So I can pay more taxes and bring less home?

Would cost me more in daycare and other expenses. This allows me to save for my kids education and my retirement.

I have learned the Kijiji and other small places that deal only in cash allow me to purchase without taxes and recycling fee's many products. You gotta be nuts to pay retail.

No, I will continue my one man crusade and find ways to avoid donating to such products as F35's,the senate, Non built gas plants,cap and trade. This budget allows me to do just that

[Argus]

In general so am I. But the burden is shifting and the cost of living is getting higher and higher. I have the same issues where there is more month than money and I see that this is becoming an issue with more and more people. I am bitter over being classified as rich when I am trying to find the money to pay for braces or getting my car fixed. Such is life. But having JT on the radio saying only the wealthy benefit form this tax cut is yet another reason I would never vote Liberal (I admit if I had a gun to my head I would still have a hard time voting for the lying thieves)

JT didn't invent the term 'wealthy' to describe those benefiting from TFSAs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer used the term, wildly inarticulately, I believe.

The wealthy are the people with big estates and limousines and private jets and yachts. The merely rich are the ones in multi million dollar homes who drive Porsches and BMWs, send their kids to private schools, and travel all over the world.

The TFSA isn't of interest to either group. It's of interest to the middle class. Ninety thousand a year is not rich. A million a year, net, would be rich.

[Ash74]

JT didn't invent the term 'wealthy' to describe those benefiting from TFSAs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer used the term, wildly inarticulately, I believe.

The wealthy are the people with big estates and limousines and private jets and yachts. The merely rich are the ones in multi million dollar homes who drive Porsches and BMWs, send their kids to private schools, and travel all over the world.

The TFSA isn't of interest to either group. It's of interest to the middle class. Ninety thousand a year is not rich. A million a year, net, would be rich.

I could not agree more.

I will not be taking part in the TFSA anytime soon. University is not cheap.

Wealthy is when your money works for you not when you work for your money

[CPCFTW]

Average is absolutely meaningless with a skewed sample like wages. Median tells you the 50/50 split. That means half of Canadians earn below the median and the other half earn above. The median total income for individuals in Canada was $31,320 in 2012. You'll forgive me if I don't use Workpolis as a source. Statistics Canada is more reliable. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng.htmSo your personal income was roughly 3x greater than what 50% of the population made in 2012. Like I said, you might not want to think you're "rich," but you most certainly are far more wealthy the vast majority of Canadians.

income is not a measure of wealth.

[CPCFTW]

The thing is... Our low savings rate is not an accident its a strategy. The government / central bank WANTED us to be where we are, which is why interest rates are so low. And if they had not cut rates we would have already had a deep recession, not to mention a collapse of our over-inflated realestate market, and the consequences related to that.

Its a double edged sword. Easing credit provides short term economic stimulus up to a certain point, and allows the government to claim they are fantastic stewards of the economy. But it also causes long term problems like asset bubbles, the depletion of savings, and leaves the government with few cards to play if the economy skips off the tracks again. Never the less... This IS the prevailing Keynsian economic wisdom. When the economy is weak you cut overnight rates. Its politically wise too because you punt the real structural problems in the economy off to future governments to have to deal with.

And Canadians are getting signals from the government, the central bank, and chartered commercial banks that savings are bad right now.

Easing credit and cutting taxes are both expansionary policies. Remember that the TFSA has limited restrictions on withdrawals (you can re-deposit any withdrawn funds in the next calendar year), so it's not accurate to suggest that increasing the TFSA contribution limit will necessarily reduce consumption. Increased investment in productive assets (such as Canadian equity and fixed income) will also reduce the cost of capital for Canadian companies.

[msj]

In general so am I. But the burden is shifting and the cost of living is getting higher and higher. I have the same issues where there is more month than money and I see that this is becoming an issue with more and more people. I am bitter over being classified as rich when I am trying to find the money ....)

Fine you can be bitter.

But you should know who made the shift: CPC brought in pension splitting for seniors. Let's take an example which is real because I do their tax returns.

Guy has pension of $112,000 or so. OAS and CPP. Wife only has CPP.

The pension split with the wife prevents OAS clawback which reduces his tax burden by $6,600 per year ( I.e. He gets to keep all of his OAS now). It also saves another $3,000 or so in income tax so total savings is around $10,000.

In the meantime I have to wait to 67 to begin collecting my OAS pension.

So there is a fine example of the burden shifting right there.

The poetic justice to this is that evil man Jim F who brought this all in died at age 64 so he never collected OAS himself.

Serves him right.

[cybercoma]

income is not a measure of wealth.

It most certainly is one aspect of wealth.

[eyeball]

It's probably an even better measure of poverty.

[Argus]

It's probably an even better measure of poverty.

Poverty is not always the fault of the poor - but it usually actually is. The capitalist system is set up to reward those who strive to improve their lives. It gives them that opportunity. Those who work hard, who aren't satisfied, who take chances, who will quit a job to try a better one who will try to learn new skills, try different things always striving to move upward. Those are the people who succeed. If, on the other hand, you're the type who is just going to bitch about your lot in life while going off to your job as a store clerk every day, because you're not sure what else you can do, and don't want to 'waste time' taking courses which might or might not get you a better job (though you have lots of time to watch TV and hang out with your friends and play video games), and don't want to try a new career because you'll start at a lower wage, etc. etc., well, the system isn't designed to push you to the top.

I agree with the general idea of progressive taxes, but at the same time I can't deny that it takes money from those who have pushed themselves upward and gives it to those who often can't be bothered. I don't have an issue with this for those who 'deserve' it but all too many, quite frankly, don't. They made lousy decisions. They continue to make lousy decisions. They sit in front of the TV every evening watching insipid reality shows instead of trying to take courses to improve their chances of getting a better job. If there is a healthy young man out there, for example, who's working as a store clerk or security guard or parking lot attendant or barrista who hasn't tried getting into the trades, well, why not? Lots of jobs and they pay well. Oh, you don't want to work outside? Meh.

This society has more chances for people to improve their lives than any society in human history. Unfortunately, all too many people are content to just bitch and whine and sit back and accept that they're poor, take their government cheques, or whatever other fiscal support the successful are forced to grant them, and do nothing. And that's why people who are middle class and heavily taxed often resent it. We don't resent our heavy contributions to public education and public health care and roads, highways and bridges. We resent subsidizing a great mass of mentally lazy people who can't be bothered to scramble upward like we did.

[dre]

The capitalist system is set up to reward those who strive to improve their lives.

Actually the capitalist system is set up to reward those with "capital". Most of the aspects of our society that help foster upward mobility are actually socialist, not capitalist. Things like universal education, universal healthcare, government student loan programs, business grants, etc.

[Keepitsimple]

This society has more chances for people to improve their lives than any society in human history. Unfortunately, all too many people are content to just bitch and whine and sit back and accept that they're poor, take their government cheques, or whatever other fiscal support the successful are forced to grant them, and do nothing. And that's why people who are middle class and heavily taxed often resent it. We don't resent our heavy contributions to public education and public health care and roads, highways and bridges. We resent subsidizing a great mass of mentally lazy people who can't be bothered to scramble upward like we did.

I'm with you there.......

[Argus]

Actually the capitalist system is set up to reward those with "capital". Most of the aspects of our society that help foster upward mobility are actually socialist, not capitalist. Things like universal education, universal healthcare, government student loan programs, business grants, etc.

There's such a thing as human capital. Capitalism rewards those with skills. Yes, it's true that there is a socialist aspect to the fact we provide free education, that we will, to some extent, provide free job training. Beyond that, though, you have to decide for yourself if you're going to pay to take part-time college courses (for example) and you certainly have to decide for yourself that life as a store clerk isn't going to lead anywhere, and that you need to do something about it. You need to improve the value of your skill set, and for the most part, no government department is going to help you out with that beyond the basics. You have to invest your time and effort in improving your value to employers. And like most investments, there is no guaranteed return.

By the way, speaking of socialism or government help. I would be supportive of more of it. I think we put far too much money on subsidizing the poor to be poor, and not nearly enough in subsidizing and encouraging them to upgrade their skillset so they won't BE poor any more. I cannot think of a better investment for us to make than in real retraining and job upgrading.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Argus

[eyeball]

Poverty is not always the fault of the poor - but it usually actually is. The capitalist system is set up to reward those who strive to improve their lives. It gives them that opportunity.

Assuming the political system hasn't given it to someone else.

[On Guard for Thee]

Assuming the political system hasn't given it to someone else.

Such as what budget 2015 is set up to do.

[eyeball]

I can't help but get the sense that many government policies are set up to do this. The most graphic local example I have is Ottawa's fisheries quota system which created a new class of millionaires a.k.a. armchair fishermen out of thin air, at the expense and loss of opportunity to actual fishermen and an entire coast wide economy.

I'm sure lots of Canadians can likewise point to local examples of political systems trumping capitalist systems where they live too.

[dre]

By the way, speaking of socialism or government help. I would be supportive of more of it. I think we put far too much money on subsidizing the poor to be poor, and not nearly enough in subsidizing and encouraging them to upgrade their skillset so they won't BE poor any more. I cannot think of a better investment for us to make than in real retraining and job upgrading.

I dont even know if we need "more of it", we maybe just need to rethink what we do. Seems like our education system produces too many dropouts that dont end up with good skills. I was reading about the system in Finland and they have vocational school and apprenticeships as part of the normal school program. So a 15 or 16 year old that cant handle the academic workload load can branch and get trained as a skilled tradesmen (electrician, plumber, welder, carpenter, etc). They also have a private sector component in both funding these programs and designing the cirriculum so that the schools are making the workers that the private sector really needs. In Canada those guys drop out and sell weed.

In any case I agree with you. I also agree that in many cases it does come down to personal responsible and a lot of people have ***** lives simply because theyre ***** useless people. But theres still a lot of luck involved, and some people have a lot more opportunities than others.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[CPCFTW]

It most certainly is one aspect of wealth.

You're wrong. Wealth is the accumulation of financial resources. Income is just your rate of accumulation of wealth.

Complaining about the "wealthy" people with high incomes is like giving someone a speeding ticket for accelerating from 0-10kmh too fast in a 60kmh zone.

If you want to complain about wealth then focus on networth, not income.

[eyeball]

Complaining about wealth without a focus on power misses the most egregious point to be made about wealth.

[CPCFTW]

And to add.. Focusing on income instead of wealth reduces class mobility. Class is a function of wealth, and reducing the rate of accumulation of wealth prevents class mobility.

The "progressives" should be concerned about investment income and other income generated from wealth (e.g. rental income), not people with high incomes.

[CPCFTW]

Complaining about wealth without a focus on power misses the most egregious point to be made about wealth.

Baby steps. First shift the dialog from income to wealth, then we can worry about power.

[Bryan]

Income is just your rate of accumulation of wealth.

It's not even that. You can be "earning" a lot of money on paper, but still not be accumulating anything.

[cybercoma]

Income is just your rate of accumulation of wealth.

So what you'er saying is the accumulation of wealth has nothing to do with wealth. That doesn't make any damn sense.

[cybercoma]

It's not even that. You can be "earning" a lot of money on paper, but still not be accumulating anything.

The cries of todays upper class.

"We're not wealthy. I have to pay for my home, my cars, my children's tutoring, my vacations, my investments, my unemployed spouse. I Have nothing left! I'm not rich!"

It's an insipid and shallow argument.

[nerve]

Wealth is just what you have that other people are willing to pay for.

Earnings are how much you have available to accumulate wealth or provide for other costs.

IE wealth is Capital

income is earnings which can be applied to costs such as daily living needs or to acquire capital that may contribute to your wealth.

Not all capital has worth to others, or holds the value that was paid for it.

In some cultures wealth may be a wife, or a camel, or a cornfield, or a car, it is all a matter of cultural values that determines wealth, and wealth will vary from one person to another.

Currency is a way societies hold value -which can relate to acquisition of wealth based upon a neutral barter system where currency widgets can be used to get other stuff. Within cultures that have currency the cost of goods is relative and usually does not change rapidly (but can). This is why currency is a novel way of saving earnings for future acquisition of wealth. Currency itself usually does have a nominal value such as the melt value or as toilet paper or decorative art however. In this sense the valuation of currency varies in a way to offset global changes in commodity or goods values. This means that goods may stay more relatively fixed to overall widget exchanges, as currency is an intermediary form of barter that is barter by notes.

They definitely have wealth in terms of their capital but it is "not much usable" without pay user fees such as property taxes, licensing and insurance costs etc.. there are increased costs for living in different lifestyles. So if you live large you pay larger.

So earnings is not like saying, I only need 5000/year to live on and survive. 5000 won't even pay some peoples property taxes.

I am not even sure how we got to this argument but the bottom line is rich people have more luxury available. That is about it.

Some people may have more free time spent with more hardship available.

End of the day it is who the government gives the money to that determines earnings potential. The pubic service is the one directing the economy. The idea of the free market directly contradicts with taxation.

Should anyone pay taxes more. The QUESTION THAT MATTERS IS WHO CAN PAY FOR WHAT IS NEEDED?

It ain't the poor.

The poor can be called up under a LEVY such as to build community housing or plant fields to lower costs to provide for the poor. The rich meanwhile have resources to provide for the roads to drive on the air security to insure they don't get blown up, and police to protect them from evisceration. Criminals don't need taxes to pay police, lets face that fact. Likewise poor people don't need roads to drive on with no vehicle. This is why blanket taxes FAIL, and only serve to embezzle for partisan purposes.

People should be paying for what they need be it healthcare, roads to drive on, a military to protect their wealth, education for their children etc... but lets face it Canada is socialist so expect people to be complaining that they are getting unfairly treated boo hoo. Guess what the only people that care are the ones who don't have enough luxury to not give a damn. If they ain't complaining they can be taxed in a socialist world. If they are complaining they have something to tax. And no matter what no one will be happy until there is no tax.

Government fails because it can't manage a whole bloody country to figure out a business model that earns its money other than the laziest method of jailing or murdering people who do not submit to extortion.

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT BECAUSE THERE IS A MAJORITY, WHO CARES THEY WILL DO WHAT THEY WANT ANYWAY, ITS LIKE ONE PARTY THAT HASN'T GOTTEN IT RIGHT TELLING THE OTHER PARTY HOW TO DO IT RIGHT. How stupid are people?

Is there a point where people who never get it right finally have that moment and become capable of governing. Or is governing all about surviving to the next election, if you survive mission accomplished. How much did you embezzle this term?

Fact is who cares budget will pass, post up your own budget otherwise you have nothing other than you don't like it. Guess what, only tax accountants and the public service like taxes. -because tax is their tax.

It is a broken system, it won't change. Stop whining already. No one wins everyone dies. Who cares. If you don't want to pay don't, but realize you will have to face the consequences of your actions. No one has to do anything but there is a gun waiting for your head if you resist.

Edited April 30, 2015 by nerve

[CPCFTW]

The cries of todays upper class.

"We're not wealthy. I have to pay for my home, my cars, my children's tutoring, my vacations, my investments, my unemployed spouse. I Have nothing left! I'm not rich!"

It's an insipid and shallow argument.

The difference you don't understand is that if I lose my job I'm homeless within 2yrs, if you're wealthy then you don't ever become homeless.

And I have no home or car or spouse. Just trying to save enough of my income to try to actually be in the upper class.. And not just your ignorant definition of class.