Federal Budget 2015

[Hydraboss]

This budget is much ado about nothing. There's nothing particularly spectacular about what's in the document from what I see. He promised a balanced budget by 2015 and we got a balanced budget by 2015. Of course he backloaded the crap out of it - name any government that doesn't do that (it's called getting reelected). If anyone thought the budget was about getting left-leaning voters over to Harper's side, they were dreaming.

The whole "stealing from the rainy day fund" is a bunch of fluff. Every government has "stolen from this or that" to make the numbers look the way they want - nothing new there. Martin did it to the tune of between 48-60 billion by skimming the EI overfund, the CPP overfund and the Government Workers Pension Plan....IN ONE YEAR...but I don't hear any anti-conservatives bringing THAT up in this thread. The Cons moved money around to show a "surplus" which is total bs, but so did every single Liberal government before them.

Surplus = over taxation and/or underpaying your debt. Simple. As long as this country owes money on the debt, we will never have a true surplus. That's like saying you take home $5000 a month but only spent $4000 so you must have a household surplus of $1000. Never mind that you owe $400,000 on a house. In reality, you're $399,000 in debt if you actually pay some of it off.

The TFSA amount increase might benefit me (possibly) but not my kids. They don't have the cash to save more than $5500 a year (as it stands now), but it's nice to know it's there if they do manage to. The fact that TFSA growth isn't taxable is the only good part about the program (otherwise it's just called a savings account), and it's about damn time I got to keep a little of my money without having it dispersed to those who don't pay any tax at all.

[On Guard for Thee]

I bet Harper took Joe Oliver to the woodshed for this little flub. Unfortunately his comment may be closer to true than he hoped.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tfsa-changes-a-problem-for-stephen-harper-s-granddaughter-to-solve-joe-oliver-says-1.3043841

[Keepitsimple]

This budget is much ado about nothing. There's nothing particularly spectacular about what's in the document from what I see. He promised a balanced budget by 2015 and we got a balanced budget by 2015. Of course he backloaded the crap out of it - name any government that doesn't do that (it's called getting reelected). If anyone thought the budget was about getting left-leaning voters over to Harper's side, they were dreaming.

The whole "stealing from the rainy day fund" is a bunch of fluff. Every government has "stolen from this or that" to make the numbers look the way they want - nothing new there. Martin did it to the tune of between 48-60 billion by skimming the EI overfund, the CPP overfund and the Government Workers Pension Plan....IN ONE YEAR...but I don't hear any anti-conservatives bringing THAT up in this thread. The Cons moved money around to show a "surplus" which is total bs, but so did every single Liberal government before them.

Surplus = over taxation and/or underpaying your debt. Simple. As long as this country owes money on the debt, we will never have a true surplus. That's like saying you take home $5000 a month but only spent $4000 so you must have a household surplus of $1000. Never mind that you owe $400,000 on a house. In reality, you're $399,000 in debt if you actually pay some of it off.

The TFSA amount increase might benefit me (possibly) but not my kids. They don't have the cash to save more than $5500 a year (as it stands now), but it's nice to know it's there if they do manage to. The fact that TFSA growth isn't taxable is the only good part about the program (otherwise it's just called a savings account), and it's about damn time I got to keep a little of my money without having it dispersed to those who don't pay any tax at all.

Well said. Welcome to the club of ordinary Canadians.

[Keepitsimple]

I bet Harper took Joe Oliver to the woodshed for this little flub. Unfortunately his comment may be closer to true than he hoped.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tfsa-changes-a-problem-for-stephen-harper-s-granddaughter-to-solve-joe-oliver-says-1.3043841

More like they had a good laugh. As oliver said - it's a good program when all the only criticism that they could dig up is a problem that might happen by 2080.

[ToadBrother]

You have failed to explain how that is either unfair or a handout.

I think that is self-evident. Future income derived from TFSAs is tax exempt. You yourself must know this, because your definition so studiously avoided mentioning the fact in favor of a definition which doesn't describe TFSAs at all.

[ToadBrother]

More like they had a good laugh. As oliver said - it's a good program when all the only criticism that they could dig up is a problem that might happen by 2080.

Someone will have to explain to me when taking money out of our children's pockets is good, and when taking money out of our children's pockets is bad. The general justification for balanced budgets is so we don't rob the future, and yet TFSAs, by putting a drain on future government revenues, have the same effect.

[On Guard for Thee]

More like they had a good laugh. As oliver said - it's a good program when all the only criticism that they could dig up is a problem that might happen by 2080.

Except you missed (ignored) the part about leaving the costs of their heavily backloaded budget to future generations. I am sure Joe would have worded things differently if he had it to do over again...oops.

Edited April 22, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Hydraboss]

Someone will have to explain to me when taking money out of our children's pockets is good, and when taking money out of our children's pockets is bad. The general justification for balanced budgets is so we don't rob the future, and yet TFSAs, by putting a drain on future government revenues, have the same effect.

Okay, I'll give it a shot...

Taking money out of my kids' pockets is BAD when you do it by overtaxing the crap out of their father. When I get to keep more money, I am able to invest it for THEM in TFSAs (so they don't have to live on government handouts when they're retired).

Taking money out of my kids' pockets is GOOD when..... oh wait .....it's NEVER good.

[ToadBrother]

Okay, I'll give it a shot...

Taking money out of my kids' pockets is BAD when you do it by overtaxing the crap out of their father. When I get to keep more money, I am able to invest it for THEM in TFSAs (so they don't have to live on government handouts when they're retired).

Taking money out of my kids' pockets is GOOD when..... oh wait .....it's NEVER good.

Except TFSAs will have the result of the money being taken out of someone else's children's pockets.

Frankly, I'd think just cutting taxes now would be better, wouldn't you? But then the Tories' wouldn't be able to do that in the current climate. Perhaps the Tories should feel lucky that someone didn't dream up TFSAs thirty years ago.

[WWWTT]

This budget reminds me of the final Ontario pc budget of the early 2000's.

Barely a surplus (what I call a creative accounting surplus) selling off assets and cutbacks just to say, hey look everyone, we made a surplus.

Surplus has even less impact as when it was more trendy back then considering the huge cuts to infrastructure are severely impairing our competitiveness.

WWWTT

[ProudCanadianConservative]

I honestly don't understand what has progressives so upset about this budget, there's a decent investment into those who need extra help like the family tax credit and perks for seniors and those who are retired. Children and seniors benefit heavily from this budget and in my eyes those are the people who need the most help from the state. For most middle class families they would rather have their tax burden relieved than have more bureaucratic government agencies or services. And that's exactly what this is doing.

The more the NDP and Liberals call this budget a right-wing budget the more they dig their own graves for the upcoming, this is a very centrist budget.

[ToadBrother]

I honestly don't understand what has progressives so upset about this budget, there's a decent investment into those who need extra help like the family tax credit and perks for seniors and those who are retired. Children and seniors benefit heavily from this budget and in my eyes those are the people who need the most help from the state. For most middle class families they would rather have their tax burden relieved than have more bureaucratic government agencies or services. And that's exactly what this is doing.

The more the NDP and Liberals call this budget a right-wing budget the more they dig their own graves for the upcoming, this is a very centrist budget.

And supporting the budget wouldn't dig their graves? You do understand this is an election year, right?

[Hydraboss]

Except TFSAs will have the result of the money being taken out of someone else's children's pockets.

And this is my problem why? I am concerned with the welfare of my kids FIRST, but there's that whole "it take the wallets of the whole damn village to raise a kid" thing.

Frankly, I'd think just cutting taxes now would be better, wouldn't you? But then the Tories' wouldn't be able to do that in the current climate. Perhaps the Tories should feel lucky that someone didn't dream up TFSAs thirty years ago.

Of course I'd rather see taxes go down, but the TFSA earnings exemption benefits from TIME and in the case of using them for my kids (17 & 18), that will be very significant over that amount of years.

If someone had thought up the TFSA program thirty years ago, two things would likely be happening now: 1) There would be more people not relying on government handouts to survive retirement, and 2) governments may have reigned in spending tax revenue that wouldn't exist.

Besides, we all know that tax cuts are far too easy for the left-leaning (or just anti-conservative) press to beat up on. Doing the adjustment to the TFSA program is much smarter - a huge number of Canadians are too dumb to understand the ramifications of large scale tax deferral / capital gains-style tax exemption. The "left" just knows they're mad. They don't know exactly why, but they're mad.

[ProudCanadianConservative]

I'm not saying they shouldn't disagree with the budget it has its flaws that both bases might not like, but calling it what it is not is not winning the support of the middle, the group of voters that decide elections in Canada.

[Shady]

Welfare to the Left, is when those who earn money are allowed to keep some of it instead of giving it to the government so they can magnanimously pass it on to those who don't work.

You're exactly right. Somebody that keeps more of their own money, money that they earn through their labour, is somehow considered welfare. It's a statist mentality that originates from believing that anything and everything you have is deemed to you from the government, at their good heartedness.

[Scotty]

This budget reminds me of the final Ontario pc budget of the early 2000's.

You mean before the Liberals got in and created a MASSIVE deficit, and a MONSTER debt through their corruption, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity?

[Hydraboss]

No, I think he means how the Liberals got in and made the left happy by creating

a MASSIVE deficit, and a MONSTER debt through their corruption, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity?

[Smallc]

There is certainly a lot less a rainy day fund now. They also made a one time sale of GM stock in their desperate attempts to seem to be keeping a promise.

There was never a rainy day fund. This year, the GM share sales made the difference of zero and a surplus.

[overthere]

There is certainly a lot less a rainy day fund now. They also made a one time sale of GM stock in their desperate attempts to seem to be keeping a promise.

Or maybe- like GM- they realized that the auto industry in Canada is a sunset business.

[Hydraboss]

They also made a one time sale of GM stock in their desperate attempts to seem to be keeping a promise.

So, we should take it that you are against a government keeping a promise?

[Scotty]

Welfare for the rich is providing social programs so the impoverished don't start building guillotines again.

The impoverished have never been treated so well in the history of this species. All of their needs are seen to by the sweat of someone elses brow. What you are complaining about, what you have the balls to suggest poorer Canadians might be justified in committing murder over, is that they don't have as much money as THEY WANT. They're not starving. They're not freezing in the dark. They're not going about unclothed and they're not homeless. They get free medical care, and free education for their children. What incredible hubris and GALL you have to suggest their position is even in the same GALAXY as the poor of prerevolutionary France! They just can't afford all the luxuries they want, all the luxuries they see the higher classes have. It's jealousy, pure and simple.

Some of them are poor through no fault of their own, but most of them are just losers in life who made stupid decisions and continue to make stupid decisions. Some of them are lazy, some lack motivation and won't risk the effort unless absolutely promised a nice reward, some of them lack anything remotely like mental discipline. Some of them get addicted to drugs and alcohol, and a few just have no damned luck at all. And none of that is the fault of middle class people who have studied, persevered, worked hard, done shitty jobs to get ahead, and get up early every damn day to go out to work. But in addition to taxing the income of middle class earners, and taxing every dollar they spend with sales taxes, you're so indignant that the government might exempt a portion of the after tax, pre-HST money they invest in hopes of getting ahead from FURTHER taxation! To the point you think they should be guillotined! You ever work for a living, buddy!? Does your indignation and anger on behalf of the poor stem from your own miserable failure of a life and a determination to blame it on everyone else!?

[Scotty]

Except you missed (ignored) the part about leaving the costs of their heavily backloaded budget to future generations. I am sure Joe would have worded things differently if he had it to do over again...oops.

I suspect that a large part of the government's immigration plans are to increase the size of the population so that the overall debt will be statistically lower and easier to pay off. Fifty million can pay off a given amount a lot easier than thirty million.

[On Guard for Thee]

There was never a rainy day fund. This year, the GM share sales made the difference of zero and a surplus.

OK, the call it the contingency fund if you like, which is the actual name for it, but 2 billion came out of it.

[On Guard for Thee]

So, we should take it that you are against a government keeping a promise?

Against HOW they did it.

[On Guard for Thee]

I suspect that a large part of the government's immigration plans are to increase the size of the population so that the overall debt will be statistically lower and easier to pay off. Fifty million can pay off a given amount a lot easier than thirty million.

Oh, could be. Will that require a ban on condoms possibly...