Federal Budget 2015

[drummindiver]

The "seed" money (initial investment) in a TFSA is taxed, but all income derived from that seed money is exempted, so your description of a TFSA is inaccurate.

His description is 100% accurate.

[drummindiver]

The budget would not be balanced if they had not needed to dip into that other fund. It's all a sham.

lol. The Libs did it to the tune of $55 billion. That's what the sham is.

[drummindiver]

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!?

damn. Could not have been said better.

[Shady]

damn. Could not have been said better.

I agree! A great takedown of a disgusting mentality.

[drummindiver]

Mexico is doing better!

Ya that's right Mexico!

WWWTT

lol. Yeah, ask 90% of Mexicans how their standard of living is, I'm sure it's MUCH better than ours. Cause, those rankings mean so much .Just in case you get Poe'd, I am being sarcastic.

[dre]

I can't imagine Canadians care enough to give that rat's ass. Your ranking makes no sense.

I give a rats ass. I was ambivalent about the Harper government when they had a minority government and during most of their first majority. Thought that they were competent administrators and that the trains ran on time etc. But It should be pretty clear to everyone now that if you look at the numbers this government has one of the worst economic records in Canadian history.

I think that if a stagnate economy is the problem then encouraging people to save their money is the exact opposite of what will help the economy. Companies grow and hire more people when they do more business. People putting their money in tax-sheltered savings and not spending it does little to encourage businesses to grow and to hire more people, further stimulating the economy.

Yeah thats a biproduct of our monetary system. The economy prospers and grows when there is an abundance of synthetic money. So the very worst things that can happen in terms of economic growth are for people to start saving and stop borrowing. Thats exactly why you see central banks cut the overnight rates in order to ward off a recession... they are begging you to borrow more money into existance in order to grow the money supply.

In our current system, SAVINGS = RECESSION, and if everyone paid off their debts there would be NO MONEY AT ALL IN EXISTANCE besides the 4% of the money supply that is actually physically made at the mint.

[On Guard for Thee]

lol. The Libs did it to the tune of $55 billion. That's what the sham is.

Interesting. Where did you get that number.

[ToadBrother]

I give a rats ass. I was ambivalent about the Harper government when they had a minority government and during most of their first majority. Thought that they were competent administrators and that the trains ran on time etc. But It should be pretty clear to everyone now that if you look at the numbers this government has one of the worst economic records in Canadian history.

Yeah thats a biproduct of our monetary system. The economy prospers and grows when there is an abundance of synthetic money. So the very worst things that can happen in terms of economic growth are for people to start saving and stop borrowing. Thats exactly why you see central banks cut the overnight rates in order to ward off a recession... they are begging you to borrow more money into existance in order to grow the money supply.

In our current system, SAVINGS = RECESSION, and if everyone paid off their debts there would be NO MONEY AT ALL IN EXISTANCE besides the 4% of the money supply that is actually physically made at the mint.

I don't care what economic system you invoke, if everyone kept spending to the barest minimum, the economy would, if not stagnate, then grow very very slowly. I take it your post is an attack on fiat currencies, but in reality, this was true even under the gold standard. One of the revolutions of the Victorian Age was the creation of a middle class with disposable income to buy mass produced goods like china and furniture, as well as on fast food (the chippies of London) and entertainment (like the theater). This was the economic revolution that we still live with, and the form that currency takes is merely the scorecard.

[Argus]

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.

But you are failing to demonstrate there is unfairness or that this is a 'handout'. Government often raises or lowers taxes based on a variety of objectives (notwithstanding vote buying). Encouraging people to save is a worthy objective. Providing a means for already heavily taxed and hard pressed professionals and middle class people to further their savings is not, on the surface, unfair, and it certainly isn't a handout given investments are on after-tax income.

[Argus]

So we have 10 guys who have accumulated .... say 100,000 each in investments by age 40.

That's a million dollars. Lets say they make a paltry 2 percent on their investments. Thats 20,000 dollars of annual income (combined for the ten of them).

The margin tax rate is approximately 40%, so the government takes in about 8,000. Over the next thirty-year lifespan of these

guys... say to age 70. the government will have realized a more-or-less steady revenue stream amounting to a total of

240,000 dollars... which it uses to provide the services that you and the poor homeless schmuck are getting today.

And yet those people are already heavily taxed. The money which they invested, as opposed to spending on whatever high tech gizmo caught their eye, will eventually go for their retirment, often in lieu of a pension plan. If they'd spent that money on a new cell phone or whatever each year, the government wouldn't see any profit from that anyway. Why punish them for saving?

[Argus]

Mexico is doing better!

Ya that's right Mexico!

WWWTT

Think so? Go live there. I doubt many Mexicans would think their economy is better than ours.

[Argus]

LOL!

Brazil is #7 world economy.

What G7 are you talking about? And who's in it?

WWWTT

Just where are you getting your list from anyway? And what is it measuring? Brazil is a crummy place to live, filled with poverty, slums and violence.

[dre]

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!?

Thats an interesting tirade but a very dishonest reply to Cybercomas post. She was not in any way advocating revolution, she merely stated - and completely accurately I might add - why such programs exist. Social programs that "apparently" serve the poor are actually there to protect the property rights of the wealthy and to promote political stability. They were conceived by the wealthy and implemented by the wealthy. Not one single politician involved in crafting any of these programs has ever been poor.

The political balance we have struck is the result of having a fairly large and affluent middle class, and an apathetic underclass that is generally disinterested in politics and votes in low numbers. And the middle class generally votes alongside the wealthy, for business governments like the liberal and conservative parties, and for very strong protections of private property rights.

Most of your post is just a moronic diatribe full of strawmen that takes the post you were replying to out of context. But things get kinda fun at the end...

To the point you think they should be guillotined! - Blatant idiotic strawman. CC never said anything remotely like that.

Your own miserable failure of a life - Pointless and moronic personal attack.

Nice job Mr Anderson.

[dre]

I don't care what economic system you invoke, if everyone kept spending to the barest minimum, the economy would, if not stagnate, then grow very very slowly. I take it your post is an attack on fiat currencies, but in reality, this was true even under the gold standard. One of the revolutions of the Victorian Age was the creation of a middle class with disposable income to buy mass produced goods like china and furniture, as well as on fast food (the chippies of London) and entertainment (like the theater). This was the economic revolution that we still live with, and the form that currency takes is merely the scorecard.

Thats more or less true but there are some important differences. In a permanent money system when you pay down your debt that money is now in the hands of the real lender so theres a good chance it will circulate back into the economy. The money supply does not shrink. In out debt money system when you pay off your debts the money literally dissappears from existance and the money supply shrinks. Another important distinction is the governments ability to ease credit. They can grow the money supply by slashing interest rates to encourage borrowing, or they can just conjure up money out of thin air and put it into the economy directly by buying stocks, bonds, etc (QE).

[ToadBrother]

But you are failing to demonstrate there is unfairness or that this is a 'handout'. Government often raises or lowers taxes based on a variety of objectives (notwithstanding vote buying). Encouraging people to save is a worthy objective. Providing a means for already heavily taxed and hard pressed professionals and middle class people to further their savings is not, on the surface, unfair, and it certainly isn't a handout given investments are on after-tax income.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, fair or unfair, this still represents exempting some income from taxes. It may be the bestest thing in the entire world ever, but it still represents an exemption of income of a kind, while other income of a similar kind remains eligible for taxation.

[eyeball]

Oh my! The dream....

I thought the dream was getting rid of the Charter the SCC and the Senate?

[ToadBrother]

Thats more or less true but there are some important differences. In a permanent money system when you pay down your debt that money is now in the hands of the real lender so theres a good chance it will circulate back into the economy. The money supply does not shrink. In out debt money system when you pay off your debts the money literally dissappears from existance and the money supply shrinks. Another important distinction is the governments ability to ease credit. They can grow the money supply by slashing interest rates to encourage borrowing, or they can just conjure up money out of thin air and put it into the economy directly by buying stocks, bonds, etc (QE).

There is no logical reason to base a monetary system on gold or silver. That may have applied thousands of years ago when economic systems were considerably simpler and there was no real international exchange systems.

The gold standard is as arbitrary as any other, and has its own significant disadvantages.

[cybercoma]

Way to go Cons! The budget is balanced! Now let loose your mouthpieces who either won't mention or don't know that:

Thanks to $1.8 billion grabbed from the Employment Insurance fund, $2 billion from the contingency fund, and roughly $3 billion raised from selling shares in General Motors (below value), the federal government finally gets to brag that it balanced the budget.

Exactly. That's on top of all the other assets they've sold off in previous years too. The Conservatives have done absolutely nothing to create a sustainable bureaucracy that helps soften the blow of natural economic fluctuations. Instead, they're just selling off a bunch of stuff to give the appearance of fiscal responsibility, despite running up one of the largest deficits in Canadian history after being handed a surplus from the Grits. Meanwhile, they cut food inspection, leading to some serious problems with food safety during their tenure. They cut rail inspections, which have also had disastrous consequences. They shut down coast guard facilities tripling the amount of time it took for anyone to respond to the oil spill in Vancouver recently. Yet, here we are with a forum full of people cheering cutbacks as if there's no consequences whatsoever to these decisions.

[Hydraboss]

... after being handed a surplus from the Grits.

I'll accept portions of your argument as being genuine the moment that you admit that this "surplus" the Grits handed Harper was from the almost $60 billion worth of skimming that your saviour, Paul Martin, did on EI, CPP and the federal workers' pension. The Liberals could not have budgeted their way out of a wet paper bag without utilizing this process.

[cybercoma]

What is the level of disposable income for the average Canadian? You save for a rainy day. Sometimes it turns out to be a year, or so. If I had not saved all that money, I would have been out in the streets begging for change. Stuff happens, and if you have some savings, the bad times can be easier to handle. Without some savings, you live payday to payday and are on the edge all the time.

We're not talking about the "average" Canadians here. We're talking about programs that have targeted people who have a lot of money already. Those people should be spending. Instead, they're being encouraged to sit on their money. I read somewhere that only 8% of Canadians capped out their TFSAs. Now they've raised the cap. Those are the people that need to be spending instead of saving. When the government gives tax breaks and cuts to the wealthy, then introduces programs to have them sit on their money, they can't then turn around and scratch their heads at why the middle class has no money. It's because the money is not moving through the economy. That's how to fix the problem that we're in. Well, unless you're a Conservative, then you do the exact opposite of what needs to be done and stick your head in the sand at any suggestion that there's a problem with the economy.

[cybercoma]

If low interest rates don't stimulate spending, then I don't think anything will.

That's the other side to the coin, but you can't deny that the TFSA is intended to get people to sit on their money. Low interest rates or not, TFSAs do nothing to stimulate a stagnate economy. It just makes the wealthiest Canadians hoard more.

[cybercoma]

Thats an interesting tirade but a very dishonest reply to Cybercomas post. She was not in any way advocating revolution, she merely stated - and completely accurately I might add - why such programs exist. Social programs that "apparently" serve the poor are actually there to protect the property rights of the wealthy and to promote political stability. They were conceived by the wealthy and implemented by the wealthy. Not one single politician involved in crafting any of these programs has ever been poor.

The political balance we have struck is the result of having a fairly large and affluent middle class, and an apathetic underclass that is generally disinterested in politics and votes in low numbers. And the middle class generally votes alongside the wealthy, for business governments like the liberal and conservative parties, and for very strong protections of private property rights.

Most of your post is just a moronic diatribe full of strawmen that takes the post you were replying to out of context. But things get kinda fun at the end...

To the point you think they should be guillotined! - Blatant idiotic strawman. CC never said anything remotely like that.

Your own miserable failure of a life - Pointless and moronic personal attack.

Nice job Mr Anderson.

Thanks for responding to that, but stupid replies that make up a bunch of BS that I never said don't deserve responses. I didn't waste my time replying because Scotty didn't address the points that I was making, which you've articulated well here. There's no point in dignifying strawmen by addressing them.

[cybercoma]

I'll accept portions of your argument as being genuine the moment that you admit that this "surplus" the Grits handed Harper was from the almost $60 billion worth of skimming that your saviour, Paul Martin, did on EI, CPP and the federal workers' pension. The Liberals could not have budgeted their way out of a wet paper bag without utilizing this process.

First of all, I'm not a Liberal and even if I were that would be irrelevant.

Second, I have no problem criticizing them for taking money from places they shouldn't have.

But you, sir, are a blatant hypocrite if you're going to sit here and praise Harper for this balanced budget, while criticizing the governments of over a decade ago for creating unsustainable budgets by skimming and selling off assets. You don't get to say there was a problem when the Liberals balanced the books unsustainably by asset sales, while praising Harper for the same election-year BS.

[Hydraboss]

I'm hardly praising Harper. Go back and read my posts about the budget - I said that all governments do it regardless of stripe (and I don't agree with this kind of shell game).

What I take issue with is the constant "Harper took a surplus and turned it into a deficit" bs. The "surplus" he inherited was the result of skimming by Martin so it wasn't really a true surplus to begin with. It just gets really old when you and your ilk (and I don't care what political stripe you are) continue to bang on the drum of this false truth to push your point of view.

edit->sp

Edited April 23, 2015 by Hydraboss

[WWWTT]

There's only one G7 and if you don't know who's in it, then you surely don't understand economies. Here's a quick tutorial for you. Have some pride in your country....which I assume is Canada!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7

LOL!

Nice BS propaganda link you provided can't even back up their numbers!

What the G7 use to be and what it is now are two different things.

Just ask Stephen Harper or any other Canadian provincial leader next time they go to China and/or India on a trade mission!

WWWTT