Liberal Tax Plan

[Moonbox]

Relative compared to what? Point me to all these masses of struggling middle class Canadians please.

Relative to the people who never have to worry about paying bills but who endlessly complain about how unfair everything is.

[Bonam]

Relative to the people who never have to worry about paying bills but who endlessly complain about how unfair everything is.

Ah, what a struggle in life, having to pay a bill for a service you've received.

[Moonbox]

Not deadbeats, but those (as stated) that aren't saving for retirement.

Right, so why aren't they saving for retirement? (Hint: It's difficult to do so when you're making $60,000/year or less).

Yet over a million Canadians earning less than 60K a year are maxing out their TFSA

Their $5500 limit TFSAs. The calculus changes quite a bit when you almost double it.

A lot to gain? What percent of Canadians are earning less than ~44000 a year, the bar to receive any benefits from Trudeau's changing bracket?

You'll have to explain that one.

And that will be confirmed or denied by the results of the election this Fall.....

The outcome which I predicted before Trudeau was even elected Liberal leader. He'll likely win regardless, but schemes like this will make it easier.

Hack job? How so, are you suggesting the Post is incorrectly quoting CRA data?

I'm suggesting it's spinning the CRA data to paint a picture far from the truth. I gave you an example how. The Post is a joke.

Do you have any data to confirm your direct experience? I'd be interested in reading it......thanks in advance.

Well I don't keep track of it on spread sheets, but if you cared to use a little common sense then consider this:

How many stay-at-home moms are there in Canada with spouses earning $100,000+? Knowing this, and knowing that the TFSA is a no-brainer for people with disposable income, how many of them do you think are maxing out their TFSA's? If you cared to consider the CRA data beyond how Post is trying to spin it, we can see where the numbers are coming from.

You don't have believe what I say I see in my profession. Just try to run the numbers with context and without the National Post's habitual spin.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Right, so why aren't they saving for retirement? (Hint: It's difficult to do so when you're making $60,000/year or less).

Yet 1 million + Canadians, earning 60k or less are doing exactly that.......

Their $5500 limit TFSAs. The calculus changes quite a bit when you almost double it.

In what way does the calculus change?

You'll have to explain that one.

People earning under 44k will receive no additional rebate under Trudeau's bracket changes.

The outcome which I predicted before Trudeau was even elected Liberal leader. He'll likely win regardless, but schemes like this will make it easier.

Right......

I'm suggesting it's spinning the CRA data to paint a picture far from the truth. I gave you an example how. The Post is a joke.

Well no, you didn't give an example.........you offered your unsupported opinion that the Post offered a hack job.

Well I don't keep track of it on spread sheets, but if you cared to use a little common sense then consider this:

So you aren't or can't offer data to support your opinion.......ok, I'll leave you to it.

Funny that you just said to Argus:

My concept is based on relative numbers and facts.

Numbers and facts that you can't present.......

[Moonbox]

Yet 1 million + Canadians, earning 60k or less are doing exactly that.......

A large proportion of which are stay-at-home moms with 6-figure spouses and well-off retirees with excess income. These are the priorities of the Harper Conservatives.

In what way does the calculus change?

because the demographics of people who can afford $10,000/y is very different from those that can afford $5,500. Do you disagree? Of course you do...

People earning under 44k will receive no additional rebate under Trudeau's bracket changes.

Sorry I misread. Maybe extend your logic from here then. What are you suggesting? That these people need a tax-cut too?

Well no, you didn't give an example.........you offered your unsupported opinion that the Post offered a hack job.

The Post gave you a figure of ~260,000 people with <$20,000 annual incomes max out their TFSAs. What does that actually mean? That people living off of <$20,000/y can also afford to contribute more than +30% of their net income? The Post is really hoping people don't use their brain when they read that.

So you aren't or can't offer data to support your opinion.......ok, I'll leave you to it.

and you're not willing to use your brain and consider it. Unfortunately for my position, the data simply isn't available. CRA isn't doing in-depth demographic studies into who is making TFSA contributions. They're providing bare-bones numbers. Once again, however, I'll invite you to explain how people with less than 20k in income are maxing out their TFSA contributions.

Funny that you just said to Argus:

a lame and out-of-context jab. Are you arguing that numbers aren't a better measurement of wealth than Chris Rock wisdom? Do you really need citations for that? As usual, you're a lot less clever than you think.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Moonbox

[Argus]

My concept is based on relative numbers and facts. Yours is based on:

"...NBA players are rich, but the billionaire owner who tosses them their pennies is wealthy. Oprah is rich. Bill Gates is wealthy.."

Which is more absurd?

Mine is based on realism. Yours seems based on jealousy. If I'm "wealthy", what is Bill Gates again? Same as me? You're going to use the same term to refer to Bill Gates and to me? Really? And you ask about absurdity??

No offense intended, but what you personally consider rich or wealthy is entirely irrelevant.

I think what I personally consider rich or wealthy is pretty much what everyone else considers rich or wealthy. I live in a nice, upper middle class neighborhood. There are no limos here, and no servants.

No doubt, but your logic suggests a whole bunch of things that simply aren't true. Among them are:

1) That taxing an extra 4% of their income annually somehow makes those MBA/LLB/CPA/Md's not worth it now (as if they wouldn't have pursued them otherwise)

2) That everyone in the top 5-10 percentiles "earned" it

3) That people in the middle and lower income classes all have the same opportunity

No, my logic suggests none of that. Logic is not really a part of this question. The Trudeau plan is based purely on resentment. It's not designed to help anyone who really needs help. It's designed to take money from a small group of people, and use it to buy the votes of a larger group of people, most of whom are doing pretty darn well on their own, by telling them they deserve my money more than I do because.... well, just because. It's the politics of resentment and avarice.

Or as Andrew Coyne said Seldom have the politics of “gimme that” been expressed quite so nakedly.

So suppose you tell me just what logic says you have a right to take some of my money?

Edited May 10, 2015 by Argus

[Icebound]

Think of how much more cross-border shopping we would see, and how impossible it would be to keep track of purchasing online etc.

It is precisely C-B shopping and O-L shopping that WOULD be affected.

In order to accomplish your CB or OL transaction, you will need to move money out from your bank account... either by withdrawing cash, or by credit card, etc. And that is a transaction and that will be taxed at the 1/100 of a penny per dollar rate, or whatever...

Banks would be required to charge it, just as retailers are required to charge GST.

[Moonbox]

Mine is based on realism. Yours seems based on jealousy.

I'd measure wealth quantitatively. Trying to spin that as jealousy is pretty funny, but then you bring that line up fairly frequently. You have no idea how well-off I am financially, so those comments are little more than chest-thumping and empty internet-bluster.

If I'm "wealthy", what is Bill Gates again? Same as me? You're going to use the same term to refer to Bill Gates and to me? Really? And you ask about absurdity??

I live in a nice, upper middle class neighborhood. There are no limos here, and no servants.

We have words terms like "billionaire", "super-rich", ultra-high net-worth individuals etc to talk about Bill Gates. Calling him 'wealthy' is a gross understatement and nobody would ever compare the two of you.

Limos and servants aren't really useful measurements of well-being either. That probably why economists etc don't use them in their reports and studies. If a billionaire lives in a modest home and drives an Odyssey to work, he's still a billionaire and he's still wealthy/rich.

No, my logic suggests none of that. Logic is not really a part of this question.

Well that's the problem with your comment. You weren't using logic. You were just giving us empty rhetoric.

The Trudeau plan is based purely on resentment. It's not designed to help anyone who really needs help.

I'd say instead that the arguments against the Trudeau plan are based on self-important nonsense from people that argue income-splitting and $10,000 TFSA limits (effective tax cuts for wealthier Canadians) are way better ideas than

ones that benefit people who both earn and have significantly less.

So suppose you tell me just what logic says you have a right to take some of my money?

I'm taking your money? That's news to me! As for the logic, do you really need someone to explain the merits and arguments of a laddered tax system?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Moonbox

[Argus]

I'd measure wealth quantitatively.

Sure, multimillionaires are rich, billionaires are wealthy. Everyone else is something else.

Trying to spin that as jealousy is pretty funny, but then you bring that line up fairly frequently.

This entire plan is based on jealousy and resentment.

You have no idea how well-off I am financially,

I think it's pretty obvious you're not well-off enough to have this plan costing you any money. In fact, you hope to make money off it.

I'd say instead that the arguments against the Trudeau plan are based on self-righteous nonsense, rather than any sort of intelligent merit.

Really? He wants to take money from those making over $200k a year and give it to those in the top third of income earners. And you have the gall to tell me this is based on logic?!

On the one hand you'll argue that income-splitting and $10,000 TFSA limits (effective tax cuts for wealthier Canadians) are great ideas, but then

on the other you're outraged by tax cuts for people who are worse off. The hypocrisy is pretty funny.

First, the income splitting, which won't benefit me, is merely leveling the playing field a bit between one-income families and two-income families. It can creditably be argued it's based on fairness in that regard. Second, the TFSA arguably benefits richer Canadians more than others, but then any sort of tax cut or benefit would. And Canadians of all income levels can benefit if they save money. Second, I'm not outraged by tax cuts for people who are "worse off" I'm pissed off that people who are doing pretty well, should be given more of my money when I already pay way more in taxes than they do.

I'm taking your money? That's news to me! As for the logic, do you really need someone to explain the merits and arguments of a laddered tax system?

I get the merits of a laddered tax system. That's why I pay so much more in tax than you do. But I see no reason why I should be happy about Trudeau slapping a new tax on me in order to give the money to those earning less than me who are still people among the highest wage earners in the country. Taking money away from me because poor people can't afford to pay anything into the tax base is one thing, but taking my money in order to give a rebate to those who are well-off but simply not as well-off as me is just vote buying on the back of the resentment such people feel that they're not earning as much as me.

Now since you certainly come off as one of those people, why don't you tell me why you feel it's proper for the government to take money from me to give to you?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Argus

[Topaz]

The 22% to 20.5% for $44,701-$89,401, is a good idea because there are many Canadians are in that income rate and some seniors, not too many families or seniors can invest any of their income because of the higher standard of living, where 200,000+ could and probably do.

[Argus]

The 22% to 20.5% for $44,701-$89,401, is a good idea because there are many Canadians are in that income rate and some seniors, not too many families or seniors can invest any of their income because of the higher standard of living, where 200,000+ could and probably do.

So? I certainly see the political logic in stealing money from those well-off to give it to those who are merely doing well.

But to pretend this plan has any sort of inherent fairness or justice beyond political expediency is total nonsense.

[Moonbox]

Sure, multimillionaires are rich, billionaires are wealthy. Everyone else is something else.

Sorry, but millionaires are millionaires and billionaires are billionaires. They're both wealthy and rich, regardless of whatever arbitrary meaning you decide to assign to the terms for the sake of this debate.

I think it's pretty obvious you're not well-off enough to have this plan costing you any money. In fact, you hope to make money off it.

I think it's pretty obvious you're just getting frustrated and making veiled insults. Those of us who grew up with the internet know how pointless it is to brag and condescend anonymously based on completely unverifiable personal accomplishments or lack thereof.

I get the merits of a laddered tax system. That's why I pay so much more in tax than you do. But I see no reason why I should be happy about Trudeau slapping a new tax on me in order to give the money to those earning less than me who are still people among the highest wage earners in the country.

I wouldn't expect you to be happy about it, but if you understand how a laddered tax system works then there's really not much else to say about it. It's merely being tweaked and the logic behind the tweak is the same as the logic used to set up the laddered system in the first place.

Taking money away from me because poor people can't afford to pay anything into the tax base is one thing, but taking my money in order to give a rebate to those who are well-off but simply not as well-off as me is just vote buying on the back of the resentment such people feel that they're not earning as much as me.

TFSA contribution limit increases and income-splitting are also pretty blatant vote-buying policies, so the above argument is a little hypocritical.

Now since you certainly come off as one of those people, why don't you tell me why you feel it's proper for the government to take money from me to give to you?

One of "those people"? Why it's "proper"? You need to take a deep breath and check your emotions. All your comments about jealousy and resentment are coming off kind of petulant. You'd be a lot better off arguing the social and economic impact of the proposed changes rather than how it makes you feel. These are the sorts of things such decisions are based on.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Moonbox

[Argus]

Sorry, but millionaires are millionaires and billionaires are billionaires. They're both wealthy and rich, regardless of whatever arbitrary meaning you

decide to assign to the terms for the sake of this debate.

I think just about everyone other than a rabid ideologue knows very well what rich and wealthy mean and that neither term applies to someone making a lousy $200k a year.

I think it's pretty obvious you're just getting frustrated and making veiled insults.

Really? I would have thought it was pretty obvious I was simply shifting tones to match the one you're using.

TFSA contribution limit increases and income-splitting are also pretty blatant vote-buying policies, so the above argument is a little hypocritical.

No, it's not. You can easily describe income splitting as an attempt at tax fairness to bring one income family into the same neighborhood as two income families, especially when coming from a political party which wants to help mothers to stay home and look after their kids. The TFSA limit increase can also be described as encouraging Canadians to save. I certainly admit that hoping to curry favour with voters was part of the thinking of the government, but that doesn't make them vote buying, at least, not nearly to the same extent as the Liberal plan.

One of "those people"? Why it's "proper"? You need to take a deep breath and check your emotions. All your comments about jealousy and

resentment are coming off kind of petulant.

Noooo, they're simply a reflection of the attitude you've demonstrated so far in your hostility towards those who earn more money than you, and your touting of this program, which is as blatant an act of pure divide and conquer vote buying as we've ever seen.

You'd be a lot better off arguing the social and economic impact of the proposed changes rather than how it makes you feel. These are the sorts of things such decisions are based on.

Suggesting this was based on anything other than pure vote buying would be either grossly dishonest or grossly ignorant.

[Moonbox]

I think just about everyone other than a rabid ideologue knows very well what rich and wealthy mean and that neither term applies to someone making a lousy $200k a year.

No, you're just projecting, and hearing you call me a rabid ideologue is jokes. In any case, those terms are both subjective and relative, thus they mean very different things to very different people. All of this, however, ignores the simple fact that tax schemes use purely quantitative measurements instead of Argus-definitions.

Really? I would have thought it was pretty obvious I was simply shifting tones to match the one you're using.

You might not like my tone (I couldn't care less), but I'm not the one anonymously belittling the personal finances of people I know nothing about on the internet.

No, it's not. You can easily describe income splitting as an attempt at tax fairness

If you're not concerned with intellectual credibility and if you have a demented idea of what constitutes fairness, then sure.

The TFSA limit increase can also be described as encouraging Canadians to save.

Sure, but $10,000 contribution limits aren't encouraging anyone to save except for the very top of the income scale (ie. the people who have done well enough for themselves to have already ensured a comfortable retirement). Most of the money going into TFSA's right now aren't even new investments. It's just cash being swapped out from unregistered accounts and money old people are sitting on.

I certainly admit that hoping to curry favour with voters was part of the thinking of the government, but that doesn't make them vote buying, at least, not nearly to the same extent as the Liberal plan.

Not the same extent? You'll have to explain that interesting logic.

Noooo, they're simply a reflection of the attitude you've demonstrated so far in your hostility towards those who earn more money than you, and your touting of this program, which is as blatant an act of pure divide and conquer vote buying as we've ever seen.

I can't take a word of that seriously. The Tories perfected the art of divide and conquer vote buying. The income-splitting is one of the most blatantly unfair and ill-conceived tax policies we've ever seen in Canada. Even the C.D. Howe Institute panned it as bad idea, yet here you are flogging it like the bee's knees. Rather than trying to tell me how I feel about things, why don't you actually make a coherent case for it, one that isn't complete and out-of-touch BS about how unfair the privilege of a stay-at-home parent is?

Suggesting this was based on anything other than pure vote buying would be either grossly dishonest or grossly ignorant.

That's the nature of politics, genius. Of course you're never complaining about vote-buying when it's the Tories doing it.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Moonbox

[hitops]

Sure, but $10,000 contribution limits aren't encouraging anyone to save except for the very top of the income scale (ie. the people who have done well enough for themselves to have already ensured a comfortable retirement).

I would say it is the exact opposite. The fact that the limit is $10,000, explicitly limits people who could contribute more (the wealthy). It is in fact 95% of society that can contribute less than $10,000, very few could contribute more than that. This is specifically beneficial to the majority of Canadians, as the vast majority can take advantage of it by contributing something between $0 and $10,000.

If you choose not to, great. Don't malign people for making smart decisions you don't want to make.

Edited May 14, 2015 by hitops

[Moonbox]

I would say it is the exact opposite. The fact that the limit is $10,000, explicitly limits people who could contribute more (the wealthy).

Of course it limits them. It has to otherwise everyone would have fully non-taxable investment income. That limit, however, doesn't mean they're not fully taking advantage of it, and it's nowhere near as limiting as not being able to afford max contributions in the first place.

It is in fact 95% of society that can contribute less than $10,000, very few could contribute more than that. This is specifically beneficial to the majority of Canadians, as the vast majority can take advantage of it by contributing something between $0 and $10,000.

The argument isn't against the TFSA. It's against $10,000 annual limits, which offers absolutely nothing to the overwhelming majority of Canadians.

If you choose not to, great. Don't malign people for making smart decisions you don't want to make.

What the hell? I'm not maligning people for using it. It's a no-brainer. Try to keep track of the discussion.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Moonbox

[Argus]

No, you're just projecting, and hearing you call me a rabid ideologue is jokes.

Okay, you're not a rabid ideologue, you're just bitter and full of resentment at those earning more money than you. Happy?

You might not like my tone (I couldn't care less), but I'm not the one anonymously belittling the personal finances of people I know nothing about on the internet.

And yet the shoe fits you so very well.

If you're not concerned with intellectual credibility and if you have a demented idea of what constitutes fairness, then sure.

It's taxing a couple where one works in a way which helps, to a degree, to tax them the same as a couple where two work. It's also acknowledging the value of stay at home parenting.

Sure, but $10,000 contribution limits aren't encouraging anyone to save except for the very top of the income scale (ie. the people who have done well enough for themselves to have already ensured a comfortable retirement).

You mean because they're careful and saved? Because the group Trudeau is targeting are in the top third of income earners and certainly contain a very high proportion of those headed for a 'comfortable retirement', as long as they don't waste all their money on trips abroad and newer cars and gadgets every year.

I can't take a word of that seriously. The Tories perfected the art of divide and conquer vote buying.

Ahh, I understand now! You're ten years old! You never saw the Martin government, the Chretien government, or the Mulroney government or the Trudeau government! And of course as a modern child you have no knowledge of history!

The income-splitting is one of the most blatantly unfair and ill-conceived tax policies we've ever seen in Canada.

Even the C.D. Howe Institute panned it as bad idea,

No, they panned it as a bad idea in 2011 before it was changed and toned down.

and out-of-touch BS about how unfair the privilege of a

stay-at-home parent is?

The unfairness was in taxing one type of family at a higher level than another type of family rather than on the same family income.

That's the nature of politics, genius. Of course you're never complaining about vote-buying when it's the Tories doing it.

I'm generally not impressed with vote buying, but usually the vote buying at least has some intellectual cover in accomplishing a purpose, in achieving a government objective. This time the only thing Trudeau seems to want to do is take money away from people like me and give it to people like you so you'll vote for them.

[littleguy1]

Its good for the Tories........Trudeau has stated to pay for his plan he'll reverse the increased TFSA limits and income splitting, of course, both benefit seniors, with upwards of 60% of current TFSA being held by the elderly........seniors vote = ~180-190 seat Tory majority.....

Likewise, even the NDP is refusing to go after the wealthy "1%" with tax increases (favoring an increase to corporate taxes), for reasons all too obvious (look no further than the UK and France a generation ago).........the wealthy have really good lawyers and accountants, and will "leave Canada" for the Caymans or Belize......The State can't tax what isn't there.

It will be interesting to see how the plan actually reads once its been fully costed.......as opposed Trudeau's math written on a napkin with a crayon.

How old will Garneau be in 2019 and can Mayor Nenshi speak French?

Let the wealthy leave and see what it gets them. Canada has opportunity and it is proven by the wealth they have accumulated. I don't like raising taxes on anyone, but I do agree that our current tax policy is very unfair and favors the more affluent.

As for income splitting and other tax incentives that benefit the elderly, I don't think you realize how many seniors wouldn't even qualify. People have thus fallacy presented to them that the elderly ate so well off, butafter burying my 92 year old father I beg to differ. He did very well income wise his final 7-10 years of work, but have you seen what a senior has to pay in these retirement communities? Oy is obscene and they get taken at every turn. My dad sold his house after !y mother died and put the majority of what he made back into the purchase of a retirement community condo. Then, they charge you for food, any type of care, any services they bring in to help the less mobile and fee upon fee. My dad was paying just over $3800 per month and that was because he could still prepare some meals for himself.

Other facilities that offer extended care go to the $5500-6500 range and I ask, how can anyone survive if their main source of income is CPP and OAS. Come on folks, I know where Trudeau is coming from because I feat what I will do when I retire. It isn't as cut and dry as some want you to think, but with all that Canada has to offer I as a long time conservative do not feel we are getting the best from the current policies in place.

I am undecided right now, but I know I won't vote for Harper and his cronies because they have betrayed my trust. This is the most corrupt and controversial government I have witnessed in our country. I don't always agree with what government does, but I do expect them to listen to Canadians and not ignore our wishes. Everyone deserves the same opportunity for improvement but right now only the top 5% seem to be getting those benefits.

[Argus]

Let the wealthy leave and see what it gets them.

Way lower taxes? And btw, the top 1% pays 30% of all taxes. In fact, the top 1% pays more than the bottom 50%

Canada has opportunity and it is proven by the wealth they have accumulated.

Virtually none of my money comes from Canada.

I don't like raising taxes on anyone, but I do agree that our current tax policy is very unfair and favors the more affluent.

Really? Hmm, the bottom one third of wage earners pay 0% of their money in income taxes. I pay 50%. The top 1% pays 30% of income taxes. The top 20% of income earners pay 75% of all income taxes.

What do you consider unfair about that?

I am undecided right now, but I know I won't vote for Harper and his cronies because they have betrayed my trust. This is the most corrupt and controversial government I have witnessed in our country.

I guess you never saw Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau senior then. Edited May 15, 2015 by Argus

[PIK]

I hope little guy learns something from this post. He seems to read headlines only.

[Keepitsimple]

I hope little guy learns something from this post. He seems to read headlines only.

A lot of people could learn something from it.....

[hitops]

The argument isn't against the TFSA. It's against $10,000 annual limits, which offers absolutely nothing to the overwhelming majority of Canadians.

You just admitted that most Canadians can contribute. Your statement that it offers 'nothing' is flatly false. It very clearly offers something to 100% of Canadians, as every last one can contribute if they choose to.

What you mean to say is that are upset that some people will, not can, but will contribute more than others.

Your argument is like saying it is wrong that Canadians can legally buy a car, since only some can take advantage of that. Yet everyone is equally allowed to buy any car, just as everyone can contribute up to $10000. If ONLY the rich were allowed up to $100,000, you would have a point.

Why don't we just ban the use or purchase of anything that people with more money have to ability to use or purchase more of?

Edited May 16, 2015 by hitops

[Bob Macadoo]

Your argument is like saying it is wrong that Canadians can legally buy a car, since only some can take advantage of that. Yet everyone is equally allowed to buy any car, just as everyone can contribute up to $10000. If ONLY the rich were allowed up to $100,000, you would have a point.

Why don't we just ban the use or purchase of anything that people with more money have to ability to use or purchase more of?

Your analogy would be appropriate if the gov't forgoes tax collection on the purchase of a car. Its not that you can contribute anything you want.....its that the gov't will highly benefit only the group who can do it......so sure drop in whatever you want but the tax benefit ends where all can contribute.

[Moonbox]

Okay, you're not a rabid ideologue, you're just bitter and full of resentment at those earning more money than you. Happy?

Whatever you say man. Again, you're not actually making an argument. You're just posturing on the internet and that's sad.

It's taxing a couple where one works in a way which helps, to a degree, to tax them the same as a couple where two work. It's also acknowledging the value of stay at home parenting.

That's the spin, yes. The thing is that having a stay-at-home parent is a luxury and privilege in itself - one that most Canadian families can't afford. It's therefore little more than a tax-break for the top income earners. Don't take my word for it though, maybe do a tiny bit of research on it first. See how the PBO, the media, economists and tax-policy think-tanks are all piling up against it for the dumb idea it is.

You mean because they're careful and saved? Because the group Trudeau is targeting are in the top third of income earners and certainly contain a very high proportion of those headed for a 'comfortable retirement', as long as they don't waste all their money on trips abroad and newer cars and gadgets every year.

So how does a $10,000 contribution limit help someone who's making $45-70,000 year? These, of course, are folks apparently in the "top third". Most of them, of course, can afford to put ~20-25% of their net income towards the TFSA, right? The hypocrisy of your position (ie. tax cuts for the top earners are good, tax cuts for the Trudeau demographic are bad) is pretty obvious.

No, they panned it as a bad idea in 2011 before it was changed and toned down.

Nope. Obviously you haven't done much recent reading on the subject. It's still being panned as a bad idea because it still is a bad idea.

The unfairness was in taxing one type of family at a higher level than another type of family rather than on the same family income.

Perhaps, but income-splitting is a terrible way of solving this.

I'm generally not impressed with vote buying, but usually the vote buying at least has some intellectual cover in accomplishing a purpose, in achieving a government objective. This time the only thing Trudeau seems to want to do is take money away from people like me and give it to people like you so you'll vote for them.

No I'm sorry but that's just your own personal spin. What you're calling "intellectual cover" is really just smoke-and-mirrors politicking.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Moonbox

[msj]

Well after a tax season of experience I can say this about the income split: BFD.

Originally while I was against it I now don't really care one way or the other.

Non issue.

If anything it makes things fairer between the self employed who can split their income between each other already and those who can't (normally the employed).

So, non issue for me.

As for the TFSA: well if people were not so silly with house lust maybe they would be able to save 20% of their income like we used to do 30 years ago.

Instead everyone has to have everything now and we just must (just must!) keep spending otherwise our economy is doomed etc etc.

Here is an interesting take on the TFSA levelling the playing field a bit for those of us who choose not to put all of our eggs into the housing basket: http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/tfsa/how-about-a-tax-break-for-people-who-dont-want-to-own-a-home#__lsa=81f5-2838