So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[msj]

You forget liability. I would say anyone running any small business where something could go wrong needs to be incorporated. You are right about the changes to tax rates making no difference small business people who take all of the income they can from the company. That said, keeping savings in a corporation is also a bad idea because these are assets that can be seized if something goes wrong. On top of that any investment income is taxed at the top marginal rate which will likely be higher than it would be in a personal savings account for a small business owner.

Liability is a joke. You are shareholder, director, employee: you will get sued on all fronts.

Have good insurance and most businesses will be fine.

Yes, some businesses have no choice but to be incorporated but most incorporated businesses are making me rich for no good reason - not that I mind but at least I'm honest enough to tell them and thank them for this.

As for keeping assets in a business - that's the whole point of the small tax rate. If I pull my assets out I will pay tax exactly as if I were a proprietor.

Of course, I have good professional liability insurance so I will be sheltering assets in my company to the extent that I don't shelter them in RRSP's or TFSA's.

[jacee]

Ppl with jobs support them ppl who rely on governmental charity, not so much.

That's not true.

It's money from wealthy bosses that supports the Conservatives, not from working people.

.

[Keepitsimple]

That's not true.

It's money from wealthy bosses that supports the Conservatives, not from working people.

.

Since you seem so sure - and have effectively called someone a liar - I presume you have a cite for that?

[On Guard for Thee]

Argus already made some good points but heck, I'll make myself a target:

1) Party or Leader - probably 50/50. I need to have a leader I can respect. Harper gets mine - and I think Mulcair has the capability of earning it. Justin Trudeau - probably not going to happen. As for the party - it's policies and as I've stated before - "do no harm", especially when it comes to the economy.

2) Social Programs - not sure he's really changed anything except for Healthcare.....and I agree with his approach. For too many years, the provinces came cap-in-hand to the Feds and blamed everything on lack of funding - and as a result nothing got done. People never really understood that the province was responsible for delivering healthcare services - not the feds. The Feds just balanced the playing field with Transfer payments and enforced the rules. Now - funding is set in stone - Provinces know what they are getting and simply have to get on with doing the job. No more whining.

3) Next Generation/Jobs - one of their strengths.....a focus on skilled trades, university research funding focused on commercial capabilities, all the savings vehicles for young people and families.

4) Foreign Policies - people have not fully grasped the change of the last 2 or 3 decades. You can't have diplomacy with the Taliban or ISIS or Hezbollah and to a lesser extent, countries like Iran. Diplomacy is more countries who rationally have an intent to resolve conflict. With those who would destroy everything that democracy stands for - we need to take a clear stand. I understand that makes the faint of heart very uncomfortable - but group hugs don't work with people who chop off heads. Diplomacy where it can make progress - but be prepared to help our allies with a Big Stick. Say what you mean - mean what you say.

I hope you are not referring to health care when you talk about funding being "set in stone".

[Hal 9000]

That's not true.

It's money from wealthy bosses that supports the Conservatives, not from working people.

.

What do you call wealthy?

[Smallc]

I hope you are not referring to health care when you talk about funding being "set in stone".

And how is he wrong?

[On Guard for Thee]

And how is he wrong?

Because after next year it will be tied to economic activity. And if you look at the demographics, that formula will likely offload a lot of costs onto the provinces which can least afford it.

[Smallc]

Because after next year it will be tied to economic activity.

With a 3% minimum - and how is he wrong?

[On Guard for Thee]

With a 3% minimum - and how is he wrong?

First of all 3% is less tha 6, but that seems difficult for some people to comprehend apparently, and I explained the other reasons.

[eyeball]

Having actually, briefly, considered the NDP because Thomas Mulcair can sound fairly sensible, I looked at the NDP party policy book. Anyone who is similarly thinking of voting NDP should do the same. Yes, it is scary. It talks about monetary controls, industry boards, and prohibiting companies from growing larger by engaging in vertical integration. It wants to increase business taxes and double capital gains taxes.

Compared to monitoring our emails and phone calls and throwing us in jail for pot and picking fights with maniacs around the world?

Big whoopi-doo.

[TimG]

Compared to monitoring our emails and phone calls and throwing us in jail for pot and picking fights with maniacs around the world?

The conservative predispositions don't kill job creation and the economy. Happen to care about such things. I guess you don't.

[Smallc]

First of all 3% is less tha 6,

And he's wrong how?

[jbg]

Despite my ideological reputation I promise that I will NOT be voting for Harper or the CPC in October 2015.

[Argus]

No we're talking about taking more money from rich thieves and scoundrels and giving it back to a lot of decent hardworking people raising families on the pittance their thieving bosses pay.

Oh is THAT what we're talking about? And you define 'rich thieves and scoundrels' as anyone making good money...

[Argus]

First of all 3% is less tha 6, but that seems difficult for some people to comprehend apparently, and I explained the other reasons.

Paul Martin and Jean Chretien cut health care transfers. That means that they sent less money after the cut, than before the cut. That's why it was called a cut. Harper is not ever going to send less money, so you can't honestly call it a cut -- if you care about honesty, that is.

[Argus]

What do you call wealthy?

Me, apparently.

[On Guard for Thee]

Paul Martin and Jean Chretien cut health care transfers. That means that they sent less money after the cut, than before the cut. That's why it was called a cut. Harper is not ever going to send less money, so you can't honestly call it a cut -- if you care about honesty, that is.

Apparently ath is't your strong point either. Martins current plan calls for a 6%/annum increase. Harper's could go as low as 3%, depending on GDP. That's a cut.

[Argus]

For all you that are voting Harper please state why? Are you voting for the party or the leader more? What do you think of his social program changes and will it affect you? Do you care about the next generation and jobs? What do you think of his Foreign Polices? How do you think Harper could improve himself or the government?

I like that we have the courage to vote no on all those stupid, repetitious anti Israel resolutions the Islamic bloc insists on pushing through the UN general assembly every single year. Social programs don't affect me, only taxes do. I'm not a fan of Harper, never have been. I'm not voting for the Conservatives. I'm voting against the Liberals and NDP.

How could Harper improve if I was his puppet master? Gee, where to start... Without regard to policies, just how things operate, I would have him give a press conference every week, or at least every month, and take questions from the press gallery. I would tone down the hyper partisanship and the paranoia about secrecy. I would give MPs more power to assess bills in committees and more power for cabinet ministers to speak publicly.

[Argus]

Apparently ath is't your strong point either. Martins current plan calls for a 6%/annum increase. Harper's could go as low as 3%, depending on GDP. That's a cut.

Martin's plan was to return funding on some of the cuts he had made, and it has ended. Martin is gone. No one sane would expect health care transfer to keep increasing by 6% a year, only half of which is actually being spent on health care by the provinces anyway. They're directed the rest into general revenues.

[On Guard for Thee]

Martin's plan was to return funding on some of the cuts he had made, and it has ended. Martin is gone. No one sane would expect health care transfer to keep increasing by 6% a year, only half of which is actually being spent on health care by the provinces anyway. They're directed the rest into general revenues.

I have never said I thought the 6% was sustainable forever, but I think reducing it to 3 with adjustments for gdp will just offload costs to provinces, some of which may have to look to private health care, which is probably just what Harper has in mind.

[overthere]

Apparently ath is't your strong point either. Martins current plan calls for a 6%/annum increase. Harper's could go as low as 3%, depending on GDP. That's a cut.

No, it is an increase of 3% over previous funding. A cut would be when the feds decrease funding, like they did in a big way with the Chretien/Martin savagery.

Why is funding greater than inflation anyway? It's not like the provinces spend the money wisely.

[Argus]

I have never said I thought the 6% was sustainable forever, but I think reducing it to 3 with adjustments for gdp will just offload costs to provinces, some of which may have to look to private health care, which is probably just what Harper has in mind.

I've already said that what the Conservatives need to do is emulate the better working European health care systems, all of which have strong private sector components. Why do you believe we should stick with a system shared only with Cuba and North Korea?

[ReeferMadness]

Boy, does that ever say a lot about you! There are tens of thousands of "rich thieves and scoundrels" who run small companies that employ 10, 20 or 100 people all across Canada. They are not public companies - they are risk-takers, investing their own money to build something - and by doing so, employ millions across the country. Many businesses fail - especially in these times - and owners can lose everything. Thieves and scoundrels?

Speaking from personal experience, when those small businesses fail, the owners are not the only ones who lose. Employees often lose unpaid wages, vacation pay and other pay. Creditors lose also. And failing businesses may be in arrears on paying employee benefits. I once found myself out of a job, a hold on my bank account and owing my dentist $1500 because the company stopped paying the insurance company several months previous. The company managers didn't think to notify employees of this minor detail.

[ReeferMadness]

Paul Martin and Jean Chretien cut health care transfers. That means that they sent less money after the cut, than before the cut. That's why it was called a cut. Harper is not ever going to send less money, so you can't honestly call it a cut -- if you care about honesty, that is.

Honesty? You care about honesty and still vote Conservative?

hahahahahahahaha

[Argus]

Honesty? You care about honesty and still vote Conservative?

hahahahahahahaha

No politician is honest. Voting is a matter of choosing the least worst. But in referring to an increase as a cut, that's simply dishonest. You can say it's a smaller increase, you can say the rate of increase is being cut, but you can't honestly say health care transfers are being cut.