Bloc could hold balance of power in a hung parliament:

[Smallc]

What rate, we have four?

People with earnings between approx 44K and 89K will see a tax decrease of 7% or 1.5 basis points on those earnings.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Smallc

[msj]

Yes, the second rate goes from 22% to 20.5% while a new rate gets added at 33% for income above $200,000.

[Wilber]

Yes, the second rate goes from 22% to 20.5% while a new rate gets added at 33% for income above $200,000.

What about the first and third rates?

[msj]

What about the first and third rates?

They stay at 15% and 26% so no change. The 29% rate also stays.

Edited October 17, 2015 by msj

[Wilber]

They stay at 15% and 26% so no change. The 29% rate also stays.

It would be nice if they made that clear instead of insinuating everyone under 200K will get a tax break. The bottom doesn't get a break at all and with no income splitting, neither will one income families with an income of over 89K. So much for honesty and transparency.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Wilber

[msj]

It would be nice if they made that clear instead of insinuating everyone under 200K will get a tax break. The bottom doesn't get a break at all and with no income splitting, neither will one income families with an income of over 89K. So much for honesty and transparency.

The few times I have heard it it has been very clear that it is the $44k to 89k bracket so I dunno what you talkin' about.

As for the bottom - well, they will get more tax free child tax benefits which will fully offset the eliminated family inome splitting for most families.

One income families earning over 89k will get the 7% tax cut which would offset at least some of the loss from the family tax splitting - I haven't run the scenarios myself but I do recall not being paticularly impressed with the family income splitting last tax season.

Of course, these families will lose out on the UCCB and likely would not earn any child tax benefit so they will be at a loss.

But if you want to go down that road then I will tell you that I'm not happy with Harper for making me wait until I'm 67 to get OAS - that's $13,000 I will not be receiving during my lifetime and that is a benefit cut I am not willing to forgive nor forget.

As for transparency - you mean how like Harper rolled out the increase to UCCB in July but was quiet about eliminating the child amount tax credit?

[dialamah]

It would be nice if they made that clear instead of insinuating everyone under 200K will get a tax break. The bottom doesn't get a break at all and with no income splitting, neither will one income families with an income of over 89K. So much for honesty and transparency.

According to Maclean's, the Liberal tax break for the middle class will also provide tax relief for those who earn above $89,000.

[Wilber]

According to Maclean's, the Liberal tax break for the middle class will also provide tax relief for those who earn above $89,000.

Because the portion between 44k and 89K goes down, which also means a portion of people making over 200K will also get a tax cut. The working poor? Well screw them.

[Smallc]

Of course, these families will lose out on the UCCB and likely would not earn any child tax benefit so they will be at a loss.

Not under the Liberal plan:

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/

[dialamah]

Because the portion between 44k and 89K goes down, which also means a portion of people making over 200K will also get a tax cut. The working poor? Well screw them.

I agree, I'd like to see more done for lower income earners. A tax break for me is great, but I'd have been as happy with more for people who make less than $40,000.

[Bonam]

But if you want to go down that road then I will tell you that I'm not happy with Harper for making me wait until I'm 67 to get OAS - that's $13,000 I will not be receiving during my lifetime and that is a benefit cut I am not willing to forgive nor forget.

Putting aside selfish considerations for a moment, you don't think that raising the age at which individuals are eligible for various retirement benefits make sense as life expectancies continue to increase?

[msj]

Putting aside selfish considerations for a moment, you don't think that raising the age at which individuals are eligible for various retirement benefits make sense as life expectancies continue to increase?

It may make sense but I have not seen any credible report on it.

If the CPC did not bring in pension splitting which also allows many to eliminate the OAS clawback as they also save income taxes to the tune of thousands of dollars then maybe I would be sympathetic to this view.

But until I see an actuary report that takes such changes into consideration, no, I don't buy it.

Don't get me wrong: I know that overall I am better off with pension splitting and losing 2 years of the OAS. I'm a tax accountant who saves tens of thousands each year while also sheltering taxes within my corporation, so I'm not stupid.

But there is about 98% of the population below me who ain't better off so they are getting the shaft and that's why it is unforgivable.

Edited October 17, 2015 by msj

[msj]

Not under the Liberal plan:https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/

I did see that table yesterday but since I'm childless I just have no memory for it.

[Smallc]

I did see that table yesterday but since I'm childless I just have no memory for it.

It has the potential to increase my income (in terms of sales, not kids). It's kind of exciting.

[msj]

It has the potential to increase my income (in terms of sales, not kids). It's kind of exciting.

Yes, I agree.

The reason I like the Liberals plan (and what Chrétien/Martin did) is because they put money into the hands of people making less money.

These are the people who are going to spend that money on real things in the economy.

Harper wants to cut my corporate taxes. That's not going to lead me to create more jobs. It's going to encourage me to leave money in my company to pay the lower tax rate.

I think the guy who won the recent Nobel prize in economics has written about this and I buy into it based on common sense and my own experiences.

[Smallc]

The reason I like the Liberals plan (and what Chrétien/Martin did) is because they put money into the hands of people making less money.

I like the Liberal plan because pretty much the whole thing makes a lot of sense, from democratic reform to taxes.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Yes, I agree.

The reason I like the Liberals plan (and what Chrétien/Martin did) is because they put money into the hands of people making less money.

These are the people who are going to spend that money on real things in the economy.

Harper wants to cut my corporate taxes. That's not going to lead me to create more jobs. It's going to encourage me to leave money in my company to pay the lower tax rate.

I think the guy who won the recent Nobel prize in economics has written about this and I buy into it based on common sense and my own experiences.

That depends on your goals. If you dont want to expand then your not hirinf even if the rate is zero. However, you are providing a service for someone and maybe employing someone and i believe you should be paying a lower tax based on how much you are giving back by the economic activity you generate.

I think letting all people keep more if what they make is ideal. Either way the money that uour company makes most likely isnt being stuffed into a mattress.

[Bonam]

But there is about 98% of the population below me who ain't better off so they are getting the shaft and that's why it is unforgivable.

I don't care about people "getting the shaft". My generation isn't likely to ever see a penny from such programs as CPP or OAS so I'm already assuming full shaftage. The reality is these programs simply have to have their ages keep pace with rising life expectancy and anyone who doesn't expect the ages to rise is deluding themselves.

[Wilber]

I don't care about people "getting the shaft". My generation isn't likely to ever see a penny from such programs as CPP or OAS so I'm already assuming full shaftage. The reality is these programs simply have to have their ages keep pace with rising life expectancy and anyone who doesn't expect the ages to rise is deluding themselves.

You will from CPP because it is a real pension plan. OAS maybe not because it comes out of general revenue.

[Bonam]

You will from CPP because it is a real pension plan. OAS maybe not because it comes out of general revenue.

A lot can happen in the next 40 years. I doubt if many of the same programs we have today will still exist in a recognizable form.

[msj]

I don't care about people "getting the shaft". My generation isn't likely to ever see a penny from such programs as CPP or OAS so I'm already assuming full shaftage. The reality is these programs simply have to have their ages keep pace with rising life expectancy and anyone who doesn't expect the ages to rise is deluding themselves.

The reality is is that is your opinion based on... well, certainly not on actuary evidence.

You are going to be surprised when you are older and you start to receive these benefits.

At least it will be a pleasant surprise.

[Wilber]

A lot can happen in the next 40 years. I doubt if many of the same programs we have today will still exist in a recognizable form.

Well CPP has been around for about 50 years and last I heard it had over 200 billion in assets. Edited October 17, 2015 by Wilber

[msj]

I don't care about people "getting the shaft".

Ha! And you call me greedy.

[msj]

That depends on your goals. If you dont want to expand then your not hirinf even if the rate is zero. However, you are providing a service for someone and maybe employing someone and i believe you should be paying a lower tax based on how much you are giving back by the economic activity you generate.

I think letting all people keep more if what they make is ideal. Either way the money that uour company makes most likely isnt being stuffed into a mattress.

The extent to me wanting to expand is based on many factors.

Giving me a lower tax rate keeps more money in my pocket so it does not give me an incentive to earn more money since I am, in fact, earning and keeping more money for doing nothing but the same thing.

Now raise my taxes and I have an incentive to earn more.

As for this giving back nonsense: I am a business person who conducts business because it's better than being an employee and it pays enough to allow me travel and retirement savings for permanent travel upon retirement.

It is its own reward so why people think a guy in the top 2% should be getting a tax break for having a better job than everyone else is beyond me.

[blueblood]

The extent to me wanting to expand is based on many factors.

Giving me a lower tax rate keeps more money in my pocket so it does not give me an incentive to earn more money since I am, in fact, earning and keeping more money for doing nothing but the same thing.

Now raise my taxes and I have an incentive to earn more.

As for this giving back nonsense: I am a business person who conducts business because it's better than being an employee and it pays enough to allow me travel and retirement savings for permanent travel upon retirement.

It is its own reward so why people think a guy in the top 2% should be getting a tax break for having a better job than everyone else is beyond me.

But every business is different and yours is significantly different than mine as your overhead is a fraction of mine. For me to expand costs a lot of money and is more labour intensive. In that regard switching to a corporation and enjoying the lower tax bracket has benefitted me greatly and i have hired part time people to help out in the busy season.

Its not nonsense that your giving back. By doing what your doing and taking that risk you are contributing more to society than the average person as it is.

The top two percent should be getting a tax break as not everyone is an accountant and having taxes reduced does make a difference. Its a matter of principle, the top 2 percent take a lot of risk, pay the most tax, hire people, invest, spend more. Its a message that if you do well you should be rewarded, not punished.