.

[davidmike]

During a town hall with Bloomberg TV in New York, Trudeau also confirmed that Tuesday's federal spending plan will reverse the eligibility for Old Age Security to 65 from 67.

[Wilber]

Can you state your point here? Think of me as the LCD. I don't have a problem with that.

I think the point is, that is 7.1 billion a year we are having to borrow because we don't have the revenue to pay for it and that number will just contunue to increase as more boomers retire and age expectancies increase.

[msj]

Nice implications there Wilber.

The cuts to OAS that Harper brought in would only impact budget and deficits starting around 2023 or so.

Nice way for you to imply that they are related to our current deficits which is not the case at all.

On top of that, with the elimination of the family tax split there's a couple of billion of savings right there in the here and now.

There will be other tax measures that will close the gap.

Who knows, maybe with the release of the Panama Papers the government will come into a windfall of tax revenues from scummy rich people who continue to evade taxes.

But sure, pick on the poor people who need OAS to make ends meet because they are the problem.

[Wilber]

Nice implications there Wilber.

The cuts to OAS that Harper brought in would only impact budget and deficits starting around 2023 or so.

Nice way for you to imply that they are related to our current deficits which is not the case at all.

On top of that, with the elimination of the family tax split there's a couple of billion of savings right there in the here and now.

There will be other tax measures that will close the gap.

Who knows, maybe with the release of the Panama Papers the government will come into a windfall of tax revenues from scummy rich people who continue to evade taxes.

But sure, pick on the poor people who need OAS to make ends meet because they are the problem.

Funny how people think Canada can avoid all the implications of an aging population that other countries are having to deal with. Also nice of you to admit that taxes will have to increase in order to avoid having to borrow for these programs. The money isn't going to be magically there to pay for this. Lets just hope those increases don't put enough drag on the economy that they are self defeating when it comes to revenue generation.

There are other means of dealing with this and making sure that those who really do need it are looked after, other than simply rolling back the age limit on a universal program. Yes, getting rid of income splitting will help offset some of it but I guess you think taxing families as a unit is more evil than just handing out money to a lot of people who really don't need it.

I am also looking forward to what the Panama Papers might disclose. Tax evasion and money laundering are problems, but not the reasons we are in deficit.

[msj]

Funny how people think Canada can avoid all the implications of an aging population that other countries are having to deal with.

Not funny at all. Harper ran deficits for many years with few problems.

Trudeau can do the same.

Small deficits are not the problem. Yes, it would be better if some more thought was given as to how to narrow deficits - Harper did crummy job of this (see his GST tax cuts, see his boutique tax cuts) and Trudeau has too manhy question marks.

As to raising taxes - why not? Nice of you to admit that you want to cut OAS on thousands of people, most who are poor (inherently so - just consider demographics)

Also nice of you to admit that taxes will have to increase in order to avoid having to borrow for these programs.

Was I denying that?

Isn't it obvious that choices need to be made?

I choose finding a way to have OAS clawback come back into effect with pension splitting (i.e. pension splitting saves income taxes but not clawback).

I have also gone on record as choosing to raise taxes on capital gains by raising the inclusion rate to at least 75% (I would prefer 100%).

Eliminate more boutique tax cuts, eliminate the capital gains deduction for sale of farms/fishing licences QSB shares too.

Yes, getting rid of income splitting will help offset some of it but I guess you think taxing families as a unit is more evil than just handing out money to a lot of people who really don't need it.

Has nothing to do with being "evil."

The fact is it is easier for a spouse to go into the workforce to work than it is for some poor 65 year old to stay in the workforce to work to 67.

I am also looking forward to what the Panama Papers might disclose. Tax evasion and money laundering are problems, but not the reasons we are in deficit.

Funny how you don't seem to mind scummy rich people evading taxes which leads to higher deficits and higher compounded interest payments. But it's just fine to eliminate OAS for anyone, rich and especially poor, to reduce the deficit.

Edited April 4, 2016 by msj

[dre]

I have also gone on record as choosing to raise taxes on capital gains by raising the inclusion rate to at least 75% (I would prefer 100%).

Hey that made me think of something. We could get rid of the capital gains exemption on selling your own primary residence. There's a huge amount of lost revenue here, and house-flippers like me badly abuse it. For about a decade I built and sold a "principle residence" every 15 months or so. No real reason I shouldn't be taxed on those gains.

This would raise some revenue, and might help cool down the housing market a tiny bit.

Edited April 4, 2016 by dre

[Argus]

Hey that made me think of something. We could get rid of the capital gains exemption on selling your own primary residence. There's a huge amount of lost revenue here, and house-flippers like me badly abuse it. For about a decade I built and sold a "principle residence" every 15 months or so. No real reason I shouldn't be taxed on those gains.

For many people, their principal residence is going to be the primary source of their retirement funds. Removing the exemption would screw over huge numbers of people, and for that reason is never going to happen.

[Argus]

Not funny at all. Harper ran deficits for many years with few problems.

Trudeau can do the same.

You know this is a fatuous argument, so why are you making it? Deficit spending builds debt. The longer you engage in it the higher your debt. That Harper ran deficits for years is a reason AGAINST running more deficits not in support of it.

Small deficits are not the problem.

Trudeau's deb is not SMALL.

Harper did crummy job of this (see his GST tax cuts, see his boutique tax cuts) and Trudeau has too manhy question marks.

If you support deficit spending in the form of economic incentives you can't be critical of Harper cutting the GST, as that unquestionably spurred consumer spending. I myself was opposed to it, but then I'm also opposed to Trudeau's spending spree.

As to raising taxes - why not?

Because it damages the economy, leading to more people out of work, more poverty, and more suicides. Why do you want to drive people to suicide?

Nice of you to admit that you want to cut OAS on thousands of people, most who are poor

OAS is not really a means tested program. It goes to anyone earning up to $120,000 a year. Which is dumb. The cutoff should be half what it is, maybe even less. The Harper pushback of just two years would have saved us $11 billion per year starting in fifteen years. Where is that extra money going to come from on top of the swelling demand for health care that a burgeoning senior population is going to cause?

I have also gone on record as choosing to raise taxes on capital gains by raising the inclusion rate to at least 75% (I would prefer 100%).

Oh now THERE'S a good idea. In these days of declining private sector pensions a lot of people need to save for retirement by investing in the stock market. You want to tax them more heavily as they try to prepare for their own retirement so we can give the money to other people who never bothered. How does that make ANY sense at all?

[Wilber]

Not funny at all. Harper ran deficits for many years with few problems.

Trudeau can do the same.

Small deficits are not the problem. Yes, it would be better if some more thought was given as to how to narrow deficits - Harper did crummy job of this (see his GST tax cuts, see his boutique tax cuts) and Trudeau has too manhy question marks.

Let's run deficits forever then, no need to actually pay for what we use. As far as raising taxes go, fill your boots but there is only so much money in the economy and the more government takes out, the less there is for real wealth generation.

As to raising taxes - why not? Nice of you to admit that you want to cut OAS on thousands of people, most who are poor (inherently so - just consider demographics)

I never said anything of the sort, I said the opposite. Making OAS universal is just stupid and as a result it is given to many who don't really need it. I'm one of them but I'm sure as hell not going to turn it down.

Was I denying that?

Isn't it obvious that choices need to be made?

I choose finding a way to have OAS clawback come back into effect with pension splitting (i.e. pension splitting saves income taxes but not clawback).

I have also gone on record as choosing to raise taxes on capital gains by raising the inclusion rate to at least 75% (I would prefer 100%).

Eliminate more boutique tax cuts, eliminate the capital gains deduction for sale of farms/fishing licences QSB shares too.

Tell that to Trudeau, so far all he has done is commit to a lot more spending he can't pay for.

Has nothing to do with being "evil."

The fact is it is easier for a spouse to go into the workforce to work than it is for some poor 65 year old to stay in the workforce to work to 67.

Really, tell that to a family with young kids. Depends on what that poor 65 year old is doing plus he is probably making near his maximum lifetime earnings whereas a spouse trying to break back into the labour market will be near the bottom.

Funny how you don't seem to mind scummy rich people evading taxes which leads to higher deficits and higher compounded interest payments. But it's just fine to eliminate OAS for anyone, rich and especially poor, to reduce the deficit.

Of course I mind it but I'm not naive enough to think that the taxes they avoid would stop our governments from spending more than they take in.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Wilber

[dre]

Let's run deficits forever then, no need to actually pay for what we use. As far as raising taxes go, fill your boots but there is only so much money in the economy and the more government takes out, the less there is for real wealth generation.

The market will us when its time to stop. Right now Canada enjoys a relatively good position in terms of managing its debt.

[Wilber]

Hey that made me think of something. We could get rid of the capital gains exemption on selling your own primary residence. There's a huge amount of lost revenue here, and house-flippers like me badly abuse it. For about a decade I built and sold a "principle residence" every 15 months or so. No real reason I shouldn't be taxed on those gains.

This would raise some revenue, and might help cool down the housing market a tiny bit.

The US does that. When you sell, if you don't buy a home of equal or greater value, the difference is taxable. but then they make mortgage interest tax deductible. Better still, put limits on flipping, like allowing only two or three sales of a primary residence every ten years before the gains become taxable. Something like that.

[dre]

For many people, their principal residence is going to be the primary source of their retirement funds. Removing the exemption would screw over huge numbers of people, and for that reason is never going to happen.

Nobody would be getting screwed over. People would be paying tax on profit that is often made on a speculative basis.

[Argus]

The market will us when its time to stop. Right now Canada enjoys a relatively good position in terms of managing its debt.

The problem with that idea is that expenses can occur without notice. It's nice to have some money in the bank when that happens. If you max out your credit cards while times are good and then the economy sours and you lose your job - what then?

[Argus]

Nobody would be getting screwed over. People would be paying tax on profit that is often made on a speculative basis.

People don't buy their principal residence as a speculative investment.

[Wilber]

The market will us when its time to stop. Right now Canada enjoys a relatively good position in terms of managing its debt.

No, our creditors will tell us when it is time to stop and then it will be the slash and burn nineties again only with a a lot more combined federal and provincial debt to deal with.

Combined Provincial and Federal debt is 65% of GDP and we have the highest personal debt in the G7. The last person on the Titanic to drown was also in a relatively good position, but not nearly as good as the ones who didn't.

[dre]

The US does that. When you sell, if you don't buy a home of equal or greater value, the difference is taxable. but then they make mortgage interest tax deductible. Better still, put limits on flipping, like allowing only two or three sales of a primary residence every ten years before the gains become taxable. Something like that.

Yup that's a good idea. Or you could allow one tax free sale per decade. That would allow people to still retire on money they take out of their homes by downsizing.

But really... Id be fine with taxing ALL of those capital gains.

[dre]

People don't buy their principal residence as a speculative investment.

That's flat out false. This happens all the time in the home improvement industry. People buy a house, and live in it while they fix it up, then sell it tax free.

[Argus]

That's flat out false. This happens all the time in the home improvement industry. People buy a house, and live in it while they fix it up, then sell it tax free.

Okay, fine. 99.9% of people don't buy their house as a speculative investment. Happy now?

[Wilber]

Yup that's a good idea. Or you could allow one tax free sale per decade. That would allow people to still retire on money they take out of their homes by downsizing.

But really... Id be fine with taxing ALL of those capital gains.

Maybe but stuff happens and you have to allow people mobility. Like tax deductible moves, maybe you should have to move a minimum distance for employment to make your sale non taxable if you sell more than once in a given period. I have moved across this country and back because of my employment and as a result I once ended up buying and selling twice in one year. I didn't make anything on that deal but might have in todays market. Since then, I have averaged about 15 years between moves.

[dre]

Maybe but stuff happens and you have to allow people mobility. Like tax deductible moves, maybe you should have to move a minimum distance for employment to make your sale non taxable if you sell more than once in a given period. I have moved across this country and back because of my employment and as a result I once ended up buying and selling twice in one year. I didn't make anything on that deal but might have in todays market. Since then, I have averaged about 15 years between moves.

Yup fair points.

[msj]

You know this is a fatuous argument, so why are you making it? Deficit spending builds debt. The longer you engage in it the higher your debt. That Harper ran deficits for years is a reason AGAINST running more deficits not in support of it.

Deficts are created based on a balance between revenues and spending. So you point is half correct and half incorrect since it does not consider revenues.

Trudeau's deb is not SMALL

We will see. If our economy muddles along without any major recession then it will be relatively small. No bigger than Harper's and not a threat to fiscal balances.

If you support deficit spending in the form of economic incentives you can't be critical of Harper cutting the GST, as that unquestionably spurred consumer spending. I myself was opposed to it, but then I'm also opposed to Trudeau's spending spree.

I opposed the cut to GST then and I oppose it now. I would prefer to raise it back to 7% but politically unlikely thanks to Harper.

Because it damages the economy, leading to more people out of work, more poverty, and more suicides. Why do you want to drive people to suicide?

Sure, right after I stop beating my wife I will care about leading people to suicide.

OAS is not really a means tested program. It goes to anyone earning up to $120,000 a year. Which is dumb. The cutoff should be half what it is, maybe even less. The Harper pushback of just two years would have saved us $11 billion per year starting in fifteen years. Where is that extra money going to come from on top of the swelling demand for health care that a burgeoning senior population is going to cause?

So, it's not a means tested program even though if one's income is above ~$73,000 then it is clawed back at 15 cents on the dollar?

Do you even know what means tested means?

Oh now THERE'S a good idea. In these days of declining private sector pensions a lot of people need to save for retirement by investing in the stock market. You want to tax them more heavily as they try to prepare for their own retirement so we can give the money to other people who never bothered. How does that make ANY sense at all?

Use RRSP's and TFSA's to defer/save taxes. Beyond that, too bad.

Why should people not pay taxes on real economic gains?

[msj]

Let's run deficits forever then, no need to actually pay for what we use. As far as raising taxes go, fill your boots but there is only so much money in the economy and the more government takes out, the less there is for real wealth generation.

Where did I say to run deficits forever?

I have said raise taxes to narrow the deficit which would include eliminating the deficit.

I never said anything of the sort, I said the opposite. Making OAS universal is just stupid and as a result it is given to many who don't really need it. I'm one of them but I'm sure as hell not going to turn it down.

Well, if people have to wait until they are 67 rather than 65 then you are telling many people that they don't need it for those two years.

Some people don't need it. Most people do need it.

But, oh no, heaven forbid if people pay a little bit more in tax over their lifetimes to ensure that people get their OAS at age 65. The sky will fall or something.

Really, tell that to a family with young kids. Depends on what that poor 65 year old is doing plus he is probably making near his maximum lifetime earnings whereas a spouse trying to break back into the labour market will be near the bottom.

A 65 year old is more likely to be facing health issues and finding it harder to stay employed as compared to a young person.

The young person has time to make it up. The old person doesn't.

Edited April 4, 2016 by msj

[PIK]

So JT is getting a raise. Very poor optics.

Edited April 4, 2016 by PIK

[Smallc]

So is Ambrose. It's automatic.

[PIK]

Yes I know, but still poor optics. He should stand up and cancel them.

Edited April 4, 2016 by PIK