Budget Talk

[jbg]

Looks like it's a go, the Bloc is supporting it, very interesting.

What a shock!!! (not really, they need an election like they need a hole in the head or, as my grandmother would say, a "lochenkop").

[BubberMiley]

It seems pretty reasonable to me, but I can't see how the average CPC supporter would like it, what with the spending, spending, spending, and relatively few tax cuts. Clearly, their strategy is to govern on the left until they get their majority, but even with my NDP background, I kind of wince at all that spending.

And given the fact that my cottage has more than quadrupled in value since I bought it, I'm secretly hoping they stick around long enough to make good on their capital gains promise.

[blueblood]

It seems pretty reasonable to me, but I can't see how the average CPC supporter would like it, what with the spending, spending, spending, and relatively few tax cuts. Clearly, their strategy is to govern on the left until they get their majority, but even with my NDP background, I kind of wince at all that spending.

And given the fact that my cottage has more than quadrupled in value since I bought it, I'm secretly hoping they stick around long enough to make good on their capital gains promise.

There are a lot of fringe spending which i'm not a fan of. If your a small business owner I think you can claim up to 750,000 on capital gains exemption and might be in luck.

[Catchme]

The budget sucked, they gave money back to programs they cut, they have teed off NFLDLB and Sask. As well as FN's.

They gave money to Oil and corporations, there is no way there is a 750k earning capital gains for small business.

[blueblood]

The budget sucked, they gave money back to programs they cut, they have teed off NFLDLB and Sask. As well as FN's.

They gave money to Oil and corporations, there is no way there is a 750k earning capital gains for small business.

cbc

In the business tax section it says that small business, farmers, and fishermen get their exemption of capital gains up to 750k.

[scribblet]

I don't have a problem with it; on a personal basis the income splitting and additional exemption will work well for us. I don't like such a large amount going to Quebec but twas ever thus. At some point it has to stop.

It wouldn't mater what Harper did, the hide bound Harper haters wouldn't like it anyway.

[BubberMiley]

the hide bound Harper haters wouldn't like it anyway.

I just said it was pretty reasonable. But I thought they didn't go forward with the income splitting.

[White Doors]

I thought it was nice that they are recognizing families for the value they give society. There were some good equipment tax incentives for manufactureers. Hopefuly this is the last of the 'fiscal imbalance' that we hear about. Overall I give it a 6/10.

Next budget they need to reduce the rates of income tax. substantially.

'nuff said.

[jdobbin]

I thought it was nice that they are recognizing families for the value they give society. There were some good equipment tax incentives for manufactureers. Hopefuly this is the last of the 'fiscal imbalance' that we hear about. Overall I give it a 6/10.

Next budget they need to reduce the rates of income tax. substantially.

'nuff said.

Not nuff said. How about reducing spending like they promised to do? It was listed as a policy in the election.

[jdobbin]

I don't have a problem with it; on a personal basis the income splitting and additional exemption will work well for us. I don't like such a large amount going to Quebec but twas ever thus. At some point it has to stop.

It wouldn't mater what Harper did, the hide bound Harper haters wouldn't like it anyway.

So you're okay with the huge amount of spending for this year and next? I believe it is 9% and 9% again next year.

[White Doors]

I don't have a problem with it; on a personal basis the income splitting and additional exemption will work well for us. I don't like such a large amount going to Quebec but twas ever thus. At some point it has to stop.

It wouldn't mater what Harper did, the hide bound Harper haters wouldn't like it anyway.

So you're okay with the huge amount of spending for this year and next? I believe it is 9% and 9% again next year.

Not spending, increasing the money to the provinces to correct the fiscal imbalance. By not spending it themselves it will help to clear the blur that exists in constitutional boundaries.

The provinces are responsible for infrastructure etc. They can choose not to spend this and instead lower taxes. And they may.

[jdobbin]

Not spending, increasing the money to the provinces to correct the fiscal imbalance. By not spending it themselves it will help to clear the blur that exists in constitutional boundaries.

The provinces are responsible for infrastructure etc. They can choose not to spend this and instead lower taxes. And they may.

It still amounts to an increase of 9% in the federal budget when the Tories said they would hold it to 3%.

[Pat Coghlan]

I just said it was pretty reasonable. But I thought they didn't go forward with the income splitting.

They didn't. Only pension-splitting.

They should have implemented full income-splitting. Actually, US-style joint taxation would be better.

Pension-splitting actually gives an unfair advantage to couples versus singles.

[jdobbin]

They didn't. Only pension-splitting.

They should have implemented full income-splitting. Actually, US-style joint taxation would be better.

Pension-splitting actually gives an unfair advantage to couples versus singles.

Is full income splitting or joint taxation better than the reducing individual tax rates? I'm not convinced it is.

[Pat Coghlan]

They didn't. Only pension-splitting.

They should have implemented full income-splitting. Actually, US-style joint taxation would be better.

Pension-splitting actually gives an unfair advantage to couples versus singles.

Is full income splitting or joint taxation better than the reducing individual tax rates? I'm not convinced it is.

You're implying they are mutually exclusive. They are not.

You can fiddle with tax rates, but this won't address the problem of two families with identical combined incomes having tax liabilities which can differ by as much as $16,000 - yet the fact remains that the government considers both families equally eligible for tax-delivered benefit payments like CTB, GST credits etc.

In the US, they recognize that it isn't fair to give couples tax brackets which are twice as wide as those of singles. This is why there is a separate set of tax brackets for joint filiers, which are 175% (but not twice) as wide as those used by single filers.

In the US, they made a big fuss several years ago over a $1,000 difference (married vs common-law, as I recall). They would be out in the streets with guns if they were subject to Canada's system.

[jdobbin]

You're implying they are mutually exclusive. They are not.

You can fiddle with tax rates, but this won't address the problem of two families with identical combined incomes having tax liabilities which can differ by as much as $16,000 - yet the fact remains that the government considers both families equally eligible for tax-delivered benefit payments like CTB, GST credits etc.

In the US, they recognize that it isn't fair to give couples tax brackets which are twice as wide as those of singles. This is why there is a separate set of tax brackets for joint filiers, which are 175% (but not twice) as wide as those used by single filers.

In the US, they made a big fuss several years ago over a $1,000 difference (married vs common-law, as I recall). They would be out in the streets with guns if they were subject to Canada's system.

You figure they would be out on the streets over a deficit and a shortfall in Social Security but they're not.

My worry is that income splitting precludes tax decreases elsewhere because any country that has attempted to do this has had to reel the program in because it is so expensive.

I think the GST should stay the same or even be raised back up and overall income taxes come down instead.

[Pat Coghlan]

My worry is that income splitting precludes tax decreases elsewhere because any country that has attempted to do this has had to reel the program in because it is so expensive.

Here is a Senate report which provides some estimates ($4-$5B): http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...s/prb0636-e.pdf

This report assumes that couples could simply split incomes. If done properly (wider - but not double - tax brackets for joint filers) the cost would be somewhere in the $3B-$4B range.

Is it right to expect families who, simply because of their uneven income split between the spouses, have to fund an additional $3B worth of tax revenue?

What is the right thing to do here???

[Bakunin]

I think its not a bad budget, its refreshing.

Id like them to spend less, cut the fat, reduce the size of the state alot more then repay the debt faster.

For once, the government will let the province do their job and concentrate on improving their effectivmess.

However, i think their are not doing enough for environment, i afraid of what they could do socially if they have a majority government, im not a social conservativism fan thats why i think a conservative minority government is more likly to behave and concentrate on economic conservativism so im happy they did not fall. After all its too soon to go into election again... lets wait one more year.

[jdobbin]

Here is a Senate report which provides some estimates ($4-$5B): http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...s/prb0636-e.pdf

This report assumes that couples could simply split incomes. If done properly (wider - but not double - tax brackets for joint filers) the cost would be somewhere in the $3B-$4B range.

Is it right to expect families who, simply because of their uneven income split between the spouses, have to fund an additional $3B worth of tax revenue?

What is the right thing to do here???

I have seen that report and the counters to it that state this program has estimates that are far too low in terms of costs.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070130/...ncome_splitting