The Budget!!

[densa44]

What do you think folks? Is isn't about any of the stuff you hear on the news it is about getting the Libs re-elected! BTW getting re-elected is the purpose of every politician and political party.

At the next election the Libs have to hang onto the seats that they have and add about 10. If they poach the 10 from the NDP that will do it.

The UPC lead by PP have got to win enough seats (168 I think) to win a majority because there is no other party that wants to form a government with them. They need to be able to convert JT low standing in the polls to a majority win.

Tactically the Libs have a big advantage, they are the government, if they can get both the NDP and the UCP to vote against the budget they have "won" the first round.

We will soon know, it will be great if anyone here gets one of those "carbon tax" checks lets us know, when and how much.

Interesting times, my offer of $100 to anyone's campaign, any party, if they run in the next election. We need new politicians and lots of you people would be great!

[britman101]

In an ideal world, it would make sense to have candidates running in an election regardless of their wealth, and work background. However, in Canada it does not work that way which unfortunately gives us the political landscape we have today. An interesting glimpse as to one's person view as to what her political experience was when she ran in a federal election:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costoflivin...time-1.5323781

[dmcbride]

Inflation will not be going down and Canada’s productivity will continue to decline with this budget. Throwing money on the inflationary fire and taxing the rich doesn’t work. It is clearly a vote buying budget at the expense of Canada. The NDP won’t be voting against this budget, they don’t want an election and the liberals don’t either. The conservatives would win a super majority if an election was held today.

[CanuckShooter]

A tiny little change to the capital gains isn't what I'd call taxing the rich.

I always wondered why they don't tax capital gains at 100% the same as interest or wages. The claiming 50% of your gains for taxes is really a tax break for the rich isn't it? Same with the dividend tax credit, flow through shares etc etc etc.

Personally I don't think the rich need tax breaks, the working poor are the ones that could use tax relief.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

A tiny little change to the capital gains isn't what I'd call taxing the rich.

I always wondered why they don't tax capital gains at 100% the same as interest or wages. The claiming 50% of your gains for taxes is really a tax break for the rich isn't it? Same with the dividend tax credit, flow through shares etc etc etc.

Personally I don't think the rich need tax breaks, the working poor are the ones that could use tax relief.

It's quite significant. Here is the scenario, your grandpa bought some farm land in 1952 for $25k, he passed it to your dad. Your dad passes away, you inherit the land, now worth $2M, and the government says you owe taxes on $1.975M at 100%, lets say 40% tax rate, $790,000 in taxes. You wanted to keep the land, as it had been in your family for generations, but don't have the cash and have to sell. Same kind of thing with typical 1980's 1,200 sq. ft. homes in Vancouver/Toronto worth millions. That seems reasonable to you?

[DRhunter]

Originally Posted by Trochu

It's quite significant. Here is the scenario, your grandpa bought some farm land in 1952 for $25k, he passed it to your dad. Your dad passes away, you inherit the land, now worth $2M, and the government says you owe taxes on $1.975M at 100%, lets say 40% tax rate, $790,000 in taxes. You wanted to keep the land, as it had been in your family for generations, but don't have the cash and have to sell. Same kind of thing with typical 1980's 1,200 sq. ft. homes in Vancouver/Toronto worth millions. That seems reasonable to you?

Qualified Farmland is a bad example given there is a $1.25 million capital gains exemption (up from the current $1.0 million CGE), but certainly the example of the houses makes sense.

Ultimately, higher tax rates reduce investment. At a time where the productivity of Canadians is decreasing combined with fleeing investment to friendlier tax jurisdictions, adding higher taxes to those that are willing to invest and create jobs/wealth in this country is not ideal.

From a high level look at this budget, it is primarily focused on housing. Typical government, create a crisis and then attempt to look like a Saviour to the problems they created.

DR

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Trochu

It's quite significant. Here is the scenario, your grandpa bought some farm land in 1952 for $25k, he passed it to your dad. Your dad passes away, you inherit the land, now worth $2M, and the government says you owe taxes on $1.975M at 100%, lets say 40% tax rate, $790,000 in taxes. You wanted to keep the land, as it had been in your family for generations, but don't have the cash and have to sell. Same kind of thing with typical 1980's 1,200 sq. ft. homes in Vancouver/Toronto worth millions. That seems reasonable to you?

s. If you decide
to sell your farm, you may be able to take advantage of the lifetime
capital gain exemption. This exemption allows you to receive up to
$813,600 (for 2015, indexed thereafter) of your capital gain tax free*.
Assuming a marginal tax rate of 45%, this could result in tax savings
of $183,000.


Other than that it's an asset, why should wages be fully taxed but capital gains get a bye? I get that it would hurt but they wouldn't be in that situation if the value hadn't gone up so much.

[Cement Bench]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

s. If you decide
to sell your farm, you may be able to take advantage of the lifetime
capital gain exemption. This exemption allows you to receive up to
$813,600 (for 2015, indexed thereafter) of your capital gain tax free*.
Assuming a marginal tax rate of 45%, this could result in tax savings
of $183,000.


Other than that it's an asset, why should wages be fully taxed but capital gains get a bye? I get that it would hurt but they wouldn't be in that situation if the value hadn't gone up so much.

do you know what section of the tax act it is specifically

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

If you decide to sell your farm, you may be able to take advantage of the lifetime capital gain exemption. This exemption allows you to receive up to $813,600 (for 2015, indexed thereafter) of your capital gain tax free*.

Assuming a marginal tax rate of 45%, this could result in tax savings
of $183,000.


Other than that it's an asset, why should wages be fully taxed but capital gains get a bye? I get that it would hurt but they wouldn't be in that situation if the value hadn't gone up so much.

I'm not talking about selling it, I'm talking about an asset being passed down. CanuckShooter can't keep the family farm because it was bought for $20k in 1915 and now the government says it's worth $6M, you own $2.4M in taxes please.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Trochu

It's quite significant. Here is the scenario, your grandpa bought some farm land in 1952 for $25k, he passed it to your dad. Your dad passes away, you inherit the land, now worth $2M, and the government says you owe taxes on $1.975M at 100%, lets say 40% tax rate, $790,000 in taxes. You wanted to keep the land, as it had been in your family for generations, but don't have the cash and have to sell. Same kind of thing with typical 1980's 1,200 sq. ft. homes in Vancouver/Toronto worth millions. That seems reasonable to you?

There isn't capital gains to be paid on your example of the increase in price of that 1980's home if it was a principal residence.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Scott h

There isn't capital gains to be paid on your example of the increase in price of that 1980's home if it was a principal residence.

He said it was farm land, second sentence.

[JB_AOL]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

A tiny little change to the capital gains isn't what I'd call taxing the rich.

I always wondered why they don't tax capital gains at 100% the same as interest or wages. The claiming 50% of your gains for taxes is really a tax break for the rich isn't it? Same with the dividend tax credit, flow through shares etc etc etc.

Personally I don't think the rich need tax breaks, the working poor are the ones that could use tax relief.

In theory, yes.. the lower classes are the one that need breaks, in reality, the rich are the ones that usually own businesses (where the poor work), buy new houses/toys/etc that keep the economy going. Tax the rich and they have the ability (and money) to move to different markets/places or even just move. So that "rich" money is now gone, and so are the jobs/businesses that the rich money supported.

And actually, the poor are getting alot of the breaks.
Free dental care, free pharmaceuticals, free school lunches, cheap daycare, shall I go on.. although I use the term "free" sarcasticly.. essentially JT is going after the "uninformed/uneducated" for votes, hoping they're dumb enough to not see the real issue.


The

[Talleyrandophile]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

A tiny little change to the capital gains isn't what I'd call taxing the rich.

I always wondered why they don't tax capital gains at 100% the same as interest or wages. The claiming 50% of your gains for taxes is really a tax break for the rich isn't it? Same with the dividend tax credit, flow through shares etc etc etc.

Personally I don't think the rich need tax breaks, the working poor are the ones that could use tax relief.

A couple of things:

- I think, as a general policy, we want to encourage capital investment. Why would you risk your money as an investor if you're going to be taxed the same as just working for it as an employee with significantly lower risk profile?

- With this threshold it's going to hit a lot of doctors, lawyers etc. who use professional corps - while this may seem like "taxing the rich", these are people who work for a living, not the Galen Westons of the world.

- This is going to serve as an ad hoc inheritance tax. You may not have over $250,000 of capital gains in life, but your estate may on death.

Regardless of whether this or any of the other budget changes have the desired effect, I'm not in favour of giving this government any more money to spend on filling the country full of "students" and dumping all over the West.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Talleyrandophile

A couple of things:

- I think, as a general policy, we want to encourage capital investment. Why would you risk your money as an investor if you're going to be taxed the same as just working for it as an employee with significantly lower risk profile?

- With this threshold it's going to hit a lot of doctors, lawyers etc. who use professional corps - while this may seem like "taxing the rich", these are people who work for a living, not the Galen Westons of the world.

- This is going to serve as an ad hoc inheritance tax. You may not have over $250,000 of capital gains in life, but your estate may on death.

Regardless of whether this or any of the other budget changes have the desired effect, I'm not in favour of giving this government any more money to spend on filling the country full of "students" and dumping all over the West.

You make it sound like [highlighted] working is just a walk down the garden path. A lot of people work their tails off in all kinds of weather and in pretty crappy conditions, just to make that paycheck. They spend years away from their families and put their health and life at risk in some instances. I personally think people that actually work to make money deserve to keep more of it than the investors that only put their spare cash at risk in the stock market, or buy a rental unit where inflation makes it's value go up tenfold.

[Talleyrandophile]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

You make it sound like [highlighted] working is just a walk down the garden path. A lot of people work their tails off in all kinds of weather and in pretty crappy conditions, just to make that paycheck. They spend years away from their families and put their health and life at risk in some instances. I personally think people that actually work to make money deserve to keep more of it than the investors that only put their spare cash at risk in the stock market, or buy a rental unit where inflation makes it's value go up tenfold.

I don't disagree, Canuck. However, I think we're confusing a couple of different types of risk here. I'm talking strictly about compensation - payroll is a priority for any well-run business/investment, so employees still get paid even if things take a turn for the worse (with some exceptions, obviously). Whereas the investor will take a haircut the moment that happens. How many small business owners do you know that earn less than their higher-paid employees or are the first to take a pay cut when things go poorly? I know I know several.

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

You make it sound like [highlighted] working is just a walk down the garden path. A lot of people work their tails off in all kinds of weather and in pretty crappy conditions, just to make that paycheck. They spend years away from their families and put their health and life at risk in some instances. I personally think people that actually work to make money deserve to keep more of it than the investors that only put their spare cash at risk in the stock market, or buy a rental unit where inflation makes it's value go up tenfold.

If business isn't going well, the owner doesn't make any money, but they still have to pay the worker.
Employees all want a bigger share of the profits, but they shoulder none of the risks.

[flydude]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

A tiny little change to the capital gains isn't what I'd call taxing the rich.

I always wondered why they don't tax capital gains at 100% the same as interest or wages. The claiming 50% of your gains for taxes is really a tax break for the rich isn't it? Same with the dividend tax credit, flow through shares etc etc etc.

Personally I don't think the rich need tax breaks, the working poor are the ones that could use tax relief.

With the dividend tax credit the dividends that are distributed to shareholders have already been taxed at the corporation's level so really the shareholder is getting their dividend via the corporation's after-tax profit. Not everyone that own dividend stocks are rich either.

[2 Tollers]

On the --- "Personally I don't think the rich need tax breaks, the working poor are the ones that could use tax relief." --- the best break would be to raise the the personal excemption tax threshold for people making less than what is considered minimum income level in Canada. If you make less than $30,000 a year you pay zero federal tax.

This concept is mind numbing to a government wanting to keep their fingers in everyones pockets.

On densa's hopes for a return of a Liberal government --- I do think the Canadian voter has smarten up to the Sunny Ways - Sunny Days --- the anger on the street to the Liberals / NDP is significant and cannot be bought off. More and more media is coming out calling out the problems created by this coalition of weasels.

Not the tame and bought press gallery but the opinion pieces and social media are getting more and more like watching Rocky's body blows.

[Grizzly Adams1]

According to Friedland, opponents don't understand Economics.

[densa44]

I see them all as pretty much the same. Once they get in power they can't let go! The budget IMO has nothing to do with running the country better but what they think will get the Libs re-elected. They have been very good at this over the last 100 years.

Is there a strategy that youcan think of that will help PP win the next election?

[Sundog57]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

A tiny little change to the capital gains isn't what I'd call taxing the rich.

I always wondered why they don't tax capital gains at 100% the same as interest or wages. The claiming 50% of your gains for taxes is really a tax break for the rich isn't it? Same with the dividend tax credit, flow through shares etc etc etc.

Personally I don't think the rich need tax breaks, the working poor are the ones that could use tax relief.

Capital gains were taxed a 50% for two reasons.
1. When you buy something which appreciates, a significant part of the appreciation typically comes as a result of inflation as result of bad government management.
2. The idea is to encourage investment - that is to put up and risk your money with no certainly of any return or even a return of your investment so that companies can use that money to buy things like new equipment, to hire more people and in general to help to increase economic activity. This is vastly different than say going to work every day, putting your own labour but nothing else on the line and earning a wage for your services.

Increasing the capital gains tax is a disincentive to investment.
It is also a boot to the shorts of anyone who is self employed and has hoped to see their retirement funded by the sale of shares in the company that they have founded.
This would be folks who have busted their backsides for years for sometimes no pay at all and certainly no consideration of anything like overtime, paid corporate and personal income taxes, hired and paid people like you and hoped to retire on the sale of the shares in the company that they founded and shepherded through the years.
Why would anybody bother
In the Jagmeet/Clown Prince world the correct answer is to get a safe government job, put in your time and retire with a fully indexed pension.

As for the dividend tax credit... Dividends are paid out of tax paid income That is the corporation paying the dividends has already paid something to the tune of 30 to 40% on the income. The dividend tax credit adjusts the tax payable on dividends received so that the original income is not double taxed - for sake of argument, a company pays 40% on the original dollar earned. that leaves $.60 to pay a dividend. if that is then taxed at a further 40% that would leave $ .36 of the original dollar with the government having taken $.64. The dividend tax credit reduces the second layer of tax on the original dollar to a level that is closer to the maximum personal income tax rate.

[flydude]

Originally Posted by Sundog57

In the Jagmeet/Clown Prince world the correct answer is to get a safe government job, put in your time and retire with a fully indexed pension.

You forgot the requirement while in power to practice nepotism in hiring so as to produce a long line of family wealth and power.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

A tiny little change to the capital gains isn't what I'd call taxing the rich.



I always wondered why they don't tax capital gains at 100% the same as interest or wages. The claiming 50% of your gains for taxes is really a tax break for the rich isn't it? Same with the dividend tax credit, flow through shares etc etc etc.



Personally I don't think the rich need tax breaks, the working poor are the ones that could use tax relief.

A little change...no biggie....eat the rich. Other posters addressed your line of thought adequately so I won't bother, but I will say that it is exactly your kind of low-information and limited understanding thinking that this budget was intended to appeal to. And it worked. Don't let the evidence of your own eyes and wallet get in the way of buying the magic beans. At what point are things bad enough that you realize the cycle of taxing and spending and taxing and spending and taxing and taxing and taxing is the problem, not the solution?

Sent from my SM-G990W2 using Tapatalk

[Bigwoodsman]

It's going to cost 54 Billion Dollars to service the debt this year. That is more money than all of the GST collected in this country, and that is a tax on a tax on a tax.

Think about that for a second.

I'm pretty confident that millenials Gen Z whatevers will see through this Liberal BS. IF they don't well we were screwed before and nothing will even begin to change.

BW

[pikergolf]

Densa44 I am guessing you are an ex teacher?

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman

It's going to cost 54 Billion Dollars to service the debt this year. That is more money than all of the GST collected in this country, and that is a tax on a tax on a tax.

Think about that for a second.

I'm pretty confident that millenials Gen Z whatevers will see through this Liberal BS. IF they don't well we were screwed before and nothing will even begin to change.

BW

This is a Hail Mary “budget” for them. They’ve had how many years to try to address the challenges young people face? If polls are any indicator, they do see through it, and will vote accordingly. Drop the writ already…

[Armorman]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

......The conservatives would win a super majority if an election was held today.

You have much more faith in the average dumb Canadian than I do. Plus I don't believe the marxists will relinquish their power so easily. You can anticipate trickery and crookedness from their side going into the elections.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

You know it's a bad idea when
https://financialpost.com/personal-f...gains-tax-hike
Bill Morneau says hiking the capital gains tax will stunt Canada’s economic growth.

ARG

[densa44]

has an IQ of less than 100 and they all vote. Armorman may be on to something. The the members who said that they will do anything to stay in power are of course correct. Just what are they offering and to whom? As I have said they need to hold on to the seats that they have, not a sure thing by a long shot and get 10 more, the 10 can come from anywhere, the Bloc or the NDP are the most likely.

Are there enough devote Muslims for this to help the Libs? If there is nothing wrong with the idea, will PP follow suit?

If the Libs move up in the polls we may have an election sooner than later.

[Outbound]

Originally Posted by densa44

What do you think folks? Is isn't about any of the stuff you hear on the news it is about getting the Libs re-elected! BTW getting re-elected is the purpose of every politician and political party.

At the next election the Libs have to hang onto the seats that they have and add about 10. If they poach the 10 from the NDP that will do it.

The UPC lead by PP have got to win enough seats (168 I think) to win a majority because there is no other party that wants to form a government with them. They need to be able to convert JT low standing in the polls to a majority win.

Tactically the Libs have a big advantage, they are the government, if they can get both the NDP and the UCP to vote against the budget they have "won" the first round.

We will soon know, it will be great if anyone here gets one of those "carbon tax" checks lets us know, when and how much.

Interesting times, my offer of $100 to anyone's campaign, any party, if they run in the next election. We need new politicians and lots of you people would be great!

Who are the UPC? The UCP are not lead by PP.

Perhaps you're thinking of the CPC?

UCP - United Conservative Party, Alberta's provincial conservative party, lead bu Danielle Smith.

CPC - Conservative Party of Canada, federal conservative party, led by Pierre Pollieve.