Quote:
Originally Posted by MrCallahan
Can someone help explain why abolishing the TSFA increase is a bad thing? everyone say it does nothing but help the rich, and doesn't help lower-middle class. I can see how it can help the more wealthy, by increasing their tax-free shelter. But why can't everyone take advantage of that?? for people that could be putting a few hundred per month in an mutual fund, why not move it into the TSFA? that way they won't get taxed on their gains during growth periods if they decide to pull out money?
I'm not a pro when it comes to the finance or the political world, so trying to wrap my head around that one stance that everyone except the conservatives seem to be against.
|
You're going to get better answers than this but in my opinion, the 40k that can be sheltered in a tfsa at this point is peanuts for actual rich people. It amounts to the interest on the pocket change some people carry around. There are bigger fish to fry for rich folk.
The people who do benefit are mostly middle class and it is in my opinion a very very smart thing to encourage people to save after tax money. While having a tfsa doesn't effect your government benefits (you still get ei, oas, cpp), a population that has more wealth will ultimately reduce liabilities on the public purse. Will it compensate for the billion plus in lost tax revenue over ten years? I have no idea.
People who have money to invest will obviously benefit from a tfsa more than those who don't. However, if you have an extra $100 at the end of the year, the proportional benefit is still there for you. This is exactly how first generational wealth is created. All the dummies whining about this being a break for rich people are absolutely missing the point. This is how people get rich, especially in a society where we have been encouraged to do nothing but spend as fast as humanly possible.