Federal Budget 2016: $29B Deficit

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle29359040/



Is this the part that has changed for you ?

Yes sir, right in the nuts.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Yes sir, right in the nuts.

Think about it more as though you've adopted a teacher!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Of course you can be disappointed.

Given everything that was proudly said about removing tax breaks etc. by the Liberals, you shouldn't be surprised if you voted for them and then get affected by it. You elected a socialist policy.

I think a lot of people here really need to take a course on what socialism actually is. I'd even let peter12 teach it. For all of his conservative, Christian bias, the dude at least gets theory.

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Yes sir, right in the nuts.

At least it wasn't the rumoured minimum employee requirement like they have in Quebec .... less than 3 employees, no PC for you, although I could see this coming in the future.

Edit: Sorry, that was the provincial NDP. Don't know if the Feds have the jurisdiction to do that.

[Azure]

Again, no problem with the deficit. Just think they should have a breakdown of where the money is going down to the penny almost.

Especially given how much is being given to First Nations communities.

[You Need a Thneed]

I'm trying to figure out where the budget changes leave me on the whole.

Income splitting - big net loss
Lower middle-class-tax rate - gain some of income splitting loss back
Replacement of UCCB etc - the calculator shows I should get a little bit more monthly, biggest gain might be that amount is non-taxable, where UCCB was taxable previously. This should increase the basic personal amount I can transfer from my wife.

A rough guess places me right around breaking even with the changes.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yes, Post-Secondary.

I've actually read the tax-related portions of the budget. You ever read a Federal budget? Like actually read it? I want to scrub my eyeballs with steel wool.

Anyways the coles notes of it is that there are 3 tax credits involved when claiming post-secondary education.

- Tuition - For what you pay
- Education - A set amount per month full/part time
- Textbook - Same, a set amount per month full/part time

It appears that they're leaving the Tuition credit alone but eliminating the other two. They claim to be doing this in exchange for 'more scholarships and grants and easier access to them.'

Good luck with that.

This is what you call 'stealing from many to benefit a few'.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, no problem with the deficit. Just think they should have a breakdown of where the money is going down to the penny almost.

Especially given how much is being given to First Nations communities.

Given many FN chiefs were fiercely opposed to being forced to account for what they received, and given Trudeau campaigned on removing the rules that intended to hold them accountable, I think we all know this is unlikely.

[EldrickOnIce]

When you are throwing hundreds out the window like they are in certain circumstances, why would you take from post secondary education?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given many FN chiefs were fiercely opposed to being forced to account for what they received, and given Trudeau campaigned on removing the rules that intended to hold them accountable, I think we all know this is unlikely.

I think you're mischaracterizing their positions. I'm sure some would like no accountability at all, but their concern is Federal Government taking precedent over their finances. Their position is simply that they should be making that law, not the federal government.

I actually don't mind the idea of federal oversight, but I understand the concern about precedent on their side. They fought hard for autonomy, and don't want to see it slide away.

Either way, oversight and transparency are hallmarks of effective government and should be required

[Coach]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Of course you can be disappointed.

Given everything that was proudly said about removing tax breaks etc. by the Liberals, you shouldn't be surprised if you voted for them and then get affected by it. You elected a socialist policy.

I have no problem with socialist policy, as evident by my dissapointment in taking money away from students for post-secondary.

I'm no longer a student. Actually I'm currently paying down student debt so some of this may actually help me. Its the allocation that bothers me, not the taxation in general.

[pria(kin)16]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given many FN chiefs were fiercely opposed to being forced to account for what they received, and given Trudeau campaigned on removing the rules that intended to hold them accountable, I think we all know this is unlikely.

Already happened

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ansparency-law

The federal Liberal government showed more solidarity with Canada’s First Nations on Friday as it lifted sanctions against indigenous communities that have not complied with a Conservative spending-transparency law.

Under the Act, First Nations are required to publicly disclose audited financial statements and information about the salaries and expenses of chiefs and councillors.

[2Stonedbirds]

Nm

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you're mischaracterizing their positions. I'm sure some would like no accountability at all, but their concern is Federal Government taking precedent over their finances. Their position is simply that they should be making that law, not the federal government.

I actually don't mind the idea of federal oversight, but I understand the concern about precedent on their side. They fought hard for autonomy, and don't want to see it slide away.

Either way, oversight and transparency are hallmarks of effective government and should be required

It was more than just that....not all of FN income is from the goverment...they are also a kind of a private business (accountable to their members) ... that financial information is none of the government's business.

But it's black and white in liberal/conservative land, cons took it too far and the liberals just wiped it out altogether , once again we have politicians who just can't find a gawd dam middle ground.

That being said if you receive tax payers money you are accountable to the tax payers

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you're mischaracterizing their positions. I'm sure some would like no accountability at all, but their concern is Federal Government taking precedent over their finances. Their position is simply that they should be making that law, not the federal government.

I actually don't mind the idea of federal oversight, but I understand the concern about precedent on their side. They fought hard for autonomy, and don't want to see it slide away.

Either way, oversight and transparency are hallmarks of effective government and should be required

by autonomy, I assume you don't mean financially

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It was more than just that....not all of FN income is from the goverment...they are also a kind of a private business (accountable to their members) ... that financial information is none of the government's business.

But it's black and white in liberal/conservative land, cons took it too far and the liberals just wiped it out altogether , once again we have politicians who just can't find a gawd dam middle ground.

That being said if you receive tax payers money you are accountable to the tax payers

Every organization that receives public funding has to be completely accountable for it. Except, apparently FNs.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

At least it wasn't the rumoured minimum employee requirement like they have in Quebec .... less than 3 employees, no PC for you, although I could see this coming in the future.

Edit: Sorry, that was the provincial NDP. Don't know if the Feds have the jurisdiction to do that.

Its comming

Business Tax Measures
Reviewing the Tax System

In the coming year, the government will undertake a review of the tax system to determine whether it works well for Canadians, with a view to eliminating poorly targeted and inefficient tax measures. In particular, the government is concerned with “the ability of high net worth individuals to use private corporations to inappropriately reduce or defer tax.”

http://www.pwc.com/ca/en/services/ta...6/federal.html

[pria(kin)16]

At least there was some humour out of all the gloom and doom from yesterday, love the CBC's hard hitting journalism.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/baby...very-1.3502944

A babbling baby briefly halted Finance Minister Bill Morneau as he was delivering his first federal budget in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Although precisely what the baby was babbling about is hard to make out, it sounded like "no, no, no" over and over. All this while Morneau spoke about the middle class and restoring "prosperity and optimism" with the budget.

At first, Morneau tried to power through the baby's babbles. But it wasn't long before there was laughter, heckling and some disapproving glares from a few MPs seated behind the finance minister. Morneau cracked a smile and stopped the budget speech to have a sip of water.

It wasn't the first baby noises of the day — shrieks and squeals could also be heard during question period. The culprit may very well be baby Daphnée, the daughter of NDP MP Christine Moore.

I'm all for modernizing the House as an institution and making things better from a family balance perspective, but maybe when the budget is being tabled or during question period it should be a grownups only (using that term loosely) policy in the chamber.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Lower middle-class-tax rate - gain some of income splitting loss back

The 1.5% decrease applies to income between $45k and $90k correct? According to my math, that's a pretty meager $675 a year...

[polak]

With all this talk you'd think they would present their plan for marijuana legalization and the revenue from that?