2013 Federal Budget

[SebC]

Anyone want to talk about it?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-flaherty.html

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled his 2013 budget Thursday. Here is a look at some of the hightlights:

• $900 million in new spending, no new taxes or tax cuts
• $400 million in revenue from closed tax loopholes and enforcement
• Deficit grows to $18.7 billion – up $2.2 billion from November update

[blankall]

As bad as the deficit sounds, I'm okay with it, as long as it is being diverted towards solid investments. The infrastructure payouts to cities is a much better use of funds than previous random doling out of funds.

Edit:

I'll also add that deficit is a function of inflation, population, and GDP.

Canada's population and GDP grow every year. Inflation is about 2%. Add it all up, and an increase in deficit is acceptable.

[SebC]

It's worth noting that the "new" infrastructure fund replaces one that expires in 2014. The new fund provides $1.44B/year compared to $1.26B/year for the old one. That spending increase is only 1% of the deficit.

[Dion]

Tariffs removed on sporting goods

The budget says removing the tariffs "comes with an expectation that wholesalers, distributors and retailers will pass these savings on to consumers. The government, in consultation with the Retail Council of Canada and consumer groups, will monitor the impact of these tariff reductions on Canadian retail prices."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budge...thes-1.1205607

[EddyBeers]

I hope Flaherty continues to tell private businesses how to run their businesses. That is my favourite part of this conservative government, how they step into the market and have the gumption for the government to tell private businesses how to run their business.

[Bunk]

A pretty decent budget for cities and infrastructure investment through Building Canada Fund, Gas Tax now indexed at 2% increase per year (amounts to ~$320 million more for Calgary over the next 10 years) and upping committment to P3 Canada.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bunk

A pretty decent budget for cities and infrastructure investment through Building Canada Fund, Gas Tax now indexed at 2% increase per year (amounts to ~$320 million more for Calgary over the next 10 years) and upping committment to P3 Canada.

Between the provincial and federal budgets what's the net effect for funding for the city?

[GP_Matt]

I like the idea of more money for the cities and the elimination of tax loopholes sounds like a good thing.
What I really like is the seeming lack of targeted tax breaks and credits for random things. That has bugged me in the last few budgets and it appears they have skipped that this year.

The actual year over year increase is about 1% which is less than inflation and population growth. That is effectively a budget reduction which is a nice change for the government.

In the end, I like it more than previous years, but I really didn't like some of the previous ones that the Conservatives put out.

[chemgear]

Lots of info in the link below:

http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndI...s/tnfc1310.htm

[Fire]

Not enough cuts.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

I hope Flaherty continues to tell private businesses how to run their businesses. That is my favourite part of this conservative government, how they step into the market and have the gumption for the government to tell private businesses how to run their business.

The provincial government here in BC has just legislated pharmacy prices. Makes my blood boil. Is this private enterprise or not.


Sorry. Of topic

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Between the provincial and federal budgets what's the net effect for funding for the city?

Still trying to sort out that picture. The Provincial budget didn't really bring much change to grants, they continue to trickle to the cities (MSI and Green TRIP) slower than originally thought. The most interesting thing is what the Province did with the Education Property Tax, which leaves lot of "tax room" the City will take if it sticks with its policy to do so. Previous tax room was taken to create the Community Investment Fund, which is financing much of the 4 new regional rec centres and the new Central Library. Doing it this time would potentially mean a fairly substantial amount for capital projects (like Transit). The City could use it as its matching portion for the new Building Canada progam, or P3 for new infrastructure. Building Canada would require some provincial participation as well.

The Mayor is meeting with the Premier on Friday - she's begun to muse about opening up the conversation about revenue solutions for municipal infrastructure as part of the whole Charter discussions. The Federal stuff is great, but the capital infrastructure funding solutions for cities mostly lies with its fiscal arrangements with the Province.

[mrkajz44]

The era of bizzare tax credits continue. An extra 25% credit is given for anyone giving to charity for the first time since 2007 (only donations after the budget date count). At least I sort of understand the child fitness and arts tax credit (though I hate them), this new credit just seems to boggle the mind. Not sure what this will achieve other than less tax revenue.

Other important individual tax impact was the change in gross up and dividend tax credits for non-eligible dividends. Essentially non-eligible dividends are now taxed at a higher rate, increasing the desire of eligible dividends. For us tax folks, that is very interesting and affects alot of tax planning in the future (though I'm not quite sure the magnitude of the tax rate change)

[Fire]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

The era of bizzare tax credits continue. An extra 25% credit is given for anyone giving to charity for the first time since 2007 (only donations after the budget date count). At least I sort of understand the child fitness and arts tax credit (though I hate them), this new credit just seems to boggle the mind. Not sure what this will achieve other than less tax revenue.

More donations to charities from people who don't normally donate?

[calgarywinning]

I am just glad Mortgage rates weren't dictated in the new federal budget. Now I can afford a home I can't afford.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Fire

More donations to charities from people who don't normally donate?

I don't think anyone is confused on that point. I think the question is, why would the government be creating tax incentives for charitable giving in a deficit budget? I don't think promoting charitable donations is a key element of government operations so why do so at the expense of revenue when you need the revenue?

[Armchair Quarterback]

This budget is a big meh, keeping the status quo. I think that the Conservatives are out of ideas and simply hoping that the economy will recover in time for next election.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

I hope Flaherty continues to tell private businesses how to run their businesses. That is my favourite part of this conservative government, how they step into the market and have the gumption for the government to tell private businesses how to run their business.

The difference is the for the most part the government cares about the whole of the country and its future while a business only cares about its bottom line and quarterly financial statements.

If the Conservatives were truly corrupt they would be promoting a race for the bottom in interest rates to increase home sales and new building and all the new revenue that goes with them. In the very short term it would be good for the Government.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

The era of bizzare tax credits continue. An extra 25% credit is given for anyone giving to charity for the first time since 2007 (only donations after the budget date count). At least I sort of understand the child fitness and arts tax credit (though I hate them), this new credit just seems to boggle the mind. Not sure what this will achieve other than less tax revenue.

Other important individual tax impact was the change in gross up and dividend tax credits for non-eligible dividends. Essentially non-eligible dividends are now taxed at a higher rate, increasing the desire of eligible dividends. For us tax folks, that is very interesting and affects alot of tax planning in the future (though I'm not quite sure the magnitude of the tax rate change)

IMO I think this was done partly to sooth some people that are upset the Government itself has been targeting its "donations" to 3rd world countries which means other countries get less or 0 (I am specifically talking about the shift in funding from Africa (where Canada has very little financial interest) to South America (where Canada is looking to grow its Financial interest).

With this, it allows folks who really care about that issue to direct their own money towards it via charitable organizations who operate there.

Its of course political and band-aid ish but more people donating to charities isnt a bad thing IMO

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

The era of bizzare tax credits continue. An extra 25% credit is given for anyone giving to charity for the first time since 2007 (only donations after the budget date count). At least I sort of understand the child fitness and arts tax credit (though I hate them), this new credit just seems to boggle the mind. Not sure what this will achieve other than less tax revenue.

Other important individual tax impact was the change in gross up and dividend tax credits for non-eligible dividends. Essentially non-eligible dividends are now taxed at a higher rate, increasing the desire of eligible dividends. For us tax folks, that is very interesting and affects alot of tax planning in the future (though I'm not quite sure the magnitude of the tax rate change)

I don't mind this one as much because it has a defined end date. It will go in for a few years to encourage new people to donate money for the first time, but only for their first time.

In Alberta that means that you should get 75% back on your first donation.