2013 Federal Budget

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thats exactly it. By the time the next election rolls around they hope to have a thin edge of a surplus to sell to Canadians. If they dont they will be pushed to Minority gov at the best or Official Opposition at the worst.

To be honest I am surprised they didnt raise personal income tax levels on at least the top tier to aid in balancing the budget.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I actually think minority is best case scenario either way for the CPC in 2015. Considering their poll numbers at present are in the high 20's/low 30s, they'll need a massive turnaround by 2015 to avoid not losing the election straight up, so to me a majority is probably a pipe dream.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

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

People who care that much about charitable issues probably have donated some money within the last 5 years.

[mykalberta]

I still dont think the NDP can form a majority unless there is a severe Liberal collapse but who knows. IF the CPC can balance the budget I think they will get majority again.

For me poll numbers when no one is seriously talking politics dont mean much. Remember, the CPC only need 38% +/- a few pts to form a majority if other factors are still in play and the electoral map doesnt change much between now and the next election.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I actually think minority is best case scenario either way for the CPC in 2015. Considering their poll numbers at present are in the high 20's/low 30s, they'll need a massive turnaround by 2015 to avoid not losing the election straight up, so to me a majority is probably a pipe dream.

No they wouldn't....at least based on current numbers.

Its a honeymoon period right now with Trudeau and the Liberals, but I have little doubt he will skewer them right back to Ignatieff or lower levels once the rubber hits the road unless he does a massive about face and starts to actually "lead" a party instead of spewing nothing but divisive comments.

Even if his numbers dont go down, his fight will be in Quebec against not only the NDP who they still trail, but a renewed BQ party who are 3 points behind. Again we will see a huge split vote there, and unless a patsy leader can convince the majority of Ontario he is a better choice than Harper....at the very least the CPC wins an easy minority and quite possibly squeeks out another majority.

I think the single biggest weapon the CPC has right now is Trudeau himself. No question he best start getting prepared for what will be coming from both the CPC and maybe even more intensely from the NDP as they are not going to want to see their power base taken away from them.

This is all subject to change of course depending on what happens economically and the liklihood of some sort of scandal among the CPC (they have all had them in recent majorities...sigh) but right now the CPC braintrust has to be absolutely loving what they are seeing.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

People who care that much about charitable issues probably have donated some money within the last 5 years.

You are probably right. By "soothe" some people I meant they can use it as a talking point to refute their directed funding approach when they are attacked on it.

The Official Opposition has positioned itself on the other side of the fence on this point so in an election, it would be used to show the difference between the "cold hearted" CPC vs the "warm and friendly" NDP.

The CPC can then say that they were encouraging Canadians to give to whatever charities they wanted.

[AR_Six]

There is just no real information in here. I expect once the proposed legislation comes out we will see a lot more of how they're trying to accomplish the things they say they're going to accomplish. I am very concerned that the anti-avoidance measures for corporate loss trading and the "synthetic disposition" rule (which is apparently supposed to target swaps) will end up being vaguely worded and catch more than they say they're trying to catch.

Basically this budget has created strong potential for a massive ####storm in a couple of months.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

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.

I guess this is my issue. Donations (over the first $200) already get a 50% tax break, which is greater than any other possible credit or deduction. Why increase it even more?

I suspect this will impact a fraction of the population though, even if you made a $20 Movemeber donation three years ago you don't qualify. I just can't really figure out the reasoning behind it other than "look! another tax break! We are lowering taxes!" when they really are not.

[Violator]

I'm confused on the trades part so if you go to school for a trade you get 5000 or do you have to already be working for a company?

[squiggs96]

The budget is going to give me a lot more free time at work. With the trust losses and tax losses having their loopholes shut down, the 10/8 arrangements stopped without grandfathering and the leveraged insured annuities being removed (although grandfathering is allowed), I have to figure out new things to do at work. Some of it will be covered by me looking more into the integration rules, as they moved too far away from the benefit for corporations that qualify for the SBD for earnings under $500,000. The big hike in LRIP dividends will likely mean dividends will be paid this year in December instead of in January.

Some fun facts from the budget:
-The top 20% of income tax filers for the 2011 year paid 75% of all income taxes
-The top 1% paid 10.6% in taxes
-Sports equipment tariffs will be eliminated on April 1st, and the government will be watching to ensure these savings are passed on to the end consumers.

[Bunk]

Cheaper hockey gear, but more expensive everything else. Brilliant.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/hocke...-gap-1.1207080

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

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?

There are charitable operations that are funded (directly or indirectly) by governments at all 3 levels, because they produce positive outcomes. By encouraging people to donate, they are further increasing these positive outcomes without paying the full cost out of their pocket.

[SebC]

Andrew Coyne "decodes" the budget (National Post)

Over the years we’ve grown used to seeing finance ministers shuffle spending forward and back in time, or claim that a spending program is really a tax cut, or re-announce old programs as if they were new. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a budget quite so opaque as this one.

It isn’t just the many significant details it omits — for example, the content of the government’s spending plans. It’s that what is included is so maddeningly misleading, not to say vexingly vague.


The sheer emptiness of the budget, indeed, led many reporters to assume there was nothing in it. We should have known. This government has a peculiar gift for understatement. When it wants to claim credit for something, it is careful to call attention to it in the best way it knows how: by leaking it to a member of the press. But when it has something controversial to announce, it whispers it in Swahili at the bottom of a well.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I still dont think the NDP can form a majority unless there is a severe Liberal collapse but who knows. IF the CPC can balance the budget I think they will get majority again.

For me poll numbers when no one is seriously talking politics dont mean much. Remember, the CPC only need 38% +/- a few pts to form a majority if other factors are still in play and the electoral map doesnt change much between now and the next election.

Even if the Liberals don't do well, there's no way the NDP could make a majority. The seats just aren't there and they're already losing popularity. Mulcair is no Layton, and the luster is off in much of Quebec and some will head back to the BQ. The prairies will never vote NDP.

It actually might be the perfect storm for the CPC, but my money is on another conservative lead minority government with the NDP and BQ taking a good portion (or at least enough) of the seats that the Liberals have a shot at, and ruining their chances at forming a government. NDP will lose a few, CPC will lose a few more than that, BQ will gain a few, and Libs will obviously gain many, but not nearly enough. They will need more than one election to get back into the game.

The more interesting question might be will the Libs gain enough to become the official opposition again?

[Devils'Advocate]

Since this thread is slowing down (or never really got started) I have a questions.

There was word on the budget of going after sick leave for federal employees:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...-benefits.html

Currently I get 15 days per year, but that includes time off to see doctors and dentists. I'm rarely ever sick (knock on wood), so I use more days with doctors and dental appointments than actual sick days. So typically I'll use 4 days sick time over the course of a year. The 11 left over go into my bank for the next year. I currently have 170 days of sick leave. It does irritate the hell out of me seeing the 1% of the federal workforce that abuse the system and call in for "mental health days" regularly and blow their sick bank. And also there is the other small percentage that are sitting on a bank similar to mine with 6 months to go before retirement that go to a buddy who is a psychiatrist that gives them a note saying they should go on stress leave. But I think there are better ways of doing this than overhauling the system and taking away the benefits from those that DON'T abuse the system. I see my 170 days as insurance against catastrophic health problems, such as if I was diagnosed with cancer... that gives me 34 weeks off work at full pay should something horrendous happen.

So my question is - what do you actually think is fair for an employer when it comes to sick leave? Often I read in threads that "If you are sick STAY HOME". I know many private sector companies down the in the U.S. where if you call in sick, you just don't get paid for that day, so you do end up with people sick as heck showing up to the office. There has to be a better way.

[GP_Matt]

My company gives 6 sick days a year that are gone if unused on Dec 31st. I thought that was a bit much and have been pushing for them to change it to something like 4 personal days. We also have short and long term disability which I think is the more appropriate to deal with a catastrophic illness. There is an arguement that long term disability is not enough money, 60% of salary I think, but the solution should be finding a way to top up LTD instead of caching sick days.

As a healthy employee though I have a hard time hearing about 15 sick days a year for a normal healthy employee. Most people I work with might call in sick once or twice a year. We can't use the time for appointments either and have to make up the hours if we leave the office during the day.

[albertGQ]

We get six sick days a year. I don't use them for when I'm sick though. Only when my kids are sick or our sitter bails. Six days a year is not enough for me.

[Devils'Advocate]

So what happens when you hit that 7th day and physically, you are so sick you can't get into the office? Do you just not get paid for that day? If that's the case, particularly in January, I'd be showing up to work sick since I don't know if I'm going to have even worse days later in the year.

[Rathji]

We get 10 sick days a year and are encouraged to use them if our kids are sick. I have had 8-10 days a year that I have used, guessing that half are due to kids.

Interestingly enough, since I finished school and have been getting enough sleep, I have no sick days due to me being sick, just my kids.

[albertGQ]

Yeah, that 7th sick day would be unpaid.