Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[Kjesse]

If someone could provide sample calculations before and after that would be very helpful. Does the increase in payments get wiped out by the removal of the tax credit at all income brackets? If so I think it was a bit of smoke and mirrors. In any event the increase combined with the other money the conservatives are handing out are typical election year moves. I'm not impressed, but I'll still be voting for them. I would have preferred Harper step down and let some new blood in I'm tired of his leadership.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ok. Share the facts then. Show me the math and let me decide for myself.

Let's use a person with an income of $50,000 as an example with one child. The increase to the UCCB is $720 annually. In Alberta, that person's effective rate is 18.7% - they're paying $9,350 in income tax.

At a rate of 18.7%, you keep $513.36 of the UCCB. The tax credit that is eliminated was worth $337.50.

Final net gain: $175.86

But also consider:

1. The doubling of the fitness expense limit to $1000 is worth $75.
2. If you spend enough in child care expenses ($5000 for a kid aged 7 to 16), that is worth $187.

So you're up at least $175.86, and maybe as much as $437.86, just on those changes.

As your marginal rate increases, the advantage of the UCCB over the old credit shrinks. No one has an effective rate of the full 39%, but if you did, you would be up $101.70 over the old system, not taking into account those other changes I noted above.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The math is really simple. What income do you want to use as a test case? Say $50,000 in Alberta. Your effective rate is 32%. After taxes, the UCCB provides you with $489.60. The tax credit that is eliminated was worth $337.50. You're ahead by $152.10 compared to the old system. But also consider:

1. The doubling of the fitness expense limit to $1000 is worth $75.
2. If you spend enough in child care expenses ($5000 for a kid aged 7 to 16), that is worth $320.

So you're up at least $152.10, and maybe as much as $547 just on those changes.

As your marginal rate increases, the advantage of the UCCB over the old credit shrinks. No one has an effective rate of the full 39%, but if you did, you would be up $101.70 over the old system, not taking into account those other changes I noted above.

So you come out a couple of hundred bucks ahead which is fine. What people are objecting to is the perception that you're getting $720 which is a great feel good thing at election when in reality the net is a small fraction of that. It's politics per usual

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Delgar

If someone could provide sample calculations before and after that would be very helpful...

There are 3 examples at the bottom of this article:
http://business.financialpost.com/pe...eryone-equally

1. Abbie lives in Nova Scotia, has one child and makes $45,000 annually. She will receive an extra $720 for her child as a result of the enhanced UCCB in 2015 but she will have to pay tax on this amount at her marginal tax rate of 37 per cent leaving her with $453 after-tax. She will also lose her child tax credit worth $338, so at the end of the day, she will only will be ahead by about $115.

2. Bethany lives in Alberta, has two children and earns $75,000 annually. She will get an extra $1,440 for her kids in 2015. At her marginal tax rate of 32 per cent, she will pay $461 in tax on the enhanced amount, leaving her with $979. Because she can no longer claim the child tax credit for two children, she will be out $676 when she files her 2015 return, leaving her with an extra $303, or roughly $152 extra per child.
3. Cathy lives in Ontario, makes $250,000 annually and is in the top tax-bracket of 50 per cent. She has three children and will receive an extra $2,160 annually. After-tax, she will be left with $1,080. But she will also lose her child tax credit,s worth a total of $1,014 (three credits at $338 each). So how much is left of the extra $2,160? About $66 – that’s $22 per child.

Note, the $ per child in that article is the increase in after-tax dollars over and above what they would have gotten from the $100/child under 4 benefit and the tax credit. Notwithstanding other changes in the tax code, this change is a net benefit across all incomes - it just is a very slim benefit for higher incomes.

[Weitz]

Edit: Bownesian beat me, apparently I am slow today.

[Jacks]

On another topic fundraising numbers are out for the 2nd quarter. NDP outraise the Libs for the first time ever and have more donors than the Cons.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ndraising-race

Conservative party - $7.4 million from 45,532 donors
NDP - $4.5 million from 48,314 donors
Liberals - $4.03 million from 32,789 donors
Green party - $760,475 from 10,824 donors
Bloc Quebecois - $118,143 from 1,394 donors

[Resolute 14]

Interesting to see just how awful the Bloc are doing. That is, indirectly, bad news for the Conservatives.

[octothorp]

ThreeHundredEight has a solid breakdown of why that Mainstreet poll that is now pulling the Conservatives up in all the poll aggregators should be looked at skeptically: it's 18-34 numbers are massively at odds with every other pollster out there, with the Conservatives nearly 20 points higher than any other poll before of since.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/201...ronto-and.html

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Interesting to see just how awful the Bloc are doing. That is, indirectly, bad news for the Conservatives.

True but Duceppe has only been back for about a month. I expect they will begin raising much more money very quickly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Bloc supporters should just donate the money to Quebecor to help pay for the expansion fee. At least that has a chance of happening.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The income-splitting seems like it really only serves people who don't actually need. I think even you would admit it's more of a want than a need. I guess it really comes down to priorities and privilege. For me, that $2000 wouldn't be enough for me to keep giving my vote to a party that refuses to do anything about climate change and continues to enact regressive social policies.

I guess that depends on your definition of need. Do single-income couples need a little more help to buy diapers/food than single people who have no one to worry about than themselves?

Its giving people cash to help fix their own problems, I figured you'd be all on board with that.

Originally Posted by Delgar

If someone could provide sample calculations before and after that would be very helpful. Does the increase in payments get wiped out by the removal of the tax credit at all income brackets? If so I think it was a bit of smoke and mirrors. In any event the increase combined with the other money the conservatives are handing out are typical election year moves. I'm not impressed, but I'll still be voting for them. I would have preferred Harper step down and let some new blood in I'm tired of his leadership.

It doesnt work that way. New blood has to step up.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

I guess that depends on your definition of need. Do single-income couples need a little more help to buy diapers/food than single people who have no one to worry about than themselves?

Kind of a false dilemma don't you think?

Its giving people cash to help fix their own problems, I figured you'd be all on board with that.

I get that you're referring to my stance on the minimum wage, but you're begging the question as to whether people who benefit from income-splitting have problems supporting themselves in the first place, and it appears that most of the information we have tends to point to the conclusion that they don't.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Kind of a false dilemma don't you think?

I get that you're referring to my stance on the minimum wage, but you're begging the question as to whether people who benefit from income-splitting have problems supporting themselves in the first place, and it appears that most of the information we have tends to point to the conclusion that they don't.

False dilemmas are everywhere. Everyone wants help for everything and giving people cash is an easy cop-out, it allows us to claim that we've done everything we can and if they screw it up thats their problem.

Prevailing wisdom dictates that the vast majority of minimum wage earners dont need help. Sure, a few of them do. Same thing with single-income couples.

But hey! Lets throw cash at it! Again, a hilariously misguided Capitalist solution to a Social problem.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Prevailing wisdom dictates that the vast majority of minimum wage earners dont need help. Sure, a few of them do. Same thing with single-income couples.

But hey! Lets throw cash at it! Again, a hilariously misguided Capitalist solution to a Social problem.

I'm confused. You agree with me that income-splitting isn't a great policy, but you alluded to my stance on minimum wage as some sort of "gotcha, you hypocrite" thing?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm confused. You agree with me that income-splitting isn't a great policy, but you alluded to my stance on minimum wage as some sort of "gotcha, you hypocrite" thing?

I apologize, I was being flippant and rather sarcastic in that last post which isnt productive. And I didnt mean to target you specifically, more the attitude in general.

Both policies, minimum wage and income-splitting are far more concerned in acquiring votes than solving problems.

I dont typically believe in throwing cash at problems, its an American thing and its woefully ineffective at solving actual problems but brilliant at buying votes.

Effectively, what I'm saying is that both policies operate upon the same parameters. Identify a generality, assume its a problem without any real data or basis and then ham-fistedly 'deal with it' via cash injection and then dust your hands off and call it a good day's work.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

I apologize, I was being flippant and rather sarcastic in that last post which isnt productive. And I didnt mean to target you specifically, more the attitude in general.

Both policies, minimum wage and income-splitting are far more concerned in acquiring votes than solving problems.

I dont typically believe in throwing cash at problems, its an American thing and its woefully ineffective at solving actual problems but brilliant at buying votes.

Effectively, what I'm saying is that both policies operate upon the same parameters. Identify a generality, assume its a problem without any real data or basis and then ham-fistedly 'deal with it' via cash injection and then dust your hands off and call it a good day's work.

Yeah, I can definitely agree with the populist aspect of both.

[Jacks]

NDP are skipping the consortium debates also now.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ates-1.3175720

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jacks

NDP are skipping the consortium debates also now.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ates-1.3175720

Dumb move, IMO. Would've looked really bad on Harper and the Conservatives if he was the only one not to show up.

[killer_carlson]

Interesting tactic.

I think the opportunity to humiliate Trudeau and grab more left leaning supporters would have been too good an opportunity to miss.

I'm guessing their internal polling shows that they aren't likely to grab more from the libs but that the undecideds have it between them and the PCs.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Interesting tactic.

I think the opportunity to humiliate Trudeau and grab more left leaning supporters would have been too good an opportunity to miss.

I'm guessing their internal polling shows that they aren't likely to grab more from the libs but that the undecideds have it between them and the PCs.

Yeah, I find it interesting to separate the tactics from the politics sometimes, and I think this was big misstep by Mulcair, and he's playing right into Harper's hands. I agree that it's a perfect opportunity to bleed out the rest of Trudeau's support and maybe try to pull some in from the Greens and the Bloc.