Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

They don't have a mandate, but they did it. And they should be getting maximum return on it.

They bailed them out by investing money.

I think the semantics for me is that "investing" implies expecting a return. "Bailing out" implies that it's for stability or other non-financial reasons (like jobs, or keeping an industry in the country).

To me, bailing out means that you expect that money to be at a loss, or even go to zero if it doesn't work out. That's why I asked the question.

I'd agree if there was never any hope in regaining the money. And if it was a "wait to stabilize" issue, they could have done it a year or two ago. I think the priority needs to be ensuring that they get back what they put in.

I don't particularly agree. We could hold on to it for an extremely long time, and possibly obtain a return, or sell out and repurpose the money for other things the government is mandated to do, like infrastructure, social programs, $15/day daycare or whatever. Not running a private enterprise.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I don't particularly agree. We could hold on to it for an extremely long time, and possibly obtain a return, or sell out and repurpose the money for other things the government is mandated to do, like infrastructure, social programs, $15/day daycare or whatever. Not running a private enterprise.

My ass would be a lot less chapped if there was an announced plan for what they intended to use the money for.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

The GM sale occured in the previous fiscal year, so those numbers aren't related.

All governments (Liberal and Conservative) have raided EI, which is further proof that increasing EI and CPP is just a way for the government to trifle funds from your pocket to theirs.

This has to be the case because I read through the budget document and there was nothing about a sale of stock. Your point about EI is bang on as well. Its essentially just a payroll tax.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Are their jobs projected to increase or be more secure longterm due to this? Serious question.

The protected as many jobs as they could, and as it's not needed anymore they sold. That's all there is to it.

Some will feel they shouldn't have intervened in the first place, It was a declining industry, and the jobs were going to leave the province and country anyways. The Canadian tax payer has just footed the bill for them to build elsewhere.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

The GM sale occured in the previous fiscal year, so those numbers aren't related.

All governments (Liberal and Conservative) have raided EI, which is further proof that increasing EI and CPP is just a way for the government to trifle funds from your pocket to theirs.

GM sale occurred in the right for the budget. Dated articles and transaction was dated April 10th.

The federal government is selling its final stake in General Motors Co. (GM.N -2.3%), worth about $2.7 billion, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper seeks new funding to meet pre-election promises amid an oil rout.

Canada has agreed to sell its 73.4 million shares to Goldman Sachs & Co. in an unregistered block trade, the finance department said in a statement Monday. The transaction will be complete by April 10.

The proceeds will help Harper stick to his promise of balancing the budget this fiscal year even as he delivers tax cuts and transfer payments ahead of a general election in October. Falling oil prices means annual revenue will be on average $7.6 billion less than forecast by the government in November, according to the parliamentary budget office.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle23856241/
http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/4/6/Cana...re-Budget.aspx

And I understand that past governments have done this, but I do not like it one bit. My point is it should be off limits in any budget discussion. Either it gets refunded for being overfunded or it goes back into an EI contingency fund/reinvested for future generations. None of this using it in the general budget to cover the government mistakes crap.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

GM sale occurred in the right for the budget. Dated articles and transaction was dated April 10th.

Yeah, April 10th, 2015.

That means that this is part of the 2015-2016 fiscal year, which runs from April 1st, 2015 to March 31st, 2016.

The surplus that was just announced is for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, which ran from April 1st, 2014 to March 31st, 2015.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

GM sale occurred in the right for the budget. Dated articles and transaction was dated April 10th.



And I understand that past governments have done this, but I do not like it one bit. My point is it should be off limits in any budget discussion. Either it gets refunded for being overfunded or it goes back into an EI contingency fund/reinvested for future generations. None of this using it in the general budget to cover the government mistakes crap.

Yes this is other fiscal year.

Regarding EI I am 100% with you that it is wrong, but governments will continue to do it. The biggest issue I have with Trudeau's platform is the increase to CPP and the support they have for Ontario's OPP hike.

Right now, you can take the extra amount that they want to raise the CPP and put it in your TFSA, and invest it. If you die, that money can go to your spouse or your children. With the CPP "forced retirement savings", not only will they confiscate that money if you don't live long enough to claim it, but any of what they deem "excess" will be stolen and tossed into general revenue.
It is theft and it is dishonest.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yeah, April 10th, 2015.

That means that this is part of the 2015-2016 fiscal year, which runs from April 1st, 2015 to March 31st, 2016.

The surplus that was just announced is for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, which ran from April 1st, 2014 to March 31st, 2015.

Ah, always through this was April 30th for some reason...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Yes this is other fiscal year.

Regarding EI I am 100% with you that it is wrong, but governments will continue to do it. The biggest issue I have with Trudeau's platform is the increase to CPP and the support they have for Ontario's OPP hike.

Right now, you can take the extra amount that they want to raise the CPP and put it in your TFSA, and invest it. If you die, that money can go to your spouse or your children. With the CPP "forced retirement savings", not only will they confiscate that money if you don't live long enough to claim it, but any of what they deem "excess" will be stolen and tossed into general revenue.
It is theft and it is dishonest.

I don't think that is how the CPP works? (regarding the move to general revenue). I think that unclaimed CPP stays in the fund and pays others.

And as far as taking that amount and investing in the TFSA, sure you can do it. The problem for Canadians is that people don't. So these forced savings programs are relied on more and more, and with an aging population in general, someones going to pay at some point.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think that is how the CPP works? (regarding the move to general revenue). I think that unclaimed CPP stays in the fund and pays others.

And as far as taking that amount and investing in the TFSA, sure you can do it. The problem for Canadians is that people don't. So these forced savings programs are relied on more and more, and with an aging population in general, someones going to pay at some point.

That someone is us, right now. I'm 24, and I have zero illusions of even seeing 25% of what I'll pay into CPP. It's honestly just another tax at this point.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

That someone is us, right now. I'm 24, and I have zero illusions of even seeing 25% of what I'll pay into CPP. It's honestly just another tax at this point.

Its been that way for decades as I remember having this same (or very similar at least) discussion 30 years ago and nothing has changed.

I always thought they should have an opt out clause for deductions and if you did so, you couldn't collect at retirement.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Pledging to make infrastructure investments, like supporting LRT lines, is not vote buying. It's just a campaign promise.

Can people stop referring to anything anyone wants to spend money on as "vote buying"?

This is vote buying: "If I am elected, I will implement the following policy that will result in you receiving money." That is the only thing that is vote buying.

The best example of buying votes I'd seen happened in Ontario discussed earlier in this thread. The government started to building power plants in two Liberal ridings, these were wildly unpopular in those ridings and they were likely going to lose them. Suddenly they cancelled the two plants and moved them to ridings they had no shot of winning of winning at a giant cost to taxpayers.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

That someone is us, right now. I'm 24, and I have zero illusions of even seeing 25% of what I'll pay into CPP. It's honestly just another tax at this point.

I'm 32, and I have absolutely no faith or reason to believe any CPP will be available on my retirement. I'm just privately preparing on my own, and I suggest anyone under 40 do the same.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its been that way for decades as I remember having this same (or very similar at least) discussion 30 years ago and nothing has changed.

I always thought they should have an opt out clause for deductions and if you did so, you couldn't collect at retirement.

I would probably benefit personally(because people would contribute more in their own plans, theoretically), but an opt out would be a terrible idea. There are just too many people who will do nothing and that hurts us all. I've sat with people who have literally saved zero or only what has been "forced". It's not pretty and its going to ricochet throughout the economy if you have more people who are too old to continue working and at the same time are unable to support themselves at all. By making people contribute to these kinds of programs it means that they have to save some money for themselves.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Ah, always through this was April 30th for some reason...

Yeah, fiscal years can be vastly different between companies and governments so the confusion is pretty understandable.

The share sale is going to help whoever the next government is when they announce the numbers around this time next year, since they now have an extra 3B or so to balance the books with. It's literally the opposite of doing something just for the election.

I hope we've changed your opinion (and the people that thanked your post) that Harper somehow spun a fake surplus just for the election. There's so many things to dislike the current government for that it's quite easy to stay in the confines of reality and still criticize them rather than just creating false narratives.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm sure it does appeal to some people, but a lot? I'm not sure about that. How many people really care if one of these guys' family has been in Canada for 300 years or 30 years? Some for sure (and this "old stock" comment sounds like a dog whistle those people that do care, so ugh) but would it be enough to make a difference? Or enough to risk alienating other people who might not have such a long family history of living in one place over another?

Bah, I don't know. It just seems so stupid to me. My family has been here for just over a hundred years, and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for me if I put that on my scorecard. Nor would I vote for the other guy who bragged about how his ancestor who got on a boat 300 years ago makes him more "Canadian".

"A lot" is open for interpretation I guess, but it matters a lot to many people. It's why Canada, as a country of immigrants, hasn't had a PM that hasn't been from either the colonial British or French stock. Sure, most parties will have some minorities as members and they are usually pretty quick to make sure they are displayed in the front row on TV during the parliament sessions, but being "old stock" certainly goes a long way in this country when it comes to federal politics. Being a "Smith" will be an easier ride than being a "Singh" or a "Bogdan" when it comes to getting votes in white-bread Canada.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How is saying you'll run deficits during a recession "vote-buying" and not just sound, basic economics?

There's still a major school of thought that in a recession, government should shrink to reduce competition on the private sector, and reduce taxes by a commensurate amount to stimulate the economy. We are not all Keynesians.

[Dion]

Someone on the radio today mentioned that Trudeau looked like a nervous kid at a high school debate who was rushing to get all his points across before he forgot them.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think Trudeau was trying to be too fierce and it doesn't suit him. He is a pretty calming and suave person and I think he needs to play that image up and show that he can be a consensus builder in parliament, not an adversary to both parties. He needs to show that the Liberals can be option B for both sides. It's disappointing to me the strategy they took in that debate.

And I say "they", because I still see Trudeau as more of a figurehead and voice for the party, where Harper and Mulcair are more of individuals. I could be wrong about that, but it seems that way to me.

[Slava]

So maybe the Tommunist Manifesto earlier this week wasn't enough to dissuade potential NDP voters (personally I have no idea how). Now we have an NDP candidate who thinks we should open the constitution. First to deal with the senate, which is already bad, but also to deal with the Niqab because he doesn't think that religious freedom should be enshrined there.

Who really wants to support this kind of thing?

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/201.../#.Vfy3Mt9Vikq