Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

The middle classes haven't been SAVING MONEY, period.

So again, I ask: Why should savers like myself be punished since others would rather have expensive houses/cars/vacations/whatever instead of an unsexy TFSA?

I mean, may as well knock back RRSP contribution limits too, since only around 24% of people in Canada use those.

And why stop there? Why not add a 2nd tax onto anyone saving anything over 4% of their income, since that is what the average Canadian saves.

Obviously I am being fastidious, but my point is, TFSA savings and savings in general is NOT ONLY rich getting richer (which it is) it is more a reflection of the priorities of the "average" Canadians... they would rather blow their brains out on debt than prepare for those 20-30 years where they won't be working.

This isn't upper vs middle class, this is just flat out punishing people who are responsible with their money.

How exactly is it a punishment? The program in its current form isn't beneficial for the vast majority of Canadians, so it's reasonable to ask whether it's fair to ask the vast majority of Canadians to pay for it. From the other side of that, I know that I personally cannot contribute more than $5k annually to a TFSA, so why should my tax dollars go towards helping you save money? It seems like that's punishing me for not making enough to contribute.

[Looch City]

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

So again, I ask: Why should savers like myself be punished since others would rather have expensive houses/cars/vacations/whatever instead of an unsexy TFSA?

This is a huge generalization. Some people struggle to contribute to TFSA's without the expensive toys. A very dangerous precedent is to assume that all middle class people are wasting money on frivolous things. Many are in positions of debt and financial constraint because of more complex economic factors, such as inability to find appropriately-paying work, massive student debt leftovers, having children, cost of living, etc.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

The middle classes haven't been SAVING MONEY, period.

So again, I ask: Why should savers like myself be punished since others would rather have expensive houses/cars/vacations/whatever instead of an unsexy TFSA?

I mean, may as well knock back RRSP contribution limits too, since only around 24% of people in Canada use those.

And why stop there? Why not add a 2nd tax onto anyone saving anything over 4% of their income, since that is what the average Canadian saves.

Obviously I am being facetious, but my point is, TFSA savings and savings in general is NOT ONLY rich getting richer (which it is) it is more a reflection of the priorities of the "average" Canadians... they would rather blow their brains out on debt than prepare for those 20-30 years where they won't be working.

This isn't upper vs middle class, this is just flat out punishing people who are responsible with their money.

How are you being punished? Do you really think it's an inalienable right to have the government subsidize your savings? You can just as easily put money aside if TFSA contribution limits are rolled back to where they were for the first 6 years they existed.

The purpose of things like TFSAs are to encourage individuals to save money. They've worked somewhat at the $5K level, but there is simply no evidence that increasing it serves any purpose that is worth the billions of dollars it'll cost the country.

[puffnstuff]

How does it cost billions? Honest question.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by opendoor

How are you being punished? Do you really think it's an inalienable right to have the government subsidize your savings? You can just as easily put money aside if TFSA contribution limits are rolled back to where they were for the first 6 years they existed.

The purpose of things like TFSAs are to encourage individuals to save money. They've worked somewhat at the $5K level, but there is simply no evidence that increasing it serves any purpose that is worth the billions of dollars it'll cost the country.

If that indeed would cost the country billions, how many more billions will it cost the country to give back that $600+ to every taxpayer earning between 44 and 199k. Is there evidence of the value of this? Also important to note that the burden of this cost is on the richest, but also on the poorest Canadians.

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How exactly is it a punishment? The program in its current form isn't beneficial for the vast majority of Canadians, so it's reasonable to ask whether it's fair to ask the vast majority of Canadians to pay for it. From the other side of that, I know that I personally cannot contribute more than $5k annually to a TFSA, so why should my tax dollars go towards helping you save money? It seems like that's punishing me for not making enough to contribute.

Just curious - how are your taxes subsiding me saving? I already paid taxes on the money I am placing into my TFSA, so frankly I am paying my fair share.

Originally Posted by opendoor

How are you being punished? Do you really think it's an inalienable right to have the government subsidize your savings? You can just as easily put money aside if TFSA contribution limits are rolled back to where they were for the first 6 years they existed.

The purpose of things like TFSAs are to encourage individuals to save money. They've worked somewhat at the $5K level, but there is simply no evidence that increasing it serves any purpose that is worth the billions of dollars it'll cost the country.

So if no one is using this room (the argument used to justify rolling it back), how on earth is it costing Canada billions of dollars?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

Just curious - how are your taxes subsiding me saving? I already paid taxes on the money I am placing into my TFSA, so frankly I am paying my fair share.

Thank you

[Looch City]

Article from April:

New TFSA limits boon for savers, costly for governments

Albertans who take full advantage of the federal government’s move to nearly double contribution limits for tax free saving accounts can now invest an extra $234,000 over their lifetime.

But economists warn the hike in the annual maximum for TFSAs from $5,500 to $10,000 contained in Tuesday’s budget will result in a spiraling decrease in the tax take for both Canadian and provincial coffers.

By the federal government’s own estimates, the extra contribution room will cost an extra $85 million in the current fiscal year, jumping to $360 million in 2019. Over just five years, that’s $1.1 billion in foregone revenue.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...or-governments

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

Just curious - how are your taxes subsiding me saving? I already paid taxes on the money I am placing into my TFSA, so frankly I am paying my fair share.

And returns on that money aren't taxed, so essentially the government is subsidizing your investment returns. Lost revenue from TFSAs is already costing over $1B a year and that will increase dramatically as more and more untaxable money builds up in them.

So if no one is using this room (the argument used to justify rolling it back), how on earth is it costing Canada billions of dollars?

Plenty of high earners use the room. And with compound interest over decades there will be trillions of dollars in untaxed investment income. The Parliamentry Budget Office estimates current losses to revenue at over $1B a year but those will increase dramatically over time, doubly so if the $10K limit is maintained.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

Just curious - how are your taxes subsiding me saving? I already paid taxes on the money I am placing into my TFSA, so frankly I am paying my fair share.

How do you feel about the sales tax then? Because you're paying taxes for purchasing goods with the money you've been taxed from.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

If that indeed would cost the country billions, how many more billions will it cost the country to give back that $600+ to every taxpayer earning between 44 and 199k. Is there evidence of the value of this? Also important to note that the burden of this cost is on the richest, but also on the poorest Canadians.

Well I don't really agree with that plan either. The people who benefit the most from it are people earning between $90K-200K.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

The middle classes haven't been SAVING MONEY, period.

So again, I ask: Why should savers like myself be punished since others would rather have expensive houses/cars/vacations/whatever instead of an unsexy TFSA?

As was the supposed reason why women should work instead of staying home, people not spending results in lower tax revenues and fewer jobs. Saving money does little good for the economy in general.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by calculoso

As was the supposed reason why women should work instead of staying home, people not spending results in lower tax revenues and fewer jobs. Saving money does little good for the economy in general.

Not in this case. Saving, speaking economically, basically amounts to removing money from circulation, keeping it in your bank account. This money is investment in the economy. The I part of the old C+I+G+NX that makes up our GDP. This is investment and is good for the economy.

[calculoso]

If companies were spending and not trying to make their stock price higher, I would probably agree with you. In this climate, they are keeping their cash and downsizing more than actually doing something with the cash. Besides, no spending means no buying.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not in this case. Saving, speaking economically, basically amounts to removing money from circulation, keeping it in your bank account. This money is investment in the economy. The I part of the old C+I+G+NX that makes up our GDP. This is investment and is good for the economy.

Sort of. IIRC, nearly 60% of TFSA assets are in savings, GICs, and bonds.

[EldrickOnIce]

If companies were spending and not trying to make their stock price higher, I would probably agree with you. In this climate, they are keeping their cash and downsizing more than actually doing something with the cash. Besides, no spending means no buying.

Fair enough, you may indeed be right.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

Just curious - how are your taxes subsiding me saving? I already paid taxes on the money I am placing into my TFSA, so frankly I am paying my fair share.

I wasn't implying that you weren't paying your fair share, but this is a government program and it's costing the government at the moment $160M/year. If my overall tax rate isn't going down but someone else is being subsidized, it means my tax dollars are being used in part to fund that subsidy. I'm paying for something I will receive almost zero benefit from (I have a $1000 sitting a TFSA at the moment so I can't say absolutely zero). Now that's not necessarily a problem for me. I'm all for paying for things that I don't directly benefit from as long as their an overall benefit to society as a collective, but the TFSA increase to $10k doesn't really do that.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well in Canada, historically the government elected doesn't have a notable impact. I know that flies in the face of the campaigning that you see, and every party says that they're the best, but its a ruse. I also read that article and had a little chuckle to myself, because a paper I reference in my own blog post (below) refutes that Liberal claim. Its simply not true; historically the Liberals and Conservatives (under the current or old version of the party) have had almost identical results in terms of the markets, interest rates, and almost all other metrics.

So if the economy doesn't change regardless of which party is in power, all the more reason to elect the Liberals. Because what they can directly change is social policy, which Canada has lagged behind badly in since Harper took control

[rubecube]

Haha, wow. This is just so utterly sad and pathetic. Video is in the link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10...n_8288538.html

Suburban neighbourhoods face a future of brothels and marijuana shops if Justin Trudeau's Liberals get elected, a Conservative candidate in the Greater Toronto Area said at a recent debate.

Terence Young said that under a Trudeau government, neighbourhoods in Oakville, a town near Toronto, could see "legally-protected brothels with madams and all that goes with that because the Liberals have promised to legalize the selling of women in Canada."

He also brought up the spectre of marijuana shops and drug injection sites. "What family would invest their life savings in a home near a brothel, a marijuana shop or a drug injection site?" Young said.