The bubble finally deflating. not bursting.............

[Locke]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

In the UK estate tax is seen as the only tax that applies solely to the poor, well that and lottery tickets, it's a nice idea in theory but in practise the rich avoid it with ease where as the middle class and lower lose the meager assets they have accrued.

In practise it increases the gap between the rich and the poor massively.

Thats interesting to hear, in what capacity? What are the rules?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Your complaint of my post is mere semantics - I could have taken the time to write 'estate' instead of 'you' on several occasions, but it changes nothing.

It certainly changes the emotional content of the argument. You're implying it's the government taxing you once when making the money, and taxing you again when it is inherited, Instead, there are two different taxes applied at the same time to the same money, which is functionally not at all the same thing - and YOU are not actually paying the capital gains, either.

Stop saying things like "random tax grab", it's nothing of the sort, nor is it "no different than taxing savings at any other time". That's ridiculous hyperbole that makes the rest of your argument look bad by association. Again, I don't know if it's good policy or not, but I do know the argument you're making against it isn't a good one.

[GGG]

The statement that CPP is a Ponzi scheme has no basis. It is properly funded and solvent. So unless the government dips into it to fund other things CPP is an effective program that will be there in the future. Means testing CPP also doesn't make sense. It is a pension plan where the payout is based on what you pay in. It is not a safety net program, It is a forced saving plan.

I do think that some kind of cohort death tax should be applied to the boomers assets to offset the debt that was accumulated over their lives and soon to be their death. That cohort needs higher taxes in general to pay for their future and previous costs.

I'd start with getting rid of the age amount deduction on taxes for any income over 50k.

[simmer2]

I think estate tax is pretty ridiculous. The money will eventually get taxed when deployed by the next of kin, so it's a bit of a double tax by the government.

I don't think it should exist.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats interesting to hear, in what capacity? What are the rules?

any one with any sense puts their assets into a 'family trust' or transfers them over to the kids in living wills, its one of the easiest forms of taxes to avoid as it applies to all levels of society therefore is politically more sensitive.

Its a hell of a lot easier to increase taxes on companies or investment income or the like as less people are affected, where as telling everyone in Canada that they are going to get the family house taken away from them when Granny dies is political suicide.

I'm a total lefty but I would not vote for a government that prevents me from leaving my house to my kid, its completely hypocritical but its my kid, the government can go screw themselves

[Johnny199r]

Wow a money saving argument/fight that I'm not actually involved in. I'll just sit back and watch this one.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by GGG

The statement that CPP is a Ponzi scheme has no basis. It is properly funded and solvent. So unless the government dips into it to fund other things CPP is an effective program that will be there in the future.

Ponzi scheme is indeed too strong of a term, but only because CPP is not a fraud. There are are parallels however.

The reason CPP is properly funded is because the relative contributions for those currently working have been increased proportionately, while those retired are the ones getting the benefit. In the proverbial robbing Peter-to-pay-Paul story, Peter is paying Paul via CPP, but it is transparently happening, and the government is planning to pay Peter from the workers how come next. It is about one generation paying for the one after it. That has parallels to a Ponzi scheme if the system collapses on itself.

Edit: I just checked, and the unfunded liabilities for CPP is close to One Trillion Dollars. That is very much like a Ponzi scheme.

Edit 2: Wow, contribution rates have actually tripled over the last 15 years. That is quite Ponzi-ish.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Ponzi scheme is indeed too strong of a term, but only because CPP is not a fraud. There are are parallels however.

The reason CPP is properly funded is because the relative contributions for those currently working have been increased proportionately, while those retired are the ones getting the benefit. In the proverbial robbing Peter-to-pay-Paul story, Peter is paying Paul via CPP, but it is transparently happening, and the government is planning to pay Peter from the workers how come next. It is about one generation paying for the one after it. That has parallels to a Ponzi scheme if the system collapses on itself.

Edit: I just checked, and the unfunded liabilities for CPP is close to One Trillion Dollars. That is very much like a Ponzi scheme.

Since I don't have to pay into it, I wonder if I should just stop, as I have a feeling I will never get anything out of it... however that comes about.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Ponzi scheme is indeed too strong of a term, but only because CPP is not a fraud. There are are parallels however.

The reason CPP is properly funded is because the relative contributions for those currently working have been increased proportionately, while those retired are the ones getting the benefit. In the proverbial robbing Peter-to-pay-Paul story, Peter is paying Paul via CPP, but it is transparently happening, and the government is planning to pay Peter from the workers how come next. It is about one generation paying for the one after it. That has parallels to a Ponzi scheme if the system collapses on itself.

Edit: I just checked, and the unfunded liabilities for CPP is close to One Trillion Dollars. That is very much like a Ponzi scheme.

Edit 2: Wow, contribution rates have actually tripled over the last 15 years. That is quite Ponzi-ish.

Depends if you like the Frazier institute report and how you define the liabilities. Up until 1997 the plan was underfunded. Since that time they raised rates and as the the chief actuary of Canada are solvent for the next 75 years.

Does the plan have enough money to pay out everyone who paid into previously with no further contributions? No

Will the plan based on projected demographics and premiums be solvent for the next 75 years such that everyone paying in today will have access to their pension? Yes.

So it's not a Ponzi scheme because you don't need to contralto increase the size of the pyramid of incoming money until you run out of people. I agree that it's another boomer subsidy but one that is sustainable unlike health care.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jammies

It certainly changes the emotional content of the argument. You're implying it's the government taxing you once when making the money, and taxing you again when it is inherited, Instead, there are two different taxes applied at the same time to the same money, which is functionally not at all the same thing - and YOU are not actually paying the capital gains, either.

Stop saying things like "random tax grab", it's nothing of the sort, nor is it "no different than taxing savings at any other time". That's ridiculous hyperbole that makes the rest of your argument look bad by association. Again, I don't know if it's good policy or not, but I do know the argument you're making against it isn't a good one.

sigh

When you die, your estate faces a deemed disposition. It is taxed. You, via your estate, pay the piper. Whether one says 'you' are taxed, or 'your estate' is taxed, is mere semantics and is irrelevant to the discussion. But if it makes you feel better, let's go with your estate is taxed.

Then, your (remaining) assets are bequeathed to your heirs. To tax their reception of that bequeathment is a double tax. The fact that your estate pays the first round, and the beneficiaries pay the second round, does not change the duplication of it. And most importantly, it punishes those that made the socially-beneficial decision to save for their family's future.

And as afc suggests, the wealthy can easily avoid it through efficient planning - it's the middle class that would get screwed by this.

Your final comment is amusing, considering the fact that you have made no useful arguments one way or the other, you have simply attacked my post from an angle of semantics.

If you would like to actually post something worth discussing, I would love to see it, but you've done nothing to this conversation other than derail it.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Ponzi scheme is indeed too strong of a term, but only because CPP is not a fraud. There are are parallels however.

The reason CPP is properly funded is because the relative contributions for those currently working have been increased proportionately, while those retired are the ones getting the benefit. In the proverbial robbing Peter-to-pay-Paul story, Peter is paying Paul via CPP, but it is transparently happening, and the government is planning to pay Peter from the workers how come next. It is about one generation paying for the one after it. That has parallels to a Ponzi scheme if the system collapses on itself.

Edit: I just checked, and the unfunded liabilities for CPP is close to One Trillion Dollars. That is very much like a Ponzi scheme.

Edit 2: Wow, contribution rates have actually tripled over the last 15 years. That is quite Ponzi-ish.

Not sure if mentioned but if you die before the age of 65 then the government gets to keep your cpp. Not your kids, not your spouse. Actually your spouse gets a small percentage that is laughable.

To me this is criminal. You invested your whole life working hard then the government gets it?

How much has the government made in not paying cpp because of early deaths?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Not sure if mentioned but if you die before the age of 65 then the government gets to keep your cpp. Not your kids, not your spouse. Actually your spouse gets a small percentage that is laughable.

To me this is criminal. You invested your whole life working hard then the government gets it?

How much has the government made in not paying cpp because of early deaths?

The government doesn't 'get it' they just don't pay it out.

And they haven't 'made' anything.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Not sure if mentioned but if you die before the age of 65 then the government gets to keep your cpp. Not your kids, not your spouse. Actually your spouse gets a small percentage that is laughable.

To me this is criminal. You invested your whole life working hard then the government gets it?

How much has the government made in not paying cpp because of early deaths?

If you live to 105 should you give it back to the government or continue to get CPP.

Statistically they pay out for the average lifespan. So your fellow luckier citizen is being paid with the money that you didn't recieve. It's the nature of any defined benefit pension plan.

[comrade]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The government doesn't 'get it' they just don't pay it out.

And they haven't 'made' anything.

I think the disconnect is that people think CPP is a savings plan, so it's "their" money. Which leads to foolish talk about what CPP owes them.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by comrade

I think the disconnect is that people think CPP is a savings plan, so it's "their" money. Which leads to foolish talk about what CPP owes them.

What????!!!! I invested money in a government savings plan. I more than expect it back. I invested it and expect compound interest back!

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

sigh

When you die, your estate faces a deemed disposition. It is taxed. You, via your estate, pay the piper. Whether one says 'you' are taxed, or 'your estate' is taxed, is mere semantics and is irrelevant to the discussion. But if it makes you feel better, let's go with your estate is taxed.

Then, your (remaining) assets are bequeathed to your heirs. To tax their reception of that bequeathment is a double tax. The fact that your estate pays the first round, and the beneficiaries pay the second round, does not change the duplication of it. And most importantly, it punishes those that made the socially-beneficial decision to save for their family's future.

And as afc suggests, the wealthy can easily avoid it through efficient planning - it's the middle class that would get screwed by this.

Your final comment is amusing, considering the fact that you have made no useful arguments one way or the other, you have simply attacked my post from an angle of semantics.

If you would like to actually post something worth discussing, I would love to see it, but you've done nothing to this conversation other than derail it.

However, if it is your principle residence when die there are no taxes to be paid.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you live to 105 should you give it back to the government or continue to get CPP.

Statistically they pay out for the average lifespan. So your fellow luckier citizen is being paid with the money that you didn't recieve. It's the nature of any defined benefit pension plan.

So those that die early through no fault of their own subsidize those that live longer. Sounds like something the ndp and their supporters would say is fair.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

So those that die early through no fault of their own subsidize those that live longer. Sounds like something the ndp and their supporters would say is fair.

When you begin paying into this plan you have an equal probability of being on the long end or the short end. Therefore you pay in for the expected value of your payout. Since you pay in for your expected value you aren't subsidizing anyone.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The government doesn't 'get it' they just don't pay it out.

And they haven't 'made' anything.

Yes a friend of mine lent me $20 and didn't ask for it back. I don't get it, I'm just not going to pay it back?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

So those that die early through no fault of their own subsidize those that live longer. Sounds like something the ndp and their supporters would say is fair.

Do you look at insurance the same way? That's all CPP is, an insurance of income if you live a long time