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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by troutman

In Alberta?

Principal residence is not taxed. There is no inheritance tax in Alberta (maximum probate fee is $500). RRSPs are taxed unless rolled over to a spouse (tax was deferred). There could be capital gains on a vacation or rental property. Unpaid income tax etc must be paid by the estate.

Yes I know, thanks.

I already addressed spousal rollover, which only delays the tax liability until the next death, it doesn't eliminate it.

As for the principal residence, yes it is not taxed, as it is never taxed.

None of your comments change the fact that, upon death, the estate pays its tax liability in full (which I believe was your intended point)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jammies

"Randomly designed". Classic.

more semantics - your contributions in this thread have been enlightening

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Is it really envious random citizens who called for ramping up CPP? I thought it was government bureaucrats who were alarmed at how little Canadians are saving, and aware that impoverished seniors are going to cost the government even more through welfare, health care, etc. Because that's the thing - in a civilized country you can't just shrug and say people who didn't save enough can eat cat food and live in basements. Because the costs of their poverty (even if it is through poor planning) will come back on the public coffer one way or another. So better to force them to save.

I actually have no issue with the higher CPP premiums - my issue is why do that AND take away my extra abilities to save?

Increase CPP, sure. Reduce the TFSA? Why? If I choose to spend my money on investments instead of new homes/cars/toys, why do I get punished for it?

Not to mention that it sounds like the new budget is going to be more "punish those who save/invest" - extra taxes on capital gains, dividends - frankly it is punishing those like me to satiate the masses who blow every dollar they have (and thousands of dollars that they don't have).

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm sorry but my dad moved to this country with nothing, busted his ass to amass his fortune and he paid every penny of tax he owed to the government. He was also very frugal and didn't play the "keep up with the Joneses" game which his highly prevalent in this country. Why should his money be double taxed because he was better with his money than most people?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with an estate tax, but in the future...

He's dead. He's not paying any taxes. His heirs are. Why should they get untaxed money that they didn't work hard for? Your father worked hard for his money, and he should keep as much of it as he can. Thing is, you didn't work hard for it. He did. You should benefit from any hard work you do, but that doesn't mean that it's fair that you benefit because you were lucky that some event didn't happen to wipe out your dad's estate before he died.

He's gone now, and he can't take it with him.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

I actually have no issue with the higher CPP premiums - my issue is why do that AND take away my extra abilities to save?

Increase CPP, sure. Reduce the TFSA? Why? If I choose to spend my money on investments instead of new homes/cars/toys, why do I get punished for it?

Not to mention that it sounds like the new budget is going to be more "punish those who save/invest" - extra taxes on capital gains, dividends - frankly it is punishing those like me to satiate the masses who blow every dollar they have (and thousands of dollars that they don't have).

Yeah that budgetary chatter is worrying at this point. I detest Capital Gains tax as it is, and if the rumour is true I will be very unhappy.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

One might even call them random tax grabs.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to argue in this thread.

First, all your examples, except the carbon tax, are simply increases to current taxes.

Second, when did I say that anything was madness? I said it was double taxation, and it is a bad idea because it disincentivizes savings. And what we need to do is encourage savings.

Third, how does anything you're saying here actually support the tax? Is your argument that governments like to raise taxes and create new taxes, so have at 'er with this one too?

Because if that is the argument - and I haven't seen any other arguments in its favour yet - then I would say yes, that is pretty much the definition of a random tax grab.

Ok, but they are dead. Most people are concerned with outliving their money, and savings are important to avoid that. But an estate tax (or rather, an increased transfer tax, you've done a good job enlightening people that even though there is no estate tax, that the estate is still taxed upon death) should not affect people's ideas about saving - because they are dead. Death kinda wipes out any need for savings. No one thinks "Ima gonna need that after I'm dead".

Of any possible tax, shouldn't a death tax, or an estate tax, or a wealth transfer tax, or whatever format upsets you the least, shouldn't that form of tax have the lowest impact on savings of any tax out there? If our goal is trying to incentivize savings.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Ok, but they are dead. Most people are concerned with outliving their money, and savings are important to avoid that. But an estate tax (or rather, an increased transfer tax, you've done a good job enlightening people that even though there is no estate tax, that the estate is still taxed upon death) should not affect people's ideas about saving - because they are dead. Death kinda wipes out any need for savings. No one thinks "Ima gonna need that after I'm dead".

Of any possible tax, shouldn't a death tax, or an estate tax, or a wealth transfer tax, or whatever format upsets you the least, shouldn't that form of tax have the lowest impact on savings of any tax out there? If our goal is trying to incentivize savings.

Do you have any children?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Do you have any children?

I neither have children, nor will I be receiving anything from my father's estate. At least, I am making the assumption that I will not. Assuming that I will may lead me to make poor financial decisions on my own part.


On the flip side, do you sell people estate plans that help them plan out their children's lives after they die?

[Enoch Root]

lol

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

I take that as a yes?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I take that as a yes?

I thought you were being sarcastic.

If you are asking me if I help people design and manage their estate plans, then the answer is yes.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I thought you were being sarcastic.

If you are asking me if I help people design and manage their estate plans, then the answer is yes.

So you have a vested interest in convincing people that after they are dead, that the value of their investments with you should be as high as possible - after death? And that this transfer of wealth should maintain as much value as possible, right? Because then you would have another customer, with just as much money as your last customer, to manage his or her wealth, right? It's probably not hard to have to convince them, but still, at minimum, you nudge people to consider just how much they can leave whole in their accounts after death. Right?

[Knalus]

I don't mean to make this sound like a personal attack - just like I'm sure you didn't mean to insinuate that somehow I am clueless just because I don't happen to have children.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Knalus

So you have a vested interest in convincing people that after they are dead, that the value of their investments with you should be as high as possible - after death? And that this transfer of wealth should maintain as much value as possible, right? Because then you would have another customer, with just as much money as your last customer, to manage his or her wealth, right? It's probably not hard to have to convince them, but still, at minimum, you nudge people to consider just how much they can leave whole in their accounts after death. Right?

No.

I help people manage their wealth.

And you can argue that I have a vested interest in not wanting an estate tax if you like, but I would argue that the establishment of such a tax would actually be good for my business - more people would need more advice with respect to planning.

However, as a person who lives and works in this country, I care about what is in our best interests, and IMO, such a tax is not.

It would be much better to scale CPP based on income than to (re)tax savings.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I don't mean to make this sound like a personal attack - just like I'm sure you didn't mean to insinuate that somehow I am clueless just because I don't happen to have children.

Wasn't trying to suggest you're clueless, but it is apparent that transferring wealth to your children isn't something that is high on your priority list. It most definitely is for some people though.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No.

I help people manage their wealth.

And you can argue that I have a vested interest in not wanting an estate tax if you like, but I would argue that the establishment of such a tax would actually be good for my business - more people would need more advice with respect to planning.

However, as a person who lives and works in this country, I care about what is in our best interests, and IMO, such a tax is not.

It would be much better to scale CPP based on income than to (re)tax savings.

Fair enough.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Wasn't trying to suggest you're clueless, but it is apparent that transferring wealth to your children isn't something that is high on your priority list. It most definitely is for some people though.

I'm more concerned with dealing with other people who have had wealth transferred to them, than I am with the people who want to transfer their wealth. It's an honest desire to pass your wealth on to your kids - but it's also a common blindspot to not see how it negatively affects those same kids.

And saving for after death, that seems wasteful.

Honestly, I'm dealing more with the concern of having to spend my own money on my wife's, and my, parents than the other way around. It makes the unfairness of the situation feel all the worse. Especially when the fairness argument is raised. People who didn't work hard for their inherited money, using the whole "but my parent's did work hard for theirs" argument. I'm sure there are more than a few people like me in this situation.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I'm more concerned with dealing with other people who have had wealth transferred to them, than I am with the people who want to transfer their wealth. It's an honest desire to pass your wealth on to your kids - but it's also a common blindspot to not see how it negatively affects those same kids.

And saving for after death, that seems wasteful.

Honestly, I'm dealing more with the concern of having to spend my own money on my wife's, and my, parents than the other way around. It makes the unfairness of the situation feel all the worse. Especially when the fairness argument is raised. People who didn't work hard for their inherited money, using the whole "but my parent's did work hard for theirs" argument. I'm sure there are more than a few people like me in this situation.

I don't think it's a blindspot at all - without question, the biggest issue my clients face is how best to deal with their children (in all of the ways that implies).

And I understand your situation, but I think it warps the issue to suggest that the heirs didn't earn it - maybe not, but someone earned it, and they should have the right to decide what to do with it. I don't think that is unfair.

For anyone that thinks the children didn't deserve it (because they didn't earn it), I would say this: do charities 'earn' it? You can pass your wealth to a charity, free of tax. But you shouldn't be able to pass your money to your children free of tax?

To me, that is ludicrous.

Providing for our families is among the most basic of personal desires/goals.

[stampsx2]

Just to stir the pot with a quote that's not mine:

Funny how there's always talk of social security running out but you never hear talk of social assistance/ welfare running out.

Why is that?

[Enoch Root]

Well, everyone (or almost everyone) gets social security. Pretty big difference.