Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Do you really believe this? I only know one candidate in this election personally, but before going home to run in this election he was in fact doing extremely well, and would have made a whole heck of a lot more money staying right where he was.

Anyway - anyone want to post the proposed marginal rates, combined with AB rates? If you have time and easy access to the data that is. Or if someone just knows where I could find it for myself?

Well I couldn't make that kind of claim about every specific candidate of course, but when you look at the main three leaders, what professional accomplishments do they really have? Its a far cry from the GOP race in the US for example where (policy aside) you have former CEOs and business people running for the nomination.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

IMO that doesn't make it a bad thing.

Not all tax/savings strategies are going to work the same for everyone, but I wouldn't say a program to help my neighbour is necessarily bad just because it doesn't help me.

Well except that the increase in the cap is going to cost the government $160M annually, so you have to weigh that factor as well and determine if the money could be better spent elsewhere.

[troutman]

You can listen to the Rock Against Harper compilation here:

http://rockagainstharper.bandcamp.com/

Release Party Friday at Broken City.

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I think this is a mischaracterization of the Liberal position re: TFSAs. They're not cancelling the program or saying that only rich people use it. They're proposing rolling back the maximum annual contribution limit from $10k to the previous $5.5k amount. It's a fair assessment that typically only the wealthy can afford to take advantage of the $10k cap. That amount is certainly beyond the means of all low-income Canadians and most middle-income earners as well.

And that's the issue I have with it.

It is not beyond most middle-income earners if they actively save to reach that goal.

I know many people who make MORE money than my wife and I who don't contribute to a TFSA at all. Yet they have nice Audi's and BMWs and $700K houses to live in... If they want to have to work until they are 80, great.

Just don't take away my vehicle to being financially independent sooner because other people have different priorities than me.

[YYC in LAX]

^

Lol, there is nothing less relevant than Calgary local bands.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

And that's the issue I have with it.

It is not beyond most middle-income earners if they actively save to reach that goal.

I know many people who make MORE money than my wife and I who don't contribute to a TFSA at all. Yet they have nice Audi's and BMWs and $700K houses to live in... If they want to have to work until they are 80, great.

Just don't take away my vehicle to being financially independent sooner because other people have different priorities than me.

Yeah, I am a high saver here as well (probably around 30% of income goes to my TFSA/RRSPs/portfolio), which is great, but I definitely have a less luxurious style of life than a lot of my high-earning, high-spending friends.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by troutman

You can listen to the Rock Against Harper compilation here:

http://rockagainstharper.bandcamp.com/

Release Party Friday at Broken City.

I know where I won't be on Friday, and not because I love Harper, but because that music is terrible... And I like the kind of music they're trying to make...

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well except that the increase in the cap is going to cost the government $160M annually, so you have to weigh that factor as well and determine if the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Personally I'd rather have the money in my pocket to decide how to spend it than have Tom, Justin or Steve decide what is best for me.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Personally I'd rather have the money in my pocket to decide how to spend it than have Tom, Justin or Steve decide what is best for me.

Yeah, but it's not just your money. It boils down to low-income earners or lower middle-class income earners that are paying taxes to fund a program that will likely never benefit them.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

I see.

They list their tax cut on the middle class and tax increase on the 1%'ers as evening out. I'd really like to see the numbers on that, because I don't buy that at all.

I just spent my lunch hour doing this and then lost it.

Using averages of income across the classes and breaking down the top 1% so their averages are different (IE trying to capture the real amount gained from people making over 2.5 mil/year vs lumping them in with the 300k+ crowd), because when you get up into that range (the average for the 2550 people that made over 2.5 mil in 2010 is actually $5mil), you get significant differences.

I wish I hadn't hit the back button, dammit. It worked out to about a $1 billion loss in tax revenue, which I think, for all purposes given I was working with averages across ranges of up to 6 million people (and 5 year old data), can be seen as a wash.

Here's the article where I was getting numbers from:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-ar...op-1-1.1703321

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I just spent my lunch hour doing this and then lost it.

A likely story MattyC

... or should I say ... Justin!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

A likely story MattyC

... or should I say ... Justin!

You're right...


It wasn't my lunch hour...

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

That they reached less people is likely a blessing for the CPC at this point. Just because Trudeau did well in them does not make them different from the past. When are people going to give up this flawed line of thinking created by terrible CPC ads. He was fine off the cuff, he will be fine going forward.

I don't think you are understanding my point. I believe that most non-partisans who watched the debates in whole would agree that Trudeau was outclassed by Mulcair and Harper overall. He was by far the most uncomfortable when conversation strayed from what he had prepped for, and he often refrained from joining the discussion - presumably to avoid making mistakes. Add one point during the Munk debate, the moderator had to prompt him to join the discussion after standing in silence for several minutes. He did have several short bursts of enthusiasm that came across well on the debate highlight compilations shown the next day.

In this way, the reduced reach of the debate was beneficial to the Liberals by limiting the exposure of Trudeau in a situation where he was obviously uncomfortable. The Conservatives made a miscalculation here.

Originally Posted by Blaster86

The "online" debates were not any different to other debates of the past. Being online did not make them "less like previous debates."

The fact that the debates reached only an estimated 40% those that the consortium debate did in 2011 does indicate that the new system is different and indeed inferior. I really enjoyed the focus on foreign policy and economics, but I imagine it was only political wonks like myself who would have tuned in. You can't argue to me that reduced public exposure is a good thing for our democracy. John Doyle had a good article in The Globe explaining the shortcomings of the new formats.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I know where I won't be on Friday, and not because I love Harper, but because that music is terrible... And I like the kind of music they're trying to make...

You listened to 11 songs in less than 10 minutes?

[Parallex]

Just as an aside Trudeau has massively improved in his ability to give the fiery stump speech. Was watching the news yesterday showing clips of his pitch to Red Tory's...

"Canada's proud Tory history has been abandoned by a party that has merely assumed a label and co-opted a political tradition, Most insulting of all for Progressive Conservatives is how casually and quickly their history has been abandoned. How swiftly Stephen Harper's Conservatives laid claim to a proud Canadian institution, then hollowed out its centre and replaced the heart with the divisive, secretive and fearful core."

... had the crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. Halfway expected an actual mic drop. He's not Obama level good but it's head and shoulders better then when he ran for the leadership (or even at the beginning of the campaign).

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I think this is a mischaracterization of the Liberal position re: TFSAs. They're not cancelling the program or saying that only rich people use it. They're proposing rolling back the maximum annual contribution limit from $10k to the previous $5.5k amount. It's a fair assessment that typically only the wealthy can afford to take advantage of the $10k cap. That amount is certainly beyond the means of all low-income Canadians and most middle-income earners as well.

I'm well aware of what they are proposing and I don't think that is a fair assessment at all for a number of reasons:
- Around 60% people who have maxed our their TFSAs at the current limited make under $60,000.
- The Liberals define the middle class as those earning between $44,700 and $89,401. Individuals earning near the upper reaches of this bracket can surely take advantage of the increased contribution limit (I myself am somewhere in the middle, so while I doubt I'll be able to max out under the new limit, I can certainly take advantage of the increased room now and the unused contribution space in the future)
- My main issue is that the reduction is a disincentive towards investment and savings. The government should be encouraging citizens to make disciplined financial decisions and this is a negative signal. It basically says to your average Joe that "investing is for rich people and you shouldn't worry about it". I've heard a number of middle class people say things like "I'm not rich enough to even have a TFSA," and that's a very unfortunate sentiment.

[Dagger]

Why try and pay for something yourself when the government will just cover it!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Why try and pay for something yourself when the government will just cover it!

Yes, no essential services are provided by the government via tax dollars.

How's your private overpass coming?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I'm well aware of what they are proposing and I don't think that is a fair assessment at all for a number of reasons:
- Around 60% people who have maxed our their TFSAs at the current limited make under $60,000.

- The Liberals define the middle class as those earning between $44,700 and $89,401. Individuals earning near the upper reaches of this bracket can surely take advantage of the increased contribution limit (I myself am somewhere in the middle, so while I doubt I'll be able to max out under the new limit, I can certainly take advantage of the increased room now and the unused contribution space in the future)

That's not really unexpected, given that individuals earning less than $60K make up about 80% of tax filers. The fact remains that something like only 1 in 20 Canadians earning less than $60K a year were able to max out their TFSA at the $5K level.

And when you really dig into the numbers, it's pretty clear that a good portion of that 1 in 20 aren't really typical middle earners. 25% of the sub-$60K earners who maxed out TFSAs made less than $20K, and a good chunk made less than $5K. To me, that looks like higher earners shifting money to lower earning family members. In fact, of the 1.1M people making under $60K who maxed out their TFSAs, the majority earned less than $35K. Maybe some of the people earning that little manage to sock away 20-50% of their after tax income, but I really doubt that's what's going on with most of them. Or to put it another way, there were as many people maxing out their TFSAs with $10-15K income as there were with $55-60K in income.

- My main issue is that the reduction is a disincentive towards investment and savings. The government should be encouraging citizens to make disciplined financial decisions and this is a negative signal. It basically says to your average Joe that "investing is for rich people and you shouldn't worry about it". I've heard a number of middle class people say things like "I'm not rich enough to even have a TFSA," and that's a very unfortunate sentiment.

How is maintaining the rules that have existed for most of the last decade disincentivizing investment and savings?

And really, TFSAs haven't really done a great job of that anyway. Nearly 2/3rds of those eligible haven't even opened an account, and among those that have, maximization rates have fallen dramatically, and are 1/4 of what they were in 2009.

[Senator Clay Davis]

And heeeere comes the last week fear mongering/desperation