Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

The thing is that I take the money as well, but its a little bit disingenuous to say "here's a cheque" 6-8 weeks before the election and then come April I have to pay the vast majority back in taxes. I mean yeah, I would still cash the cheque, but lets not act like this is some great altruism on the part of the government either.

Do you know how taxes work?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait... the "vast majority"? I thought it was just regular income?

Sure, it's the marginal tax rate, and combine that with the elimination of the tax credit.

Originally Posted by Weitz

Do you know how taxes work?

I have no idea. Somehow I have managed to run a financial planning practise, get my CFP, and haven't quite figured it out. Thanks for the condescending question though.

[Bownesian]

Might have been the "pay the vast majority back in taxes" comment.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Might have been the "pay the vast majority back in taxes" comment.

Sure but you get some cash now ($840 in my case) and that's taxable. Then they take away a tax credit, which increases your tax payable as well. It's easily the vast majority, but many people won't figure it out until next April.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, it's the marginal tax rate, and combine that with the elimination of the tax credit.



I have no idea. Somehow I have managed to run a financial planning practise, get my CFP, and haven't quite figured it out. Thanks for the condescending question though.

... So why did you state pay the majority of it back?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure but you get some cash now ($840 in my case) and that's taxable. Then they take away a tax credit, which increases your tax payable as well. It's easily the vast majority, but many people won't figure it out until next April.

The examples in the link a few posts back actually show you come out ahead, with more money.

[Bownesian]

And that's only the case if you're in the higher marginal tax brackets, as it should be.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

And that's only the case if you're in the higher marginal tax brackets, as it should be.

It's smoke and mirrors and frankly even people in the mid brackets are going to give most of the money back.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure but you get some cash now ($840 in my case) and that's taxable. Then they take away a tax credit, which increases your tax payable as well. It's easily the vast majority, but many people won't figure it out until next April.

Did you include any potential tax reduction from income splitting in your 'vast majority' calculations? Or the increased deductions for child care eligible claims?
Cherry picking bits and pieces isn't the best way to evaluate.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Okay, the notion that you're giving "the vast majority of it back" is complete bulls***. That's dishonest. You give back your marginal rate. If you're getting $720 per kid in benefit, you're paying back something like $200-250. That is simply the end of it.

"But the tax credit is gone, too!" Yes - it was replaced. Comparing the new system to the old is fair. Comparing it to what would happen if you had the benefit and the thing it replaced is nonsense.

I think it IS fair to assess this from the standpoint of the tax programs directly affecting one area, e.g. child care tax policies. So you get a benefit, it's taxable, and a tax credit is removed that was there previously.

So, where you would have gotten a credit worth somewhere in the ~300-350 range per child, you now end up with, after taxes, a benefit somewhere in the realm of $500.

But you also have to factor in the other changes in the same area: the child fitness deduction limit doubles, and the exemption for child care expenses increases by $1000. Which on its own could offset the loss of the credit, depending on whether you have child care expenses.

I'm not a big fan of these changes and they certainly don't motivate me to vote for the Conservatives, but let's try to be fair.

[Slava]

Very few people qualify for the income splitting though. Statistically it's what, 11%? The other consideration is that you were already getting good that split if you qualify. This is a separate policy. Before you ask I also didn't factor in the volunteer firefighters tax credit either.

The thing is that this is a net cost to people being sold as a gain. You can spin it by trying to look at other possible factors or things like that, but at the end of the day they removed one credit and gave us some new taxable income. Looks good on paper leading up to an election, but the net is a loss to the average household in the category.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, the notion that you're giving "the vast majority of it back" is complete bulls***. That's dishonest. You give back your marginal rate. If you're getting $720 per kid in benefit, you're paying back something like $200-250. That is simply the end of it.

"But the tax credit is gone, too!" Yes - it was replaced. Comparing the new system to the old is fair. Comparing it to what would happen if you had the benefit and the thing it replaced is nonsense.

I think it IS fair to assess this from the standpoint of the tax programs directly affecting one area, e.g. child care tax policies. So you get a benefit, it's taxable, and a tax credit is removed that was there previously.

So, where you would have gotten a credit worth somewhere in the ~300-350 range per child, you now end up with, after taxes, a benefit somewhere in the realm of $500.

But you also have to factor in the other changes in the same area: the child fitness deduction limit doubles, and the exemption for child care expenses increases by $1000. Which on its own could offset the loss of the credit, depending on whether you have child care expenses.

I'm not a big fan of these changes and they certainly don't motivate me to vote for the Conservatives, but being dishonest about them just reinforces peoples' criticisms of you as a poster in here, Slava.

People can definitely criticize me, I have zero issue with that. Obviously you were criticized to the point of being banned once, so it's likely a letter of time!

The thing is you don't have to agree with me, but the facts speak for themselves. You once had a tax credit and now you don't. You have to consider that because it's part of the picture. Those other mickey mouse credits aren't a factor because you were getting those anyway. Regardless of the fact that they're inefficient and ridiculous, they're not the same thing as the UCCB.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, you apparently have no interest in participating in this discussion honestly so I'm done.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, you apparently have no interest in participating in this discussion honestly so I'm done.

Well we agree on that.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Slava

Very few people qualify for the income splitting though. Statistically it's what, 11%? The other consideration is that you were already getting good that split if you qualify. This is a separate policy. Before you ask I also didn't factor in the volunteer firefighters tax credit either.

The thing is that this is a net cost to people being sold as a gain. You can spin it by trying to look at other possible factors or things like that, but at the end of the day they removed one credit and gave us some new taxable income. Looks good on paper leading up to an election, but the net is a loss to the average household in the category.

When changes are made as part of comprehensive reform, it's probably best to evaluate the new program in its entirety.
Or you can continue to be condescending, and misrepresent.

[PsYcNeT]

I wonder how much parents would get back if we stopped paying money to kill brown people half a world away.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Slava

Very few people qualify for the income splitting though. Statistically it's what, 11%?

Relevant to this number would be the number of people with children in Canada, which I believe is about 15% of the population.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Relevant to this number would be the number of people with children in Canada, which I believe is about 15% of the population.

Wow, is it really that low? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I am just surprised at how low that is. I guess I also find it surprising that only 15% of the population is over 65 (or near that figure).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

People can definitely criticize me, I have zero issue with that. Obviously you were criticized to the point of being banned once, so it's likely a letter of time!

The thing is you don't have to agree with me, but the facts speak for themselves. You once had a tax credit and now you don't. You have to consider that because it's part of the picture. Those other mickey mouse credits aren't a factor because you were getting those anyway. Regardless of the fact that they're inefficient and ridiculous, they're not the same thing as the UCCB.

Ok. Share the facts then. Show me the math and let me decide for myself.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Slava

Wow, is it really that low? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I am just surprised at how low that is. I guess I also find it surprising that only 15% of the population is over 65 (or near that figure).

Back of the napkin here:

15% of the population would be the children themselves
15% parents with kids
25% single people
15% childless couples
15% couples with grown children who are not seniors.
15% over 65