If you only have an extra $100 at the end of the year, then the increase in TFSA space does nothing for you. That's the point. The $5,000/yr was already enough.
I am of the belief that the vast majority of Canadians don't put away $25,000+ each year (max RRSP, max TFSA). TFSA's are already brutally expensive in terms of government policy, and the benefit only goes to the top 10%.
I totally agree there should be a limit, but a lifetime limit. I think 11k is fine for now but for sure there should be a contribution cap. I think that might be the over all plan, just nit the second before an election.
And I agree about people not saving enough to do rrsp's and tfsa's. This is motivation to do so.
I totally agree there should be a limit, but a lifetime limit. I think 11k is fine for now but for sure there should be a contribution cap. I think that might be the over all plan, just nit the second before an election.
And I agree about people not saving enough to do rrsp's and tfsa's. This is motivation to do so.
it's not that people don't have the motivation, its that they don't have the means to do so. I'd love to be able to max out my contributions. Unfortunately the math of money in vs money out doesn't allow that. Especially after pay cuts this year.
Some good responses to the O&G vs. Climate change question I asked, despite CHL's little hissy fit. I saw a few responses that mentioned that since we have the resource, we should be developing it. Could we not then apply that same argument to the marijuana debate. Legalization has the potential to generate billions in tax revenue, create jobs and opportunities for entrepreneurs, and reduce government expenditures. It seems highly irresponsible economically for a government to "leave it in the ground."
I guess maybe for Albertans this isn't a huge deal, but it's fair to say that the Conservatives are having a negative effect on the BC economy due to this ideological stance.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
If you only have an extra $100 at the end of the year, then the increase in TFSA space does nothing for you. That's the point. The $5,000/yr was already enough.
I am of the belief that the vast majority of Canadians don't put away $25,000+ each year (max RRSP, max TFSA). TFSA's are already brutally expensive in terms of government policy, and the benefit only goes to the top 10%.
Why can't these people contribute to TFSA first before putting money into RRSP's? And how much more expensive would the TFSA be for the government over the RRSP deduction?
Most of my friends throw money at an RRSP in Feb so that they can get a tax refund. And then blow said refund on junk. They could take that refund and put it into a TFSA if they so wanted to, but I think the problem is a mental one. They see it as found money and are willing to spend it as such. And then complain that TFSA's only benefit the 10%. TFSA's benefit everyone, but the majority aren't forward thinkers, only living in the present.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flamefan74 For This Useful Post:
In BC alone the estimates on the worth of their pot trade are around $6 billion annually. The timber industry in comparison was worth $7.6 billion in 2009.
There is a goldmine there for generating revenue, and the thing with pot is that if you want it, you can get it. It's not rare, and I don't believe its dangerous except for potentially in youth due to brain development. Basically if people want to smoke it, they are going to get it.
Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. I'm all for strict control of hard drugs, but pot IMO has less ramifications on society at large than say alcohol.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 2Stonedbirds For This Useful Post:
Why can't these people contribute to TFSA first before putting money into RRSP's? And how much more expensive would the TFSA be for the government over the RRSP deduction?
Most of my friends throw money at an RRSP in Feb so that they can get a tax refund. And then blow said refund on junk. They could take that refund and put it into a TFSA if they so wanted to, but I think the problem is a mental one. They see it as found money and are willing to spend it as such. And then complain that TFSA's only benefit the 10%. TFSA's benefit everyone, but the majority aren't forward thinkers, only living in the present.
You're right on the immediate cost of the RRSP vs. TFSA I think, but then when you consider that all that money coming out of the RRSP is fully taxable down the road (growth as well), and there are stipulations so that the government begins collecting that tax when you turn 71 and at increasing amounts, it makes up for that. So while you might feel an RRSP contribution today gives you a tax saving, its really a deferral for however many years until that eventual withdrawal.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
"Thirty-five commenters and interveners, including the Wilderness Committee and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, sent a letter to the board Wednesday announcing their immediate withdrawal.
"It's a sad day. We do not like to fly in the face of regulatory processes," said Wilderness Committee climate campaigner Eoin Madden in a phone interview. "But we can't abide by the system any more. It's too flawed.The latest departures are in addition to the earlier withdrawal of two other high-profile interveners. Economist Robyn Allan announced her exit from the "rigged" process in May, while former BC Hydro chief executive Marc Eliesen called it a "farce" when he pulled out last year."
Last edited by smoothpops; 08-13-2015 at 01:02 PM.
If you only have an extra $100 at the end of the year, then the increase in TFSA space does nothing for you. That's the point. The $5,000/yr was already enough.
I am of the belief that the vast majority of Canadians don't put away $25,000+ each year (max RRSP, max TFSA). TFSA's are already brutally expensive in terms of government policy, and the benefit only goes to the top 10%.
Most common advice for low income people would be to skip the RRSP altogether and just put money into a TFSA.
The idea that everything needs to benefit everyone exactly the same is really silly. Should the RRSP be scrapped because it benefits higher income people more than lower income?
__________________
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Fire For This Useful Post:
In BC alone the estimates on the worth of their pot trade are around $6 billion annually. The timber industry in comparison was worth $7.6 billion in 2009.
There is a goldmine there for generating revenue, and the thing with pot is that if you want it, you can get it. It's not rare, and I don't believe its dangerous except for potentially in youth due to brain development. Basically if people want to smoke it, they are going to get it.
Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. I'm all for strict control of hard drugs, but pot IMO has less ramifications on society at large than say alcohol.
You don't even need to qualify that as an opinion, it's been proven that weed is far less dangerous than alcohol or really any other drug out there
The fact that Harper is doubling down on his prohibition stance is ridiculous, but unsurprising from someone who simply ignores sciences if it contradicts his personal beliefs
In BC alone the estimates on the worth of their pot trade are around $6 billion annually. The timber industry in comparison was worth $7.6 billion in 2009.
There is a goldmine there for generating revenue, and the thing with pot is that if you want it, you can get it. It's not rare, and I don't believe its dangerous except for potentially in youth due to brain development. Basically if people want to smoke it, they are going to get it.
Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. I'm all for strict control of hard drugs, but pot IMO has less ramifications on society at large than say alcohol.
One major factor in this though is that BC can export its timber internationally. Weed won't be able to be sold that way. There's no doubt it would significantly boost BC's economy, it is their largest cash crop. But even to the border-state of Washington, I don't think they'd be able to move it across the border.
So while there still remians a huge, untapped, international market, until those markets legalize the product, they are non-existent. But I think we know there is a significant internal market within Canada.
Honestly, if you look into a lot of the stats and just anecdotes surrounding MJ I really don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that MJ usage (in various frequencies from once a year to habitual) borders on 50%. $14 mil in tax revenue for COL in 1st month of legalization. 70% of Canadians supporting decriminalization at least. I had a vet friend tell me that whenever she tox screens pets, they find traces of THC over 1/2 the time. And really, the health issues are likely minimized by legalization as it allows sale in various forms (mostly edible) that we potheads had to put effort into concocting ourselves previously (ie, the actual smoking part of it will likely decrease significantly). Not to mention not having to buy it in pretty large quantities from dealers. I would probably use less MJ if I could just go buy a brownie or a couple joints rather than 1/2 once of raw weed.
In the hilarious, immortal words of Stephen Colbert, "The market has spoken and the market is tokin'."
In BC alone the estimates on the worth of their pot trade are around $6 billion annually. The timber industry in comparison was worth $7.6 billion in 2009.
There is a goldmine there for generating revenue, and the thing with pot is that if you want it, you can get it. It's not rare, and I don't believe its dangerous except for potentially in youth due to brain development. Basically if people want to smoke it, they are going to get it.
Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. I'm all for strict control of hard drugs, but pot IMO has less ramifications on society at large than say alcohol.
A large chunk of that goes cross border in exchange for other drugs. I don't care either way, but the industry isn't that big if it's legalize.
Some good responses to the O&G vs. Climate change question I asked, despite CHL's little hissy fit. I saw a few responses that mentioned that since we have the resource, we should be developing it. Could we not then apply that same argument to the marijuana debate. Legalization has the potential to generate billions in tax revenue, create jobs and opportunities for entrepreneurs, and reduce government expenditures. It seems highly irresponsible economically for a government to "leave it in the ground."
I guess maybe for Albertans this isn't a huge deal, but it's fair to say that the Conservatives are having a negative effect on the BC economy due to this ideological stance.
So let's say it is decriminalized, sold and taxed. The government gets to add to it's revenue.
Would they also not be able to re-purpose and perhaps reduce the amount of expenditures that go into maintaining marijuana as a criminal substance? I know that I would prefer my police, courts and jails dealing with actual threats rather than minor drug offenses.
David Simon has so much to say on this topic that I agree with. One of the reasons that I LOVED the wire and HATE the American style "war on drugs" that the Conservatives are seemingly imitating in our country.
"The House I live In" is a 2012 documentary that made it to my must watch list after seeing this clip last night:
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
I watch two documentaries the other night that are a two-part series by Russell Brand. I didn't expect much going in, and Brand has an extreme take on a few things (not necessarily a 'bad' extreme), but they were both great. The first one focused on addiction and recovery. The 2nd one is about the war on drugs and decriminalization of it. He speaks with the Deputy PM of the UK who's opinions are actually an incredibly stark contrast to that of his own PM and he is very open about it. As a former addict, Brand has a lot of interesting insight into that side of it.
Russell Brand: From Addiciton to Recovery
Russell Brand: End the War on Drugs
I recommend both regardless of your side of the argument. They are both on Netflix.
I'll save my potential Liberal vote for down the road when the oil & gas sector is in better shape. In the mean time I selfishly want a party and leader who is the biggest promoter of it because it will help me keep my job, help my company do better, and help keep the Albertan economy as well off as it could be in these circumstances. That party is the Conservatives.
You think so?
Income Trust Tax Structure eliminated
Tighter rules on foreign investment
Both moves crushed activity and momentum in the patch at the time those changes were made. The patch hasn't developed answers to recover from either policy decision yet as well.
What I am interested in knowing how Mulcair thinks it is possible to reduce emissions and grow the oil sands simultaneously.
I mean, I have an answer for that - but I am curious about the details in his mind.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
Both moves crushed activity and momentum in the patch at the time those changes were made. The patch hasn't developed answers to recover from either policy decision yet as well.
What I am interested in knowing how Mulcair thinks it is possible to reduce emissions and grow the oil sands simultaneously.
I mean, I have an answer for that - but I am curious about the details in his mind.
Hey I never said they've been great, just that I think they're better on a relative basis.
As for your idea, is it small scale nuclear and electric trucks instead of gas/coke burners and diesel haul trucks?
The Following User Says Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
Molten Salt Reactors was I believe what he was thinking.
I'm on board. Reduce greenhouse gases from the development of our primary resource and sew the seeds for diversified energy industry in Alberta at the same time.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
I am all for reducing greenhouse gases, renewable energy, and the whole bit. I feel everyone in a Western country should be educated enough to know that we only have one planet, and we should take care of it as best we can. It starts with the individual being environmentally responsible, and the attitude will permeate society.
However, I think it's extremely important to have perspective. I enjoy being environmentally responsible where I can, but the reality is, my effort is negligible. Furthermore, Canada's carbon footprint, or greenhouse gas emissions compared to the rest of the world, are tiny. Granted, Canada can be forgiven a little for carbon use since Canadians do need to keep themselves from freezing to death in the winter. So they get a little slack.
So before we go on a holy crusade to reduce our emissions, our friendly neighbors need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Global emissions are a global problem, and no one political party in Canada can make this change.
I wouldn't want to see us sacrifice jobs in the name of the environment, when in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't make a difference unless it's a global effort.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
I wouldn't want to see us sacrifice jobs in the name of the environment, when in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't make a difference unless it's a global effort.
That is what makes it such a difficult international problem that requires real leadership, vision and willingness to make some short-term sacrifice. If people in Canada, where people have a pretty high standard of living across the whole country, don't want to risk changes in the job market for the sake of the environment how can people in countries like China, where a huge amount of the population is still living in poverty, be expected to give up jobs and economic advancement.
I'm actually surprised China doesn't take up a larger share of that chart. Especially considering that China's population is about 50 times larger than Canada's.
Also, while China is still the leading polluter in that graph, it's worth taking into consideration that a great deal of that pollution is the result of products made for consumption in the rest of the world. Along with outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China, Western countries have outsourced a huge amount of their pollution. I imagine that if there was a way to tie emissions quantities to goods produced and then represent responsibility for emissions apportioned in accordance with where those goods are ultimately consumed China would see a significant drop and Western countries would see significant increases.
I think it's hard for Canadians to appreciate the value of the environment that Canada has. I certainly didn't when I lived in Canada, despite being quite well-travelled. A small population that outsources manufacturing to other countries and lives in a huge land mass creates an ideal environment for combining a high standard of living and seeing comparatively little environmental impact. Having spent years living in a place where the population density is much greater and most of the manufacturing is within the country, I can tell you how much I miss that pristine environment of Canada and how tremendously valuable it is.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
