Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 10-05-2019, 05:03 PM   #41
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Here is an example that boils the issue down to its simplest form:

You have a couple that have the exact same job, with the same pay. They have a kid and one needs to be at home (they can't afford a nanny/babysitter).

They have a choice: one work full time and the other stays home, or they each work half time.

The total tax for the couple in those two examples should be the same.

Arguing that the same simple rules shouldn't apply at higher incomes is just bleating: tax the rich more!
But how about this situation. Two people have jobs. One of them gets married. Why should one now get to split his income.

We already have the spousal amount and the equivalent to spouse amount to rebate non-working dependants.

From a more tax should be uniform in all circumstances perspective income splitting makes no sense. It rewards marriages. When the couple gets divorced the higher income paying support no longer gets the tax deduction and the person receiving support doesn’t pay tax on it. So again that is consistent with no income splitting.

So income splitting introduces a perversion to how individuals are treated on earned income.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 05:14 PM   #42
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
But how about this situation. Two people have jobs. One of them gets married. Why should one now get to split his income.

We already have the spousal amount and the equivalent to spouse amount to rebate non-working dependants.

From a more tax should be uniform in all circumstances perspective income splitting makes no sense. It rewards marriages. When the couple gets divorced the higher income paying support no longer gets the tax deduction and the person receiving support doesn’t pay tax on it. So again that is consistent with no income splitting.

So income splitting introduces a perversion to how individuals are treated on earned income.
Why should the taxes change when married? Because the household went from one to two people.

Regarding divorce: one of them pays tax. Either the person paying support pays with after tax dollars, or the recipient has to claim as income (depending on the ruling). But the income is taxed for one of them.

And we're getting into very specific examples in order to find injustice here (which to me suggests it is working).

Anyway, I have stated my views on this topic and will leave it there.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 07:20 PM   #43
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Re-establishing income-splitting for couples is also a good idea. The idea that two couples, one earning $100k and $0K, and the other earning $50k and $50k, would pay (substantially) different taxes, is silly.
The single income household already has a huge benefit over the dual one without income splitting though, so why shouldn't they get taxed more?
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 03:11 PM   #44
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

HealthCare

Quote:

Liberal
Ensure all Canadians have access to a family doctor or primary health care team, as well as mental health services (source)
Add $6 billion over four years to federal portion of health-care funding to add and improve services (source)
Introduce legislation for “distinctions-based” health care for Indigenous people, emphasizing mental health, healing and long-term care (source)
Add $30 million in funding next year for pediatric cancer research
Create a national institute for women’s health to address gender gaps in research and care (source)
Integrate sex and gender-based analyses, as well as diversity analyses, in Canadian Institutes of Heath Research
End the ban on blood donations by men who have sex with men
Create a National Institute for Women’s Health Research

Conservative platform
Increase the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer by at least three per cent every year (source)
Invest $1.5 billion during first term to purchase MRI machines and CT machines (source)
Reduce the number of hours spent on therapy needed to qualify for the Disability Tax Credit from 14 to 10 hours per week

NDP platform

Force drug companies to disclose confidential price rebates they offer to public and private drug coverage payers (source)
Establish a national suicide prevention action plan (source)
Declare a national public health emergency for the opioid crisis (source)
Launch an investigation into the role of drug companies in fuelling the opioid epidemic to determine whether criminal charges or civil action is warranted (source)
Put in place a national dental care plan to help uninsured Canadians with household incomes below $90,000, starting in 2020 (source, PBO analysis)
Make dental care free for households making under $70,000, with a sliding copayment for those who earn between $70,000 and $90,000 (source, PBO analysis)

Green platform

Expand national healthcare coverage by including basic dental care (source, PBO analysis)
Pass legislation that gives Canadians the right to a healthy environment (source)
Declare a national health emergency over the opioid crisis (source)
End the ban on blood donations by men who have sex with men, and put in place policies based in public health evidence (source)
Ban for-profit blood collection services (source)
Implement Calls to Action 18-24 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (source)
Start to fund program within Health Canada to support community-based organizations offering targeted LGBTQI2+ youth’s mental health and well-being, amount unspecified (source)
Ban and condemn the practice of medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex children (source)
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 10-06-2019, 03:22 PM   #45
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

The liberals plan for a Women’s Heath focuses research institute sounds like PC bull#### but it actually isn’t. A lot of research is male focused and isn’t actually 100% transferable so this initiative likely results in better research.

I like the conservative plan of increasing transfers 3% and that’s about it. Let the provinces decide how to spend that money. Given that health is a provincial responsibility this should be more or less the extent to heath care involvement by the feds.

The NDP actually discussing the opioid crisis is a good thing. Not a fan of dental care being funded. For children I could see it making sense but for adults that doesn’t need to be provided by the government.

The big problem here is no new ideas. This is status quo administration of health care when the Canada Health ACT needs changing to allow for more private services. As the second or third worst health care system the Public only mantra needs to change. All parties fail at addressing this need.

They also appear to not be planning for the aging population. Now this likely falls to the province but a visionary party would be planning on what this looks like now.

Also simple fixes like universal free access to birth control could help address many different issues for a very low cost
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 03:32 PM   #46
GirlySports
NOT breaking news
 
GirlySports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I've gone through this as well as most of you. Getting a specialist takes a very very long time. The status quo is very conservative, which isn't always a bad thing, but could use some private services. But that would then favor the rich which is a big Liberal and NDP no-no.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire

GirlySports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 03:55 PM   #47
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
The NDP actually discussing the opioid crisis is a good thing.
It's embarrassing that the NDP and the Greens are the only parties talking about it. At the rate it keeps growing, that won't be the case in 4 years and thousands more will have died by then. At least the NDP are keen on decriminalization, but you need safe supply for it to be truly effective.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 04:57 PM   #48
8 Ball
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

The leaders of the NDP and Greens come from the epicentre of the opioid crisis.
8 Ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 05:50 PM   #49
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Conservatives have a policy to make National Museums free.

I don't like it. If it's something that merits being free, surely there should be more than three cities that have one?
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 07:25 AM   #50
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Scheer's letter — which is now being circulated at the riding level on Conservative Party letterhead as campaign literature — warns of "an alarming proposal that has leaked from inside Justin Trudeau's government," saying that its source was Toronto MP Adam Vaughan, the Liberal's special advisor on housing and urban affairs. It details a "sliding scale" of capital gains tax on home sales — 50 per cent after one year of ownership, 25 per cent after two years, 15 per cent after 3 years, 10 per cent after 4 years, and 5 per cent after five.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the...312873?cmp=rss


Ignoring the part where the Conservatives blatantly lie about this, is this a good policy? I was thinking it is not, mostly because if you sell your principle residence, you are probably also buying another one. You get the gains from the sale of your house, but you are also buying a house that has appreciated. It's a lateral move. But if the government taxes that gain, you end up potentially losing money. What if you just bought a place, and have to move for work in a year or 2? The government makes money, and you lose. I don't like it.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 10-08-2019, 07:44 AM   #51
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Integrate sex and gender-based analyses, as well as diversity analyses, in Canadian Institutes of Heath Research
What does this mean and do we really want funding for medical research to come with strings on how it be done?
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 07:59 AM   #52
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
What does this mean and do we really want funding for medical research to come with strings on how it be done?
I can’t tell if it’s referring to the research or researchers.

If it’s about ensuring research includes gender dysphoria and intersex people in research studies than it’s probably positive.

If it’s about ensuring research dollars are distributed based on gender or sex then it is problematic.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 10:13 AM   #53
kermitology
It's not easy being green!
 
kermitology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the tubes
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
The reason why the subsidy for public transit is terrible is it doesn’t increase ridership. It rewards rather than incentivizes. So instead of spending $200 per rider on a tax break you could instead spend it on transit.

Same with the sports tax credits they don’t increase participation. So fund infrastructure for sports or subsidize entry at time of registration or subsidize lower income.

I agree the home Reno one as part of a CO2 reduction platform may be worthwhile.
You know what frustrates me about this? I built my house in 2012, and when I did I installed geothermal, ICF, triple pane windows. I won't get any credits for that. I bike to work year round, I don't see any financial benefits other than my own spending less.
__________________
Who are the people in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired?
kermitology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 10:28 AM   #54
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology View Post
You know what frustrates me about this? I built my house in 2012, and when I did I installed geothermal, ICF, triple pane windows. I won't get any credits for that. I bike to work year round, I don't see any financial benefits other than my own spending less.
I can see why that would be frustrating but "what about the people who already do this?" isn't a good reason not to implement.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 10:54 PM   #55
TheSutterDynasty
Powerplay Quarterback
 
TheSutterDynasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

This is an awesome thread idea. As an uninformed/apathetic voter this has been a great read so far.
__________________
fan noun: an ardent admirer or enthusiast
TheSutterDynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TheSutterDynasty For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:57 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016