CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24429
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:05 pm
 


The Progressive Socialists of the NDP and others don't want you to be able to hide a little bit from the tax man. That sucks. They suck.



Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:43 pm
 


Garth Turner has an interesting blog post on the very same topic today.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/02/25/the-illusion-2/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:06 am
 


...and?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24429
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:41 am
 


sandorski wrote:
...and?


That's pretty much it. Leaching lefties want our TFSAs, and we don't want to give them up. We have better uses for them than to put smiles on the faces of NDP voters by fattening their welfare cheques.

You don't seem to agree. So I guess that tells us what side of that you're on. :P


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:36 am
 


Garth Turner giving financial advice? :lol: :lol:

I love how we're a Country that can't predict the budget from year to year but we're supposed to base current policy on a projected budget 50+ years from now?

Allowing Canadians to keep more of the money they've already earned isn't a loss of income for the government. You can't lose something you never had and that's not yours.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14159
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:43 am
 


Typical NF right-wing lies and distortion.

Youre tyring to make it sound like leftists are trying to take away the money you already have in a TFSA. Which is not the case.

Financial experts (including the economist who is considered to be "the father" and "the arhictect" of the TFSA program, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer among others) say it would be too much of a Tax hit.

$15 Billion lost to federal reveneue and another $9Bn lost to the provinces. And how many 'average middle class joes' are maxing out their $30,430 total annual RRSP and TFSA tax sheltering every year? I'll bet few. How wealthy do you have to be to routinely have $30k in excess savings every year?

So to recap
Lie 1: "leftists" (Truth: Non-partisan)
Lie 2: "take away" (Truth: not taking away anything)


Lie, distort, exaggerate. Par for the Conservative course these days


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63837
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:47 am
 


Letting people keep their own money is not a 'cost' for government that has to be 'paid for'.

The government is not entitled to a guaranteed income anymore than anyone else is.

If revenues go down then so should expenditures. It's really that simple.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14159
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:03 pm
 


In practice it is a cost. Slashing your revenue by $24Bn dollars a year has the same effect as spending an adidtional $24Bn dollars a year. It has to be budgeted for.

Quote:
The government is not entitled to a guaranteed income anymore than anyone else is.

The problem is people don't want the expenditures to go down


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:20 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
$15 Billion lost to federal reveneue and another $9Bn lost to the provinces. And how many 'average middle class joes' are maxing out their $30,430 total annual RRSP and TFSA tax sheltering every year? I'll bet few. How wealthy do you have to be to routinely have $30k in excess savings every year?

So to recap
Lie 1: "leftists" (Truth: Non-partisan)
Lie 2: "take away" (Truth: not taking away anything)

Lie, distort, exaggerate. Par for the Conservative course these days


I intend to have a new Porsche in 45 years. These new changes will mean I can't. That means, I've 'lost' my car.

You can't lose something you don't have nor do you predict a budget 45 years down the road.

It's "Projected Revenue".

Governments and pencil pushers can barely predict a budget from year to year and we're going to look at a budget 45 years from now and pretend we have a clue?


Last edited by OnTheIce on Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9032
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:32 pm
 


When inflation goes nuts and banks are paying 24% interest on savings the subject would be worth worrying about.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14159
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:32 pm
 


Quote:
I intend to have a new Porsche in 45 years. These new changes will mean I can't. That means, I've 'lost' my car.

You can't lose something you don't have


Exactly my point, so what are you crying about? If we just leave the TFSA limits where they are then you haven't lost anything then, have you? Nobody's "taken you TFSAs" as the ridiculous title of this thread indicates.

Because you can't lose something you don't already have.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:40 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:

Exactly my point, so what are you crying about? If we just leave the TFSA limits where they are then you haven't lost anything then, have you? Nobody's "taken you TFSAs" as the ridiculous title of this thread indicates.

Because you can't lose something you don't already have.


No, you misunderstand.

I'm counting on that revenue from the increased contributions. I'm projecting my income 45 years from now based on the new limits. If I don't have that, I won't be able to get my car.

The argument works both ways here. I'm projecting my income to be a certain amount based on this change, if you take this away, I 'lose' money.

Money that I never had to begin with.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14159
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:55 pm
 


Yes I see that you're saying the argument can go both ways but I don't think they're equal.

For those who feel deprived if the TFSA limit isn't increased....that's like me saying I think a good poplicy idea is the govoernment should mail every citizen at cheque for $10,000 and since they won't do it, they've taken away 'my' $10,000.

OTOH, sure nobody can accurately predict what incomes are going to be decades or even years from now, but guess what? Banks, insurance companies, your personal financial advisor, businesses of all kinds do it every day so the estimates are given a degree of credibility even though everyone knows to take them with a grain of salt. At any rate, we all know that tax rate of (x-1) will produce lower revenues than a tax rate of (x) so it's a given that there will be a loss in revenue.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:03 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:

For those who feel deprived if the TFSA limit isn't increased....that's like me saying I think a good poplicy idea is the govoernment should mail every citizen at cheque for $10,000 and since they won't do it, they've taken away 'my' $10,000.
.


Except Stevo never promised to mail out cheques for 10k.

He did however promise to raise the TFSA amounts.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14159
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:13 pm
 


OMG are you suggesting that a politician made a campaign promise and might not follow through after getting elected?????

Your list of things that never existed but were nonetheless "taken away from you" must be pretty darn long....but I think we all could've guessed that.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.