[Newsbot]

Title: Boosting Tax-Free Savings Account may cost billions: budget watchdog
Category: Political
Posted By: Regina
Date: 2015-02-24 08:27:10
Canadian

[martin14]

God forbid Canadians should be encouraged to save.

No no no, get out there and load up on credits and houses.

Spend, fucking slaves, spend !

[andyt]

$1:

"The great majority of Canadians would enjoy no benefits," Kesselman concluded.

"In fact, they would bear the burdens of an expanded TFSA by enduring the reduced public services or bearing the increased taxes needed to offset the lost revenues."

The rich don't need an incentive to save.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

The rich

$1:

An accompanying backgrounder states that 75 per cent of all TFSA holders made less than $70,000 a year. It also claims "nearly 700,000 seniors" earning less than $22,000 use the program, and "nearly half" of all account holders make less than $42,000 a year.

Fuck off, Marxist.

[andyt]

$1:

The budget watchdog also says wealthier Canadians are more likely to benefit from the plan.

"Benefits skew to higher income, higher wealth and older households. Low-income households’ benefits range from half to one-fourth the median between 2015 and 2080," it states.

That gap would become wider over time as the contribution limit rises, the report predicts.

"TFSA gains for low- and low-middle income households project to plateau in 2040,while PBO estimates that higher-income households will benefit from continued annual increases TFSA contribution room."

Doubling the limit would make the tax plan "much more regressive," according to the budget watchdog, with wealthier households likely to benefit by as much as four per cent of after-tax income in 2060 — about 10 times what less well-off households could expect to gain.

According to Kesselman's analysis, which used data compiled from Canada Revenue Agency and Finance Canada reports, Canadians earning less than $200,000 a year would be unlikely to take advantage of the higher limit.

The report warns that Ottawa could lose up to $15 billion a year in revenues when the program fully matures in 40 to 50 years, with provincial coffers taking a combined hit of $9 billion.

[Prof_Chomsky]

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

The rich

$1:

An accompanying backgrounder states that 75 per cent of all TFSA holders made less than $70,000 a year. It also claims "nearly 700,000 seniors" earning less than $22,000 use the program, and "nearly half" of all account holders make less than $42,000 a year.

Fuck off, Marxist.

Yeah I don't know a lot of families making 42k a year that can put aside 11k into savings...
I agree, we need encouragement to save. They should give further tax breaks to low income families who are able to do so, not increase the cap for wealthy people to benefit from.

And in case it matters, I max my account every year and would do so even at 11k a year. I just dislike the idea of giving the equivalent of a tax break to people like me who least need it.

[andyt]

People with money to risk can already put high yield investments into the account and all profits are non-taxable - ie any return earned in the account is non-taxable. Lower income people don't have the that kind of money to take a flyer.

[andyt]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

And in case it matters, I max my account every year and would do so even at 11k a year.

It does matter because this makes you a hypocrite. If you were poor and speaking out about this you would be a whiner. (/sarcasm).

[OnTheIce]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Yeah I don't know a lot of families making 42k a year that can put aside 11k into savings...
I agree, we need encouragement to save. They should give further tax breaks to low income families who are able to do so, not increase the cap for wealthy people to benefit from.

And in case it matters, I max my account every year and would do so even at 11k a year. I just dislike the idea of giving the equivalent of a tax break to people like me who least need it.

We have to move away from the term "save" and onto "invest".

Saving money is dumb. Investing money with planning is what we need to encourage.

There's a time when you can stop investing into your portfolio and watch it grow. No need to max out contributions unless required. I will stop contributing to my RRSP's in 5 years.

We need to get young people to start investing very early.

[Prof_Chomsky]

andyt andyt:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

And in case it matters, I max my account every year and would do so even at 11k a year.

It does matter because this makes you a hypocrite. If you were poor and speaking out about this you would be a whiner. (/sarcasm).

LOL. I thought I was arguing against my interests?

[andyt]

Yes. That is hypocrisy, at least at CKA. If you feel that strongly you should just be donating your money to the govt, at least according to CKA. Of course then you'd be poor and just a jealous whiner.

Of course a person with a broader view understands that their interest extends beyond their narrow well being and involves participating in creating a more cohesive society.

[Thanos]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Saving money is dumb. Investing money with planning is what we need to encourage.

Enough people have been so egregiously ripped off by investment professionals over the last twenty years, especially during the collapse of 2008, that the bloom is probably off the rose for the next generation. Saving in a manner that ensures your principal money is protected is entirely the correct thing to do, especially in a financial market that is so overwhelming dominated by grifters and thieves that the odds of getting ripped off are dozens of times greater than the chance of making any meaningful profit through stock or fund growth. If I had it all to do over again I would have bought nothing but GICs and government bonds. No potentially large interest bonanza to be made with those kind of things but at least the original investment amount wouldn't have been completely destroyed or blatantly stolen in fees/losses like happened when I made the mistake of venturing into what I was 'assured' were responsibly managed mutual funds. At the end of it all I should have just spent it all on hookers, blow, gambling, and golf in Vegas because I ended up with essentially the same result, i.e. nothing at all to show for it. At least in Vegas I would have had some fun for a while if nothing else.

[BartSimpson]

It is not a 'cost' to government when people are allowed to keep their own money. I loathe that kind of wanton abuse of language by the left.

[OnTheIce]

Thanos Thanos:

Enough people have been so egregiously ripped off by investment professionals over the last twenty years, especially during the collapse of 2008, that the bloom is probably off the rose for the next generation. Saving in a manner that ensures your principal money is protected is entirely the correct thing to do, especially in a financial market that is so overwhelming dominated by grifters and thieves that the odds of getting ripped off are dozens of times greater than the chance of making any meaningful profit through stock or fund growth

As much as I normally don't mind your 'damn the man' mantra, that just doesn't apply here.

My stocks and funds have grown to the point of being able to stop my contributions at 40. GIC's would have been an epic waste of time and a ton of money.

Thanos Thanos:

If I had it all to do over again I would have bought nothing but GICs and government bonds. No potentially large interest bonanza to be made with those kind of things but at least the original investment amount wouldn't have been completely destroyed or blatantly stolen in fees/losses like happened when I made the mistake of venturing into what I was 'assured' were responsibly managed mutual funds. |

Your experience isn't the norm.

[Thanos]

TFSA's are also open to everyone. They are completely separate from the failed trickle-down ideas that solely benefit the rich at the expense of essentially everyone else. Totally an apples vs oranges argument.