[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

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.

This isn't just a policy idea from a random person. This is the plan our government intends to follow up with.

What if people are waiting the jump to start contributing more? They could be saying how this change 'cost' them future earnings.

There's two sides to the coin.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

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.

But if "X" is higher than it is now, the -1 doesn't matter. We could have another massive depression. We could have some of the best economic times ever.

That's why trying to predict a budget or 'X' 45 years down the road is just plain foolish.

[Canadian_Mind]

I think TFSA limits should be increased to a point. However, there needs to be an overall cap.
I think my biggest worry is that we are going to end up with a generation of senior citizens who aren't paying back to the government. If I even invest only $5000 (2008 dollars) per year for 40 years, and make good investments, I could build enough investment money that by the time I am 58, I could live off of my TFSA completely tax free for the rest of my years. Considering that beyond 58 I will be relying more and more on social programs, this simply isn't right.

I think $100 000 in 2008 dollars is a good max cap, adjusted up for inflation of course. I also think that anything you should pull you should be able to put back. So if I make $200 000 off the $100 000 limit and withdraw all of it, I should be able to put $200 000 back.

I feel the best investment plan for both individual people and society as a whole is to have a mix of RRSPs, investment accounts, and a TFSA.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

This isn't just a policy idea from a random person. This is the plan our government intends to follow up with.

Actually, so far it's just an unfulfilled campaign promise. Unfulfilled campaign promises do not an entitlement create. Besides, governments change policy decisions all the time.

$1:

What if people are waiting the jump to start contributing more? They could be saying how this change 'cost' them future earnings.

Wait, do you mean as in:

"If you don't pay me to save my own money, then I'll choose to squander all my cash on gadgets and consumer goods and have nothing left for retirement and it'll be ALL YOUR FAULT!!"

????

Saving money is inerrently in one's own personal interest and people need to be saving anyway. And remember, we're taling about people already socking aways $30k a year under the existing RRSP and TFSA limits, hardly the demographic that will end up eating cat food in retirement if they don't get a helping hand.

$1:

But if "X" is higher than it is now, the -1 doesn't matter. We could have another massive depression. We could have some of the best economic times ever.

That's why trying to predict a budget or 'X' 45 years down the road is just plain foolish.

(X) is tax rate today. (X-1) is reduced tax rate with your proposed new tax loopholes. (X-1) does not bring any budgetary advantage over (X), regardless of whether the economy is in growth or recession.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Actually, so far it's just an unfulfilled campaign promise. Unfulfilled campaign promises do not an entitlement create. Besides, governments change policy decisions all the time.

It'll be in the next budget.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Saving money is inerrently in one's own personal interest and people need to be saving anyway. And remember, we're taling about people already socking aways $30k a year under the existing RRSP and TFSA limits, hardly the demographic that will end up eating cat food in retirement if they don't get a helping hand.

But I can't save as much as I want to in a TFSA nor make as much interest off that savings. That means I 'lose' money. I want a new Porsche and my dad wants a new Corvette. His is getting a little tired.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

(X) is tax rate today. (X-1) is reduced tax rate with your proposed new tax loopholes. (X-1) does not bring any budgetary advantage over (X), regardless of whether the economy is in growth or recession.

Allowing people to keep more of their money isn't a loophole. Why is it that you lefties always think that my it's a privileged to keep more of my money?

It's people like you that make people like me do everything I can to avoid paying taxes. I just went through a massive overhaul of finances with my father and grandmother, all working in sync to ensure that when they do pass away, the money runs into protected accounts or the family trust.

The more money we make, the more creative and knowledgeable we get about finding ways to move it around to avoid paying taxes.

[martin14]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Allowing people to keep more of their money isn't a loophole. Why is it that you lefties always think that my it's a privileged to keep more of my money?

Because they just loooove to spend your money, and they will keep doing it until
they run out of your money.

After that, they go borrow a bunch.

[Xort]

I've maxed out my TFSA every year and will keep doing so.

The 10,000 limit seems a bit high. I'd support a scaled amount to keep even with interest being updated in $500 blocks as time goes on.