# Canadian Budget 2016



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As information starts to leak out ahead of the Federal budget next Tuesday, it is reported OAS eligibility will revert back to age 65. 

Other inklings are that the GIS will be increased for low income seniors, and child benefit programs will be overhauled..........no specifics out yet though.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

LCGE to $1 million


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

tygrus said:


> LCGE to $1 million


I thought the 2015 budget had it at 1M. It was also meant to be indexed after 2015.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> As information starts to leak out ahead of the Federal budget next Tuesday, it is reported OAS eligibility will revert back to age 65.
> 
> Other inklings are that the GIS will be increased for low income seniors, and child benefit programs will be overhauled..........no specifics out yet though.


That was all promised in the Liberal election platform. Doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Well, they already took care of the TFSA rollback....

They are consolidating the Child Care Benefit.

Enhanced CPP - I think that's going to be the front page news next week.


----------



## Justin604 (Dec 9, 2015)

Hoping they keep their hands off investment taxes such as dividends and capital gains.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

i don't believe they will touch dividends because that gross up is already based on corporate taxation (note that if corporate taxes go up, so should the DTC in our favour). More likely to increase CG tax rate and constrain use of CCPC's (at least close the abused loopholes). None of it will be nearly enough to pay for some of the ridiculous spending promises that have been, and are being made. They might sneak in an increase in gasoline taxes as part of their CC initiative and increase fees on selected administrative items that are not that visible to the public (e.g. an increase in NAV Canada fees at airports).


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

The speculation about capital gains tax comes from Jamie Golombek's need to have something to write about. It's not in the Liberals' platform, and no one in the government is talking about it. It's a nothing.


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

My Own Advisor said:


> Well, they already took care of the TFSA rollback....
> 
> They are consolidating the Child Care Benefit.
> 
> Enhanced CPP - I think that's going to be the front page news next week.



"Enhanced CPP" - I better get ready to bend over forward for Mr T.


----------



## Underworld (Aug 26, 2009)

Any reflections from anyone about the budget? Insights/thoughts/consequences?


----------



## tinypotato (Jul 27, 2010)

Underworld said:


> Any reflections from anyone about the budget? Insights/thoughts/consequences?


For people with children, at first glance it seems RRSPs are even more attractive as it reduces your line 236 income for Child Benefit calculations


----------



## FrugalTrader (Oct 13, 2008)

Jamie Golombek has a good summary in PDF: https://t.co/4Hh6xL897M


----------



## coptzr (Jan 18, 2013)

FrugalTrader said:


> Jamie Golombek has a good summary in PDF: https://t.co/4Hh6xL897M


I just received this from my financial advisor, have not had chance to read it yet. Also downloaded 2016 budget, looks to be approx. 260 pages.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I'm mad about the elimination of the education tax credit. I think it benefitted a lot of students.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

latebuyer said:


> I'm mad about the elimination of the education tax credit. I think it benefitted a lot of students.


It's the usual redistribution. Take $s from those who earn money, give to those who don't. Eventually they'll run out of other peoples' money.


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

No more corporate class mutual fund tax "avoidance"


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

larry81 said:


> No more corporate class mutual fund tax "avoidance"


That is likely a good move. Financially engineered products do not serve the nation well.


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> That is likely a good move. Financially engineered products do not serve the nation well.


Agree 100% but please dont email the CRA about the marvelous Horizon swap based ETF's.


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

Interesting to hear the feedback from people about the budget. Some interviewed say "I'm not happy - there is nothing in it for me" which is sad but I guess is not unexpected especially when during the election what was promoted was "Tax those in the 1% and I'll give some of that back to everyone else". Personally, I didn't want anything for me but hoped for reason and not go too far into debt. I am really disappointed that we are going so much in debt for many years. 30 Billion each year? Come on - I guess "money can by me love" at least for a while! I guess we'll see if we can spend our way to prosperity but I doubt it. When Trudeau was in Calgary recently he said that they are building roads with the infrastructure dollars so people can get to work easier. Bad news - there aren't many jobs to go to here and the roads are fine. Also doesn't this fly in the face of being green and trying to encourage people to take public transit? Maybe getting to work faster in your car is green because you won't run it as long or perhaps with the carbon tax, this will increase revenue for the government. Just trying to see the glass as half full.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think there was that much extra money when you break it down.

There was going to be an $18 budget deficit anyways, from the Harper government.

Of the $12 billion extra it is estimated they have a built in contingency fund of $6 billion and underestimate GDP growth.

They probably only spent about $4-6 billion extra. It was mostly moving money around from current benefits and programs to new benefits and programs.


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

Really - I remember hearing that the Conservative Government was getting close to a balanced budget - not an $18M deficit.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

They claimed to be with a $70 oil and 2.5% real GDP growth this year.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think they would have come close(r), but would have fallen short by $5-8B or so simply because oil prices in fiscal 2015 (ending in then next 7 days) wasn't what was budgeted for.


----------



## brocko (Apr 20, 2009)

Perhaps someone has commented elsewhere and I have not read it as yet but on page 223 of the budget the government is introducing a Bank Capitalization "Bail In " Regime. Essentially if a Bank hits stormy weather (or worse) then the Bank can go after its creditors and shareholders to bail it out and not look to the government for help. Taking this money which would include our bank accounts as we are creditors of the bank and the bank would issue common stock. We are told and with my bank holding everything I have that they are in fine shape compared to other world banks why is this then necessary? Not a plug but I found this in TheRebel.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

Someone surely did: http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/86786-Federal-Budget-Revealed


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> I think they would have come close(r), but would have fallen short by $5-8B or so simply because oil prices in fiscal 2015 (ending in then next 7 days) wasn't what was budgeted for.


At least they were trying to balance the budget.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

brocko said:


> Perhaps someone has commented elsewhere and I have not read it as yet but on page 223 of the budget the government is introducing a Bank Capitalization "Bail In " Regime. Essentially if a Bank hits stormy weather (or worse) then the Bank can go after its creditors and shareholders to bail it out and not look to the government for help. Taking this money which would include our bank accounts as we are creditors of the bank and the bank would issue common stock. We are told and with my bank holding everything I have that they are in fine shape compared to other world banks why is this then necessary? Not a plug but I found this in TheRebel.


This does not include CDIC insured deposits, and likely not deposits at all. This puts preferred shareholders and bondholders at risk. This has been part of a drive since the last financial crisis to force banks to have NVCC, or debt that converts to equity automatically when the bank is financially stressed.


----------

