# Petition to keep TFSA contribution limit at $10k



## OurBigFatWallet (Jan 20, 2014)

There is now a petition to keep the TFSA annual contribution limit at $10k: https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

it's a hopeless idea, why waste time?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Waste of time, Trudeau knows that only Conservatives will vote against him on it.
It's not a vote getter, he doesn't care.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Yeah, it's a waste of time. Also, it's such a minor issue. I can't get worked up about it.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

OurBigFatWallet said:


> There is now a petition to keep the TFSA annual contribution limit at $10k: https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000


No income split petition?! I'd prefer it over TFSA


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I'd be happier if the TFSA + RRSP room was capped at 20,000 a year indexed. That way people can choose whichever vehicle they want. That seems much more fair to me.

Doing this takes away ALL The arguments about helping the rich etc (although one could argue that 20K per year is more than almost all can save). Anyway, this will fullfil the purpose of saving for a house and all that fun stuff but limits its abuse by wealthy people.


----------



## The_Tosser (Oct 20, 2015)

OurBigFatWallet said:


> There is now a petition to keep the TFSA annual contribution limit at $10k: https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-keep-the-annual-tfsa-contribution-limit-at-10-000


lol, i think that was what one was supposed to be doing when they voted last week. 

Of all the nonsense and lies bandied about by all sides, the only thing you knew for sure was that good ole pretty-boy Justin came right and told you he was going to shoot you in the head with this.

I am all for keeping (and increasing the tfsa limits) but I think i'd not sign the petition and take a small one for the team, just to remind people how they love to gnaw off their own nose to spite their face. TFSA contributions was really the only tangible middle-class issue that was real in the whole vote.

Voters are dumb. It's that simple.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Or they can see past their nose and accept that taxes buy civilization and that gutting the tax base from the next generation is a foolish thing to do.
We survived decades without a 10K TFSA (heck didn't even have a TFSA until what? 2007 or something?) I'm sure we can survival this small trim.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If you guys think this makes any difference to Canadians, just look at the stats of what % of Canadians have maxed out their TFSA contributions. Everyone under the cap derives no benefit from increasing it.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

none said:


> I'd be happier if the TFSA + RRSP room was capped at 20,000 a year indexed. That way people can choose whichever vehicle they want. That seems much more fair to me.


RRSP deduction limit of 18% was set to make RRSPs actuarially equivalent to DB pensions. It would be unfair to reduce RRSP limit and not touch DB pensions.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

GoldStone said:


> RRSP deduction limit of 18% was set to make RRSPs actuarially equivalent to DB pensions. It would be unfair to reduce RRSP limit and not touch DB pensions.


well yes, those would have to be adjusted to I suppose.

I just think it's funny that people are making SUCH a fuss over the TFSA and not talking about how RRSP massively favour the wealthy.

5.5K is a massive amount of tax protected room esp considering how little taxes we pay on capital gains anyway - seems a bit overkill to me really


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

5.5k is massive? Have you seen others? Wow this is like what John Oliver said 'this is the longest p* that it can be, there cannot be possibly a longer one' 

Coming back to the subject, what do you expect from someone that claims 'the budget will balance itself''.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

MoreMiles said:


> Coming back to the subject, what do you expect from someone that claims 'the budget will balance itself''.


I expect McGuinty 2.0

Do you know who Gerald Butts is? He was one of the top advisors to McGuinty, and later served as the Principal Secretary of McGuinty's office. 

Do you know what he is doing now? He is the Principal Advisor to Trudeau. He will be calling the shots in the PMO.

Butts is a big fan of running deficits. Budget deficits for years to come is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## DollaWine (Aug 4, 2015)

It would be nice but a petition won't change it...


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Harper has my vote. When is the election?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

MoreMiles said:


> 5.5k is massive? Have you seen others? Wow this is like what John Oliver said 'this is the longest p* that it can be, there cannot be possibly a longer one'
> 
> Coming back to the subject, what do you expect from someone that claims 'the budget will balance itself''.



Massive, yeah pretty much.

Once you add in your RRSP room and you'll likely save the majority of your TFSA room from age 18-23 so everyone really starts their investing career at around 25K TFSA is practical terms. Then you start working making 6K RRSP room per year, plus an additional 5.5K TFSA - that's enough to cover your international and bonds allocations. The canadian stuff you put in your non-registered account and are taxed barely at all anyway. Sure, the 10K would be nice to the people who know have 200K or whatever of investable assets but for people just starting out 5.5K are a ton.

Basically old rich people asking for more are just plain being greedy.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Let's examine what the RRSP does over a lifetime. A 40 yearold grossing $140K, planning to retire at 95 will enjoy an extra $131 a month over his lifetime than he would if there were no RRSP, and no tax on savings. (i.e. unlimited TFSA room) Based on 2% cpi, 4% ROR.

$32 a week. Big whoop.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

As much as I like the TFSA, I'm certainly not troubled by the reduction. In fact I don't know anyone who even cared about the 10K limit in the first place.

To be honest I'd have given up the entire thing to get rid of the Conservatives. It was pretty much the least important election issue, IMO.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I know right? The only people I know who even really cared about it were people on this forum and Garth turner and a few douche-bag columnists on the Financial post.

Most people are generally reasonable and can see the danger in mining the future tax base to favour MOSTLY wealthy old people with a very few vocal exceptions.


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

none said:


> to favour MOSTLY wealthy old people with a very few vocal exceptions.


The TFSA does not favour old people. It very much favours young people who have a much longer period over which to build-up their tax free account. People of pensionable age are generally depleting their savings during their later years, not building them. Older people who are saving in TFSAs are often drawing that money from RRIFs and paying taxes, so the net effect is to increase rather than decrease the tax base.

Nor does the TFSA favour high income earners. An RRSP is a better savings vehicle for high income earners, because they are more likely to be in a lower tax bracket when they retire. Low income earners benefit most from the TFSA because they can save for retirement without risk of placing themselves into a higher tax bracket later in life. The TFSA is particularly favourable to those with very low income in retirement, who would otherwise be paying an effective tax rate of over 70% because of the clawback of the GIS.

People who benefit from the TFSA are people who can live within their means and save. Those who do not benefit are people who spend every penny they earn, and more. There are poor and rich people in both categories.

A fairer approach would be to limit the total lifetime contributions, or the total tax-free assets


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I specify old as anyone over 40. Sorry for those in their 50s and still think they're young. You're not. You're part of the moldy oldy group.

The benefit of the TFSA for poor people is so overstated that it's ridiculous. 

The only scenario I can see it even impacting is if someone making less than (for BC 37.8) is able to save 700K - sure - it's possible and not even that hard - you'd only have to save 300 a month for 480 months but really what then? You have to pay 2-3% tax on anything over that. Big whoop. Who cares. Claw back don't exist until 72K so again - who cares?

The only people who REALLY benefit from TFSA expansion is old rich people - sure there are examples of where poor people can benefit marginally but it's the wealthy or stuff their wives (haha) and their kids TFSAs that really benefit. Those border line tax cheats can go suck a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

none said:


> Basically old rich people asking for more are just plain being greedy.


What is your huge aversion of "rich people"? If we take someone who makes $150,000/yr, in Ontario, they pay $48,143 in personal tax alone (albeit that is a bit simplified due to RRSP contributions). Is someone "greedy" for wanting to shield at least some of that? Is this not sufficient? How much do you contribute to the "greater good"?

Let's not pretend that someone who makes $150,000 a year is just handed over the money. Typically, this salary would (I understand there are always exceptions) come with a sr. management position, staff/sales responsibilities, significant amounts of unpaid overtime, etc.

There are a lot of high paying senior positions that pay significant amounts of money - but in turn, require very large personal/family sacrifices. I have no grudges and certainly do not consider these people greedy.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

none said:


> The only people who REALLY benefit from TFSA expansion is old rich people


Now don't be prejudiced, young rich people also benefit.



none said:


> Those border line tax cheats can go suck a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned.


Hey, hey, not all of them are border line tax cheats. Oh, you are talking about the moldy oldy's again, then carry on.

I do agree with you that in reality, the program favours the wealthy and I am all for the change despite being able to personally benefit from more room. Take one for the team... compassion over greed any day


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm not happy to see it go back to $5,500, but if they re-introduce indexing, that will help a bit. Eventually it will go back to $10,000. It depends on how future inflation plays out.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

none, thanks for the laughs. Not much I can agree with, but an entertaining read, and understandable considering your circumstances, as a young left leaning government employee. 



> people over 40 = old
> 
> Sorry for those in their 50s and still think they're young. You're not. You're part of the moldy oldy group.
> 
> ...


Apologies to others if I missed some other entertaining statements. 

Here's one for you:

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER: 



Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100... 
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this... 
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 
The fifth would pay $1. 
The sixth would pay $3. 
The seventh would pay $7.. 
The eighth would pay $12. 
The ninth would pay $18. 
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. 
So, that's what they decided to do..


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.



The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?



They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.



So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.



And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). 
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). 
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). 
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). 
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). 
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).



Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.



"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"



"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"



"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 



"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" 
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.



The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!



And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. 
Professor of Economics.



For those who understand, no explanation is needed. 
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

MyCatMittens said:


> What is your huge aversion of "rich people"? If we take someone who makes $150,000/yr, in Ontario, they pay $48,143 in personal tax alone (albeit that is a bit simplified due to RRSP contributions). Is someone "greedy" for wanting to shield at least some of that? Is this not sufficient? How much do you contribute to the "greater good"?
> 
> Let's not pretend that someone who makes $150,000 a year is just handed over the money. Typically, this salary would (I understand there are always exceptions) come with a sr. management position, staff/sales responsibilities, significant amounts of unpaid overtime, etc.
> 
> ...


You are pretty much illustrating one fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives look at the rich with a sense and respect for what they've accomplished and try and learn what they can from them in order to improve their own situation. Liberals look at the rich with a sense of envy and hatred as they believe the rich must be stealing from everyone else in order to become rich.

The interesting thing is that liberal Canadians don't seem to have the same view upon the lucky rich, like lottery winners. If they did, then presumably we would be taxing their lottery winnings like they do in other countries. It's interesting that Canada, which is overwhelmingly liberal, does not have the same envy and hatred for the lucky rich as it does for entrepreneurs and executives, who as a whole had to work much harder for their riches.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

These are the numbers:

_The top 1% of income earners paid a staggering 21.2% of the total federal and provincial taxes in 2010. The top 10% paid 54.8% of all taxes while the bottom 50% of Canadian income earners contributed 4% towards the collective personal tax bill._

The people who are getting the free ride do not understand who's paying for their benefits and services.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

the biggest TFSA winners of all stand to be the very young, imho.

if a young person can start up a TFSA age 18 with whatever savings he can spare, by age 30 he might reasonably be expected to have accumulated $30,000. Possibly a great deal more, if he had been fortunate enough to have saved more. A lot depends on his employment & spending patterns after school.

even if he stops contributing to a $30,000 TFSA at the age of 30 - let's suppose our hypothetical young person now has a wife, children, family, mortgage, new roof payments, all the usual expensive encumbrances of middle class life - compounding will give him an ample tax-free retirement fund by the age of 60 or 65, just from that single TFSA.

meanwhile, what does a pipsqueak $5k or $10k contribution mean to a well-off senior, who does not have the years necessary to grow a TFSA? whether contributions are lowered to $5k - as they should be - as the liberals intend to lower them - or maintained at $10k does not matter a tinker's tit to a fortunate 65-year-old.

a lifetime contribution cap on TFSA of $100,000.00 would be an excellent plan imho. Scaling annual contributions back to $5k is an excellent plan. The only people yammering for more are the self-centred greedy.


----------



## Chris L (Nov 16, 2011)

The reasons for reducing the TFSA are ridiculous.

If you can't save at all, no savings vehicle matters. Not your RRSP, TFSA, bank account, piggy bank or under the mattress. But why PUNISH the rest of us who can? Why take all people down with this sinking ship? You could provide any amount of incentive and it wouldn't change the borrow and spend mentality that is pervasive today.

Change the culture is the only way to fix the economy through hard work, saving and investing.

If you can't use the whole allotment, don't. It's up to you. But don't drag us all down.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

lol you are rich enough to casually plop $10k in superfluous dollars into TFSA savings every year yet you are being PUNISHED & dragged down when a majority liberal government seeks to smooth out a tax perk that ran amok last year?

omg such suffering! such torture! such a crucifixion for the rich!

can i offer you this panacea? the liberal party has historically been the party supporting Big Business aka Bay Street, not the conservative party. I imagine the liberals will stay true to their roots, so please don't worry. 

historically, every now & then the New Dems have managed to sit the liberals down & make them enact broad beneficial new social policy such as medicare.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Ok, if I'm reading all these analogies correctly, if the lifejacket doesn't go to the strongest swimmer everyone will drown. and gibor should be paying for my beer, did I get that right?


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^No. See the last line in my post.


----------



## Chris L (Nov 16, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> lol you are rich enough to casually plop $10k in superfluous dollars into TFSA savings every year yet you are being PUNISHED & dragged down when a majority liberal government seeks to smooth out a tax perk that ran amok last year?
> 
> omg such suffering! such torture! such a crucifixion for the rich!
> 
> ...


Middle class, one self employed (mostly low income, on "leave"), one gov worker. Yet we rent and max savings. So no, just another example of how to keep the little guy down for the count. No more income splitting for this traditional middle income family who saves and invests. We don't casually plop it down. We save and invest aggressively.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> the biggest TFSA winners of all stand to be the very young, imho.
> 
> if a young person can start up a TFSA age 18 with whatever savings he can spare, by age 30 he might reasonably be expected to have accumulated $30,000. Possibly a great deal more, if he had been fortunate enough to have saved more. A lot depends on his employment & spending patterns after school.
> 
> ...


You had me until the last paragraph. I would prefer a 10K limit, but am okay with it being 5.5 and indexed periodically. I would need to see more evidence about an arbitrary $100K being an "excellent plan". Perhaps most importantly any implementation of such limits should require an extensive review of all investment and retirement govt benefit plans, in order to ensure tax/benefit fairness. 

I'm okay with being called self-centred greedy. I've paid more for my beer most of my life and hopefully will continue to. The truth has set me free and that's a good thing. :biggrin:


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

humble_pie said:


> a lifetime contribution cap on TFSA of $100,000.00 would be an excellent plan imho. Scaling annual contributions back to $5k is an excellent plan. The only people yammering for more are the self-centred greedy.


Why $100,000 contribution? Why not put caps on the total shielded amount? After all, anyone who can hit investment home runs can now afford to pay more?  (obviously this would be extremely difficult/impossible to implement and I'm joking - at least half joking).

My personal opinion - I am fine with it going back to the 5k range. I would tend to prefer the following:

1. Tax on lottery winnings (as indicated earlier) - why the heck isn't this taxed as income?
2. Inheritance tax - before taxing savers/the makers/risk takers, tax people who didn't earn it
3. Avoiding any incremental tax bracket where you pay >50% of your income. The fact that you give more to the government than take home is absolutely ridiculous. Paying your share is one thing, but this is just robbery.
4. Keep income splitting. While it doesn't benefit me personally, I think this is the right thing to do.
5. Either remove the ability for pensions to have indexing, or include the indexing benefit in the income tax pension adjustment calculation. This seems like a big gap to me?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Chris L said:


> Middle class, one self employed (mostly low income, on "leave"), one gov worker. Yet we rent and max savings. So no, just another example of how to keep the little guy down for the count. No more income splitting for this traditional middle income family who saves and invests. We don't casually plop it down. We save and invest aggressively.



good for you. But in what way are you being *punished* & *dragged down* ?

the one-time-only TFSA contribution hike in 2015 was nothing more than a bald-faced grab for votes by stephen harper. It failed.

there were other bald-faced attempts by stephen harper to grab votes. They all failed, too. Not getting into them here.

regaining the TFSA traditional profile is normal. I'm sure the liberals will not reverse the one-time 2015 aberrant over-contribution, they have 10,000 items on the agenda that are far more important. So if you did contribute the full $20,000 (for 2 persons) for 2015, you can be real happy about that.

imho you are emphatically *not* a victim. You are certainly *not* being dragged down. Seven years ago there was no tax-free savings account whatsoever. It's relatively new. 

i'm left wondering why you don't look at things as my-cup-is-not-half-empty-it's-half-full.


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

humble_pie said:


> nothing more than a bald-faced grab for votes by stephen harper. It failed. there were other bald-faced attempts by stephen harper to grab votes. They all failed, too. Not getting into them here.


I'm hoping you aren't trying to suggest that Stephen Harper invented the practice of trying to "grab votes"? Doesn't every political party do this? Coming from Ontario, I guess I am used to this...



humble_pie said:


> ...liberals will not reverse the one-time 2015 *aberrant over-contribution*. i'm left wondering why you don't look at things as my-cup-is-not-half-empty-it's-half-full.


Agreed. I'm a half full kind of person. I didn't see it as aberrant, saved diligently, and happily contributed.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MyCatMittens said:


> Why $100,000 contribution? Why not put caps on the total shielded amount? After all, anyone who can hit investment home runs can now afford to pay more?  (obviously this would be extremely difficult/impossible to implement and I'm joking - at least half joking).
> 
> My personal opinion - I am fine with it going back to the 5k range. I would tend to prefer the following:
> 
> ...




mittens i think canada should cap the total contribution amount, not the total account amount, which includes investment performance.

because i believe in incentive reward. Business invests & well-off people stay in canada because they believe they can get ahead.

so letting people have the opportunity to win a little in their TFSAs - or lose a little - would be standard liberal policy imho.

if we didn't have this element of individual incentive, wouldn't it be better to legislate increased CPP contributions, so the savings come under professional management?

on the other hand i do agree with your points Nos 3 & 4, especially No. 4 re income splitting.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MyCatMittens said:


> ... I'm a half full kind of person



yes i thought so! thankx for your thoughtful posts

the reason i find the TFSA yammerers distasteful is that they never seem to understand that there's a whole nation of different folks with different needs out there, they only focus on themselves


----------



## Chris L (Nov 16, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> yes i thought so! thankx for your thoughtful posts
> 
> the reason i find the TFSA yammerers distasteful is that they never seem to understand that there's a whole nation of different folks with different needs out there, they only focus on themselves


We understand that we can't fix other people and we moved on. We're taxed enough already.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

RBull said:


> You had me until the last paragraph. I would prefer a 10K limit, but am okay with it being 5.5 and indexed periodically. I would need to see more evidence about an arbitrary $100K being an "excellent plan". Perhaps most importantly any implementation of such limits should require an extensive review of all investment and retirement govt benefit plans, in order to ensure tax/benefit fairness.
> 
> I'm okay with being called self-centred greedy. I've paid more for my beer most of my life and hopefully will continue to. The truth has set me free and that's a good thing. :biggrin:



no, not you! you're not greedy & it escapes me that you've ever been self-centred!

i think your points above are very wise. Obviously some thinking like yours should go into the future of the tax-frees.

re a 100k cap on TFSA contributions or any other kind of cap, i'm mindful of wise cmffers who used to post that the net effect of uncapped large contributions to TFSA will be not only to eviscerate RRSPs over the long term, but to nullify large portions of potential future tax revenues far down the road.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

MyCatMittens said:


> 1. Tax on lottery winnings (as indicated earlier) - why the heck isn't this taxed as income?
> 2. Inheritance tax - before taxing savers/the makers/risk takers, tax people who didn't earn it
> 3. Avoiding any incremental tax bracket where you pay >50% of your income. The fact that you give more to the government than take home is absolutely ridiculous. Paying your share is one thing, but this is just robbery.
> 4. Keep income splitting. While it doesn't benefit me personally, I think this is the right thing to do.
> 5. Either remove the ability for pensions to have indexing, or include the indexing benefit in the income tax pension adjustment calculation. This seems like a big gap to me?


1. Agreed!
2. Aboslutely! Its shameful that Canada is one of the few industrialized nations to not have an inheretance tax. By not it's just results in dynasty building which is not good for society.
3. This I have mixed feeling about. 50% is only a number... It seems high but is it? Tax rates in the 'good ol days' on the 1950 used to be up to 80% for high tax brackets. There are lots of ways to hide money anyway - or reduce taxes below 50% anyway. Someone in a 50% tax bracket probably aren't paying 50% tax on those funds. someone making $300 an hour and after taxes only get $145 an hour after taxes still sounds pretty sweet to me. making more in an hour than many people make in a day and all.....
4. Income splitting is grossly unfair - it is yet another example of couples getting a free ride. What about the single person who doesn't benefit form the economies of scale of couples? Have a heart for the uggos and uncharming of the world!
5. I have no opinion on this.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

none said:


> 4. Income splitting is grossly unfair - it is yet another example of couples getting a free ride. What about the single person who doesn't benefit form the economies of scale of couples? Have a heart for the uggos and uncharming of the world!



i never thought of it like this, but the above is an excellent point. 

we don't want the gummint coercing folks into marriage. As trudeau père said, The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Something like that. Or maybe it was the reverse.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

"the nation has no place in the bedroom of the state?" What about a Rollingstone what is their business in all of this? :biggrin:


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> no, not you! you're not greedy & it escapes me that you've ever been self-centred!
> 
> i think your points above are very wise. Obviously some thinking like yours should go into the future of the tax-frees.
> 
> re a 100k cap on TFSA contributions or any other kind of cap, i'm mindful of wise cmffers who used to post that the net effect of uncapped large contributions to TFSA will be not only to eviscerate RRSPs over the long term, but to nullify large portions of potential future tax revenues far down the road.


You're too kind HP. 

My post was perhaps a bit tongue in cheek. Deep down I agree with being very careful with decisions on TFSA limits that don't harm the country financially down the road, but there is a pretty wide tax and benefit context that should be examined along with them too. Not being income tested and how the TFSA relates to GIS for example may not make a lot of sense. Perhaps people's assets or some other measure may need to be considered for govt benefits-GIS, OAS. 

In my case we retired going on 2 years ago. I have withdrawn from RRSP's to smooth taxes over time and also to top up TFSA's. We're relatively fortunate and whatever happens with it is probably okay with me.


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

none said:


> 3. This I have mixed feeling about. 50% is only a number... It seems high but is it? Tax rates in the 'good ol days' on the 1950 used to be up to 80% for high tax brackets. There are lots of ways to hide money anyway - or reduce taxes below 50% anyway. Someone in a 50% tax bracket probably aren't paying 50% tax on those funds. someone making $300 an hour and after taxes only get $145 an hour after taxes still sounds pretty sweet to me. making more in an hour than many people make in a day and all.....


Over 50% is absolutely high. I'm glad it sounds sweet to you, but I'm not so sure it would be for the person earning it. You could tax 90% of someone making $10,000/hr, and make the same argument about $1,000/hr being sweet. End of the day, our system is based on capitalism. We encourage people to take risks, work hard, and at the end of it, enjoy the rewards. This has substantial benefits to our economy and overall way of life. I just believe that in the end, we take what is fair from everyone, but when it comes down to diving up the pot of money, the person earning it should take the bigger portion. You can't compare 1950s to today - there is a lot more global competition and money/people can easily move.



none said:


> 4. Income splitting is grossly unfair - it is yet another example of couples getting a free ride. What about the single person who doesn't benefit form the economies of scale of couples? Have a heart for the uggos and uncharming of the world!


The tax system *is* grossly unfair. Fair is that you pay for all of the services you consume (or at a minimum, everyone pay the same amount in absolute terms). We have decided as a society that certain people should pay more - "fair" or not. I guess I think more in terms of household vs. individual tax. If my neighbor makes $150k (wife makes $0), and if my wife and I make $75k each... are we both not in the same position to contribute to the greater good?

In terms of Humble's comment about TFSA gains being tax free - If we honestly believe that people who are capable should pay more - if someone knock's a home run and makes $1M in their TFSA - are they in a worse position than someone making $150k per year (who may have also taken a lot of risks to earn the money) who we consider "rich"?.

To be fair (as indicated above), I don't really think we should be taxing the gains in a TFSA (which really wouldn't be a TFSA in that case), but it goes to highlight how complicated the system is... everyone wants to tax someone else  I'd prefer to see a system where we remove all of the "hide money away" methods and structure the tax brackets in a fair/logical manner. But that is easy for me to say, and extremely complicated to implement.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

MyCatMittens said:


> Over 50% is absolutely high. I'm glad it sounds sweet to you, but I'm not so sure it would be for the person earning it. You could tax 90% of someone making $10,000/hr, and make the same argument about $1,000/hr being sweet. End of the day, our system is based on capitalism. We encourage people to take risks, work hard, and at the end of it, enjoy the rewards. This has substantial benefits to our economy and overall way of life. I just believe that in the end, we take what is fair from everyone, but when it comes down to diving up the pot of money, the person earning it should take the bigger portion. You can't compare 1950s to today - there is a lot more global competition and money/people can easily move.


1000/hr is pretty sweet especially if everyone else is just making $10. IT's all relative. Someone making 10K an hour isn't going to be happy if everyone else is making 20K and hour. Knock them all down and they'll just keep running trying to stay at the front of the pack.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MyCatMittens said:


> In terms of Humble's comment about TFSA gains being tax free - If we honestly believe that people who are capable should pay more - if someone knock's a home run and makes $1M in their TFSA - are they in a worse position than someone making $150k per year (who may have also taken a lot of risks to earn the money) who we consider "rich"?



alas we are not on the same page! the party who *honestly* chooses TFSA & then manages to hit it up to $1M deliberately chooses a tax. free. structure. By law of averages, he could just as easily lose everything in TFSA. But he knew the rules - tax free is tax free - & he chose what he chose.

whereas the party who earns a $150 salary per annum *honestly* chooses to work. for. a. taxable. salary. He also knows the rules going in. Earned. income. is. taxable.

furthermore i'm wondering if $150k salary = rich is a new definition? i thought the liberal platform was calling rich at $250k?

in addition, there are many more canadians who earn $150k than there are persons who by luck or skill have managed their TFSAs up to the $1M mark. Very very many more. In fact i've never heard of any million dollar TFSAs, other than the handful presently being investigated by the CRA. Would it not be more accurate to compare $1 million TFSAs to CEOs pulling down $1 million plus salaries ...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

RBull said:


> Deep down I agree with being very careful with decisions on TFSA limits that don't harm the country financially down the road, but there is a pretty wide tax and benefit context that should be examined along with them too.
> 
> Not being income tested and how the TFSA relates to GIS for example may not make a lot of sense. Perhaps people's assets or some other measure may need to be considered for govt benefits-GIS, OAS.



there we go. A calm, thoughtful, objective view that will likely tweak TFSAs as time passes, but not necessarily in the direction of those who clamour the loudest.

overlooked so far in this thread is income testing. Linking the presence of a TFSA to applications for or reception of GIS, OAS, etc.

do ya'll remember Argonaut? exceptionally talented young man, long story but in the end Argo was persuaded to aim for a career at the highest level in finance, by studying for all the credentials such positions require.

when he applied to graduate school last summer, Argo was aghast to discover that the student loan officials were demanding that he sell his beloved TFSA before they would lend him any money. As it happened, his famously successful TFSA was dear to Argo's heart. It was the principal item in his CV that had gotten him admitted to finance grad school in the first place, since he was otherwise too young & inexperienced.

but the student loan department was adamant. You own nice TFSA? OK no loan.

folks here in cmf quickly made suggestions from their own grad school days, Argo was able to borrow the $$ from a leading canadian bank, he got to keep his TFSA intact, so the end of the story was happy. 

my point is that those BC school administrators didn't hesitate to use the presence of a healthy TFSA to deny Argo an easy student loan. Me i think this approach should also be employed in OAS & GIC situations.


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

none said:


> 1000/hr is pretty sweet especially if everyone else is just making $10. IT's all relative. Someone making 10K an hour isn't going to be happy if everyone else is making 20K and hour. Knock them all down and they'll just keep running trying to stay at the front of the pack.


It isn't relative. I'm going to wager that someone who can make $1,000/hr (certainly not me!!) somehow has convinced an employer that he/she has a very valuable skill. The free market will dictate the rate. It isn't the government's job (IMHO) to regulate free market salaries. As far as wanting to "stay at the front", that's great. Nothing wrong with competition. That drives innovation, growth in the economy, etc.

I don't begrudge people who make more than I do. Some of them are willing to sacrifice family time, take significant risks (which may or may not pan out), etc. I look at my personal output and decide whether or not I am fairly compensated. If I feel that I am not - I either convince another employer, or retool.

Mike.


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

humble_pie said:


> the party who *honestly* chooses TFSA & then manages to hit it up to $1M deliberately chooses a tax. free. structure. By law of averages, he could just as easily lose everything in TFSA. But he knew the rules - tax free is tax free - & he chose what he chose.


Sorry - I must be thick or perhaps I didn't explain my POV accurately. I understand you can't (we hope) change the rules halfway through the game, so my argument is somewhat invalid; however, if we base our tax structure on *ability to pay *(is this not the intent?), then why do we allow people to shield money at all? So we have no issues heavily taxing people making $250k/yr, but in theory, we are okay with people gaining significant amounts of money "tax free" through investments? Don't get me wrong, personally, I have a vested interest in status quo - but I do find it a bit strange.



humble_pie said:


> furthermore i'm wondering if $150k salary = rich is a new definition? i thought the liberal platform was calling rich at $250k?


Sorry - I was just using that as an example. I can't keep track between all the levels of government who is rich anymore. The yard stick keeps moving.  Although I get the impression that several people on this forum would consider $150k rich.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

RBull said:


> Here's one for you:
> 
> THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER:


Thanks for the chuckle. That story has made the rounds before, but is no less true today. Re-post it in 10 years, at it will still probably be funny and relevant.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

none said:


> can go suck a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned.


What a coincidence; that's exactly what I said when J.T. said that only rich people have $10K lying around. 

What about those people who have saved just a few $K outside of RRSP every year for the past 40 or so years. With the TFSA, they can now transfer that money gradually ( $5.5K / year ) to where they don't have to pay 20% tax on the meager interest they get on it. 

F**ing old bastards don't want to give up $10 on the $50 interest they make every month - tax cheats!


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Sure, keep the TFSA - the issue was having it at 10K per year which effectively makes all capital gains tax free. It would be more honest to just do that. (which I certainly don't advocate.)


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> there we go. A calm, thoughtful, objective view that will likely tweak TFSAs as time passes, but not necessarily in the direction of those who clamour the loudest.
> 
> overlooked so far in this thread is income testing. Linking the presence of a TFSA to applications for or reception of GIS, OAS, etc.
> 
> ...


Yes, I recall reading that from Argo. 

I think we're of similar mind with OAS & GIS concerning a TFSA. Maybe the TFSA needs a scale similar to a RRIF (without actually making withdrawals) to calculate the value of it for OAS and GIS eligibility, starting at age 65.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Userkare said:


> Thanks for the chuckle. That story has made the rounds before, but is no less true today. Re-post it in 10 years, at it will still probably be funny and relevant.


You're welcome. Glad it made you chuckle and I have no doubt in 10 years it will be at least as relevant.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

doesn't sit well with me, the idea of linking it somehow with OAS & GIS.

No big deal & I know I'm an outlier statistically, but people like me who have not been able to contribute to CPP when they were paid in cash, even though they reported it, they couldn't pay in to CPP (and I've tried, I did look into it, but it was just too much of a pita to provide proof).

Somebody w/o pensions, with minimal CPP, but who have provided through extreme frugal living, a bit of a cashe of funds to rely upon for unexpected costs of being elderly should be dinged for having that?

Only if all other factors are equal imho.
Pensions, overseas assets, real estate , everything should be included if you people think that's a good road to go down.. imho


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

The key backroom players on Trudeau's team all came from one place: Dalton McGuinty's Ontario administration. More details on this here.

When McGuinty first got elected, he quickly broke his signature election promise not to raise taxes. McGuinty's OHP cost my family at least $15,000 in extra taxes. OHP isn't going anywhere, so the meter is still ticking.

How is it related to TFSA? I will be extremely pleased if TFSA room rollback is the worst tax hit I am going to take under Trudeau and his ex-McGuinty advisers.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

RBull said:


> Yes, I recall reading that from Argo.
> 
> I think we're of similar mind with OAS & GIS concerning a TFSA. Maybe the TFSA needs a scale similar to a RRIF (without actually making withdrawals) to calculate the value of it for OAS and GIS eligibility, starting at age 65.


Whoa... a healthy TFSA can get you into top finance school? I am going to apply too because my TFSA is in heavens.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

MyCatMittens said:


> 1. Tax on lottery winnings (as indicated earlier) - why the heck isn't this taxed as income?


Because it's random, and chances of winning are very low. And all the money from the non-winners goes to pay for "noble"/government causes.



MyCatMittens said:


> 2. Inheritance tax - before taxing savers/the makers/risk takers, tax people who didn't earn it


This suggestion sounds so unfair and communist. Similar to (re)taxing used cars or other used goods. Why tax something that was already taxed? Unfair and communist.



MyCatMittens said:


> 3. Avoiding any incremental tax bracket where you pay >50% of your income. The fact that you give more to the government than take home is absolutely ridiculous. Paying your share is one thing, but this is just robbery.


Progressive taxation system is the real robbery here. Flat tax (and at a realistic rate, NOT something like 5%) is more correct, leading to simplified tax code and the bureaucrats should just re-train for other types of, really useful jobs! And no loop holes for the 'smartest guys (aka gangsters) in the room'.



MyCatMittens said:


> 4. Keep income splitting. While it doesn't benefit me personally, I think this is the right thing to do.


Yes, that's fair. Or go even with more flexibility, like 'joint filing' from the US tax system. 



MyCatMittens said:


> 5. Either remove the ability for pensions to have indexing, or include the indexing benefit in the income tax pension adjustment calculation. This seems like a big gap to me?


Maybe even better, to have DBs coming back. This Defined Contribution "plans" look like a big scam to me - how can the little folk have a deep knowledge on the "markets" and invest efficiently? No chance. Professional pension managers, and operating with much larger pools of money, can bring economies of scale and "replacement" costs down.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

none said:


> 4. Income splitting is grossly unfair - it is yet another example of couples getting a free ride. What about the single person who doesn't benefit form the economies of scale of couples? Have a heart for the uggos and uncharming of the world!


What about a family of four, with little kids, and only one breadwinner "bringing" 80k pre-tax? Why should this family pay more tax than a 2-income family whereas each spouse earns 40k each.

"Single person" case: yeah, why should s/he pay into the school system, if not even married, not to mention having kids? Well, you agree or not, being married and having a family is harder than being single. Also, the family brings more tax contributors to the State in the near future, contributing to the society and not to mention sustaining/bringing in a replacement rate for those older people/former generation's pension. What does the single guy bring?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

smihaila said:


> What about a family of four, with little kids, and only one breadwinner "bringing" 80k pre-tax? Why should this family pay more tax than a 2-income family whereas each spouse earns 40k each.


Why should they pay less is a more obvious question.

I'm not debating about single people paying into the school system. I have no issue with that. Indeed, I think that university should be covered by tax payers as well. having a well educated population benefits everybody. As for having kids... yeah, parents already get crap loads of credits for that. I know I get $250 a month from the government PLUS a $2500 child dependency ta rebate. I already get lots (more than I think I should) and adding the income splitting is just grotesque pork barreling.

Single guys can bring lots of stuff. Perhaps they're fantastic teachers? Nurse, a doctor - I don't know. There's lot so of ways to contribute to society that I would argue is more beneficial than dropping a load into a washing machine (or something).


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

smihaila said:


> being married and having a family is harder than being single. Also, the family brings more tax contributors to the State in the near future, contributing to the society and not to mention sustaining/bringing in a replacement rate for those older people/former generation's pension. What does the single guy bring?


As a single person, I find your post offensive. I came to this country bringing needed expertise and many years of education that Canada did not have to fund. Granted, I was in a well paying career (physician) and I am grateful for the opportunity to use my skills. Along the way I saved many Canadian lives and made many other contributions. I also paid a whack load of taxes at high marginal rates for many years, subsidizing your family benefits and others. I pay 100% of my property taxes, utilities, etc. because (news flash) the cost of living for one is significantly more than 50% of the cost of living for two. I am now retired with zero pension and am funding my own retirement, still paying taxes. When I reach the age of eligibility for OAS, it will be clawed back. I would consider returning to my country of origin late in life so I wouldn't have to burden Canadians with my health care costs, but if I leave, I will have to pay a tax bill that will make me poor. At least I hope I will be able to legally bump myself off by that time.

You're welcome.


----------



## Rysto (Nov 22, 2010)

smihaila said:


> What about a family of four, with little kids, and only one breadwinner "bringing" 80k pre-tax? Why should this family pay more tax than a 2-income family whereas each spouse earns 40k each.


Because the 2-income family has to pay for childcare, for starters.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Harper's policies were divisive. Trudeau's policies will be inclusive.

As witnessed in this thread. each:


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

heyjude said:


> , but if I leave, I will have to pay a tax bill that will make me poor.


 Heyjude If you max out RRSP while working here to reduce taxes then break off all financial ties with Canada. When money is taken out of RRSP the money in RRSP is taxed @ 25% (maybe its different if you moved here from another country)


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

I would like to see any backing of the banks by tax payers gone. CDIC insurance makes banks weak for investors will put money into insured banks regardless of the banking practices used. Goldman accounts that require a minimum of 10 million are backed by the tax payers in the United States. A few months back I read that Goldman has 45 trillion in derivatives. Canada does not need any minister of finance thats x Goldman when Goldman is helping to destroy the economies of the world.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rysto said:


> Because the 2-income family has to pay for childcare, for starters.


I don't understand why people re being so thick headed about this. Obviously the family that has two spouses, one earning $80k and the other able to earn $40k but choosing to stay home/raise kids is a 'wealthier' family than one where both spouses work, earn $40k each and pay child-care. In a two-child home, providing childcare at home is worth $20k+ per year after tax.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> When McGuinty first got elected, he quickly broke his signature election promise not to raise taxes.


Here:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

none said:


> I just think it's funny that people are making SUCH a fuss over the TFSA and not talking about how RRSP massively favour the wealthy.


Just like how taxpayer contributions into public sector defined benefit pensions massively favor the wealthy.

And yes - I agree the fuss is being made over the wrong issue.
The fuss ought to be made over the taxpayer contributions into public sector DBPs.
I believe it's around $35B for the federal public service alone, many more billions for provincial and municipal levels.

It would be interesting to know how many TFSA account holders, esp. those with maxed out limits, are also public sector employees (at any level) with gold-plated defined benefit pensions.
That data is unfortunately not available.
Many P/S fatcats are leveraging the TFSA to shelter yet more retirement income from the taxpayer.

So, yeah, go ahead and get rid of it entirely....


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

none said:


> ... The only people who REALLY benefit from TFSA expansion is old rich people - sure there are examples of where poor people can benefit marginally but it's the wealthy or stuff their wives (haha) and their kids TFSAs that really benefit...


I'll have to find the Stats Canada link again for the maxed out TFSAs in 2013.

If the rich see the TFSA expansion as a benefit, one would expect they would have been maxing out the TFSA *before* the additional TFSA room was granted. Yet the 2013 Stats Canada numbers said the upper income earners were not maxing it out.

If they weren't doing so when the TFSA contribution room was smaller ... what's changed so that they all of sudden decide it's a priority when there is more?


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> Do you know who Gerald Butts is? He was one of the top advisors to McGuinty, and later served as the Principal Secretary of McGuinty's office.
> Do you know what he is doing now? He is the Principal Advisor to Trudeau. He will be calling the shots in the PMO.
> Butts is a big fan of running deficits. Budget deficits for years to come is a feature, not a bug.


GoldStone, only those that follow politics closely and/or are very familiar with Liberal party scandals will recognize that name.
The vast majority of voters would have no clue who he is, and how much influence he has in determining national fiscal & environment policy.

If I recall, Gerald Butts is also the shadow man behind the Ontario Green Energy Act.
Consumers and taxpayers need to thank him for quintupling their hydro rates in as many years.
Rural Ontario thanks him daily for ghastly windmills on their properties.

NIMBY only applies when it comes to pipelines and gas plant...when it comes to windmills, NIMBY can take a hike.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MyCatMittens said:


> ... 2. Inheritance tax - before taxing savers/the makers/risk takers, tax people who didn't earn it


So if I save/make/take risks as my kids do, I die triggering a ton of taxes - my beneficiaries should pay a second round of taxes?

I'd have thought having to pay top taxes on the estate in one swoop would be benefit enough for the gov't.




MyCatMittens said:


> Over 50% [tax rate] is absolutely high.


Yet you seem happy to allow that happen on an estate then have the beneficiary pay yet again.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

smihaila said:


> ... This Defined Contribution "plans" look like a big scam to me - how can the little folk have a deep knowledge on the "markets" and invest efficiently? No chance. Professional pension managers, and operating with much larger pools of money, can bring economies of scale and "replacement" costs down.


Even if the little folk are reading CMF and know about good options - the contracted DC pension (as was the case for one I was offered) may give four MF funds at 2%+ MER.

From what I've seen - knowledge is rarely enough to be efficient in a DC pension.


Cheers


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Rysto said:


> Because the 2-income family has to pay for childcare, for starters.


And they also get child care tax benefit, claiming a kid as a depenant, the monthly child allowance etc etc.. which is worth at least as much as childcare.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> ... It would be interesting to know how many TFSA account holders, esp. those with maxed out limits, are also public sector employees (at any level) with gold-plated defined benefit pensions ...


I'm trying to figure out why the 2013 Stats Canada numbers show the high income earners have not maxed out the old limit TFSAs. It makes no sense to me and I have yet to hear any theories as to why they wouldn't.

I also haven't been able to confirm if the same is true for high income RRSPs.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> I also haven't been able to confirm if the same is true for high income RRSPs.


Now that child benefits are being unified and means tested, and tiered based on income, it is going to be more tax efficient to put every last savings penny into RRSP instead of TFSA.
Apparently, the max child benefit is at or around the $77K mark, and break-even points for one child are $150K and two children is $160K (relative to 2015).
Therefore, from a tax efficiency perspective, every effort should be made to stay below those thresholds.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> Just like how taxpayer contributions into public sector defined benefit pensions massively favor the wealthy.
> 
> And yes - I agree the fuss is being made over the wrong issue.
> The fuss ought to be made over the taxpayer contributions into public sector DBPs.
> ...


Gold plated government pensions are largely a myth now-adays. Public servants have great pensions because they put in ~20% of their salary into retirement savings. If ANYONE did that they would have a great pension at retirement. As for offloading the risk booyman - that's also largely a myth, at least in BC, the MER of the public pension is around 0.2% b/c of indexed funds and the way the pensions are set up (i.e risk is diffused over a few generations of people entering and exiting).


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

none said:


> Gold plated government pensions are largely a myth now-adays


Not a myth at all
Gold-plated are features such as full indexing, early retirement provisions with full CPP bridge, govt. guarantees, post-retirement health benefits, survivor pension, etc.



> Public servants have great pensions because they put in ~20% of their salary into retirement savings


Actually, only half - the other half is taxpayer contribution.
Don't forget that many pension plans have significantly higher taxpayer contributions than employee contributions, such as hydro one, OPG, HOOPP, and many more.

Also, every time total contribution needs to go up due to actuarial adjustments, taxpayers end up footing more as part of their share.
For instance, when OTPP increased total contribution from 20% to 26%, the taxpayer ended up footing 3% more.



> If ANYONE did that they would have a great pension at retirement


Not at all.
Very hard to replicate the implicit taxpayer guarantees, the full indexing, early retirement with full CPP, etc.
Try getting a deferred annuity with those features (if available at all).
Cost will be in millions.



> As for offloading the risk booyman - that's also largely a myth, at least in BC, the MER of the public pension is around 0.2% b/c of indexed funds and the way the pensions are set up (i.e risk is diffused over a few generations of people entering and exiting).


Pensions are moving away from indexing to active management.
Even the CPP is moving away from indexing to A/M.

CPP MER is in the 1% range.

I don't know about BC, but 0.20% sounds very low.
Even OTPP, OMERS, etc. are more than that.
My guess is only some costs are being included in that 0.2%.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> Not a myth at all
> 
> Actually, only half - the other half is taxpayer contribution.
> Don't forget that many pension plans have significantly higher taxpayer contributions than employee contributions, such as hydro one, OPG, HOOPP, and many more.
> ...


I think most people would consider the 50% funded to be part of ones salary... I've worked for private industry as well and when I had a defined benefit pension plan they matched 6% of my salary to go into an RRSP - I considered that part of my salary as I do with my current job.

Anyway, perhaps I'm more focused on the BC one which is far more modest than many public service pension plans. If you want to read about it (and it even discusses teh gold plated aspect as well as confirms the 0.25 MER

https://www.pensionsbc.ca/portal/pa...lan/pspp_about_the_plan_qa_print_friendly.pdf


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I had some misgivings about the Liberal platform. But I wanted Harper out no matter what. Giving up $4500 in shelter seems to be a cheap price to pay.


----------



## Chris L (Nov 16, 2011)

kcowan said:


> I had some misgivings about the Liberal platform. But I wanted Harper out no matter what. Giving up $4500 in shelter seems to be a cheap price to pay.


Seriously?

The country is going to be a mess now. Just look at this thread. Here we have a very educated group of people who can't agree on how to tax the Canadian population, but Trudeau, weak on intellect, will? Boy are we in for a surprise. You know what I know? I know that I can make the best decisions for me and would never outsource this to someone else who thinks they can. Trudeau will fail for the very reason that he believes he knows best and actually thinks he can 'fix' the country and make it less divisive. It's already not working because he's trying to make decisions for me. I vote for any politician who agrees to stay out of my affairs as best possible. I don't need anyone else trying to fix things for me.

The TFSA limit gave me more power to make decisions for me, to tuck money aside, to grow it, to pull it out and use it, or whatever I damn well pleased. No other savings and investing vehicle is matched. I'm appalled that we are not more supportive of this tool on an INVESTMENT forum. You're shooting yourselves in the foot, and for what? You want to pay more taxes, GO FOR IT. Just write a cheque to the government! There's no one stopping you! But don't drag us all down with your half brained ideas on how to tax us to oblivion. Again, we're already broke. Our government needs to stop spending so damn much. Same goes for the people.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Believe it or not, the government is not one guy behind a curtain pulling all the levers, even though the outgoing PM tried to operate that way. There are literally thousands of very smart bureaucrats that keep the government ticking over and recommend intelligent ways of implementing the government's agenda.

I think people who are expecting a vast change in terms of fiscal policy are blowing the differences between the three federal parties out of proportion. There was very little difference between spending plans of all three parties.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Chris l. -> Lame.

I think the difference is that we can see the bigger picture. As little as a fraction of a percent growth so our investments will grown and our salaries increase will more than make up for 4500 of TFSA that we can almost all but compensate for using Canadian equ, dividend tax credit blah blah blah. You come off as penny wise pound foolish.

Anyway, money for money's sake is silly. If you can't spend it on something worth while then what's the point? let me guess, you're from Alberta LOL


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> I'm trying to figure out why the 2013 Stats Canada numbers show the high income earners have not maxed out the old limit TFSAs. It makes no sense to me and I have yet to hear any theories as to why they wouldn't.
> 
> I also haven't been able to confirm if the same is true for high income RRSPs.
> 
> ...


If it was the same numbers that I recall, it did also state that there were quite a few low income earners (<$30K) who were maxing out their TFSA. But common explanation was that they may have been retirees who had a lot of holdings in taxable accounts and were just shifting it over.

It would be interesting if there was a study more on net worth and usage of RRSPs and TFSAs as opposed to income.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Yeah, that's why some of the charts that people like Jon Cheveau put up are misleading. someone making 30K per year cannot reasonably save 10K after taxes. Sure there are exceptions but what you describe is FAR more likely. It's a bit of a shell game that people are playing with the 'TFSA help the poor" rhetoric.


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

Clearly given the choice between following an online petition signed by a handful of people on an internet message board, or following the mandate that he was just elected to a majority government on, Justin is going to choose our way...


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Believe it or not, the government is not one guy behind a curtain pulling all the levers, even though the outgoing PM tried to operate that way. There are literally thousands of very smart bureaucrats that keep the government ticking over and recommend intelligent ways of implementing the government's agenda.
> 
> I think people who are expecting a vast change in terms of fiscal policy are blowing the differences between the three federal parties out of proportion. There was very little difference between spending plans of all three parties.


+1 ... wait till trudeau turns around and we all have our grubby little hands out for something and he looks at revenue generation etc etc ... all kinds of powerful forces will now converge on both the pm and his government


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

none said:


> I think most people would consider the 50% funded to be part of ones salary


It can be considered a part of deferred compensation, but not as part of salary.
For instance, say public sector employee salary is $100K and requires 13% contribution into pension (leaving aside other benefits like drug plan, LTD etc.).
Employee will receive $87K after deductions (i.e. $13K will go towards pension).
However, taxpayer will put in another $13K, which will go directly into the pension.

This will be reported in the T4, but an equivalent tax deduction will be available.

I believe most private sector DCP and G/RRSP plans work this way too.



> I had a defined benefit pension plan they matched 6% of my salary to go into an RRSP


RRSP is not a defined benefit pension plan. You cannot consider them equivalent at all.



> If you want to read about it (and it even discusses teh gold plated aspect as well as confirms the 0.25 MER


I read the PDF cover-to-cover.
Unfortunately, it is pure marketing material and contains very few details.
There are serious misleading statements there - perhaps not deliberate, maybe they are simply trying to explain in layman terms, but it is misleading.

A couple of example:

_Page 2 -- 1. Are the PSPP’s pension benefits "gold plated"?

No.
...
The table below shows what pension amounts BC’s public sector pension plans were paying out as of their last fiscal year (all figures are annual figures).
_

They quote average pension amounts in the table below.
However, that is not what gold-plating means.
Tell us the early retirement formula, show us the accrual rate, show us the post-retirement health benefits, the survivor pension etc. in order to decide whether pension is gold-plated or not.

Secondly, quoting average pension amounts is a misdirection often used by public sector organizations to lull the taxpayer into believing they are not overpaying.
Average pension includes survivor pensions, low tenure pensions (i.e. those that worked only for 10 yrs. or so with the organization), disabled pensions, etc.
Show us what the salary distribution is, and what is the accrual rate.

_Page 3
About 75 per cent of the pension payments are provided from the investment returns_

Another misleading piece of information.
Does this mean that if we reduce pension entitlements by 25% then employees and employer need not contribute any more?
That is what it sounds like.
Clearly not the case.
Investment returns are a very small part of overall plan health.
If contributions are stopped, the entire model will fall apart.

This is the reason that public sector DBPs that freeze new member enrollment often suffer dramatic loss of funding ratios.
It is not the investment returns that are driving the funding ratios.

_Page 3 -- Fairness

_Again, misleading statements about pension being pre-funded entirely by employee, while criticizing OAS and GIS as requiring future taxpayer payments.
So, by that logic, future taxpayers can stop making payments into public sector pension plan too.

Regarding the actual cost, there are no details to make an assessment one way or another.
Unless this plan is majority passively invested, it sounds unlikely.
Even OTPP and CPP, which are used as shining examples of plan management, have higher ratios.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Perhaps the fact that these TFSA discussions always go nuts with a great amount of political discourse is proof that in isolation, the TFSA "issue" is rather small and uninteresting in the grand scheme. Government revenues and people's wallets will only be affected in minor ways no matter who cuts or increases or caps whatever. 



none said:


> Chris l. -> Lame.
> 
> I think the difference is that we can see the bigger picture. As little as a fraction of a percent growth so our investments will grown and our salaries increase will more than make up for 4500 of TFSA that we can almost all but compensate for using Canadian equ, dividend tax credit blah blah blah. You come off as penny wise pound foolish.
> 
> Anyway, money for money's sake is silly. If you can't spend it on something worth while then what's the point? let me guess, you're from Alberta LOL



Making appeals to the *bigger picture* is Lame. There is no objective measure of how large your picture may be, nor how large your opponent's is. Inevitably the other will always accuse you of standing too close, that you must simply take one further pace back to see the bigness that is squarely in front of them. You will leap frog further and further back, hopping to see more than your opponent can and gain the upper hand! Finally, one will tire from all the bouncing, and decide that his opponent is now_ too_ far back. He is "unable to see the details" that the closer person can see. They then begin to race, charging forward, desperate to view the parts that were too small for only his opponent to see. At last, they both reach the picture, protected behind 2" of glass, at full speed and bounce off! The picture makes a little "boing" sound and shudders, but is otherwise unaffected by all the crazy running back and forth. It continues to stand as it always has, unchanged.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> If it was the same numbers that I recall, it did also state that there were quite a few low income earners (<$30K) who were maxing out their TFSA. But common explanation was that they may have been retirees who had a lot of holdings in taxable accounts and were just shifting it over.


Question is ... does it hold more or less water than "high income earners will always max the TFSA as it benefit them".




bgc_fan said:


> It would be interesting if there was a study more on net worth and usage of RRSPs and TFSAs as opposed to income.


Yes it would ... I'll volunteer to run the royal commission ... for a fee. :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

none said:


> Yeah, that's why some of the charts that people like Jon Cheveau put up are misleading. someone making 30K per year cannot reasonably save 10K after taxes. Sure there are exceptions but what you describe is FAR more likely.
> 
> It's a bit of a shell game that people are playing with the 'TFSA help the poor" rhetoric.


Without data ... all sorts of claims and charts can be logical and look great.


Cheers


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

As a upper-middle class family/household unit, Trudeau's tax policy, especially with respect to tax rate reduction and child cash giveaways, we're actually going to do better now (not that we needed it). The reason is mainly that our incomes are very evenly split and we avoid high tax brackets individually.

This aspect of tax unfairness due to 50/50 employment income splitting between couples that we benefit from was what the Conservatives targeted with their family income splitting between high earners and stay-at-home parents. My household will continue to benefit from the fact that the taxman doesn't see us as an economic unit. Thank you Justin! :biggrin:


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Without data ... all sorts of claims and charts can be logical and look great.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Without data and accurate and complete calculation methodology......


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> My household will continue to benefit from the fact that the taxman doesn't see us as an economic unit.


 It's like different department in the same business pays corporate tax differently 

Also if you don't benefit from income split now, you could've benefit in future ... you or your spouse can get promotion or will be laid off ... and you will be in the different tax brackets 

btw, income split exist in many developed countries like US, Germany, Netherlands....


----------



## pgicante (Apr 19, 2009)

So to try and bring this thread somewhat back on topic. If on Jan 1st, 2016, I go to the following Government of Canada page -->

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/rgstrd/papspapar-fefespfer/lmts-eng.html

and it still says $10,000, what is the consensus that we're OK to contribute that amount (e.g. it won't retroactively rolled-back)?

Thanks,


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> what is the consensus that we're OK to contribute that amount (e.g. it won't retroactively rolled-back)?


 I'd say 50/50


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

pgicante said:


> So to try and bring this thread somewhat back on topic. If on Jan 1st, 2016, I go to the following Government of Canada page -->
> 
> http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/rgstrd/papspapar-fefespfer/lmts-eng.html
> 
> ...


If they don't say anything then I think you should be good to contribute $10k. However, I expect they'll make some sort of announcement before then saying they intend to rollback the TFSA limit for 2016, even if parliament doesn't reconvene before then.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> even if parliament doesn't reconvene before then.


 btw, no date yet?


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

I bet it won't say that on January 1. Trudeau isn't prime minister yet, and he hasn't appointed a finance minister yet, so it is too early to predict how the campaign commitment will be implemented. Be patient and all will be revealed. Speculating now is folly.


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

gibor said:


> btw, no date yet?


Nope, but Ralph Goodale said before January is unlikely.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2299577/p...t-could-and-couldnt-tackle-without-oversight/


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Woz said:


> Nope, but Ralph Goodale said before January is unlikely.
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2299577/p...t-could-and-couldnt-tackle-without-oversight/


In this case , imho, we still gonna have income split for 2015 tax year, and 10K TFSA for 2016


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Woz said:


> If they don't say anything then I think you should be good to contribute $10k. However, I expect they'll make some sort of announcement before then saying they intend to rollback the TFSA limit for 2016, even if parliament doesn't reconvene before then.


That's what I think. If as of January 1st it is on the books that you can drop 10K into your TFSA then I'm going to do so. You can't back penalize people for following the tax law - just because it will be changed later - that's dumb. Anyway, I'm sure there's something illegal about that anyway.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Anyway, I'm sure there's something illegal about that anyway.


 In theory you can even to fill out taxes on Jan 2


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

I don’t think most of the tax stuff will take effect until the 2016/17 tax year. In their fiscal plan and costing report they only priced it out for 2016/17 onwards. It would make most sense to implement it all when they table their budget.

The TFSA is a bit different though. They show additional revenue in 2016/17 from cancelling the TFSA increase and the only way they’d have additional revenue in 2016/17 is if you weren’t allowed to contribute $10k in 2016.


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

It is only $160M in revenue though, so maybe they'd decided it's not worth the hassle for 2016. It's easy enough to recoup that elsewhere.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> They show additional revenue in 2016/17 from cancelling the TFSA increase


 Not a big deal  they just gonna run deficit not 10 bil, but 15 ... who cares 



> It is only $160M in revenue though


 and income split cancelation in revenue something about $2 bil ... they promissed to increase Foreign Aid by bigger amount ...so they may increase this "Foreign aid" in 2017


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

Eclectic12 said:


> So if I save/make/take risks as my kids do, I die triggering a ton of taxes - my beneficiaries should pay a second round of taxes?
> 
> I'd have thought having to pay top taxes on the estate in one swoop would be benefit enough for the gov't. Yet you seem happy to allow that happen on an estate then have the beneficiary pay yet again.


Happy about it? Not at all. Sure has heck wouldn't benefit my family. However, what I said was "BEFORE taxing savers/the makers/risk takers", I'd rather see people who inherit the money taxed. As in, I'd rather see higher rates in inheritances before people who earn it. Why should someone who inherits large sums of money pay nothing, where someone who works diligently saving money be taxed at crazy high rates (and I was referring to the 50%+ bracket).


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Why should someone who inherits large sums of money pay nothing, where someone who works diligently saving money be taxed at crazy high rates (and I was referring to the 50%+ bracket).


 because if I pay "crazy high rates ", I don't want my kids pay another "crazy high rates " on the inheritance


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

none said:


> Indeed, I think that university should be covered by tax payers as well.


While somewhat off topic, I complete disagree with this. I have no issues with it being subsidized to maintain affordability, but I think every student should have some stake in the game.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

MyCatMittens said:


> While somewhat off topic, I complete disagree with this. I have no issues with it being subsidized to maintain affordability, but I think every student should have some stake in the game.


Well by the same reasoning we should close down all public schools and make everything private. I certainly don't agree with that!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> While somewhat off topic, I complete disagree with this. I have no issues with it being subsidized to maintain affordability, but I think every student should have some stake in the game.


 And I completely agree with it  . If all EU countries have free higher education, we also can afford it


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

gibor said:


> and income split cancelation in revenue something about $2 bil ... they promissed to increase Foreign Aid by bigger amount ...so they may increase this "Foreign aid" in 2017


I think income splitting will definitely be cancelled by 2016/17 so that $2B in extra revenue will be there. I doubt they increase foreign aid. They didn’t the last time they were elected and they didn’t provide any timeline for doing it this time around.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Woz said:


> I think income splitting will definitely be cancelled by 2016/17 so that $2B in extra revenue will be there. I doubt they increase foreign aid. They didn’t the last time they were elected and they didn’t provide any timeline for doing it this time around.


Trudeau promised "Reverse the decline in foreign aid" , logically it means increasing  , but they didn't specify WHEN .... so they can postpone it indefinitely


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

TFSA room change can be implemented before 1st Jan 2016 without a full-fledged budget, if they really wanted to move aggressively on this.
However, the income splitting change will have to done as part of a full budget.

TFSA room is a stand-alone item and does not impact any other aspect of personal income taxation.

Income splitting is part of a multi-faceted suit of programs that include UCCB, NCIB, CCTB etc.
All of those changes need to be brought in together.
That will be part of the new CCB (Canada Child Benefit) package.

Personally, the reduction of TFSA room is not a big deal for me.
Although we maxed out both of our TFSAs (mine & my better half's) this year, I don't think we can keep doing this every year.
An additional $9,000 is not easy to find these days.

So the TFSA reduction, in some ways, reduces the pressure to save more and buy stocks :biggrin:

However, the change in income splitting and UCCB will impact us far more.
The increase in our net tax burden (i.e. adjusting for the elimination of UCCB) is not insignificant, even though we enjoyed that luxury for one year only.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> So the TFSA reduction, in some ways, reduces the pressure to save more and buy stocks
> 
> However, the change in income splitting and UCCB will impact us far more.
> The increase in our net tax burden (i.e. adjusting for the elimination of UCCB) is not insignificant, even though we enjoyed that luxury for one year only.


 Exactly our situation


----------



## MyCatMittens (Oct 20, 2015)

none said:


> Well by the same reasoning we should close down all public schools and make everything private. I certainly don't agree with that!


How is the remotely the same? I specifically indicated that I wouldn't expect them to pay full freight. I think expecting young adults (15-22) to work during summers and for a reasonable period post-grad to help fund - what will no doubt result in a great financial investment (assumption: they select a program with reasonable job prospects) is fair.

You seem to have a pretty big public sector spend list. Who are you assuming will pay for all of this? Or rather, what significant programs are we going to de-fund? I wonder if the government had to go "door to door" collecting tax dollars would people pay more attention. Or would everyone just try and get their neighbor to pay up for them.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MyCatMittens said:


> ... I wonder if the government had to go "door to door" collecting tax dollars would people pay more attention.


With some of the unrealistic comments when I was going to university many moons ago ... I thought it would be helpful to publish the total cost per student then subtract off the amount covered by the gov't. 

To hear some of the rhetoric from some students - the gov't was being a cheat is they had to may more than $50 towards their education.


Cheers


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

MyCatMittens said:


> How is the remotely the same? I specifically indicated that I wouldn't expect them to pay full freight. I think expecting young adults (15-22) to work during summers and for a reasonable period post-grad to help fund - what will no doubt result in a great financial investment (assumption: they select a program with reasonable job prospects) is fair.
> 
> .


To Bernie Sanders University is the new high school. You need some form of post secondary education to be a productive member of society (not totally but mostly) so it's in our best interests to make sure everyone gets a chance to get an education we want. How do we pay for it ? How do you think? Pay taxes - some things are worth paying for. Anyway it'll pay dividends in the future so it just should long term cash positive.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think we should be raising the bar on high school. Part of the problem has been the dumbing down of high school in an ill advised attempt to boost graduation rates.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

none said:


> To Bernie Sanders University is the new high school.* You need some form of post secondary education to be a productive member of society (not totally but mostly) so it's in our best interests to make sure everyone gets a chance to get an education we want.* How do we pay for it ? How do you think? Pay taxes - some things are worth paying for. Anyway it'll pay dividends in the future so it just should long term cash positive.


I agree that this is the direction the economy is heading, a more "cerebral" workforce, and should be addressed. The problem is that you are totally wrong in the second part. Many many young people without the aptitude for it are being thrust into university, doomed to fail. The government has made an entire "fake" job market and economy for these not-smart-yet-educated white-collared workers coming out of universities. The jobs are in the form of government employment in departments that shouldn't exists, and in the private sector working in departments that wouldn't exists except for government influence through workforce and other regulations.

The number of private sector job positions that truly require individuals with higher education (for the actual work to be done successfully, not just on paper for hiring purposes or because the government mandates) is quite small, and is shrinking every year.

In my opinion efforts should be made to limit the number of applicants to university to only those who are very smart (or rich and can pay for it all themselves, obviously) and to renew focus on supporting blue collar trade work. 

Additionally, I think some sort of basic government income should to be utilized at some point. There simply aren't enough valid uses of people in the economy anymore for everyone to have a job. It's only going to get worse for both white-collar and blue collar workers. The only reason it hasn't got to a tipping point already is because of all these "fake" jobs imposed by the government on the people and corporations (which is really just an indirect tax). But it's immoral to force people to work when it isn't necessary. You have the entire population working but only a portion of them are doing something useful. The rest sit like slaves in an office working for a company that doesn't want them but has to have them because a government regulation requires it. It would be much more efficient to increase the taxes and reduce the jobs, directing the excess funds of productivity (of which there are lots, and which are ever increasing) directly to the citizens to use as they please, requiring little "work" from them.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

peterk said:


> The number of private sector job positions that truly require individuals with higher education (for the actual work to be done successfully, not just on paper for hiring purposes or because the government mandates) is quite small, and is shrinking every year.


Well that's totally wrong.

Anyway, we can't compete with the uneducated masses of the world. We need an cerebral economy. Not everyone has to be an electrical engineer but some post-secondary education (for example trades) is well within intellectual reach to 95% of the population.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> but some post-secondary education (for example trades) is well within intellectual reach to 95% of the population.


 I think you overestimate the population :biggrin:


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

gibor said:


> I think you overestimate the population :biggrin:


If this forum is any indication I think you could be right


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

none said:


> If this forum is any indication I think you could be right


Now you underestimate this forum :biggrin:


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

peterk said:


> ... The number of private sector job positions that truly require individuals with higher education (for the actual work to be done successfully, not just on paper for hiring purposes or because the government mandates) is quite small, and is shrinking every year.
> 
> In my opinion efforts should be made to limit the number of applicants to university to only those who are very smart (or rich and can pay for it all themselves, obviously) and to renew focus on supporting blue collar trade work.


The problem with that is that I've talked to private managers who are doing the hiring who have bluntly said:


> I know a university degree is not needed.
> I am requiring a degree anyway as it cuts the number of applicants down to a more manageable number to review/flag for interviews.


It's been a consistent statement for going on thirty years.

I don't know about you but when this was repeated over and over *by those making the hiring decision* - it made me want a degree just to be in the game.


What's happened to high school apprentice programs?
A lot of programs switched from accepting the high school version to requiring the college version.


From my perspective ... the driving force behind the education requirements *is* private companies.


Cheers


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

none said:


> Why should they pay less is a more obvious question.


I don't see where is this the case. For sure it is not my situation



none said:


> I know I get $250 a month from the government PLUS a $2500 child dependency ta rebate. I already get lots (more than I think I should) and adding the income splitting is just grotesque pork barreling.


Maybe temporarily, with kids under age of 6. And still, I believe a 2-income earning family with half the income of just 1 breadwinner, will have a difference (negative) in annual taxes greater than the $2500 you're mentioning. Don't have the right calculations in front of me though.



none said:


> Single guys can bring lots of stuff. Perhaps they're fantastic teachers? Nurse, a doctor - I don't know. There's lot so of ways to contribute to society that I would argue is more beneficial than dropping a load into a washing machine (or something).


"Dropping a load into a washing machine". Wow, very plastic way of expression from you. I'm afraid you didn't understand my point here. I was referring to the long-term contributions in the pension/retirement system and the fact that natality rate plays an important factor here in Canada, with an aged population.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

heyjude said:


> As a single person, I find your post offensive. I came to this country bringing needed expertise and many years of education that Canada did not have to fund.


You are not alone. Me and my wife immigrated to Canada from Eastern Europe, with Computer Science University degrees (and mine is a Master's).
Canada also did not contribute in any form whatsoever to our education. We were bringing lot of know-how and highly-skilled expertise. And to what avail? With wife being asked to have "Canadian experience"? 



heyjude said:


> Granted, I was in a well paying career (physician) and I am grateful for the opportunity to use my skills. Along the way I saved many Canadian lives and made many other contributions.


If the doctors are so appreciated, then why not more doctors being made available in aca-nada? After more than 10 years of living there (Quebec and Ontario) we have yet to find a family doctor. We had to go for those pesky walk-in clinics, and waiting in BIG LINES outside in winter cold.
I can tell you why is this happening: it's because the doctors here are a CAST, and they make this profession a scarce resource ON PURPOSE. To trigger demand and make themselves "precious" and hence keeping their salaries at very high levels.



heyjude said:


> I also paid a whack load of taxes at high marginal rates for many years, subsidizing your family benefits and others.


Give me a break. And I did not pay a load of taxes? Almost to 45% effective tax rate, especially back in the province of Quebec?



> I pay 100% of my property taxes, utilities, etc. because (news flash) the cost of living for one is significantly more than 50% of the cost of living for two.


It is only you paying 100% of your property taxes and utilities? Stop patting yourself on the back please. What about me, having to support the whole family of 4 from a pesky 80k salary for a Sr. Software Engineer? I've found out from very trustful sources, that even a unionized bus driver with at min. 5 years experience earns even more than myself...Yup, reality check guys: the consequence of big Canadian socialism - except for doctors and lawyers, and big business, everyone "should" earn almost the same here, no matter how hard you work, and no matter how many years you've invested into your own education...

And even with this relatively modest income, my savings rate was well above 50% and managed to purchase a house by myself, in full cash and no Banksters or any help from "relatives" involved. Let's see, where do you stand?

And what the heck do you mean by "cost of living for one is significantly more than 50% of the cost of living for two. " ? This is convoluted. What matters the most is cost of living for a family consisting of more than 1 person, is greater than the one for just 1 person. Period. And if you think that the cost is more effective with more persons, then what prevents you from getting married and founding a family. Eh, it's so easy, right??



heyjude said:


> I am now retired with zero pension and am funding my own retirement, still paying taxes. When I reach the age of eligibility for OAS, it will be clawed back. I would consider returning to my country of origin late in life so I wouldn't have to burden Canadians with my health care costs, but if I leave, I will have to pay a tax bill that will make me poor. At least I hope I will be able to legally bump myself off by that time.


I hear you - on the same page here. If I wish to bring my father and mother from Europe to live with us here, obviously they wouldn't get the same level of OAS or other retirement benefits here, comparing to what the other "natives" (which is an oxymoron term) get in aca-nada.

Thanks.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

Rysto said:


> Because the 2-income family has to pay for childcare, for starters.


You do have mother, father or other close relatives here in Canada, don't you? They could take good care of their grandchildren / nephews.
2-income family does not automatically equates child care. And even with the child care, with the tax deduction and so on, a 2-income family with half of the income will still get ahead.

In our case, we don't have ANY relatives here.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I don't understand why people re being so thick headed about this. Obviously the family that has two spouses, one earning $80k and the other able to earn $40k but choosing to stay home/raise kids is a 'wealthier' family than one where both spouses work, earn $40k each and pay child-care. In a two-child home, providing childcare at home is worth $20k+ per year after tax.


"Wealthier" only apparently. Wife that cannot feel useful to the society (she lacks "Aca-Nadian experience", as if aca-nada is some sort of magic, extraterrestrial Utopia, whereas things are done "so differently" than on the rest of the planet) and socially interact more, is a negative, any way you put it.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Even if the little folk are reading CMF and know about good options - the contracted DC pension (as was the case for one I was offered) may give four MF funds at 2%+ MER.
> 
> From what I've seen - knowledge is rarely enough to be efficient in a DC pension.
> Cheers


+1


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

smihaila said:


> "Wealthier" only apparently. Wife that cannot feel useful to the society (she lacks "Aca-Nadian experience", as if aca-nada is some sort of magic, extraterrestrial Utopia, whereas things are done "so differently" than on the rest of the planet) and socially interact more, is a negative, any way you put it.


Sorry, this comment was rendered unintelligible. You didn't really seem to address the point I made.


----------

