# Gazing into the future...



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Not that any of this is surprising, but stuff the general population who continue to ask for more will continue to ignore...

http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/ltefp-peblt/pdf/ltefp-peblt-eng.pdf

Or, for those of you who prefer to have someone else read the report and present their interpretation...

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/0...vernment+report+reveals+looming+fiscal+crisis


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> Not that any of this is surprising, but stuff the general population who continue to ask for more will continue to ignore...
> http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/ltefp-peblt/pdf/ltefp-peblt-eng.pdf
> Or, for those of you who prefer to have someone else read the report and present their interpretation...
> http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/0...vernment+report+reveals+looming+fiscal+crisis


:encouragement:Thanks for posting. 
People should be aware of and considering the implications of the massive ramp up in federal federal spending (new thread subject).
For example, is the current capital gains inclusion rate (50%) at risk? If a growing economy doesn't bail out the gov't and they start looking for higher tax revenue, it seems to me capital gains that "the rich benefit from" might be an easy target.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Where is the problem ?

A 30% debt to GDP ratio if the economy grows at a slow rate is well within sustainable levels.

Overall debt numbers rising over time is normal. The economy has grown over time as well. 

Government revenues are higher and government assets are worth more.

Nothing in this report points to a looming crisis, but the Sun media will spin it that way anyways.

The guy quoted says he can remember Pierre Trudeau. 

He must have forgotten about Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper's contributions to the debt.

The last government that paid down the debt were the Liberals.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

^Not a crisis for you sags, who recently told us you're 67? Threat title is about the future.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

How about the first chart? By 2035 10M people over 65 collecting government subsidies and not contributing to the tax pool...up from the current 6M. Population of Canada is only 35M. 

Borrowing to meet current spending, when interest rates are nearly zero...

Taxes are already at an all time high...

Yep, no problems whatsoever...we can always tax the rich and corporations.

The real reason they'll legalize marijuana...no one will care.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If Canada has a looming crisis..........what does the US face ?

•Federal debt projections

*-2017: $635 billion*

-2021: $746 billion

-2030: $992 billion

-2045: $1.5 trillion

The US national debt is *$20 Trillion dollars for 2017*.

They have 10 times the population and 30 times the debt.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I have to agree that the alarmists on the federal fiscal situation are not very persuasive. A 30% debt:GDP that will slowly decline over the next few years is NOT a fiscal crisis. It is, if anything, at the far end of fiscal laxity that is sustainable. I would prefer a fiscal plan that was a bit more robust in that it could tolerate negative shocks. We need to plan for debt:GDP to decline because shocks will tend to be negative and add up to 5% of GDP to the debt.

Really I think the conversation should be about spending priorities, because we can't do everything.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

And you think they are doing well? I suppose if you're in the 1% everything is fine, but they seem to have a lot of riots, poverty and issues...

Not to mention their marginal tax rate is about half of ours.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

CPP, OAS, pensions, and RRSP withdrawals are all taxable. Retirees pay all the other taxes that everyone else pays.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Not nearly the same amount as they did while working...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree that astute spending should be a priority, and would add that government revenues deferred or lost via the tax code should also be closely examined for their efficiency.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Not nearly the same amount as they did while working...


I don't know about that. We earn and spend more than the average working income.

The difference is where the money is spent. No more daycare expenses, school expenses, sports costs, high insurance rates.

The money is spent on consumption now.......and that is taxed.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Highest tax contribution is through income tax. No other form is nearly as lucrative.

I've got the solution though, Apple should buy Canada. It's got plenty of money, they could pay cash. They could set their own tax rate, saving them a ton of problems like they are having in Ireland. They'd have access to all the natural resources and educated staff they'd need. We could all be employees, they just paid out 20Billion to developers alone. The rest of the world's purchases could easily fund the country...

Win win.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

SMK said:


> ^Not a crisis for you sags, who recently told us you're 67? Threat title is about the future.


Hahaha! Excellent - I really did laugh out loud.

In my future, I see a really hot place (crematorium)
and gold plated urn.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> And you think they are doing well? I suppose if you're in the 1% everything is fine, but they seem to have a lot of riots, poverty and issues...
> 
> Not to mention their marginal tax rate is about half of ours.


That is definitely not the case in most states. Many states have almost as high marginal rates as Canada. Even Texas is up to 33% marginal tax rate at 100k USD per year. New York and California are pushing into the 40's%.

When you consider that their property taxes are often quite high, it's not obviously lower tax in the US, especially given that health care and education are good quality and free in Canada. In the US, you often need private insurance/private school to get acceptable levels of service.

http://neuvoo.com/tax-calculator/New+York-100000


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The highest tax bracket in Canada kicks in at around 60k depending on your province. Our "hidden" taxes on gas, liquor, cigarettes, etc. are higher. We have a new carbon wealth transfer tax coming online across the country and the income tax rate is pushing 60%. Throw on gst, hst, land transfer taxes, property taxes, service charges, etc. I'm surprised Canadians have any money left at the end of the day.

The American highest rate doesn't kick in until 250k, quite a bit higher than 60k, so less have to pay it.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> The highest tax bracket in Canada kicks in at around 60k depending on your province.
> 
> The American highest rate doesn't kick in until 250k, quite a bit higher than 60k, so less have to pay it.


Sorry, that's not correct. 
http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/canada.htm

Someone at 60k has a federal marginal tax rate of 20.5% while someone at 205k has a rate of 33%. 

For Ontario, a 60k person has around 30% while a 225k person has 53%.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> The highest tax bracket in Canada kicks in at around 60k depending on your province.


For combined Federal and Provincial taxes on employment income, BC has another *six* income tax levels above the $60K level. Alberta has seven, Ontario has eight, Quebec has five, Nova Scotia has five, New Brunswick has six, NL has seven ... 

For the "highest tax bracket" having kicked in - one wonders why there are some many higher tax brackets in so many tax jurisdictions.

Interestingly ... when I check a US Federal and State bracket tool, the Ontario $60K earner has three brackets being applied to the $60K income and the US tax payer has three tax brackets applied. I'm not sure how the State ones work out but so far, I'm finding a range of one to six tax brackets.

To keep it simple, this assumes the county/municipalities are not adding their own income tax, as some do.


Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Ah...now you see why I hire an accountant.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

^^^^

Doesn't seem a good use of money to have the accountant tell you info that's widely published/easily verified ... :biggrin:

Seems a double waste to either have an incompetent accountant that doesn't know the brackets 
.or.
ignore what he said .... :wink:


It also makes me wonder why those who went to the US commented that at the end of the day, the main difference was the number of jobs available - not the lower tax rate like they initially thought that was different from Toronto.


Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I concentrate on earning money, my accountant concentrates on filing the taxes. He's educated me on what I need to know to minimize the taxes in what I do, I rely on him to know the details and do the proper filing.

There are a limited number of hours in the day, I've got better things to do than read the tax code, like spending time with my family. There is enough for me to read daily that concern my investments, real estate and my businesses...


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

zylon said:


> Hahaha! Excellent - I really did laugh out loud.
> 
> In my future, I see a really hot place (crematorium)
> and gold plated urn.


It's healthy to LOL.  The age was brought up because those nearing 70 won't be affected as much as the younger generations, not that sags won't live to the projected 2056.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Highest tax contribution is through income tax. No other form is nearly as lucrative.
> 
> I've got the solution though, Apple should buy Canada. It's got plenty of money, they could pay cash. They could set their own tax rate, saving them a ton of problems like they are having in Ireland. They'd have access to all the natural resources and educated staff they'd need. We could all be employees, they just paid out 20Billion to developers alone. The rest of the world's purchases could easily fund the country...
> 
> Win win.


Canada is worth a lot more than Apple. Many trillions of dollars.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Once the spending is ramped up, it is very hard to rein in. Particularly so when it's done on a permanent basis as opposed to temporary one-off measures the previous government undertook.

Not only that... We have been literally burning cash for nothing. All these spending hikes haven't helped the economy in any way shape or form. 

And no... Nobody in recent history loaded future generations with debt like Pierre Trudeau.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

mordko said:


> Once the spending is ramped up, it is very hard to rein in. Particularly so when it's done on a permanent basis as opposed to temporary one-off measures the previous government undertook.
> 
> Not only that... We have been literally burning cash for nothing. All these spending hikes haven't helped the economy in any way shape or form.
> 
> And no... Nobody in recent history loaded future generations with debt like Pierre Trudeau.


PC Mulroney was the king of debt.........adding $350 Billion.

PC Harper was second on the list..........adding $150 Billion. (chart only goes to 2014)

Liberal Pierre Trudeau was way back of the pack........adding $80 Billion.

PC Joe Clark added $70 Billion.

Liberal John Chretien added $5 Billion.

Liberal Paul Martin paid $9 Billion off the debt.

For all their talk and bluster.........Conservatives are the big spenders.

Liberals had 11 straight years of budget surpluses before Harper took over as PM.

_The 2009 federal budget brought back big spending in a big way. 

Not only does this spending spree waste your money, it will also steal your children’s. 

The Harper government plans to rack up an astonishing $85-billion in new debt in just five years. 

Eight years of debt reduction will be wiped out with this one budget.
_
https://www.taxpayer.com/media/CoverStory24-27WEB.pdf


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ Incredibly bad basic math for a "money" forum or a deliberate attempt to mislead. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, particularly so when we are discussing leaders separated by many decades and periods of high inflation. 

Here is what your chart shows:

- Pierre Trudeau increased debt by 738.7%. 
- Brian Mulroney increased the debt by 67.7% (unavoidable as interest rates had to go up to counteract Trudeau's inflation and the inherited mountain of debt was humongous, over 100% of GDP). 
- Stephen Harper increased the debt by 12.6%.

Other relevant pieces of information:

- Trudeau had federal spending increased fro $13 billion to $109 billion
- Debt grew from $11.3-billion in 1968 to $128-billion in 1984.
- Deficit exploded under Trudeau. When he left it was $133 billion in today's dollars.

Harper's government increased expenditure to deal with the world financial crisis (by far less than the Liberals demanded) and balanced the books by the end of its term.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Thanks for countering with some facts mordko, I wasn't sure where one should begin.

Here are 75 interesting charts that people should scroll through. From Mcleans in December provided by dozens of sources. I wish I had better news. 
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/75-charts-every-canadian-should-watch-in-2017/


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Trudeau really did get the ball rolling when it comes to canadian spending and debt.

Brian Mulroney really didn't have much of a chance to turn around the super tanker of debt along with the very high interest rates. He did however set the table for future prime ministers to finally turn the ship and they also had the help of interest rates dropping.

I wonder if the Trudeau of today will start the debt and spending train again with future rates rising and turn back the clock.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Percentage increases are deceptive, if they start from continually higher baselines.

Trudeau increasing the debt by 738% was $70 billion less than Harper increasing debt by 12%.

The premise that all the PC governments adding more to the debt was due to unfortunate turns of events....is a nice spin attempt.

Maybe it is true though, and the Liberals are just luckier than the Conservatives.

Apparently, it has been better to be lucky than good.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Ok, let's take absolute numbers, but you are comparing apples and oranges. That's bad. Anyone with very basic levels of financial literacy should know why one can't directly compare 2015 and 1984 dollars. 

Debt results from deficits. Let's take 2015 dollars and compare annual deficits. 

- in 1968 when Trudeau came to power his first deficit was 667M.
- in 1979 it was 10.9 B. 
- in 1980 when Trudeau started another span in office, his first deficit was 14.5B
- in in 1984 when Trudeau left office, the deficit was 39B. 

- Harper started with a 13.9B surplus in 2006.
- Harper finished with a 1.9B surplus in 2015.

Harper had a large deficit in 2009 (55.6B) in the midst of the crisis. It was 3.6% of GDP. Every other year deficits were much smaller. Harper's government reined in the spending and left Canada with a surplus.

In 1984 Trudeau left Canada with a gaping budget hole which constituted 7.9% of GDP. 

There is no literate person who can honestly claim that Pierre Trudeau did not destroy Canada's finances, or that Harper was more profligate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Dress it up anyway you want...........but these are numbers on who piled on the most debt.

The combined Conservative governments..........$570 Billion.

The combined Liberal governments...........$76 Billion. (including PET's $80 Billion)

The Chretien/Martin governments combined reduced the debt created by Pierre Trudeau by $4 Billion.

None of the Conservative government paid off any debt from their own or previous Conservative governments.

The Progressive Conservatives created 88% of Canada's federal debt.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Your right sags but there is a lag to everything. Lets say your party is in power when the yield curve inverts and is voted out a few months later and the stock market is rising. Months later another party is elected and the recession and stock market decline starts. According to your logic the party in power during the stock market rise was there so they are the good guys so to speak and the ones who took over were left with the bag in their hands.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Conservatives are secret spenders. 

They tell everyone how fiscally responsible they are, mooch some cash and then head off to the shopping mall.

Remember.......Harper also closed military veteran offices, rolled OAS back to 65, and slashed unemployment benefits.

No money for you..........he said. What did he do with all our money..........people wondered.

Canadians had enough of it and now Justin Trudeau is sitting in the big chair and Harper is back in Calgary.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

There is no question that Chrétien and Martin did well in controlling expenditure. So did Harper, given the world crisis and that he left a surplus.

Adding and comparing uncorrected absolute values from different centuries = deliberate attempt to mislead.

Claiming that Trudeau managed finances better than the Harper government = nuts. One left an unmanageable burden of a deficit that was 7.9 percent of the budget and Canada in far worse financial shape than its peers. The other left a small surplus and the smallest debt as a share of GDP compared to all developed countries.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

sags said:


> Harper...rolled OAS back to 65, and slashed unemployment benefits.
> 
> Canadians had enough of it and now Justin Trudeau is sitting in the big chair and Harper is back in Calgary.



Rolling back OAS to 65 had been the absolute right decision to make. 

A lot of "Canadians" didn't vote for Trudeau, who's been "sitting in the big chair" for ONE year. Harper had been elected 3 times, led twice with a minority government, hardly an easy feat, and a majority at last, so wait at least 10 years to talk about Trudeau sitting in the big chair. I bet you would be the first to nominate Trudeau for the Nobel Peace Prize.  http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...d-bearer-for-progressivism-thats-just-bizarre
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/why-trudeau-is-wrong-on-old-age-security/

As for Harper being back in Calgary, how many PMs have been elected 4 times in Canada? Will Trudeau be the first, second, third? LOL.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Yes, Harper is back in Calgary. As opposed to Jean Chrétien who is in France. 

I love it how CBC says "popular" every time it talks about Trudeau and his government. 

In reality, “This concept of Justin Trudeau being exceptionally popular is actually empirically untrue because his scores, for example, on the performance of the federal government are very similar to (former Conservative prime minister) Stephen Harper at the same point in Stephen Harper’s mandate,” Nanos said Wednesday. “So I think this survey is a bit of a reality check.”

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/12/28/many-canadians-have-soured-on-trudeau-poll

CBC is a Liberal propaganda rag paid for by the taxpayer.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

"Little Potato's" popularity even before "sitting in the big chair" had much more to do with his last name, youth and good looks.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is questionable the Conservatives had a surplus in their final year. The Finance Department says it left a 3 Billion dollar deficit. 

Look at the chart at the link I provided. The largest debt creator by far was PC Brian Mulroney.

https://www.taxpayer.com/media/CoverStory24-27WEB.pdf

The only PMs to reduce the federal debt are close advisers to Justin Trudeau. Have no fear..........Paul Martin is near.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada debt creation on a per year as PM basis.

Pierre Trudeau..........15 years..........$80 Billion divided by 15 = $5.3 Billion per year.

Brian Mulroney..........10 years..........$330 Billion divided by 10 = $33 Billion per year.

Jean Chretien............10 years..........$9 Billion divided by 10 = $900,000 per year.

Paul Martin.................2 years..........-$14 Billion divided by 2 = - $7 Billion (Reduced the debt by $7 Billion per year.)

Stephen Harper...........8 years...........$60 Billion divided by 8 = $7.5 Billion per year + $13 Billion dollar surplus (data until 2014)

The per year PM Debt Leaders in order of ranking since 1968.

1) PC Brian Mulroney

2) PC Stephen Harper

3) Liberal Pierre Trudeau

4) Liberal Jean Chretien

5) Liberal Paul Martin

Pierre Trudeau was the worst spending Liberal in almost 50 years, but is still far behind the Conservatives.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> I concentrate on earning money, my accountant concentrates on filing the taxes. He's educated me on what I need to know to minimize the taxes in what I do, I rely on him to know the details and do the proper filing.


Makes me wonder what gave the confidence to comment on when the highest tax bracket kicks in when it seems so much is taken care of by an expert.




Just a Guy said:


> ... There are a limited number of hours in the day, I've got better things to do than read the tax code, like spending time with my family. There is enough for me to read daily that concern my investments, real estate and my businesses ...


I'm all for using time wisely/to one's benefit but "limited hours" is a tangent or red herring.

Total time expended on my part to understand and check the validity was something like forty minutes, with the bulk of it being spent three decades ago.


Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Never liked accounting, nor taxes. I learned what I needed to like how to read financials, but keeping up with the ever changing tax code, or things I can't really control like the tax tiers, I don't find worth my time. Heck, even my accountant doesn't know all the rules and has to look them up sometimes...and even when he does, it can remain unclear or full of loopholes. Like when we discussed how far back an audit could go, or when and how you could destroy old tax information...

Oh the flip side, I do know about some things like a section 47 rollover which allows you to move a property into a corporation without triggering capital gains which the average person doesn't. To me it was worth knowing moreso than the tax tiers.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> Canada debt creation on a per year as PM basis.
> 
> Pierre Trudeau..........15 years..........$80 Billion divided by 15 = $5.3 Billion per year.
> 
> ...


Comparing absolute numbers from the previous century with today could be ignorant. However, once the obvious error has been pointed out, it becomes apparent that the intention is to deliberately mislead. 

All these numbers can only be compared as annual budget deficits run by each PM in percentage terms. If I earn 200k and have a 200k mortgage then I am in good shape. If I have the same mortgage on a 20k income then I am in trouble. Should be obvious to a child.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Darn it, when JAG started this thread I was hoping it might become a go-to place for discussion, prognostication and links related to where the economy might be headed, kind of like *Gazing into the Future*. Unfortunately it is more aptly "Bitching about the Past".


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

The only method of gazing into the future is "bitching about the past". That and the tasseography.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

Was just thinking same, too much gazing into the past - LOL.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Darn it, when JAG started this thread I was hoping it might become a go-to place for discussion, prognostication and links related to where the economy might be headed, kind of like *Gazing into the Future*. Unfortunately it is more aptly "Bitching about the Past".


Nobody know the details but here are two big ones coming: 1. BIG oil supply problems 2. advanced AI and robotics making MAJOR inroads into employment.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I gazed into my future and ..........


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

As I recall you could do the same exercise with Democrats and Republicans. I seem to recall seeing an analysis that the Republicans run the highest deficits historically. Not what one might expect if it is indeed factual.

Sags.....Conservatives really hate to see those numbers. Especially Mulroney's record. Very difficult to explain away his record...even if you divide it by 3!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

IBM's 5in5 forecast - 5 developments in the next 5 years, related to AI and sensor technology:
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/think/2017/01/ibm-research-5-in-5-2017/


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

ian said:


> Sags.....Conservatives really hate to see those numbers. Especially Mulroney's record. Very difficult to explain away his record...even if you divide it by 3!


False. http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magaz...trudeau-leaves-a-legacy-of-deficits-and-debt/


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Well once PM O'Leary takes over I will look forward to a more tolerant & benevolent atmosphere for ALL in Canada compared to Trudeau's vision of a multi class society (with us poor slobs at the bottom footing his bills)


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eder said:


> Well once PM O'Leary takes over I will look forward to a more tolerant & benevolent atmosphere for ALL in Canada compared to Trudeau's vision of a multi class society (with us poor slobs at the bottom footing his bills)




2023

o'leary will be long past his prime if not already gently sleeping in that infinite good night

.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> 2023
> 
> o'leary will be long past his prime if not already gently sleeping in that infinite good night
> 
> .


I calculate that O'leary will be 69 in 2023?
How old is the new president they just elected in the US ...his name slips my mind... 70?
Canada is usually about 5 years behind the US in most things....
Dare I say: _"Don't be wary, vote for O'leary!"_
(remember, you heard it here first!)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The report ranks Mulroney the best because of........

_From a trade policy and trade performance perspective, Mulroney earns the highest score among the prime ministers under review for carrying through on the conviction that Canada needed to open its economy much more to international competition by negotiating first the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement and then the NAFTA. He consolidated that effort by taking an active and forward-looking approach to the multilateral negotiations that transformed the GATT into the World Trade Organization. The combined impact of these three trade negotiations provided both an incentive and a reward for Canadian firms to adjust to greater international competition, and thus provide Canadian consumers with a greater range of goods and services at world prices._

Implemented also on the US side, similar policies has led to Donald Trump as President.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

jargey3000 said:


> I calculate that O'leary will be 69 in 2023?
> How old is the new president they just elected in the US ...his name slips my mind... 70?
> Canada is usually about 5 years behind the US in most things....
> Dare I say: _"Don't be wary, vote for O'leary!"_
> (remember, you heard it here first!)


I am surprised that a 70 year old man was the first to realize the political power of leveraging the internet-I would have a guessed a younger person.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Nelley said:


> I am surprised that a 70 year old man was the first to realize the political power of leveraging the internet-I would have a guessed a younger person.


good point Nelley ....And, you ain't seen nothin' yet!!.....


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

I think Trudeau makes Canada a laughing stock on the world stage and although it doesn't make any difference I am proud to say I never even considered voting for him. He can't be gone soon enough for the benefit of the country.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Never liked accounting, nor taxes. I learned what I needed to like how to read financials, but keeping up with the ever changing tax code, or things I can't really control like the tax tiers, I don't find worth my time.


Weird that something that is a basic building block of the tax system you see as complex. 
Which also raises the question of why you'd want to make a claim about something that you are depending on the accountant to understand/deal with.




Just a Guy said:


> ... Heck, even my accountant doesn't know all the rules and has to look them up sometimes...and even when he does, it can remain unclear or full of loopholes ...


Which is true for a lot of other stuff but tax brackets are cut and dried, with little change in how they operate.

Makes me wonder if instead of tax brackets, the accountant was talking about total tax bill ...


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How about a little optimism in the thread, in the form of a unifying Canadian mega project.

I like the Northern Corridor concept and would like to see it given the highest priority to proceed ahead as soon as possible.

A northern corridor for road, rail, pipeline transportation sounds like a great idea. 

The cost is high........$100 Billion, but the economic benefits would endure forever. It could be a transformational project.

I would prefer to see all aspects of the corridor mandated to be Canadian produced products.

As much as possible, all energy demand required on the corridor should be supplied by alternative energy sources.

Asphalt, steel rails, train cars, pipelines, solar panels, windmills, ..........everything made in Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Northern_Corridor

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/27/northern-corridor-canada_n_10162360.html


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

Definition of boondoggle. a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

There are few "Canadian produced products" except maple syrope, and even that probably uses foreign packaging.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Weird that something that is a basic building block of the tax system you see as complex.
> Which also raises the question of why you'd want to make a claim about something that you are depending on the accountant to understand/deal with.
> 
> 
> ...


I think you're making something out of nothing, or I'm just not explaining myself very well.

Since I can't change the tax bracket, I don't think it's really important to know the exact number. I never said it was complex, it's just not important to me. It won't affect the decisions I make in order to earn money. Just like I don't memorize every phone number in the phone book...sure, it may be useful, it certainly isn't complex, but it's probably not worth knowing just for the sake of knowing. I'd rather memorize just the numbers that are important to me like friends, family and business associates. 

As for my comment about my accountant not knowing everything, I was talking about some more obscure aspects like how long you need to keep your tax records and the exact procedure needed to actually be allowed to destroy them (hint, you need a letter from the government). 

I'm not sure why you are so focussed on tax brackets, you seem to be trying to tie everything I say back to them. I'm usually not talking about them because, in case you missed it before, they aren't important to me. Sure, I may have to pay more taxes on money earned above a tax bracket, but that's not going to deter me from earning money, nor is there any way to raise the tax bracket cutoffs.

What's important to me is what I need to know in order the lower my tax bill, within the rules, using things like deductions.

One thing I can control so I educate myself on it, the other I can't so I don't worry about it.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> The last government that paid down the debt were the Liberals.


Huh? As I recall The conservatives had some surplus years and Flaherty paid off debt.
then again, it could have been fake news, but I think not.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Huh? As I recall The conservatives had some surplus years and Flaherty paid off debt.
> then again, it could have been fake news, but I think not.


Harper government ran a surplus their first year, then ran six straight deficits and a modest surplus in their final year. 

2007-08: surplus $9.6 billion
2008-09 deficit $5.8 billion
2009-10: deficit $55.6 billion
2010-11: deficit $33.4 billion
2012-13: deficit $18.4 billion
2013-14: deficit $5.2 billion
2015-15: surplus $1.9 billion

It may not be fair to blame Harper for any deficit that resulted from the global recession. It may be equally unfair to blame Trudeau for any deficit that is used to fund underfunded project and programs left by the Harper Government. 

We have to keep an eye on every government that runs deficits - including the Trudeau Liberals.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Huh? As I recall The conservatives had some surplus years and Flaherty paid off debt.
> then again, it could have been fake news, but I think not.


Harper was PM during this time frame
February 6, 2006 – November 4, 2015

According to the Canadian Taxpayer Federation, the debt was at $493B in 2006. It rose to $612B when Harper left office in 2015.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Well....oops, my mistake, I thought I was on the *Gazing into the future* thread


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Well....oops, my mistake, I thought I was on the *Gazing into the future* thread


Alright, here is a plausible article about the future, which claims we are going to be so, so screwed... http://business.financialpost.com/f...could-be-about-to-take-a-bat-to-canadian-jobs


----------

