Support NeoGAF

[Apathy]

The parties that don't hold much sway always look for wedges.

They are always in a state of campaign. A motion isn't really anything. They are simply playing games.

The usual explanation is that a "phobia" is a disorder so you can't really fight it and that it's perfectly reasonable to fear certain aspects of islam (fundamantalism, sharia, etc.).

But the real reason is mostly opposing for the sake of opposing and trying to make people believer that the Liberals are favoring muslims over the rest of Canadians.

What I figured. I thought there was actually something wrong with wording it as islamaphobia

 

[Earthstrike]

You should have called the CBC the enemy of the people Tony. Next time I guess.

The real waste of tax dollars is an official being paid to not formulate policy.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Seriously guys, people have different viewpoints about who exactly should enter.

Most Canadians are not anti-immigration in any way, but there is a large undercurrent of concern about how the current government is regarding people claiming asylum. If you want to enable the Conservative party by being a soft touch, so be it, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Do not make it a victim of (borderline racist) over-analysis by saying "this guy has a Serbian name so it's ironic." Not only is it mean-spirited, it's not relevant to the question. Normal immigration and asylum are very, very different things in Canada. You know it, I know it, so don't be disingenuous.

 

[Dr.Acula]

In what ways do you believe Harper hurt Canada's economy?

Over-commitment to fossil fuels has left Canada a decade behind on green technologies. Worked out great for him until oil prices crashed.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Seriously guys, people have different viewpoints about who exactly should enter.

Most Canadians are not anti-immigration in any way, but there is a large undercurrent of concern about how the current government is regarding people claiming asylum. If you want to enable the Conservative party by being a soft touch, so be it, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Do not make it a victim of (borderline racist) over-analysis by saying "this guy has a Serbian name so it's ironic." Not only is it mean-spirited, it's not relevant to the question. Normal immigration and asylum are very, very different things in Canada. You know it, I know it, so don't be disingenuous.

The Serbian thing is just to say that these are people who are here probably because Canada accepts refugees. And the specific person I'm thinking of is actually quite successful, and is himself a counterexample to the concerns people raise about bringing in refugees.

And many Canadians are definitely anti-immigration in certain ways, and to deny that there is a racial aspect to it is to deny reality. My family is actually pro-immigration in many ways, but for racist reasons don't like immigration by Muslims. But it's a weird racism, because if they were to make a hierarchy of the "quality" of different peoples native Canadians would go below most immigrants because they view "Canadians" as lazy and entitled. So there is definitely an anti-Muslim thing going on there (and it is the religion and not the skin colour).

 

[Pancake Mix]

The Serbian thing is just to say that these are people who are here probably because Canada accepts refugees. And the specific person I'm thinking of is actually quite successful, and is himself a counterexample to the concerns people raise about bringing in refugees.

Right, but concern about asylum requests isn't necessarily about national origin, but quite often it's about people who otherwise would not be able to emigrate to Canada for various reasons effectively jumping in line.

There are legitimate concerns; it's really not a simple issue, and it's far more generally controversial, even in the mainstream, than normal immigration in Canada. It's not as simple as some people are successful, there's a spectrum with varying degrees of adaption, especially when you're talking about people who wouldn't otherwise be permanently admitted...

 

[Dr.Acula]

Apparently, Nick Kouvalis is still working for Kellie "I stole a photo of a woman suffering from an eating disorder and altered it to suit my bigotry" Leitch, just not as the campaign manager (he's volunteering): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ative-leadership-leitch-says/article34068481/

Also: Yes. She really did this. Original picture:

Leitch's beyond fucked up twisting of said image:

It's clearly just a stock-image, but holy shit she changed her eyes to blue.

 

[Pedrito]

I doubt the average person who doesn't want to have a syrian refugee in Canada would be okay if that same Syrian was coming in as an economic immigrant.

 

[DopeyFish]

I doubt the average person who doesn't want to have a syrian refugee in Canada would be okay if that same Syrian was coming in as an economic immigrant.

These kinds of people likely don't understand the difference, either.

 

[CazTGG]

To be fair, Harper had a deficit because of the whole Great Recession thing. He was on track to balance the budget. And the Liberal's campaigned on deficits of 10 billion dollars, but what we're actually getting is much larger than that. I think criticisms of the deficit being too high are definitely valid, both from the perspective of deficits at all being bad but also from the perspective of it being materially larger than they had campaigned on.

In what ways do you believe Harper hurt Canada's economy?

The recession was no doubt a contributing factor to the deficit, but that doesn't excuse how slow Canada's recovery was in comparison to other countries, to say nothing in comparison to other Canadian governments; one study found the Harper government consistently ranked either last or second-last out of all post-World War governments in areas such as job growth, annual GDP, etc. His government adhered to trickle-down economics with his tax cuts on the wealthiest in all of Canada while attention to the middle class's growth was non-existent in the face of increasing costs of living and the wealth grew ever larger. Essentially, his policies caused Canada's economy to stagnate whereas other countries flourished, if not, recovering faster than Canada did at the time, and caused the dollar to drop roughly 20c off its value in the span of two years.

Seriously guys, people have different viewpoints about who exactly should enter.

Most Canadians are not anti-immigration in any way, but there is a large undercurrent of concern about how the current government is regarding people claiming asylum. If you want to enable the Conservative party by being a soft touch, so be it, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Do not make it a victim of (borderline racist) over-analysis by saying "this guy has a Serbian name so it's ironic." Not only is it mean-spirited, it's not relevant to the question. Normal immigration and asylum are very, very different things in Canada. You know it, I know it, so don't be disingenuous.

About that...

 

[matthewwhatever]

To be fair, Harper had a deficit because of the whole Great Recession thing. He was on track to balance the budget. And the Liberal's campaigned on deficits of 10 billion dollars, but what we're actually getting is much larger than that. I think criticisms of the deficit being too high are definitely valid, both from the perspective of deficits at all being bad but also from the perspective of it being materially larger than they had campaigned on. It is true that their plan doesn't increase the debt-to-GDP ratio, but that's not really what they campaigned on.

In what ways do you believe Harper hurt Canada's economy?

Citation needed for both of these statements. Harper inherited a massive surplus, then immediately blew a hole in the budget by cutting 2 points off the GST. He did this for purely political reasons -- his former Chief of Staff even admitted as much -- and it cost the government approximately $12B a year in revenue. Obviously by the time he increased the deficit to $55B a year, the GST cut didn't matter much, but the initial move from surplus to deficit was entirely his doing; the Great Recession just compounded matters.

At the other end of his mandate, I'm extremely skeptical of claims that they were on track for a balanced budget. Harper's last few years in power were entirely geared around promising a balanced budget in the 2015 campaign, and he did all kinds of accounting tricks to achieve that. Whatever money they saved by selling off Canadian buildings overseas and playing games with public servants' benefits and sick leave just pushed the costs down the road a year or two, so even if you believe that they were on track for the extremely modest surplus they projected in their last budget, they achieved it in a completely unsustainable way.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Over-commitment to fossil fuels has left Canada a decade behind on green technologies. Worked out great for him until oil prices crashed.

Having a growing energy sector is not mutually exclusive with investing in green technologies. I do think he didn't invest enough in green stuff, but I'm also not someone who thinks that the government should intervene in the economy to make sure we don't have too much of or too little of this or that industry. I support carbon taxation not to push a shift towards a "green economy" but to price in the externalities of pollution.

To give an example that avoids the extra issue of the environment, I don't really see the value in making sure Canada has a lot of manufacturing. We want to have low unemployment, but I don't value manufacturing or services over the other.

I appreciate the argument that diversifying our economy can lead to a more stable economy, but I believe it would be at the expense of having a more productive economy we could have by letting our economy specialize in the areas it is strong in.

I'd also like a source on the claim that Canada is a decade behind in green technologies. Provinces have been investing in green, and the energy industry probably invests more in these things than you would think.

 

[Mr.Mike]

The recession was no doubt a contributing factor to the deficit, but that doesn't excuse how slow Canada's recovery was in comparison to other countries, to say nothing in comparison to other Canadian governments; one study found the Harper government consistently ranked either last or second-last out of all post-World War governments in areas such as job growth, annual GDP, etc. His government adhered to trickle-down economics with his tax cuts on the wealthiest in all of Canada while attention to the middle class's growth was non-existent in the face of increasing costs of living and the wealth grew ever larger. Essentially, his policies caused Canada's economy to stagnate whereas other countries flourished, if not, recovering faster than Canada did at the time, and caused the dollar to drop roughly 20c off its value in the span of two years.



About that...

Comparing any modern PM's economic performance to post-war PMs is comparing apples and oranges. It's easier to achieve larger growth rates when you're starting with a smaller absolute number. It was also a unique situation where industrial capacity in Europe and Japan had been destroyed and North American factories got to fill that demand. More than that, none of the other PM's he's compared to had the great recession happen during their terms. If we were to go back further and include the PM's who had to deal with the Great Depression the ranking would look quite different.

Comparing to the other OECD countries makes more sense, but if the Canada economy didn't fall as much as other countries in the first place then recovery to where we were at before would look less impressive if you looked just at the growth rates. Also Canada's growth was still above the OECD average, and that's an average that includes a number of ex-communist countries that are still having "catch-up" growth. (Poland hasn't actually had a recession since 1992, not even in 2008).

 

[Mr.Mike]

Citation needed for both of these statements. Harper inherited a massive surplus, then immediately blew a hole in the budget by cutting 2 points off the GST. He did this for purely political reasons -- his former Chief of Staff even admitted as much -- and it cost the government approximately $12B a year in revenue. Obviously by the time he increased the deficit to $55B a year, the GST cut didn't matter much, but the initial move from surplus to deficit was entirely his doing; the Great Recession just compounded matters.

At the other end of his mandate, I'm extremely skeptical of claims that they were on track for a balanced budget. Harper's last few years in power were entirely geared around promising a balanced budget in the 2015 campaign, and he did all kinds of accounting tricks to achieve that. Whatever money they saved by selling off Canadian buildings overseas and playing games with public servants' benefits and sick leave just pushed the costs down the road a year or two, so even if you believe that they were on track for the extremely modest surplus they projected in their last budget, they achieved it in a completely unsustainable way.

There's not much point to having a massive surplus either, especially if you already have a AAA credit rating. A left-leaning government might have spent it instead of cutting taxes, but cutting taxes when there's a large surplus doesn't contradict a commitment to balanced budgets. (I also don't understand why people feel so strongly about the GST cut specifically)

There was a lot of lame political moves happening, but on the whole I don't doubt Harpers commitment to balancing the budget.

 

[bremon]

I was 17 or 18 when the GST got cut. I was a big fan of it then. I felt like it saved me a lot of money. I made 2 dollars more than minimum wage; a lower consumption tax when I had very little disposable income in hindsight benefitted me very little. I wouldn't mind seeing the GST hike back up but the optics are terrible.

 

[gutter_trash]

there is one legitimate question to be raised about the illegals crossing the border:

is openly accepting them and processing them legitimizing them jumping over the queue of other refugees who undergo a longer thorough vetting process?

for sure for humanitarian reasons we must be 1st World in our care and handling of refugees,

but at the same; isn't it unfair for legitimate refugees who are waiting in line undergoing 18 to 24 months vetting?

Of coarse we are not going to deport them to war torn countries but eh, this is where the humanitarian flag gets raised over the legal flag

 

[Mr.Mike]

I was 17 or 18 when the GST got cut. I was a big fan of it then. I felt like it saved me a lot of money. I made 2 dollars more than minimum wage; a lower consumption tax when I had very little disposable income in hindsight benefitted me very little. I wouldn't mind seeing the GST hike back up but the optics are terrible.

It benefitted you more than a change in the income tax rates would have. Maybe you would have benefited more from more government programs instead or whatever. But as far as cutting taxes in general goes, I don't see why the GST cut specifically is so vilified.

 

[bremon]

If I spent every cent on something taxed it saved me ballpark $300. I think I also got GST credits back then lol. My point is it saves more money for people who can afford to spend a lot of money, ie, rich people. But it's something tangible.

 

[Mr.Mike]

If I spent every cent on something taxed it saved me ballpark $300. I think I also got GST credits back then lol. My point is it saves more money for people who can afford to spend a lot of money, ie, rich people. But it's something tangible.

One of the criticisms of consumption taxes is that they are regressive because the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption. I don't know that you have made that argument before, but the criticism of consumption taxes as regressive is inconsistent with the notion that the rich would benefit the most from a lower sales tax.

Most correctly, people who consume more pay more consumption tax. While the rich do consume more in absolute terms, and thus benefit more than the poor in absolute terms, they would also benefit more in absolute terms from an income tax cut than the poor would. Proportionally, on average, the poor benefit more from a sales tax cut than the rich.

 

[AuthenticM]

there is one legitimate question to be raised about the illegals crossing the border:

is openly accepting them and processing them legitimizing them jumping over the queue of other refugees who undergo a longer thorough vetting process?

for sure for humanitarian reasons we must be 1st World in our care and handling of refugees,

but at the same; isn't it unfair for legitimate refugees who are waiting in line undergoing 18 to 24 months vetting?

Of coarse we are not going to deport them to war torn countries but eh, this is where the humanitarian flag gets raised over the legal flag

That is certainly a good question, and I'm sure someone knowledgeable on the issue could give us a good answer.

 

[Simon Belmont]

One of the criticisms of consumption taxes is that they are regressive because the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption. I don't know that you have made that argument before, but the criticism of consumption taxes as regressive is inconsistent with the notion that the rich would benefit the most from a lower sales tax.

Most correctly, people who consume more pay more consumption tax. While the rich do consume more in absolute terms, and thus benefit more than the poor in absolute terms, they would also benefit more in absolute terms from an income tax cut than the poor would. Proportionally, on average, the poor benefit more from a sales tax cut than the rich.

Importers pay GST, or I guess HST now. They're at least one group that disproportionately benefits from a consumption tax decrease. I know the 2% off the GST helped Dow Chemical more than it helped me.

 

[maharg]

there is one legitimate question to be raised about the illegals crossing the border:

is openly accepting them and processing them legitimizing them jumping over the queue of other refugees who undergo a longer thorough vetting process?

for sure for humanitarian reasons we must be 1st World in our care and handling of refugees,

but at the same; isn't it unfair for legitimate refugees who are waiting in line undergoing 18 to 24 months vetting?

Of coarse we are not going to deport them to war torn countries but eh, this is where the humanitarian flag gets raised over the legal flag

This is pretty academic if you constrain your solutions with "can't jail them" on one side and "can't deport them back" on the other. What else can you do?

 

[Pancake Mix]

I doubt the average person who doesn't want to have a syrian refugee in Canada would be okay if that same Syrian was coming in as an economic immigrant.

Most wouldn't qualify other than as temporary workers.

 

[gutter_trash]

This is pretty academic if you constrain your solutions with "can't jail them" on one side and "can't deport them back" on the other. What else can you do?

exactly, you can't deport them to war torn countries, but you can't detain people like a jail either. It's not humanitarian.

the situation of cross border jumpers will get worse the more Trump goes into full Breitbart mode

 

[Pedrito]

Those who get caught will get the same treatment than if they they went to a normal point of entry and asked for asylum there. If their request is rejected, they'll be expelled.

Those who don't get caught are a whole other problem. We can spend billions to "defend" a 5000km border so we stop a few hundreds/thousands from crossing illegally, or we can deal with it.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Importers pay GST, or I guess HST now. They're at least one group that disproportionately benefits from a consumption tax decrease. I know the 2% off the GST helped Dow Chemical more than it helped me.

The GST is a VAT. Only the final consumer pays it in the end. Companies do pay sales tax when they buy materials, but that gets refunded if the materials are turned into a product that gets sold. And it's not just importers, but anything that gets sold in Canada.

So no, Dow Chemical didn't benefit directly from the GST cut because they never actually paid GST. They might benefit if people buy more stuff as a result, but that's a rather indirect benefit.

Fun fact, only Canadian residents pay HST. Visitors to Canada who buy things can get a rebate.

 

[CazTGG]

there is one legitimate question to be raised about the illegals crossing the border:

is openly accepting them and processing them legitimizing them jumping over the queue of other refugees who undergo a longer thorough vetting process?

for sure for humanitarian reasons we must be 1st World in our care and handling of refugees,

but at the same; isn't it unfair for legitimate refugees who are waiting in line undergoing 18 to 24 months vetting?

Of coarse we are not going to deport them to war torn countries but eh, this is where the humanitarian flag gets raised over the legal flag

I'd argue it's more an example of how the proposal for coming to a definitive decision on temporarily suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement given what the agreement entails since crossing the border illegally to seek asylum is seen as a means of getting around the inability to file for refugee status in the United States. For one, it would cut back on the amount of people being detained for crossing the border in the middle of winter since they would be able to do so through legitimate channels, not to mention the amount of people who suffer from severe frostbite as they cross, while putting them through the usual vetting process. If there is any humanitarian concern to be raised, it is with how to provide these people with viable channels so they do not consider crossing the border in the frigid winter weather we're currently plagued with as the best course of action to resolving their current predicament.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Severe frostbite?

If you can manage to get all the way up here, but can't dress for the weather, that's a bad sign right there.

 

[Simon Belmont]

The GST is a VAT. Only the final consumer pays it in the end. Companies do pay sales tax when they buy materials, but that gets refunded if the materials are turned into a product that gets sold. And it's not just importers, but anything that gets sold in Canada.

So no, Dow Chemical didn't benefit directly from the GST cut because they never actually paid GST. They might benefit if people buy more stuff as a result, but that's a rather indirect benefit.

Not everything that comes across the border is for resale. Lots of companies buy fixtures, pallets, machinery, etc. Even if you're getting the money back, having for fork over thousands less at the time of import is a benefit any way you cut it. An income tax reduction on the other hand would benefit workers more directly.

 

[Dr.Acula]

I'd also like a source on the claim that Canada is a decade behind in green technologies. Provinces have been investing in green, and the energy industry probably invests more in these things than you would think.

Spoiler

avatar quote

I just hear in the media all the time that Canada doesn't invest a lot in, and fails to generate power from, renewables.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

Canada has hydro, but doesn't generate much energy from wind, solar, biomass, or geothermal on this chart.

And just listening to the news, or googling around, when reading about green technology or renewable energy, I never hear stories about Canada. I hear tonnes of stuff about Europe, South America, Asia, but if you google around it's all stuff like this:

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-...ountry-2016-3/#4-united-kingdom-222-billion-7

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nishtha...-new-renewable-energy-champions/#74e11ec017c1

If Canada is a world-leader in this area, I'd be surprised.

I always read about Canada in regards to being amongst the best in the world in... diversity, livable cities, our banking sector, maple syrup.

"Decade behind" isn't a well-defined unit of measurement, I just mean that I don't recall Harper pushing science and technology investment. And that's not a "why not both" kind of scenario, he focused Canada's energy sector on fossil fuels, if there was a big push to green energy under him I must not have been paying attention.

 

[bremon]

One of the criticisms of consumption taxes is that they are regressive because the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption. I don't know that you have made that argument before, but the criticism of consumption taxes as regressive is inconsistent with the notion that the rich would benefit the most from a lower sales tax.

Most correctly, people who consume more pay more consumption tax. While the rich do consume more in absolute terms, and thus benefit more than the poor in absolute terms, they would also benefit more in absolute terms from an income tax cut than the poor would. Proportionally, on average, the poor benefit more from a sales tax cut than the rich.

Hmm, interesting. I should have sat and thought about that a little more. Thanks for the write up!

 

[Mr.Mike]

Not everything that comes across the border is for resale. Lots of companies buy fixtures, pallets, machinery, etc. Even if you're getting the money back, having for fork over thousands less at the time of import is a benefit any way you cut it. An income tax reduction on the other hand would benefit workers more directly.

Businesses get refunds for a lot more than just the actual materials. The details are a nightmare that aren't really worth getting into for an internet argument. But generally businesses aren't supposed to pay sales tax, and the exceptions are to stop people from exploiting corporations to avoid sales taxes on personal consumption. Also sales taxes apply to all consumption, not just imports.

 

[gutter_trash]

Severe frostbite?



If you can manage to get all the way up here, but can't dress for the weather, that's a bad sign right there.

this week is mild but the week before was not, we had nights that dipped under -10 and -14.

for us, well clothed that is meh. But for someone who is not dressed properly, it's fuckin' cold as hell

 

[Simon Belmont]

Businesses get refunds for a lot more than just the actual materials. The details are a nightmare that aren't really worth getting into for an internet argument. But generally businesses aren't supposed to pay sales tax, and the exceptions are to stop people from exploiting corporations to avoid sales taxes on personal consumption.

It's still the case that the ability to hand over money and then recoup it at the end of the year is the sort of thing that benefits businesses and the rich more than the poor - they can afford the sort of tax advice to make sure they take advantage of all of that. Poor people on the other hand can't afford to pay $400 for someone to do their taxes to save them an extra $400.

An income tax cut that's targeted at lower tax brackets would have been much more beneficial.

The benefits to the individual in this case are less important than the tax revenue the government misses out on anyways.

 

[Mr.Mike]

It's still the case that the ability to hand over money and then recoup it at the end of the year is the sort of thing that benefits businesses and the rich more than the poor - they can afford the sort of tax advice to make sure they take advantage of all of that. Poor people on the other hand can't afford to pay $400 for someone to do their taxes to save them an extra $400.

An income tax cut that's targeted at lower tax brackets would have been much more beneficial.

The benefits to the individual in this case are less important than the tax revenue the government misses out on anyways.

It's not really a bunch of fancy footwork on the part of business to avoid sales taxes. The sales taxes were never intended to be paid by them.

I'd also challenge the notion that good accounting can lead to paying less tax. There is a correct amount of tax to be paid, and any amount, whether it is more or less, is simply an incorrect amount of tax being paid. Maybe there are situations where the spirit of the law is violated, but the vast majority of businesses do strictly follow the letter of the law.

Taxes on simple employment income and interest aren't really that complicated, and can be done perfectly well with free software. https://simpletax.ca/ uses a pay what you want model and it got the same results my dad's accountant got when I tried it last year. It would be trivial for the government to do most people's taxes for them and then just send it to them to double check, and there are countries who use that model. I think it'd be cool if we did that.

A tax cut to the lowest tax bracket would be a tax cut for everyone who pays income tax, and it'd be people in higher marginal brackets who would get the full benefit of such a cut. People making less than the basic exempted amount (first $10,000ish in income) would gain absolutely nothing from a reduction in income tax, while they would benefit more than anyone from a reduction in sales tax. A cut to the lowest tax bracket would have to be absolutely tiny to only reduce revenue by only $12 billion.

A sales tax cut also benefits the retired and students living off their parent's money more than a reduction in income tax, depending on whether their sources of money are taxable. Withdrawals from RESP's and RRSP's are subject to income tax, but not CPP or EI. But money pulled out of a unregistered savings account isn't taxed, having already been taxed when it was earned.

 

[CazTGG]

Severe frostbite?



If you can manage to get all the way up here, but can't dress for the weather, that's a bad sign right there.

It's literally the first sentence in the article I linked to (they were outside in the, at the time, -18c weather for 7 hours). Victim-blaming aside (not everyone has a coat, pair of mitts, caps, scarves, etc. suitable for -10c or lower weather or the accompanying wind chill nor may they have the means of obtaining them for their trip to the border on such short notice), this isn't an isolated incident: Families have been crossing the border and suffering from frostbite as a result.

"All of the people we've seen have been women and children,” says Caulford, who treats migrants who show up with blue hands frostbitten to the bone. “They've all had cold journeys in the back of trucks to save their lives literally but fleeing from, if you can believe this, from the United States.”

This isn't simply a matter of "well they should just bundle up", it's a matter of people being terrified of deportation fleeing from a country who has, as we've seen with the ICE raids over the past week or so, has given them every reason to justify their fears and flee from the United States, to the point where fleeing to the frigid borders of Canada with the possibility of suffering from frostbite is a secondary concern at best.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Had the kid, hard to make a coherent argument with a three year old screaming at you

It's not really a bunch of fancy footwork on the part of business to avoid sales taxes. The sales taxes were never intended to be paid by them.

I'm not saying it's shady, I'm saying it's more beneficial to businesses than the average person. Regardless of getting the money back at the end of the year, the fact that they have to pay less during the year is a benefit.

I'd also challenge the notion that good accounting can lead to paying less tax. There is a correct amount of tax to be paid, and any amount, whether it is more or less, is simply an incorrect amount of tax being paid. Maybe there are situations where the spirit of the law is violated, but the vast majority of businesses do strictly follow the letter of the law.

I'm more saying that bad accounting or no accounting can cost you money. This rolls into the next paragraph, but folks who spend time arguing on the Internet about tax policy might have a better handle on it than the average person. Hell, my wife does some tax law and we still hire an accountant.

Taxes on simple employment income and interest aren't really that complicated, and can be done perfectly well with free software. https://simpletax.ca/ uses a pay what you want model and it got the same results my dad's accountant got when I tried it last year. It would be trivial for the government to do most people's taxes for them and then just send it to them to double check, and there are countries who use that model. I think it'd be cool if we did that.

I mean I guess, but we don't. The tax code isn't really as simple as you're making it out to be, particularly for people with dependents or lots of deductions. You can have your own business and still be poor.

A tax cut to the lowest tax bracket would be a tax cut for everyone who pays income tax, and it'd be people in higher marginal brackets who would get the full benefit of such a cut. People making less than the basic exempted amount (first $10,000ish in income) would gain absolutely nothing from a reduction in income tax, while they would benefit more than anyone from a reduction in sales tax. A cut to the lowest tax bracket would have to be absolutely tiny to only reduce revenue by only $12 billion.

You could definitely offset that by raising taxes in a higher bracket.

A sales tax cut also benefits the retired and students living off their parent's money more than a reduction in income tax, depending on whether their sources of money are taxable. Withdrawals from RESP's and RRSP's are subject to income tax, but not CPP or EI. But money pulled out of a unregistered savings account isn't taxed, having already been taxed when it was earned.

The average family saved the cost of buying a pepperoni pizza a month. It's not really anything to write home about for students or the retired either. If we're going to take 2 billion out of the Federal Government every year I can think of much fairer ways to distribute it.

Edit: Also one more point about taxes - tax avoidance is something you can definitely do a lot easier if you have money. Rich people have an inherent advantage when it comes to paying taxes.

 

[CazTGG]

https://twitter.com/kevinolearytv/status/834169251057565696

Kevin O'Leary
‏@kevinolearytv

There's something I want to talk about tomorrow, Canada. https://www.facebook.com/kevinolearytv/ #cpcldr #cdnpoli

Softkey's coming back!

Either that or he's dropping out.

 

[Mr.Mike]

I'm imagine a very small percentage of the population is in a situation where they have both complicated taxes and where the cost of doing taxes is a big problem. But whatever, I'd support a simpler tax system.

12 billion over 35 million people is a whopping ~$28 dollars a month. Limiting to some proportion who are poorer does increase the amount those people would get. Giving it to the 20% of lowest income Canadians would give each ~$140 a month. Which is preferable is subjective.

People talk about wanting to tax the rich more, but "more" is a pretty vague and open ended term. What do people think that the effective rates should be at various income levels?

Here's the current effective rates in Ontario for reference.

 

[Silent Chief]

It would be trivial for the government to do most people's taxes for them and then just send it to them to double check, and there are countries who use that model. I think it'd be cool if we did that.

I really cannot understand why there is a market for tax software that converts tax payer data into a format that the government uses. Why doesn't the government produces that software? It's a pretty basic application after all. It's not like you want some people to take advantages of tax avoidance schemes and not others. Is it?

One of my co-worker explained it by saying the last thing he wants is the government looking at his data. What does he think is in that file he sends them every year?

I'm not even going to talk about the money being spent on the revenue agencies by third parties.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I really cannot understand why there is a market for tax software that converts tax payer data into a format that the government uses. Why doesn't the government produces that software? It's a pretty basic application after all. It's not like you want some people to take advantages of tax avoidance schemes and not others. Is it?

One of my co-worker explained it by saying the last thing he wants is the government looking at his data. What does he think is in that file he sends them every year?

I'm not even going to talk about the money being spent on the revenue agencies by third parties.

Liability?

 

[SRG01]

Despite the length of time they held it, I wouldn't really cite any of the Atlantic ridings the NDP lost as examples of strongholds. The NDP's roots in the Atlantic are shallow. They rode in in 1997 on the backlash against Liberal EI reforms, and stuck around afterward due to incumbent entrenchment and the combination of Liberal weakness and Jack Layton's popularity.

I'm not sure if I agree on this... A party simply does not last almost 20 years in a riding -- and two MPs! -- without incurring a lot of good will and grassroots support.

 

[cryptosporidium]

Reading Chongs AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPoli..._michael_chong_and_im_running_to_be_the_next/


He's a textbook red tory it seems to me. Though he does branch out in various questions spouting reform talkpoints and trying not to alienate that base

supports net nuetrality too, makes a good case for his vote in favour of Bill-C51 by having an automous committee overlook it, wants to privatise the CMHC (i dont agree with him that it is the chmc and not foreign money raising our housing prices), and much more stuff

 

[Mr.Mike]

Foreign money just isn't that big a deal. Housing is expensive in the big cities because a lot of people want to live there, and at some point people are gonna have to realize we can't all have detached houses in downtown Toronto. Densification and better transit can help more people be able to afford to live within a reasonable commuting distance. Investments in urban parks and such can make people less hesitant to raise families in urban areas.

 

[CazTGG]

I know this has been said multiple times over, but it really must be emphasized how awful the candidates for the CPC leadership campaign are. I've been looking through each of the candidates stances to decide my choices for the ranked ballot and I don't feel comfortable putting anyone on it besides Chong and Obhrai (when it comes to Obhrai, it's mostly because the ranked ballot favors being the 2nd-5th choices so i'd rather deprive someone like O'Leary or Scheer the 2nd spot on my ballot and Obhrai's comments on making the CPC more welcoming suggests he'd rein in the social cons if he was leader) because most of them are anti-choice, "traditional" marriage supporting scum that I wouldn't leave alone with my dog, let alone the future of Canada's only right-wing party given the FPTP system could cause a false majority to form and allow Trost, Leitch or the more abhorrent candidates to bring Canada back decades on subjects like same-sex marriage, self-assisted suicide, decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana and so on.

 

[Silexx]

Reading Chongs AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPoli..._michael_chong_and_im_running_to_be_the_next/


He's a textbook red tory it seems to me. Though he does branch out in various questions spouting reform talkpoints and trying not to alienate that base

supports net nuetrality too, makes a good case for his vote in favour of Bill-C51 by having an automous committee overlook it, wants to privatise the CMHC (i dont agree with him that it is the chmc and not foreign money raising our housing prices), and much more stuff

Sorry, but the data does in fact show that foreign buyers are not the cause of rising housing prices. Chong has it right here. Though that doesn't mean that his solution for privatizing CMHC is the way to go either.

 

[Mr.Mike]

The CMHC insurance protects the lenders, not the borrowers. It's supposed to make banks more willing to lend to people for smaller down-payments, and it does. But making it easier to borrow money drives up the prices of houses. The real winners here are the banks, who get to give larger, riskier loans and charge more interest while the government will cover the risk if there is a crash, and people who already own houses.

A side effect of this is that banks are also less willing to give business loans, because why would they when they can lend for mortgages essentially risk free. This is why Chong says that privatizing CMHC would make more capital available to small and medium business.

 

[maharg]

I really cannot understand why there is a market for tax software that converts tax payer data into a format that the government uses. Why doesn't the government produces that software? It's a pretty basic application after all. It's not like you want some people to take advantages of tax avoidance schemes and not others. Is it?

One of my co-worker explained it by saying the last thing he wants is the government looking at his data. What does he think is in that file he sends them every year?

I'm not even going to talk about the money being spent on the revenue agencies by third parties.

Intuit would spend a lot of effort and money on lobbying to make sure this never happens. So would H&R Block. That's pretty much why.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

The CMHC insurance protects the lenders, not the borrowers. It's supposed to make banks more willing to lend to people for smaller down-payments, and it does. But making it easier to borrow money drives up the prices of houses. The real winners here are the banks, who get to give larger, riskier loans and charge more interest while the government will cover the risk if there is a crash, and people who already own houses.

A side effect of this is that banks are also less willing to give business loans, because why would they when they can lend for mortgages essentially risk free. This is why Chong says that privatizing CMHC would make more capital available to small and medium business.

Hmm makes sense... Are there any options other than privatization? Why can't the CMHC place a threshold on the insurance (insured up to a certain amount)?

 

[gutter_trash]

5 byelections to be held April 3rd in 1st major electoral test for Trudeau government


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/five-federal-by-elections-april-3-1.3993891

Saint-Laurent (QC).
Markham–Thornhill (ON)
Ottawa–Vanier (ON)
Calgary Heritage (AL
Calgary Midnapore (AL)

I don't know much about 4 of them but you can scratch off Saint-Laurent since it is a super safe Liberal riding, I just hope Yolande James wins the nomination