Until Dona Cadman’s news conference, there is little more to say about her husband and Stephen Harper. So, let me return to a topic I was planning to explore, before we were all blown off course Wednesday night.
The minister of finance says the centerpiece of his new budget is a tax-free savings plan for Canadians. Does it measure up to that billing? Who can make the best use of this? And how does it differ from the RRSP?
First let me admit that this was a plan I pitched Jim Flaherty on in April, 2006. That was when, as a Conservative MP, I delivered to the guy a massive pre-budget report that over 10,000 Canadians had helped me write. The after-tax savings account was one of 11 recommendations I made (along with a family tax return, income-splitting for seniors, means-testing the child care payment, balanced budget legislation etc.), and I pointed out such a scheme has worked successfully in other countries, such as the US and the UK.
Why did I support the idea? Because it makes sense for a variety of Canadians as a supplement to the RRSP – which is how I envisioned it, with a restriction on withdrawals before retirement age. In contrast, the new Conservative plan allows people to take money out at any time, for any reason, which changes it from a tool to help diffuse our coming retirement time bomb to another way to fund consumer spending.
That is a fatal mistake.
Here’s how this kind of vehicle (called a Roth IRA in the States) works: You put money aside, up to a yearly threshold (to be $5,000), in a special account and invest it in anything you want – stocks, bonds, GICs, mutual funds etc. Any growth on that investment accumulates free of tax (like an RRSP). But (unlike an RRSP) there’s no tax deduction for making the contribution. And you can withdraw funds without triggering tax, for any reason. Missed contributions can be made up in future years, and are not affected by the amount you withdraw.
I sat in QP last week and listened to several Conservative MPs praise this as a financial tool that will enrich most Canadians. Examples cited – single moms who can now enjoy tax-free savings growth, and young couples squirelling away for their first home. Hearing this made me very happy MPs do not give financial advice (well, most MPs, anyway).
The reality is, in almost every instance one can imagine, an RRSP is a far superior choice than the new TFSA. For example, a single mom can get a big chunk of her income taxes back by sticking money in an RRSP, whereas she’d get nothing from a TFSA. Ditto for the young couple, who can contribute savings to an RRSP, get a big tax refund, then withdraw their RRSP money – add the refund in – and make an even larger downpayment on a house. All completely tax-free, under the Home Buyer’s Plan.
Sadly, given the way Ottawa has chosen to build this thing, there is only one group of people who are giddy with delight at getting a new tax shelter, and that is the affluent. Since most Canadians do not have RRSPs, and since we contribute only 7% a year of what we are allowed to, that remains the best possible savings vehicle for them. For the rich, it’s another story. Those people in retirement who have accumulated a pile of money find all RRSP withdrawals are taxed at the maximum rate – offering no advantage to having sheltered those funds. Similarly, people with good pensions (like MPs) have little use for RRSPs, for the same reason.
But for these folks, the TFSA is a fat gift. Suddenly, they can invest $5,000 a year in a tax-free account yielding capital gains, for example, which will completely escape Canada Revenue Agency’s icy grip. Then they can withdraw this without triggering any other tax, regardless of how high their income might be.
Finally, consider this: The national savings rate is zero. The average Canadian owes $116 for every $100 in assets which he or she owns. Household debt has never been this high, and mortgage debt has tripled over the past decade. How is a savings plan supposed to save us, when we have no money to save?
After all, if we did have cash to set aside, we’d be smarter to do it in an RRSP, and get half back as a tax refund. Remember, $3,000 plunked into a registered retirement plan will yield up tp $1,500, courtesy of your fellow taxpayers.
Was Mr. Flaherty born under a cabbage?
In any case, think hard before you leap into this tax-free account. This one’s also free of common sense.
185 comments ↓
This new savings vehicle seems rather like a kiss from your sister – its nice but it isn’t leading anywhere.
BTW – I had a long conversation last night with one of the outriders of the CPC nominee nursing my riding – very amicable but I was struck by one of his assertions – to the effect that wasn’t it a damn good thing that the whole surplus has been spent – if the Liberals get into office now there’ll be no money for them to steal.
I like RRSP as I do get to put away money and also receive a tax refund. I will only be able to put down 20K with RRSP money to purchase my first house. I have to pay that money back in 15 years so while paying less interest on the purchase it is still a monthly bill to repay the money back. I consider any money in my RRSP over top of the max I can withdraw tax free as dead money as I cannot spend it but only grow it. Why would I not want to save some money while it can grow tax free and I can use it without penalty any time I wish if I need to make a unexpected purchase?
You and a partner can withdraw $40,000 for a downpayment. What’s more, the money need only be parked in an RRSP for 90 days before being withdrawn, and for that you can get a tax refund worth up to 50% of what you put in. No repayments can be required for up to two years, which makes this a boffo deal for homebuyers. You say you’ve extra money in savings each year beyond the max RRSP limit? Then you’re among the top 1% of wage earners and – of course – you would love Jim Flaherty for this tax-free gift. But then, you already do. — Garth
Wow! Heaven forbid people use this new tax-free savings account to provide a supplemental savings account for their kids’ education….or use it to save for a downpayment on a house (supplementing their RRSP max withdrawl of $20K each for the New Homebuyer’s program)…or Heaven forbid young couples save for their wedding using this kind of account….or someday, some big future event (their own kids’ wedding). Yes, Garth, the CPC was just plain evil to open up this kind of account to anything but retirement.
Tim D
A typical Con response. I said its use was restricted to people who could actually save (few of us, sadly), not evil. In the case of the to-be-wedded, if two people saved the max each for two years, a total of $20,000, and invested it in the highest-paying GIC, they’d be about $500 ahead. If one of them had invested the same in an RRSP, he or she would have had $10,000 available for a house downpayment, tax-free, plus tax refunds of up to $5,000, for a downpayment of $15,000. A far nicer wedding gift. — Garth
Why would I not want to save some money while it can grow tax free and I can use it without penalty any time I wish if I need to make a unexpected purchase?
By Marc on 03.01.08 5:53 pm
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE CAPITAL/EARNINGS RATIO … IN DETAIL! IF YOU WITHDRAW AFTER 3 YEARS, @5.5% EARNINGS, DEFEND YOUR WITHDRAWAL SPECIFICALLY BY CITING WHAT IS ‘YOUR OWN MONEY (CAPITAL) AND WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘TAX-FREE EARNINGS.’
I think you’ve been blind-sided, or you are entirely without financial savvy, or you’re in love with meaningless complexitities offered by Flim Flam Dim Jim Flaherty.
Inform your WAITING PUBLIC the actual percentage of CANADIAN TAXPAYERS who CAN PARTICIPATE IN THIS WILDLY OPTIMISTICE SCHEME. Studied in other countries? … Cite meaningful examples, lest we tar you with a SNEEZE procaiming ‘BULLSHIT’ SIMULTANEOUSLY.
The criticism you make Garth is that people don’t have money to do these plans. The RRSP tax benefit you mention is for the AFFLUENT. The regular joe doesn’t get nearly that much back when they contribute to the RRSP.
You’re quite right, Garth … it’s a big fat gift for the middle class families who can take advantage of the TFSA, and many of them live in large urban centres where the Liberals count their support.
When you think about it, sick people and poor people don’t really vote … together with the 18-25 y.o. demographic.
The sick are too depressed to vote, while the poor are too stupid to vote, otherwise they would be richer. The younger generations are only concerned about their lifestyle (sex, parties, job), and consider politics stupid. They had a cause in ‘global warming’ but now with the cold winter they are turned off, again.. but if Dion can be packaged as ‘our Obama’… but he can’t …!!!
So you can bitch all you want, but Harper is making a strong pitch for middle class mom and dad living in cities, and reduce the Liberal vote.
Nice try, but you lose again, just like on ITs .. non-factors in any next election.
I heard on the 6:00 PM news that Liberal strategists are debating whether to pull the plug on the Conservatives. The Conservatives have been smuggly waving the red flag for some time now, I think it’s to call their bluff. Two days ago a poll in Ontario indicated that 56% of voters back Premier McGuinty versus 25% for Flaherty in the latest war of words between the two. Bolster that with the Conservative plan to disenfranchise Ontario voters relative to all other voters in Confederation through their Bill C-22, and I suspect that there will a few less blue seats in this province next go round. Same goes for East Coast ridings. Then in suburban BC, the Cadman story may have the impetus to flip a few seats, Emerson’s for example. Just enough change, perhaps, to turn a blue minority into a red one. As for the 4 by-elections, you could save the taxpayer a few dollars by taking care them in one fell swoop now, rather than say now and again 3 months from now. There’s momentum. Act decisively with a counterpunch while there’s wobble in the Conservative misstep!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/29/ont-mcguintypoll.html
How about not taxing my income in the first place ? I’d rather pay 30% GST than pay income tax.
I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth and will take advantage of the TFSA. However, the tax forfeited will have to be made up elsewhere. Add in the tax loss from the IT destruction and you have enough money to fund a professional day care system and then some. This Govt. knows the vote getting value of everything and the real cost of nothing. Hang them, I say, and throw rocks at their corpses.
Garth, what is wrong with our simple RRSP system? Puting money away in a RRSP and taking the return and applying it to a mortgage is truly shooting two birds with one stone. It is kinda like having the government pay your mortgage off while you save money for a better retirement. There was much talk years ago around the morning coffee table that RRSPs were no good, to whit one good friend (money savoy) said: What if they really are as good as the banks say and y’all missed the boat? He has done really fine and I can not complain.
Was Mr. Flaherty born under a cabbage?
Cabbage is the main ingredient for coleslaw, and when combined with raisins, nuts and stirred with a light vinegar / oil dressing makes for a terrific meal.
Funny face jimbo’s false smile — or sneer — shows his true character. He, along with other CRAPpists, really couldn’t care less about the average Cdn. — they talk about these people as if they were merely robots wanting an oil change.
Out of interest, when I was in the workforce many moons ago, our CFP said the best way to save was to have an amount taken directly from my paycheque (26 paycheques a year), and have it put straight into an RRSP; any spare cash would be used to top the RRSP up.
If it was taken from the paycheque, then I wouldn’t be able to spend it, but I got a nice tax refund each year, and that refund was the topping off. However, it takes self-discipline.
Just to screw things up . . .
http://tinyurl.com/3b6zje
It horses for courses and the TFSA may not be the best option.
One things for sure comparing an TFSA to an RRSP, the government gets your taxes sooner with a TFSA.
Apparently the concept is being attributed to an economist at a university in B.C., not Garth Turner.
I’d imagine there are lots of folks who’d like the option of investing in this plan. In any event the value of the plan will be measured by how many folks take advantage of it, right?
Where did I take credit for this? And if a guy in BC tries, shut him down. As I said this has been in place in the US and the UK for years. Time to work on that reading comprehension, Johnnie. — Garth
An excellent article — from the Toronto Sun, I believe — and the lady is bang on.
Always trust one’s own gut feelings, becausse they are always right.
http://tinyurl.com/2x7m8x
We are not any where near the top 1%, just our incomes are much greater then our expanses though no fault of our own but for hard work.
Are you saying we should put every cent of available money into RRSP up to our max yearly contribution? We should have no other money earning us a return that we can access freely? So why is it a bad idea if we feel we need available money to spend on any sort of sudden expenditure, sitting in a TFSA rather then an RRSP that we can not access as freely?
Knock yourself out. — Garth
Harry S.
So you think Income trusts are a non-issue do you.
You would never know it by the recent attacks by Conservative trolls on the CAITI blog site.
The people affected , of which there are hundreds of thousands , have not forgotten & will not.
We will all vote & you can take that to the bank–we are not soft votes , we will be there.
It is not often that a single issue pisses-off such a large number of folks–old folks at that & that is one bad mistake.
Never mess with an old person`s money–there is always hell to pay.
The trust issue had no need to be all or none–there were dozens of viable compromises that would have placated both sides–it was just a plain stupid move made by someone who had little understanding of the implications.
The 18 blacked out pages of proof says it all.
I guess when you are wrong , what can you do–if these things were as bad as they let on , then the pages would not have been blacked-out & they would have shut us up once & for all.
But Harry , we will vote & these folks can be called up at a moments notice –I will be one of the guys doing the calling.
Dr Mike.
PS–Harry , unless you have the figures on the blacked-out pages , don`t bother answering.
The new Tax free savings accounts are ideal for anyone with money saved within a taxable cash account where any asset is held.
It will be simple enough to transfer these funds in kind & collect your distributions , interest , & dividends tax free.
This is ducky for those well-funded already.
This will be a nightmare for those who do not have the funds or the ability to save , which is the majority of the population.
This is great for the person who is already a saver , a waste of the time for those who cannot–unfortunately , it is this group that needs to use this account.
This will also be very costly for the gov`t–20 years out it is expected the lost tax revenue will be in the billions per annum , which is fine for Jim Flaherty since he won`t be around (we hope) to worry about it–this is typical of his efforts to manage the country`s money for the future.
The TFSA is ideal for the rich , a minor player for those who really need it.
Dr Mike.
PS–the double taxation of dividends within RRSPs makes them far less useful than they should be–this inequity needs correcting ASAP.
By Dr Mike from Rodney on 03.01.08 7:31 pm
So tell us who you and all the jilted IT investors are going to vote for … and what do they intend to get out of it ..??
I hope you are not going to say “revenge” … then you might be putting the welfare of the nation at risk of even greater taxation to send Billion$$$ to China for useless Kyoto Carbon Credits.
Ironically, if you vote for anybody other than the Conservatives, you will still not have ITs reinstated, and you will most certainly be subjected to high taxation for ‘social’ and ‘environmental’ schemes.
So who are you gonna vote for …. ???!!!
Wow. Some people just don’t get it.
A friend of mine at worked asked me what I thought of the TFSA. I basically said the same thing Garth did. It’s great – if you have the money. If you don’t have the money – it doesn’t do you much – and the RRSP is still a better vehicle. If your luckly – invest in your RRSP and use the tax return and put that in your TFSA.
The point is not whether it’s “evil” or “good” – but who will it benefit the most. The answer – those that can afford to sock an extra $5,000 a year away. The sad reality is that this will not help the poor – who live paycheque to paycheque – the “lower” to “middle” middle class – who may have enough at the end of the year to top off their RRSPs – it will help the “upper” middle class and rich (who can afford it.)
P.M. Steven Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty go to Halton. (TRUE STORY)
God Bless Canada
HALTON,Ontario
P.M. Steven Harper called Finance Minister Jim Flaherty into his office one day and said, “Jim: I have a great idea. I know how we can get a majority Government and secure my victory in 2008′.
Great, but how do you propose we go about that?’ asked Jimbo.
‘Well’, Harper responds, ‘We’ll go down to a local Wal-Mart, get some cheezy clothes and shoes like most middle Canadians wear, and then we’ll stop at the pound and pick up a Labrador . When we look the part
we’ll go to a nice old country bar outside of Halton and we’ll show them that we really enjoy the countryside and show admiration and respect for the hard working people living there.’
A few days later, all decked out and with the requisite Labrador at heel, they set off from Ottawa and Eventually they arrived at just the place they were looking for. With dog in tow they walk into Arkey Blues Silver Dollar in the outskirts of Halton, Ontario. They step up to the bar and the bartender takes a step back and says,
Aren’t you P.M. Steven Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty ?’
Harper answers, ‘Yes we are, and what a lovely town you have here. We were just passing through and Jimbo suggested that we stop and take in some local color.’
They then order a couple of beers from the bartender and proceed to drink them down, all the while chatting up a storm with anyone who would listen.
All of a sudden, the bar room door opens and a grizzled old rancher comes in. He walks up to the Labrador , lifts its tail and looks underneath, shrugs his shoulders and walks out the door.
A few moments later, in came another old farmer. He walks up to the dog, lifts its tail, looks underneath, scratches his head, and then leaves the bar.
Over the course of the next hour or so, another four or five farmers came in, lifted the dog’s tail, and went away looking puzzled.
Eventually Harper and Jimbo could stand it no longer and called the bartender over ”Tell me’, said Harper, ‘Why did all those old
ranchers come in and look under the dog’s tail like that? Is it some sort of old custom?’
‘Good Lord no’, said the bartender, ‘Its just that someone has told them that there was a Labrador in here with two assholes!’
IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY, OR WHAT?
_________________________
Quit using the “up to” 50% tax return on an RRSP Garth. We all don’t get paid like our MP’s do. How much does one have to earn to get a 50% return at income tax time. Very misleading.
Income of $130K. — Garth
Garth, I’ll give you two examples of where it helps out lower and low middle income families and people 55 to 65 years old.
Firstly, the typical individual or couple are generally buried in debt until they are approaching 40, but as they hit their 40′s, often cash begins to free up.
At this point, a tax-free savings account arguably does have a much greater advantage to these individuals and couples, because they probably didn’t do RRSP’s in the past, and the tax deduction up front doesn’t have near the value of the TFSA, especially given that most won’t be able to save and earn the $250K + needed to make an RRSP even worthwile to do.
Or for those looking for a vehicle in their later years of employment, which has greater freedom of use, can allow someone 55 or older to save money outside the RRSP, and retire at 65 without having to tap the RRSP until they are at the maximum age limit on the RRSP.
What about young people just starting to save… perhaps it is a small percentage, but a young teen with a personal TFSA could possible put enough away in a working portfolio to save a serious chunk of cash for school.
Perhaps it doesn’t help many, but there are those who can use it to great success and that should be encouraged and people should be educated about these vehicles.
TFSA’s could be a huge deal going forward…
Most people choosing these instead of RRSPs will be taking the wrong path. — Garth
Right on Dr. Mike
Harper knows the power of the seniors vote…he promised to protect our income trusts and won his minority with our help. If he or anyone else thinks we have forgotten our losses he better think again. He’s going down soon and seniors will be smiling from coast to coast.
Garth,
You’re a force, and I trust that your efforts will be rewarded and recognized, especially by your constituents.
But let’s get real. 70% of Canadians are on their own for their pensions, and 50% of them retire with little or no retirement savings.
Just one small example: In Alberta, seniors have gone into hospital for major treatment, and when returning “home” to their apartments they’ve been greeted with eviction notices (for condo conversion.)
Laws are needed to encourage people to do the sustainable things for themselves. Home ownership is an important building block. Etc, etc.
Flaherty is a waste of time. Let’s get on with Canadians helping Canadians and Canada.
Mr Turner
With all due respect I disagree with you.
There are several people who have maxed out their RRSP based on their earned income. There are individuals who have taken early retirement and cannot contribute to an RRSP.
There are people who happen to receive an inheritance and now have a method to shield up to $5000.00 per year tax free.
There are people who are holding GIC’s and CS Bonds who do not make one cent after they pay the tax and when you take inflation into account.
This replaces the $1000.00 interest free we were allowed until the Mulroney government took it away from the most needy in our society.
This is an excellent planning tool for anyone who wishes to save for a major purchase and a rainy day.
I thought the Liberal complaint would be “why do we have to wait until next year to take advantage of this excellent plan”.
At presesnt if you happen to sell your home or accumulate a little savings through a safe investment with a low interest yield the government takes it.
In addition, this is designed to give people some incentive to save. At one time we had an “In Trust Account’ for our grandchildren. We changed it to an RESP due to interest and dividends were attributed back to the person who put the money in. We ended up with a T5 statement annually to pay tax on money we had not received.
If this new investment venicle was available it would have been an excellent way to provide some savings for grandchildren.
I do not discourage RRSP’s. I have these plans and they do shelter income until you are forced to take it out.
The present finance minister has done some great things. 1) changed the age back to 71 when you have to purchase a RRIF after Martin changed it to 69 as a measure to get at our retirement funds sooner. 2) Incoming splitting for Seniors although I have some questions about the method of calculation. 3) Allowing seniors to make $3500.00 before their Income supplement is affected. 4) Increasing the pension deduction to $2000.00. 5) Lowering the tax rate to 15%. 6) The savings plan that allows people to keep the interest earned on up to $5000.00 yearly. 7) This new savings plan will see those on the supplement not penalized when they make a $2.00 of income they lose a $1.00 of their supplement.
These are major changes for seniors.
I think the Minister of Finance has done a very good job in his attempt to increse the living standards of Seniors. Most seniors completing their tax form this year will see the many savings.
I fail to see how anyone can criticize these steps that were taken to assist some of the most vulnerable canadians.
My suggestion is “Lighten Up”
Geez, Garthie, a little edgy today?
That’s John, not “Johnnie”, unless you’re hitting on me!?
I guess your “first let me admit this was a plan I pitched Jim Flaherty on in
April, 2006″ was just poor writing on your part and not deliberately misleading.
As I indicated above the value of the TFSA will be reflected on how many folks take advantage of it. Generally, offering citizens more options in how to invest their money is a good thing, right?
BTW, Global National fired the next round aimed at Harper and his beloved elfin FM, Flatulance. Seems there are numerous ‘Up YOURS!’ in the tabled budget, and people are TALKING about it!
Steve’s in for a bad week…Well earned for being so ‘open and accountable!’
This new savings vehicle seems rather like a kiss from your sister – its nice but it isn’t leading anywhere.
By William Laidlaw on 03.01.08 5:52 pm
Precisely! In the U.S., the illustrious 401K plan was tooted as a great idea! Reality Check! A dear friend of mine had stored away $250,000 for retirement, retired, was living a reasonable life on the payout UNTIL Merrill Lynch LOST it all.
If the Class Action Lawsuit benefits anyone, other than the lawyers, I will be amazed!
Isn’t that just charming, and now the taxes are DUE. Some plan!
The proposed TFSA is pretty much the same as the US Roth IRA, which has been available for about 10 years. I won’t pretend to know either plan in great detail, but I do have some concerns about whether they are viable, long term plans, either here or in the US.
Yes, from the standpoint of the saver/investor this is a great arrangement. To be able to accumulate a significant investment in which none of the earnings and gains will ever be taxed is a huge benefit. I can’t come up with any individual scenario where it wouldn’t be prudent to use up one’s TFSA deposit room before putting anything in an RRSP or RPP. The question is, can our system afford it?
Some 30 years ago we had Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans (RHOSP’s) under which, like the TFSA’s, the earnings were never taxed. The RHOSP’s were much more restrictive; annual contribution limit was $1,000, plan duration contribution limit was $10,000, plan had to be collapsed within 20 years, and the proceeds had to be used to purchase a home. Despite these restrictions, when times got tough and the deficit threatened to get out of hand RHOSP’s were judged to be unaffordable and terminated. One has to assume that the even more generous TFSA has a high probability of meeting the same fate at some point in the future.
If they do survive, I can foresee some unintended consequences that are of questionable value. For example, consider a 20 year old starting out who decides to play the system for all he can. He sets himself up as self-employed and immediately incorporates his business and gets all his personal cash flow as dividends, i.e. he never has any “earned” income, so contributes nothing to CPP and generates no RRSP contribution room. He spends his 45 year career putting $5,000/year in his TFSA and spends everything else (food, clothing, house, travel, etc. but no other investments.) If he can average 7.5% return on his TFSA, he will have something in excess of $1.5million when he retires at 65, and having no other income except his Old Age Security, HE WILL QUALIFY FOR THE MAXIMUM, NON-TAXABLE GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT! Is this an acceptable result, having a bona fide millionaire collecting GIS?
Presumably this would be considered not acceptable, and measures would have to be put in place to prevent it. That brings up the issues of system complexity compliance costs. The Income Tax Act already exceeds the Holy Bible in word count by a wide margin – do we really want it to acquire encyclopaedic proportions and suck up twice as many resources in administration and compliance as it already does?
There’s something to be said for simplicity.
Regards
EhBC
Whom does this plan help? Those who are maxed out on their RRSP’s and who can afford to put an extra $5,000 into savings. Who is that? Probably not you or I.
The Conservatives always have plans to help the wealthy–not ordinary folks. Wake up people. I can’t imagine why anyone with an income below about $70,000 would ever vote Conservative.
If this budget is not providing for the Canadians who need assistance, the WHY are you going to vote for it?? This again sounds like you will be doing exactly what your leader tells you to do – smells something like the way you portray the conservatives????? By the way, I do not support the conservatives at this time!!
Did I say I was going to vote for it? — Garth
So you can bitch all you want, but Harper is making a strong pitch for middle class mom and dad living in cities, and reduce the Liberal vote.
By Harry S on 03.01.08 6:31 pm
Well I guess we now know that Harper is not so interested in helping Canada as he is in reducing Liberal votes. What a great Prime Minister. I really thought that he was elected to help all of us who voted regardless of who we voted for.
DHalfkenny: “Vulnerable” seniors do not have $5000. yearly to put in a savings account. Vulnerable seniors are on fixed incomes who are struggling to keep there homes while operating costs for that home continue to climb.
Vulnerable seniors have not maxxed out their RRSP’s. Now if you want to change vulnerable to “well-off” then your argument might be more convincing.
By Joe Calgary on 03.01.08 8:14 pm
You SERIOUSLY need to see a financial advisor.
People seem to be forgetting that you cannot deduct the $5000. from your reported income.
The only thing you will not have to report is the $150. in interest that you may have earned. Of course those who can only afford to put away $200. a year will not have to claim the $6.00 in interest, but then, I don’t believe they would have had to report that anyway. And this scheme does not beging until 09–why the hold up? I believe the banks would be more than ready to accept all these new accounts–wonder what their monthly fees are??? Wonder how much the bankers profits will increase??
Did I say I was going to vote for it? — Garth
When you quizzically say: ..
going to vote for it?”, are you intimating that you would be absent or abstaining on the vote, thus “not voting for the Budget” .. get my point ..??!!!
So Garth … how do you intend to vote on the Liberal amendment to the Budget .. which btw represents a confidence vote .. yea .. nay .. or MIA …??!!
This replaces the $1000.00 interest free we were allowed until the Mulroney government took it away from the most needy in our society.
By DHalfkenny on 03.01.08 8:34 pm
But I think most would agree that the old plan of $1000 free interest is a much superior plan. It benefits everyone with small savings, it puts a cap on benefits, and it is basically administration free.
Question Garth, would a person be able to move $5000.00 from a RRSP to a TFSA without having to pay tax on the withdrawal?
No. — Garth
How about not taxing my income in the first place ? I’d rather pay 30% GST than pay income tax.
By pissinginthetent.com on 03.01.08 6:34 pm
So would I — much better to pay more on a higher GST, have income taxes lowered accordingly, and thus increasing one’s paycheque, or disposable / spending money.
———————————————————————–
By Harry S on 03.01.08 7:59 pm
You have never bothered to give factual evidence on the 18 blacked out pages, and yet you continue to say that it was a good move. For whom?
What are the figures, Harry? Do tell — the IT investors who suddenly found themselves short a few billion would love to know. Will the bobsy twins make up their shortfall, and if so, how?
The floor is yours now, Harry.
The new Conservative Party is fixated on the concept of hierarchy. Just as they accept a dictatorial leader as the pinnacle of the hierarchy they support policies that either favour those at the top of the economic hierarchy or at least do not favour those at the bottom. This is why programs such as their family allowances are given to all regardless of income while programs such as the new savings accounts benefit only those who have adequate income to be able to use them.
That is why the new Conservative party has worked so hard to get rid of “progressives” which were a major element of conservatism in Canada from the time of John A. Macdonald.
This party has been remarkably successful in convincing its core supporters that this is a “new” conservative party when convenient and then convincing the media and the public that they are “Tories” when that suits their interests. The fact that so many Liberals have been conned by their strategy illustrates the point.
The difference between the hierarchical economic conservatives and “Tories” is that Tories believe that they had a responsibility for the less fortunate and recognize the need for a hand up. The new Conservatives believe in everyone for themselves.
How about not taxing my income in the first place ? I’d rather pay 30% GST than pay income tax.
By pissinginthetent.com on 03.01.08 6:34 pm
Another fan of the flat tax joins myself and Huckabee. welcome.
For the arguers of globalization good news is on the way.
while the negative aspects are easy to describe the positive like consumer purchasing power is allusive. The argument will soon be over. The global economy is going into a phase of declining trade which will exactly mimic an end a retreat from globalization.
I`m quite sure the best option will quickly become apparent.
Finally, consider this: The national savings rate is zero. The average “Canadian owes $116 for every $100 in assets which he or she owns. Household debt has never been this high, and mortgage debt has tripled over the past decade. How is a savings plan supposed to save us, when we have no money to save?”
Not wanting to be a stick in the mud, but who presided over this? Except of course, the 8 years of Mulroney misery.
Buy, spend and send me money. The liberal mantra.
Almost as repugnant as Sinclair Stevens telling us that all we had to do to fix the economy, was buy a new refrigerator.
Not so easy when you are Annie.
Remember Annie?
“Did I say I was going to vote for it? — Garth”
Well , if you abstain Garth, you might as well be voting for it. Stand up Garth and vote against this budget.
Cal: 2.29.08 8:55 a.m.
Thanks for the details of Skeena Bulkley Valley scandalous situation where a CPC operative advised constituents of a riding neighbouring NDP incumbent, Nathan Cullen’s riding, that they should use Sharon Smith, mayor of Houston, as their “go-to-girl” instead of Mr. Cullen if they wanted any action from the Con government.
I hadn’t had the time to read Dube’s post of 2.28.08 10:29 p.m., which listed a goodly number of the insidious attacks on democracy by the Harper government.
Brain’s post of .02.29.08 2:27 a.m. also was a very interesting post.
People need to know these things. Thanks all.
Garth, 40K is only 10% of a down payment towards a suburban house or city condo. Where would you suggest we grow the other money so we can have a minimum of 20% down payment while minimizing any potential tax hit?
The average down payment across Canada is now 15%. — Garth
That new tax free savings account is crap.The nerve of the conservatives giving us an option as to where we can save our money.I can’t wait till the lieberals get back to power.That way I know any extra money I have will be stolen to look after lieberal bag men,or slowly eaten up when they raise back the GST.Why would anyone in their right mind want to be able to actually save money?What is next.Are we going to be able to register our shipping lines out of country to avoid paying taxes like regular working folk?Oops,Sorry Mr.Dithers.My bad.
The next step is to offer all Canadian workers the same pension plan MPs enjoy;
that’d really be a sign of the Liberal’s committment to equality for all, right, Garthie?
Well I guess we now know that Harper is not so interested in helping Canada as he is in reducing Liberal votes. By doug.
Reducing Liberal votes could very well be helping Canada. It is all a matter of perspective.
The TFSP is actually pretty good…it has advantages for those who are in middle income brackets and have a long term to retirement, as well as for seniors who have invested in income producing investments outside an RRSP (such as trusts).
Consider a 30 year old, who makes $50K/year, and contributes $5K a year to a TFSP for 35 years. At 7% return, that works out to a nest egg of $691,184 at age 65. No taxes on withdrawal. No taxable income to claw back monies earned from OAS.
The same investor would get a break on tax, and could therefore invest about $8,333 a year in an RRSP. At the same growth rate, that would compound to $1.15 million over 35 years, which would be taxed on withdrawal.
Assuming the same 40% tax rate, that leaves the RRSP investor with roughly the same amount of money as the TFSP. Of course that requires that every dime of tax credit received was contributed to the plan, and also assumes that RRSP income would not cause a clawback of OAS.
Clearly the TFSP is more flexible than the RRSP, with the ability to withdraw and re-contribute at any time, unlike the RRSP. The RRSP however provides more opportunities to plan for income-splitting.
The thing I like most, is that it offers a tax break for saving instead of consumption. With our abysmal savings rate, we as a nation continue to spend tomorrow’s earnings. The fact that there is some small encouragement for people to save for what they want, gives some hope.
The tax system very much penalizes savers. Anybody who prudently keeps savings in an emergency fund is penalized without this very necessary plan, as safe investments in bonds and treasury bills pay an after-tax return less than inflation.
Hopefully, a Liberal government would keep the TFSP in place, while continuing to aggressively reduce income taxes and increasing the basic personal exemption.
On the other hand, as I said before, this budget was a colossal missed opportunity, with its elimination of the fuel efficient automobile tax credits and very little else to create incentives for lowering consumption of ever-more expensive fuel which continues to threaten our very way of life. $102/barrel and counting.
By don bool on 03.01.08 8:06 pm
ROFLMAO! Nice one!
Nice try, but you lose again, just like on ITs .. non-factors in any next election.
By Harry S on 03.01.08 6:31 pm
Unfortunately for the CONs, the supposed leakage of BCE converting into an income trust pales in comparison to BCE being an LBO. The CONs were lying through their teeth about RRSP/RRIF accounts being a tax leakage.
By Dr Mike from Rodney on 03.01.08 7:31 pm
So tell us who you and all the jilted IT investors are going to vote for … and what do they intend to get out of it ..??
I hope you are not going to say “revenge” … then you might be putting the welfare of the nation at risk of even greater taxation to send Billion$$$ to China for useless Kyoto Carbon Credits.
Ironically, if you vote for anybody other than the Conservatives, you will still not have ITs reinstated, and you will most certainly be subjected to high taxation for ’social’ and ‘environmental’ schemes.
So who are you gonna vote for …. ???!!!
By Harry S on 03.01.08 7:59 pm
Let’s see, to get the trust prices back up and more income every month with LIBERAL TAX of 10.0% I know what my family is voting for and it’s not a lying SOB like Harpo! A lot of my friends got burned on his lies, no love for the CONS there.
Yep, it’s Liberal…. And if I can, I will be placing a LARGE PINOCCHIO sign on my lawn with Stevie’s fat little face on it.
I did not write this but it makes sense to me.
TFSA – How Long will they last?
If we look back at previous schemes of this nature, like the “Life-Time Capital Gains Deduction”, this plan is destined to be cancelled within five years. The reason, it is costing too much in lost tax revenue. Remember the Life-Time Capital Gains Deduction was originally proposed to be $500,000. That became $250,000 and was later reduced to $75,000 once all of the wealthy friends “got their deduction” This program was bad-mouthed by the “think tanks” like the Fraser Instituts etc., as costing too much. They used the statistics from the first two years as examples – the period during which the wealthy “got their tax free gains” and the normal “Joe” was creeping along at $2,000 a year. It was finally cancelled, except for the Family Corporations.
The TFSA will cost the government $50 million in the first year and it is estimated that it will eventually cost in excess of $3 BILLION annually in lost taxes. How long will the government allow this to happen.
What will the banks charge in annual “administration fees” for these saccounts. Let’s see, you invest $5,000 at 5% and earn $250 only to have the bank charge you $100 for administration – some return!! And to make matters worse, the fee will not be tax deductible – just like the RRSP fees.
Like many things proposed by this government, it is all about optics. It sounds good at first and provides great photo ops, but it doesn’t take long before reality sets in and the plan is a dud.
Just to screw things up . . .
http://tinyurl.com/3b6zje
By Charles Oxley on 03.01.08 7:11 pm
Silly NeoCONs, tricks are for Ids.
You should read more science journals.
Just talk to a Geography Professor, the problem that occurs with global warming is this:
Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age
* 18:00 30 November 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Fred Pearce
The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.
The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.
The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
NS Forum
Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK, whose group carried out the analysis, says he is not yet sure if the change is temporary or signals a long-term trend. “We don’t want to say the circulation will shut down,” he told New Scientist. “But we are nervous about our findings. They have come as quite a surprise.”
No one-off
The North Atlantic is dominated by the Gulf Stream – currents that bring warm water north from the tropics. At around 40° north – the latitude of Portugal and New York – the current divides. Some water heads southwards in a surface current known as the subtropical gyre, while the rest continues north, leading to warming winds that raise European temperatures by 5°C to 10°C.
But when Bryden’s team measured north-south heat flow last year, using a set of instruments strung across the Atlantic from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas, they found that the division of the waters appeared to have changed since previous surveys in 1957, 1981 and 1992. From the amount of water in the subtropical gyre and the flow southwards at depth, they calculate that the quantity of warm water flowing north had fallen by around 30%.
When Bryden added previously unanalysed data – collected in the same region by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – he found a similar pattern. This suggests that his 2004 measurements are not a one-off, and that most of the slow-down happened between 1992 and 1998.
The changes are too big to be explained by chance, co-author Stuart Cunningham told New Scientist from a research ship off the Canary Islands, where he is collecting more data. “We think the findings are robust.”
Hot and cold
But Richard Wood, chief oceanographer at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for climate research in Exeter, says the Southampton team’s findings leave a lot unexplained. The changes are so big they should have cut oceanic heating of Europe by about one-fifth – enough to cool the British Isles by 1°C and Scandinavia by 2°C. “We haven’t seen it yet,” he points out.
Though unseasonably cold weather last month briefly blanketed parts of the UK in snow, average European temperatures have been rising, Wood says. Measurements of surface temperatures in the North Atlantic indicate a strong warming trend during the 1990s, which seems now to have halted.
Bryden speculates that the warming may have been part of a global temperature increase brought about by man-made greenhouse warming, and that this is now being counteracted by a decrease in the northward flow of warm water.
After warming Europe, this flow comes to a halt in the waters off Greenland, sinks to the ocean floor and returns south. The water arriving from the south is already more saline and so more dense than Arctic seas, and is made more so as ice forms.
Predicted shutdown
But Bryden’s study has revealed that while one area of sinking water, on the Canadian side of Greenland, still seems to be functioning as normal, a second area on the European side has partially shut down and is sending only half as much deep water south as before. The two southward flows can be distinguished because they travel at different depths.
Nobody is clear on what has gone wrong. Suggestions for blame include the melting of sea ice or increased flow from Siberian rivers into the Arctic. Both would load fresh water into the surface ocean, making it less dense and so preventing it from sinking, which in turn would slow the flow of tropical water from the south. And either could be triggered by man-made climate change. Some climate models predict that global warming could lead to such a shutdown later this century.
The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5°C to 10°C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.
Journal reference: Nature (vol 438, p 655)
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398
Global Warming: Shutdown Of Atlantic Current Would Ravage Food Stocks
The circulation system is like a conveyor belt, taking warm water from the Caribbean in the tropical western Atlantic to the cold latitudes of the northeastern Atlantic.
Paris (AFP) Mar 31, 2005
If the North Atlantic Ocean’s circulation system is shut down – an apocalyptic global-warming scenario – the impact on the world’s food supplies would be disastrous, a study said last Thursday.
The shutdown would cause global stocks of plankton, a vital early link in the food chain, to decline by a fifth while plankton stocks in the North Atlantic itself would shrink by more than half, it said.
“A massive decline of plankton stocks could have catastrophic effects on fisheries and human food supply in the affected regions,” warned the research, authored by Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University.
The circulation system is like a conveyor belt, taking warm water from the Caribbean in the tropical western Atlantic to the cold latitudes of the northeastern Atlantic.
There, the warm surface water cools and sinks, gradually getting hauled around back to the southwest, where it warms again and rises to the surface.
This movement is vital for northwestern Europe, for the warm water brings the region balmy, wet weather. Without it, Ireland, Britain, parts of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany would be plunged into prolonged, bitter winters.
The circulation is also essential for plankton, providing an upwelling of deep-water nutrients on which these tiny creatures feed. In turn, the plankton feed fish and other marine animals, which in turn are harvested by humans.
Schmittner, writing in the British weekly science journal Nature, said his computer model of plankton loss was based on a disruption of the circulation system over 500 years, during which the conveyor belt lost more than 80 percent of its power.
Temporary slowdowns in the Atlantic’s circulation system have occurred in the past, most notably after the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago, said Schmittner.
Isotope traces from Greenland icecores suggest there were bursts of rapid warmings of 10 C (18 F), which melted huge amounts of Arctic ice.
This influx, because it comprised cold freshwater, sank to the bottom of the ocean floor, essentially acting like a giant sandbag thrown on the conveyor belt, braking its movement.
Today, Earth is considered to be in an “inter-glacial” period – a balmy period between ice ages.
But scientists say there is a possibility of another big temperature rise induced by man-made global warming, caused by the spewing of fossil-fuel greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
One scenario, considered outlandish only a few years ago but now increasingly taken seriously, is that a fast melt of part of the Greenland icesheet could slow or stop the warm-water circulation in the North Atlantic, with catastrophic, long-term results.
All rights reserved. © 2005 Agence France-Presse. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oceans-05b.html
‘Good Lord no’, said the bartender, ‘Its just that someone has told them that there was a Labrador in here with two assholes!’
IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY, OR WHAT?
_________________________
By don bool on 03.01.08 8:06 pm
Thank you don:) a great rewrite of a golden oldie.
Geo
Is that a pic of two tier Tony in the background, Harpers wonderful pick for minister of health?
Someone should tell him to brush his teeth…
Garth, here are some examples, that the average person would want to save their money (be it 25$ per week, 50$ per week, 75% per week):
-down payment on a vehicle
-kitchen renovation
-bathroom renovation
-replacing the roof of one’s house
-replacing windows
-landscaping
-graduation gifts for one’s children
-trips to celebrate major anniversaries (10 years, 20 years, 30 years)
None of the above examples qualify for special RRSP withdrawals.
Garth, I think you miss the point when it comes to average income earners. Yes, the RRSP provides one with a tax reduction while one is working. However, if one withdraws the RRSP while still working, one’s net income increases at tax time.
Is 25$ per week for the rich? Or is 50$ per week for the rich? Or is 75$ per week for the rich? I don’t think so. Yet, these amount saved for 5 years can be a substantial for the everyday joe.
Yes, I agree that millionaires can easily afford the 5000$ per year to squirrel away. And millionaires don’t really care if they get a 200$ saving on their taxes. But, the average joe does.
To be valid and socially worthwhile, this should have been restricted to retirement savings. Second, to call this the budget ‘centrepiece’ shows clearly Mr. F is officially bereft of ideas. — Garth
http://pacificgazette.blogspot.com/
There is an interview from CBC AM of Jodi Cadman (Chuck’s daughter) and Val Meredith (an MP who served in the house of commons from 1993 to 2004) well worth listening to. Both Jodi and Val’s comments are well worth listening to.
Just scroll down to the link to find Bribe-A-Palooza – “Powerlust Makes Us Stupid”, click onto the realplayer audio file and have a listen. It most certainly doesn’t flatter these so called Shiny New Cons.
As to the TFSA Garth, I like it! Unfortunately, this New Con government has decided to look the other way with Foreign M & A’s of our Canada corps making up a whopping 7.5% of our GDP!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080229.wcurrent29/BNStory/energy/
A clip:
“Mr. Porter pointed out that for all of last year, foreign direct investment inflows hit a record $115-billion, representing 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product, and more than double the outflow by Canadian companies investing outside the country.
The net number shows a massive inflow of $62-billion in 2007, he said, the largest on record in dollar amounts but also the highest as a share of GDP.”
If Flarhety is predicting 1.7% GDP growth for 2008 this year, where does he expect it to come from? What does Canada have left to sell? Does Flarhety actually expect trade to increase with a U.S. economy that is tanking? Where is this GDP growth going to come from, the sale of RIM? Is he planning to deregulate Chartered bank protection from foreign takeovers? I think not. The corporate halls are empty otherwise, unless he wants to start peddling Ventures penny stocks.
I see our GDP shrinking this year, causing this nation to go into deficits thanks to New Cons looking the other way with U.S. M & A’s specifically in the area of hostile takeovers since they’ve come into power. Does Martin deserve some of the blame? Yes he does. He appointed a crooked David Emerson as minister of industry in July of 2004 and Emerson did so well looking the other way with foreign takeovers of Can corps, that Harper bribed him to keep the job. (they needed a ringer for that billion dollar softwood giveaway)
Back to the TFSA…
It is estimated that the TFSA will cost taxpayers 3 billion annually to keep the program up and running which, in a time of possible recession and shrinking GDP, is the wrong time to introduce such a program while other spending targets take precidence in hard times… at least, as the TFSA currently stands.
TFSA is a good program for encouraging taxpayers to save, but there should be limits in terms of which taxpayers actually need to save. It isn’t the rich. The rich at the same time are the ones who will most exploit this tax dodge.
I believe the Liberals should keep the TFSA for those who declare net earnings of up to $60,000 a year and have those with net annual earnings of more than $60,000 become ineligable for TFSA. In this way, the program would become more affordable for the government to provide to taxpayers that truly need to have savings encouraged, as well as provide them with up to a $5,000 dollar tax dodge that can help them drop to lower income tax brackets.
The TFSA needs to be amended, not scrapped and amended to help our middle class singles and families to save and provide tax relief. I belief this is the high road Liberal way, Garth!
Dear Readers,
The ONLY WAY that RRSPs and this 2009 Tax Free Savings Account will work is if…
People SPEND LESS than they BRING HOME!!!
Do THAT first!!!
Once YOU have done that we can reasonably start talking about the merits and shortcomings of the 2009 Savings Account thingy.
Sincerely,
MB
You can not buy a stick or coffee with this but thanks Garth for chatting money albeit a Flaherty smoke screen, it allowed me a good nights sleep as it provided a good diversion from he who’s name should not be mentioned!
Thank you
Great savings incentive or just a new way for rich to profit?
Some activists embrace Flaherty’s tax-free plan while others scorn it
Feb 28, 2008 04:30 AM
Tanya Talaga
Social Policy Reporter
The introduction of a tax-free savings account is hailed by some anti-poverty advocates as a big, first incentive to low-income earners to save money intended to be free of government clawbacks.
Others say the special savings account is just another way for the rich to get richer.
http://www.thestar.com/article/307741
AFTER THE BUDGET
TheStar.com | Columnist | In Britain, tax-free plan mainly boosts the wealthy
Feb 28, 2008 04:30 AM
Mitch Potter
EUROPE BUREAU
LONDON–They’ve been there, they’ve done that. And British tax experts say that as good as it might sound on paper, savings schemes like the one launched by Ottawa this week offer very little for the people they are intended to help.
Here in the United Kingdom a program similar to the Save Your Money plan unveiled in Tuesday’s federal budget has been in place since the early years of prime minister Tony Blair, who stepped down last year after a decade in office.
“The problem with these schemes is that they simply throw money away on a political gimmick,” said Richard Murphy, a prominent British policy analyst with Tax Research LLP. “The spirit of the program is to encourage a savings culture by offering tax incentives for those lower-income earners who are not in the habit of putting a little bit aside.
“But almost invariably, the only people who participate are the ones with lots of spare cash – the sort of people who already do save and who would have saved anyway. So it ends up being a giveaway to the wealthy middle class.”
http://www.thestar.com/article/307742
No doubt, the TSFA will benefit us, but I doubt it will benefit many low to middle income people who are living paycheque to paycheque and in debt.
IMHO, this is just another step in the con’s plan to decimate the revenue available to the federal govt. in future years so there will be little left for socially progressive programs.
“This new savings vehicle seems rather like a kiss from your sister – its nice but it isn’t leading anywhere.
BTW – I had a long conversation last night with one of the outriders of the CPC nominee nursing my riding – very amicable but I was struck by one of his assertions – to the effect that wasn’t it a damn good thing that the whole surplus has been spent – if the Liberals get into office now there’ll be no money for them to steal.
By William Laidlaw on 03.01.08 5:52 pm”
Rather than steal, I would say ‘work with’ as its very difficult for a new govt. to eliminate or reduce tax cuts put in by a previous govt., even though those cuts may not actually help those most in need. As many in the US have said over the last 7 years, why do Americans vote for Republicans whose policies were against their own self interests. Spin, spin, spin.
Bruce MacKinnon’s cartoon. Corruption Vac
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/toon.php
sarcasm on,
I would like to congratulate you GTAers for electing a Liberal Government in Ontario. We see that the wonderful, compassionate, and caring Liberals would like to try wearing an adult diaper. Just to see how much fluids it can hold.
sarcasm off.
So Garth, these are the type of people you associate with, eh? You may want to chat with your Liberals about one of your own, George Smitterman. And have him removed from any to do with health care, seniors care, anything to do with humans.
This Liberal MPP just goes to shows how callous the Liberals can be. And McGuinty tries to defend this type of person.
After the pubic out cry, Smitternman “apologizes”. NO ONE believes you, George!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wsmither0227/BNStory/National/home
Have a great day. We are off to visit the grandkids and feed them sugar! LOL
Concerning this TFSA:
With Jim Flaherty, yesterday’s sin, becomes today’s virtue
http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/02/with-jim-flaherty-yesterdays-sin.html
Hmmmm – Flaherty mentioned as a example that an 18 year old could start saving and by the time he/she is…… – her daughter said to me “ya, right – when I get my student loans paid off I’ll be getting married and supporting kids and trying to pay off a mortgage if I’m lucky enough to be able to buy a house or marry a guy who makes big bucks and then maybe I can save when the kids grow up – etc., etc.
Real world folks.
I just got around to readding Jeffrey Simpson’s discussion on the budget.
Earlier discussion
Jeffrey Simpson on the federal budget
Globe and Mail Update
February 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM EST
“Having spent most of the federal surpluses they inherited to fulfill largely foolish campaign promises, the Harper Conservatives showed a few signs yesterday of getting more serious about what the country really needs,” The Globe’s Jeffrey Simpson wrote Wednesday in his column Political bribes and economic foolishness
“The trouble remains, however, that the progress is too slow, in part because the Conservatives had already stripped tens of billions from federal coffers through transfers to provinces, the two-point reduction in the goods and services tax and the family allowance program that they misnamed a child-care policy.
“With the fiscal cupboard depleted and the economy slowing, yesterday’s budget by definition had to be a modest affair — so modest that it will neither lift the Conservatives into majority government territory nor embolden the Liberals to believe they can make political hay from it.”
Whether you agree with him or not, that’s a provocative thesis.
In response to a question about the TSFA, Simpson responds:
“Jeffrey Simpson: Andrew, it’s hard to predict just how popular these will be.
Low-income people won’t use them because they don’t have the disposable income at their fingertips.
The government estimates that when fully operational these TSFAs will amount to $3-billion based on today’s economy.
But then Mr. Flaherty the next day said, without mentioning a number, that they could be very big indeed, the modern equivalent to RRSPs and REPs.
Once this vehicle is established, no one should expect the rules to remain the same forever. Just as RRSP rules have been changed, so these will be — both the rules governing what can be done with the money inside the TSFA and the $5,000 limit.
So looking down the road, it’s very hard to estimate.
I will add this. The other funds have specific and very worthwhile social objectives, allowing people to plan for their retirement if they do not have pension plans, and planning for their children’s education.
This plan has no social objective. In fact, it’s political ambition — to attract middle, and especially upper-middle class voters — was made brazenly evident in the budget where it said the fund would help people save, among other things, for purchasing an RV or going to Florida.
Sorry, I’ve been around a long time, and I’ve never seen a government of any stripe announce and justify a policy so materialistically targeted.”
Yeah – help them to buy an RV or a vacation in Florida !!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wlivesimpson28/BNStory/specialComment/home
It will be simple enough to transfer these funds in kind & collect your distributions , interest , & dividends tax free.
By Dr Mike from Rodney on 03.01.08 7:42 pm
I doubt it. When you transfer in kind, the fund company or who ever administers the investment might let you transfer without penalty. But to the CRA, it will probably be seen as a disposition as you’re changing from one account type to another and you’ll pay any taxes at that time. Any gains/dividends/interest going forward will be tax free.
The taxman always wants his slice of the pie, its just a case of when he gets it!
One good thing about TFSA though, (and yes it only applies to the rich…so what), they won’t have to use some scheme like “Universal Life Insurance” to keep their non registered savings tax free.
Garth, right after the budget in your entry on February 26 entitled “The budget,” the one positive thing you stated was that:
“The centrepiece is an after-tax savings plan, which is a good idea…”
The next day, February 27, under your entry on “Budget plus one,” you stated,
“In a few hours I will also give you my advice on how to use the new after-tax savings plan.”
Now, three days later, you state, “Think hard before you leap into this tax-free account.”
It goes to show, if you think about something hard enough, you can find all kinds of reasons to become more negative about something you were once more positive about as a “good idea.”
Come to think about it, the more you think about things, I wonder if you will ever come to acknowledge any good in the budget of Mr. F. You can always find fault if you want to find it badly enough.
“Did I say I was going to vote for it?” — Garth
Just look at your own blog entry on February 26, under your entry on “The budget.” Under Monsieur Dion’s picture, we read these words:
“Here is the official Liberal media release on Stephane Dion’s response:
“Liberals Won’t Bring Down Conservative Government over Watered-Down Liberal Budget
“OTTAWA – The Liberal Opposition will not bring down the Conservatives based on their latest budget because it adopts many of the measures the Liberal Party has championed, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said today.”
So your leader has not said he was going to vote FOR this budget, but that he was not going to bring down the government over it.
So what are you going to do? Walk out? Sit on your hands and abstain?
In either case, your lack of forthrightness is in essence a vote FOR the budget, because had you voted, you could have defeated the government.
I agree with David. If this budget is, in fact, what you say it is, the burning question remains:
ARE YOU (AGAINST YOUR BETTER JUDGMENT) GOING TO FOLLOW YOUR LEADER SHEEPISHLY AND LET THIS BUDGET PASS?
Yes or No?
Or are you going to be true to your real convictions?
Yes or No?
Of course, you are taking my words out of context, which is what I would expect from you. Here are my initial comments on the TFSP, published minutes after it was revealed, and why I believe it is not suited to the times: “The centrepiece is an after-tax savings plan, which is a good idea coming, sadly, at the wrong time. Modelled on the US 401k, this will allow you to put aside up to $5,000 a year, have it augment tax-free, and then take it out in retirement without paying Ottawa a hunk of it. It’s something I have long advicated for, but regret that it comes when Canadians have a zero national savings rate.” — Garth
Every movement has a “Judas” within their ranks somewhere. It sounds like even Jody Cadman does not trust her mother’s judgment in running for the CPC!
So who does trust her judgment and wisdom and consistency?
My “guess” would be that Dona Cadman is either schizophrenic, or that she never was CPC from the time that her husband lost the nomination two elections ago.
By Ike on 03.01.08 1:52 pm
These statements are worse than Duffy’s intimation re: effect of drugs on Cadman.
Your statements set a new all time low in this back and forth squabble.
I’m astounded.
Do you think you should withdraw them and apologize?
By Greg on 03.01.08 8:18 pm
Ike,
No apology?
Well, now the real Ike shows up, almost as vicious and vindictive as Leasa. But, of course you claimed that Leasa is a “nice” person. You deserve each other.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised . After all you defended Harper’s accusing Paul Martin of supporting child pornography.
Your hatred is now on full display.
Did I say I was going to vote for it? — Garth
Are the Libs. going to abstain? If they do so their credibility as official opposition is going to continue downhill.
Are the Libs. going to support it? Mr. Dion says there’s nothing in it to trigger an election. So are you going to oppose your parties position? I guess you, personally, could always abstain.
Or, given the revelations of the last week, is Mr. Dion going to pull the plug saying that the Cons. have lost the confidence of the House, and it would be inappropriate to now allow the budget to pass and this government to continue? I think this one you would like.
Its the rock and the hard place again for you Garth, voting with your party or as you personally feel you should.
I would like to see you do the latter.
But we’ll just have to wait and see.
This TFSA will also help a certain segment of the lower income community. Those that can save will hopefully use this savings vehicle instead of the overpriced financial product junk that is usually marketed to this segment of society.
FYI everyone,
Environmentally Friendly Lighting(LED’s)
No mercury to worry about.
Last extreamly long.
Greatly improved energy efficant!
The exact spelling of the link is odd.
I’m light forward to seeing the light myself!
http://www.ledkoolight.com/index.htm
Garth, if the centre-piece of the budget is so horrible, such an awful attempt to placate the rich, will the Liberals show up and vote down the government?
Hmmmm – Flaherty mentioned as a example that an 18 year old could start saving and by the time he/she is…… – her daughter said to me “ya, right – when I get my student loans paid off I’ll be getting married and supporting kids and trying to pay off a mortgage if I’m lucky enough to be able to buy a house or marry a guy who makes big bucks and then maybe I can save when the kids grow up – etc., etc.
Real world folks.
By slg on 03.02.08 8:25 am
Well slug, maybe your daughter can spare 25$ a week less in her entertainment budget.
Maybe one less pair of jeans or a pair of earings or less text messaging or less games will do.
Ever been to a university dorms. You will see cases upon cases of beer and pizza boxes.
Heck one just needs to go to any nearest Casinos on a Friday and Saturday night and you will see your little darlings gambling.
The average down payment across Canada is now 15%. — Garth
Don’t we have to pay extra in insurance if we only put 15% down? I could care less what the average down payment is, as we want to put at least 20% to avoid any extra costs to our mortgage. Where would you suggest we grow the extra money if not in any sort of TFSA?
If you are buying a $400,000 home and have 15% down, you’ll need another $20,000 to achieve an insurance-free downpayment. So, using the TFSA and a high-yield GIC, this will wonderful vehicle (which starts in 2009) will allow you to get there in the summer of 2012. Without such a gift, you’d be in the same place by Christmas of that year. I think getting a second job would be a better idea. — Garth
By kpn on 03.02.08 8:26 am
After parsing your posting with the Jeffrey Simpson article, I noted this interesting statement:
“The trouble remains, however, that the progress is too slow, in part because the Conservatives had already stripped tens of billions from federal coffers through transfers to provinces, the two-point reduction in the goods and services tax and the family allowance program that they misnamed a child-care policy.”
….
Surely this reveals the Conservative ‘hidden agenda’ for Canada … reducing federal taxation and forcing provinces to care after their own industry and people … with the federal government only involved in universal major initiatives and programs.
If Ontario manufacturing is suffering, perhaps only Ontarians should save their particular industry with more provincial taxation to replace the reduced federal taxation. Regional issues should be handled within those regions, and not impose a burden on all Canadians. Let the provinces be accountable for their own welfare.
Why doesn’t McGuinty just raise Ontario’s PST by say one percentage point and give the money to their auto industry??
The same goes for healthcare and childcare which are both provincial responsibilities. I disagree with Harper’s $1200 childcare payouts because it’s only intended as a vote-getter to induce socialistic-minded Canadians to vote Conservative. Canadians are just a bunch of bleeding hearts who are easily exploited due to their overly-liberal mentality expecting big government to look after them. Just look at how past Liberal governments have exploited Canadian’s muddled minds!! Full globalization will eventually kick Canadians on the side of their collective heads and force them to compete or hide behind some isolationist wall that will trap Canadians in their incompetence and collective misery.
Canada’s federal government must be reduced to it’s basic constitutional responsibility and the provinces accountable for their government responsibilities. Global competition will not tolerate continuous bailing out uneconomic regions.
Just cut the crap out of the federal government and force the provinces to account for their economic viability. The free ride is over because globalization will stop that delusion.
I said its use was restricted to people who could actually save — Garth
By Tim D on 03.01.08 6:18 pm
those would be people that aren’t living in a house that’s beyond their needs.
By kpn on 03.02.08 7:11 am
Sorry, I forgot to include the quotation marks – his exact word was ‘steal’.
I found it interesting that we started the conversation with his bemoaning the inadequate infrastructure that his industry needs – this infrastructure operated by and supplied the federal government. His comment on the spending of the surplus was his response to my pointing out that his party hasn’t done anything to rectify the inadequacies that we started the conversation with, instead spending on infrastructure for foreign wars.
Like I said, it was an amicable but interesting conversation.
BTW – I do NOT support the liberal party either, though my MP happens to be a liberal.
More hypocrisy from Flaherty. Who would have guessed?
First, destroy income trusts and the savings of ordinary average Canadians, especially seniors and retirees, by fraudulently claiming that these assets cause tax leakage, while simultaneously encouraging takeovers of these same assets by wealthy foreign and private interests, and thereby actually causing this claimed tax leakage.
Then, create a tax free savings account that benefits very few and very little, and most likely only the wealthy who will have the additional funds available for just such a tax free program.
Rob from the commoner to give to the wealthy.
Such is the way of the CONS.\
Robin Hood would be pleased.
Well slug, maybe your daughter can spare 25$ a week less in her entertainment budget.
Maybe one less pair of jeans or a pair of earings or less text messaging or less games will do.
Ever been to a university dorms. You will see cases upon cases of beer and pizza boxes.
Heck one just needs to go to any nearest Casinos on a Friday and Saturday night and you will see your little darlings gambling.
By Catherine on 03.02.08 10:34 am
I guess you were never young Catherine. I think there’s so much pressure today on our youth to gain an education in this highly competive market. Maybe those kids who go to casines are children of well-to-do parents who are paying for everything. No longer does a bachelor degree guarantee you a job as it did when I grew up. Back then univ. kids partied and did things that were considered frivolous back then. Today’s bachelor degree will get you a Mac job at $10/hr if you’re lucky and, unless your parents can afford to pay for it, these same kids are saddled with huge loans to pay off. My sis and BIL took out an RESP when my niece was a tot, but it didn’t cover anywhere near her bachelor’s degree and she did receive 1 or 2 scholarships. She’s now working for $11/hr, sharing with 2 other girls in a 2 bdrm apt. in Mtl. Her parents live too far outside of the city so they had to pay for her living accommodations/food/expenses while she attended university. Thankfully she doesn’t have a student loan, but her parents can no longer afford to pay for her Masters. She wants to pursue a Masters in communications/journalism and is looking into it, but she’ll end up with a large debt to pay off. Think she’ll be able to afford to sock away money into this plan anytime soon? Get a grip.
Ever been to a university dorms. You will see cases upon cases of beer and pizza boxes.
Heck one just needs to go to any nearest Casinos on a Friday and Saturday night and you will see your little darlings gambling.
By Catherine on 03.02.08 10:34 am
Forgot to mention Catherine – go into many homes today and you’ll also see pizza & fast (pre-prepared) food that you can stick in a m’wave oven cause so many parents are too stressed out. Just check your local supermarket. There’s more space devoted to these products than ever before. BTW, the same situation applies to European supermarkets.
UNTIL Merrill Lynch LOST it all.
By Bill-Muskoka on 03.01.08 8:53 pm
Lost it? Or moved it? Somebody got it.
Don’t tell me the Business Case for the Peterborough Express is….
Another “Blacked-Out Document”! Only logic from a CRAP point of view, people from Toronto will be able to shop for a Mazda in Peterborough and the line will connect to the proposed Pickering Airport that will have the same business case as Mirabel. CRAP LOGIC.
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/308433
It has been mentioned here and other blogs that Stephen Harper is Republican in Conservative clothing. To-day on the NBC’s Meet The Press it was mentioned that in fact Canada’s Prime Minister Steve Harper was indeed supporting John McCain thereby interfering in the US election. Does this man and his republican crew know no shame?
Then again there was his Speach to Americans “We Stand with you” he made after Jean Chretien said no to Iraq.
Such is the way of the CONS.\
Robin Hood would be pleased.
By Robert Gibbs on 03.02.08 11:13 am
Your style of writing is very familiar as is the conclusion. Most Cdns are smarter than to believe such self serving statements.
To further you post to it`s conclusion;
The Ontario Libs put a user fee on health care, not only against an election promise but in contravention of the national health care act.
The BC Liberals are calling the budget `green` in putting a carbon tax on gasoline which won`t be used for anything green other than money as the majority of this green tax goes to reducing the already profitable banks. Our water generated electricity have a 25% increase to consumers while aluminum smelters are exempt.
Not that I don`t think you should not raise the issues but at least be fair that this is the way of GOV and not just CONS.
Here`s what our resident left wing or as you would say LIBS political sciences student has to say about who the robbers are.
As you read this remember Chretein said government crime is good for the country and CB states even the courts agree corruption is part of the political process..
By C. B. on 02.28.08 9:30 am
It is illegal to offer a bribe but the courts are very lenient when it comes to political crime. It is rare for such occurances to be prosecuted and even then it is rare to get a conviction.
The major political parties tend to operate above the law because the courts are so unwilling to interfere in the political process.
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2008/02/27/budget-plus-one/#comments
Heck one just needs to go to any nearest Casinos on a Friday and Saturday night and you will see your little darlings gambling.
By Catherine on 03.02.08 10:34 am
I have two teenage grandchildren who are saving up for University by working part-time and going to high school. They don’t go to Casinos, and don’t spend money foolishly–especially in Casinos. Heck I don’t even do that (although obviously you do Catharine).
Typical response though…tar everyone with the same brush.
Just cut the crap out of the federal government and force the provinces to account for their economic viability. The free ride is over because globalization will stop that delusion.
By Harry S on 03.02.08 10:52 am
Your response is just what I would expect of you HS. Screw those less fortunate in society, put in tax policies that help the wealthiest and provide tax credits to big oil & multinationals. Those have provinces may become have not ones in future years. IIRC, Alberta received, lots of fed help before their oil boom, and still does in the way of tax incentives/writeoffs. Sorry, but I don’t believe (and never did) in this con govt’s policies which only benefits the upper-middle and rich classes. I’ve seen/read what it has done to Americans and what flim flam’s policies did to Ontario. Better maximize that TSFA HS, cause you’ll need it when your con govt. has gutted our economy.
By not again on 03.01.08 9:34 pm
I am curious, do you run your own blog?
If so, could I have the addy?
With bankers’ charges in the wall, and the insidious INFLATION termites in the savings plan, I don’t think Joe Average will benefit.
You are getting how much from your savings?
They are charging you how much for your mortgage?
They are charging how much on your Credit Card?
hmmmmm….somebody is making out like a gangster.
Those that will profit are the super wealthy once the contribution limits are raised. This is a foot in the door to unlimited tax-free capital gains.
How will those tax losses be clawed back?….same as it ever was.
Rob from the commoner to give to the wealthy.
Such is the way of the CONS.\
Robin Hood would be pleased.
By Robert Gibbs on 03.02.08 11:13 am
RG – Wish I could have expressed it so succinctly.
IT For Income Trusts
Remember, Remember
The 1st Of November
The Conservative’s Income Trust Treason And Plot
I Know Of No Reason
Why The Income Trust Treason
Should Ever Be Forgot
This party has been remarkably successful in convincing its core supporters that this is a “new” conservative party when convenient and then convincing the media and the public that they are “Tories” when that suits their interests.
C. B on 03.01.08 9:33 pm
Have you forgotten Macdonald had to step down as the first PM in his first term on corruption charges until things blew over.
Interesting but ideological positions are not consistent with the results. The left right equation is only a myth created by the extreme left to attract support with it`s impossible utopian image it offers while denounced the reality of conservatism.
Ignoring the gruesome details that socialist have murdered the majority of people over the last century or capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than all the socialist governments combined, the global history and record of socialism is mounting failures.
Cdns look at results and know political parties have been cross dressing through decades of debate. The last party to win an election on ideologies was Trudeau and not many Cdns have forgotten how anti-democratic he was or want to go back too.
I guess CB if you don`t have a vision with a plan to go along with it ideologies are the only chance you have to be part of the debate, sad really. Perhaps you should reconsider the advice I gave you some time ago, judge the results then peg an ideology to them, then you`ll see how superfluous your argument is.
pjw on 03.02.08 12:08 pm
Click on my name, it should come up
Nice try, but you lose again, just like on ITs .. non-factors in any next election.
By Harry S on 03.01.08 6:31 pm
I really hope you and your ilk are counting on this. Are you in for a surprise. Us old farts VOTE and this time I and many (up to 2,5 million) of us WILL be out campaigning HARD against you.
Steal our money will you!
No apology?
Well, now the real Ike shows up, almost
By Gord on 03.02.08 9:32 am
I see you noticed that too.
Sovereign Wealth Funds should, in reality, be called CORPORATE WEALTH FUNDS. The expropriation of Income Trusts enables these behemoths and their corresponding government traitors to dismantle every tenet that should define the acme of a civilization and the definition of humane. Canadians built these tenets in Canada and we won’t let the traitors get away with it.
By kpn on 03.02.08 12:07 pm
Re: Harry S on 03.02.08 10:52 am
Your response is just what I would expect of you HS. Screw those less fortunate in society, put in tax policies that help the wealthiest and provide tax credits to big oil & multinationals. Those have provinces may become have not ones in future years. IIRC, Alberta received, lots of fed help before their oil boom, and still does in the way of tax incentives/writeoffs. Sorry, but I don’t believe (and never did) in this con govt’s policies which only benefits the upper-middle and rich classes. I’ve seen/read what it has done to Americans and what flim flam’s policies did to Ontario. Better maximize that TSFA HS, cause you’ll need it when your con govt. has gutted our economy.
……………………………………………….
WOW, kpn .. do you realize how archaic your thinking is …. believing that central government can shield and protect you from the ravages of globalization?? Your’s is a typical neanderthal Canadian concept of ‘society’ where everybody is so giving that all are sheltered and protected in a socialistic blanket.
The effing world is coming in on us and you want to rescue the ‘poor’ and their feelings of inadequacy?? Sorry, but there is not enough money or jobs to provide Canadians with your altruistic view of Canadian society .. but it makes for good and tricky politics. Unfortunately for you, poor, disadvantage people are too dumb to vote, and it is the struggling middle class that drives the vote .. the Harper vote.
As for the ‘rich’ … you had better hope they reinvest their wealth in Canada rather than somewhere like China, so that Canadian jobs are saved from global competition. What you don’t seem to understand is that the forces of capitalism are paramount in our world, and it is the rich who decide where their money is invested. Be kind to the rich if you want your job ..!!!
Of course I suppose your altruism extends to the entire planet when it comes to the environment … and you won’t mind if a Canadian Liberal government purchases Billion$$$ of Kyoto Carbon Credits from China so they can build all those high-sulphur coal-fired power stations they so desperately need to provide power for their rapidly growing industrial base. Why would Powercorp of Montreal and Canada Steamship Lines be so heavily invested in those same Chinese power plants, if Canadians weren’t globally altruistic too … answer that suckah …??!!
C. B on 03.01.08 9:33 pm
Just out of curiosity. I peg my position as a fiscally conservative populist.
I believe the state should own the infrastructure while it`s managed privately.
This gives the bulk of the assets to the people while putting the bulk of profit into the grass roots economy while still holding government accountable for performance.
Where am I on your left right mumbo jumbo scale?
TO JUDY 03.01.08
I am a senior and not well off. However, I did do the responsible thing when I was working and saved a little for a rainy day.
On the other hand, my Mother-in-Law was not rich and had a small savings of about $12,000.00 that she managed to accumulate over several years of work in catering. Guess what !! When she turned 65 and had to rely on the old age security, a little CPP and a very small pension from work she still qualified for the Income Supplement.
She had her money invested in a GIC (interest rates were over 10%) and the Mulroney government pulled the rug out on the $1000.00 interest free annual amount she took a hit.
For every $2.00 in interest income she lost a $1.00 from her supplement. My wife added her name to her account and claimed the interest on her tax annually to spare her the loss of income.
The point I was making is if this plan was in place she would have been protected.
In addition seniors over 62 who are having difficulty paying the bills and remaining in their homes have what is called a “Reversed Mortgage” plan they can tap into. This frees up some of the equity in their homes and is tax free. The person can remain in their home as long as they wish. When they leave the house is sold and the mortgage is retired and any money left over goes to the owner.
I do not personally favour this approach. However, it is an option.
I believe some of the tax measures that have been introduced for seniors the past two years have been a good step in the right direction. The organization named “CARP” has enthuiastically endorsed the governments tax policy towards seniors. However, they are still working with the government to futher improve these benefits.
“The expropriation of Income Trusts…”
By mary 1 on 03.02.08 12:44 pm
That phrase with respect to the income trust treachery and treason has to be the best moniker I have yet to see.
And by the way, we’re still waiting for the $35 billion ‘property’ compensation that Deceivin’ Stephen also promised in his CON-trived election platform.
I guess the cheque’s in the mail, eh?
By A.R.Wainwright on 03.02.08 12:34 pm
Nice try, but you lose again, just like on ITs .. non-factors in any next election.
By Harry S on 03.01.08 6:31 pm
…………..
I really hope you and your ilk are counting on this. Are you in for a surprise. Us old farts VOTE and this time I and many (up to 2,5 million) of us WILL be out campaigning HARD against you.
Steal our money will you!
………………………………….
You highly exaggerate the number of IT investors and the impact of IT changes upon them.
What I gather from your and other’s comments is that you will be voting Liberal to exact your ‘revenge’ on the Conservatives … because that is the only satisfaction you will get in all this affair.
Once in government, the Liberals will piss on you too, because what they see in you is a pile of wealth that must somehow be taxed mercilessly … but that won’t cause you to change your vote again because then your ‘revenge’ will be lost …!!!!
Of course your last resort would be to vote NDP .. but then they will bring in an inheritance tax … but don’t let that stop you from continuing with your road of ‘revenge’ … you bunch of old and smelly farts .. !!!
You can;t talk about Flaherty without talking about Mark Carney:
Being no stranger to hijacking democracy, Mark Carney could easily devise a synthetic life insurance policy
http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/03/being-no-stranger-to-hijacking.html
Speaking of money h/t to The Blog:
Jack Layton’s, and others, expenses were published by The Hill Times (Feb 18, 2008) using on information released by the House of Commons. According to The Hill Times, party leaders are permitted to be reimbursed for 80 trips per year between Ottawa and their constituency. In 2006/07, NDP leader Jack Layton charged $241, 016 to this budget line, making him the highest spending MP in Canada for Ottawa/home travel. That works out to $3,012 per trip! Looking at today’s airfare prices, the maximum round trip fare is about $750 (open ticket, no advance purchase, etc.) but of curse cheaper fares are available assuming not all flights are at peak hours and weekend travel home/back to Ottawa is pretty much predictable and amenable to advance purchase tickets. Airfares have increased significantly since 2006/07 due to rising fuel costs.
Even so, Layton billed Canadian taxpayers more than $2000 per trip for costs in excess of the flight ticket. For what? Taxis? Snacks at the airports? He takes a private limousine home to Toronto most weekends, like other “working class Canadians”?
More astounding, Ottawa NDP MP Paul Dewar billed $9,725 for travel between, well, Ottawa and Ottawa! He managed to outspend CPC cabinet minister John Baird who billed $3, 895 for his travel between Ottawa and Ottawa. CPC minister Gordon O’Connor billed $35 suggesting maybe he took a cab home after a liquid dinner one Friday night.
Other NDP big spenders were Nathan Cullen, MP ($199,738), but at least he was travelling to the BC interior, and Dennis Bevington, MP ($173,494) who was travelling to the Western Arctic (Yellowknife).
There’s are many other details f=of how the dippers like to spend, including Layton’s wife Olivia Chow topping all MPs for printing expenses at $90,702. How exactly does she manage to so outspend others like NDP Libby Davies – last of the top ten – at $3,396, or the lowest 10 spenders – all under $5000. There were also the seven NDP MPs (including Chow) among the top ten big spenders on office supplies.
….working for the working people and spending their money for them. LOL
CB
Where am I on your left right mumbo jumbo scale?
By Robin Hood on 03.02.08 12:50 pm
You detailed knowledge and understanding of the economy during the 80`s tells me you know exactly what is going on today with investment and productivity, yet you never utter a word. You complain and hypothesize about the current setup yet are silent on the current environment.
Judge the forgoing flattery not as an attack but simply an expression that I`m disappointed in your perforce to capability ratio.
you bunch of old and smelly farts .. !!!
By Harry S on 03.02.08 12:57 pm
Really Garth you need to find a way to put the posters name at the top for an easy scroll down.
Not just for us but the large numbers of readers that visit will leave if they are continually bombarded with the idiocy of several posters here.
By kpn on 03.02.08 7:11 am
Sorry, I forgot to include the quotation marks – his exact word was ’steal’.
I found it interesting that we started the conversation with his bemoaning the inadequate infrastructure that his industry needs – this infrastructure operated by and supplied the federal government. His comment on the spending of the surplus was his response to my pointing out that his party hasn’t done anything to rectify the inadequacies that we started the conversation with, instead spending on infrastructure for foreign wars.
Like I said, it was an amicable but interesting conversation.
BTW – I do NOT support the liberal party either, though my MP happens to be a liberal.
By William Laidlaw on 03.02.08 11:05 am
William – sorry if my comment was ambiguous. I did realize that he said ‘steal’, which is a typical con reaction. I used the words ‘work with’ to say what I believe is actually the case. Obviously I didn’t convey my meaning well enough. Sorry, perhaps it was too early in the day for me.
Conservatives Attempting To Influence Media Messages
Sinister Attack On Canadian Democracy: Thought Control
Website has numbers of call-in shows, newspapers and primer on what to say
The Toronto Star
Allan Woods
Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA–The federal Conservatives have created electronic tip sheets to surreptitiously push Conservative “ideals” and the party message in the media.
On various issues and the “supposedly correct way of viewing the world and all things” individuals can log on to the official Tory website to get a list of contacts for local newspapers and call-in shows to push the right-wing agenda.
“Tired of hearing the vested interests of liberal thinkers getting their messages out?” reads the website. “Call in to a show yourself and fight back!”
The Tory program, called “myCampaign,” tells individuals to enter their postal code and an area of interest. A sample query using the Star’s postal code offers six call-in shows with the time slot and telephone number and a list of Conservative “talking points”.
The new strategy also counsels individuals to turn down the radio once they get on the air, speak slowly and be ready for a provocative, interruptive host.
“Stay conversational – do your best to have a conversation with the talk show host instead of just reading your notes on the radio.”
This sort of surreptitious practice has been condemned as sinister and anti-democratic.
“It’s like we’re now living in communist Russia or China”, one reader states.
Of course your last resort would be to vote NDP .. but then they will bring in an inheritance tax … but don’t let that stop you from continuing with your road of ‘revenge’ … you bunch of old and smelly farts .. !!!
By Harry S on 03.02.08 12:57 pm
ARW – I think you’ve finally driven HS over the edge.
Liberal Finance Committee Members Call On Auditor General To Examine Government’s Claims Of Income Trust Tax Leakage
February 29, 2008
OTTAWA – Liberal Members of the Standing Committee on Finance today called on the Auditor General to investigate the tax leakage claims that the government used as the basis for its October 31, 2006, decision to tax income trusts.
“I think that this government’s stonewalling has gone on long enough and it’s time that Canadians got to see that the Government simply made up its story that income trusts cause federal tax leakage,” said Liberal Finance Critic John McCallum.
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to Canadians that he would never tax income trusts. Then he went back on his word, costing Canadians billions overnight and in the wake of his silence on the issue we feel that only the Auditor General can shine some light into this matter.”
All four Liberal Members of the Finance Committee signed a letter to Auditor General Sheila Fraser asking her to investigate the matter, particularly the government’s unproven allegations about income trusts causing tax leakage.
“This has clearly become much more than just another instance of the government not doing its homework before acting. It has become a full-blown scandal and cover-up,” said John McKay, Member of Parliament for Scarborough-Guildwood. “We have tried virtually every tool at our disposal to get the government to show us how they came to their conclusions about tax leakage and the Auditor General may be Canadians’ last resort.”
An Access to Information request asking for the Department of Finance’s assumptions, data and methodology resulted in the release of only 23 pages of documents that are almost entirely blacked out.
A direct request from the Finance Committee to see the data was met with two thick binders of superfluous information that did not contain the data or methodology originally requested.
A written question was placed on the Order Paper asking the government to recalculate its estimate of tax leakage using the 15 per cent federal corporate tax rate that will actually be in effect in 2012, the year after the income trust tax begins, as opposed to the 21 per cent tax rate that was in effect at the time of the announcement. The government’s response to the question indicated that that this would be a hypothetical calculation and therefore impossible to do.
“That’s not a hypothetical, that’s what the federal tax rate will be,” said Garth Turner, Member of Parliament for Halton. “If the government can’t manage to run the new 2012 corporate tax rate through their calculators then I have no reason to believe they ran the old one through their calculators in October of 2006.”
In 2006, Stephen Harper ran on a campaign commitment to never tax income trusts. The Conservative election platform characterized any attempt to impose such a tax as, “An attack on retirement savings.”
“That election commitment was obviously a falsehood. Unfortunately the voters who believed it and invested even more money in income trusts lost a significant portion of their nest eggs,” said Massimo Pacetti, Member of Parliament for MP for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
“Even today, 15 months after they broke their election promise, Members of Parliament still hear from the thousands of Canadians whose retirement plans were shattered by this deception. Liberal Members of Parliament continue to stand up for them.”
—————————————-
I’ll be making my 2008 political contribution to the LIBERAL PARTY accordingly.
I challenge other Income Trust investors to do the same.
TAKE BACK CANADA!
FIGHT FOR THE BRIGHT,
NOT THE CONSERVATIVE BLIGHT!
Oh, so should politicians say one thing if they are taped for publication, and another if they are taped simply for the record? Please clarify. And this is for publication. — Garth
Garth, would you want everything you think and feel to be ‘for publication’? I think Mr. Harper was just trying to clarify why this guy was asking him these questions. Was it for a newspaper article? A book? What? If you are interviewed I’m sure you ask. I do. When I am friendly with a reporter, some of the stuff we talk about is clearly off the record. There are things you speculate about, that you aren’t quite ready to ’share’.
Leasa
By Leasa on 03.01.08 3:13 pm
Leasa ,
Why should a simple farm girl apparently have so much savvy when speaking to the press? Why should she even be concerned about the press? Why the interviews? Just WHO ARE YOU? Are you even a female? Your often chauvinistic attitude toward the ladies on this blog makes one wonder. You certainly aren’t helping to secure the female swing voters.
Is there really a Leasa behind the name? If not, that would explain the number of times you go into detail with folksy chats to create the illusion of the life of a gentle farm girl of Dutch descent. Regrettably, whoever you are, your hatred, vindictiveness and viciousness slip through all too often and damage that illusion.
Further, your intimate familiarity with the party line and little else also looks suspicious. Your up to the minute knowledge of the CPC talking points raises questions. You are very skilled at selective reading to support the party line, even to the point of adding your own distortions and embellishments. Unfortunately, possibly because of this, you may have lost forever the ability to be objective or open minded. This lack of objectivity has obviously eroded your debating skills, if you ever had any.
If “Leasa” really is an illusion you are to be congratulated upon your selection of nationality because of the immense respect and admiration we have in this country for the Dutch people and their descendants, many of whom I am happy to number among my friends and associates. Further, I very much enjoyed my trips to the Netherlands. I am very grateful for the warm hospitality I have received on each trip. Personally I have great respect, admiration and affection for the Dutch people here and abroad, and their descendants who are now living in Canada. If you really are Dutch or of Dutch descent, then YOU are an ANOMALY. If not, just who are you?
The left right equation is only a myth created by the extreme left to attract support with it`s impossible utopian image it offers while denounced the reality of conservatism.
Ignoring the gruesome details that socialist have murdered the majority of people over the last century or capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than all the socialist governments combined, the global history and record of socialism is mounting failures.
Cdns look at results and know political parties have been cross dressing through decades of debate. The last party to win an election on ideologies was Trudeau and not many Cdns have forgotten how anti-democratic he was or want to go back too.
I guess CB if you don`t have a vision with a plan to go along with it ideologies are the only chance you have to be part of the debate, sad really. Perhaps you should reconsider the advice I gave you some time ago, judge the results then peg an ideology to them, then you`ll see how superfluous your argument is.
By got rope? on 03.02.08 12:32 pm
Rope, you are getting a bit incoherent again. Remember that it was Ernest Manning that suggested Canadian politics should be dominated by the left right divide. If you consider Manning to be a leftie then it is clear you are the one who has a limited understanding of the terms.
Catherine – are you really that stupid and do you go around insulting kids? It was not my daughter (I don’t have one)- it was my girlfriend’s daughter who happens to be working 2 part time times trying to save money for university. She’s a really good kid – perhaps your daughter/s may be what you set out, but not everyone’s is.
Catherine – you’ve hit an all time low – as low as they go. I was referring to comments she made – which indicates that she is listening and paying attention – more than you could say for yourself.
CPC trolls – attack and name calling of the innocent – disgusting as it comes.
By C. B. on 02.28.08 9:30 am
The major political parties tend to operate above the law because the courts are so unwilling to interfere in the political process.
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2008/02/27/budget-plus-one/#comments
I provided enough evidence on this blog to prove the justice industry is just as corrupt if not more so.
The question is as always, where do we go from here if voting or the courts isn`t a check on corruption?
Answer that question and you`re half way home to restoring international investor confidence in Canada.
no justice, no investment
Welcome To Religious Fundamentalism & Censorship In Stephen Harper’s Canada
Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown
Christian crusader says he pressured Conservative cabinet ministers and Prime Minister’s Office officials to deny tax credits to productions he deems too “offensive”
BILL CURRY AND GAYLE MACDONALD
From Friday’s Globe and Mail (Edit)
February 29, 2008
OTTAWA, TORONTO — A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government’s move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain content he deems too “offensive”.
Charles McVety, president of the religious-right Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and “numerous” meetings with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office.
“We’re thankful that someone’s finally listening,” he said yesterday. “It’s fitting with conservative values, and I think that’s why Canadians voted for a Conservative government.”
Mr. McVety said films “promoting” such things as “homosexuality” should not be funded, and Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.
“There are a number of Conservative backbench members that do a lot of this work behind the scenes,” he said.
Canadian Heritage officials confirmed yesterday they will be “expanding” the criteria used for denying funding. Details have not even been provided.
Any guidelines would give a small group of Conservative-directed committee members of the Heritage Minister the clout to deny funding to projects deemed “offensive”.
Arts groups say they will fight the change. Director David Cronenberg and other big names warned that the edgy, low-budget films that have garnered Canadians international acclaim will be at risk.
Several arts groups say the changes violate and are an assault on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Yesterday, novelist Susan Swan, chair of the Writers’ Union of Canada, pledged to lead her 1,600-strong membership in a protest.
“We’re not going to sit back and accept this,” vowed Ms. Swan. “We don’t like being told what kind of art we can make by the federal government.”
David Cronenberg said “The platform they’re suggesting is akin to a Communist Chinese panel of unknown people, who, behind closed doors, will make a second ruling after bodies like Telefilm Canada have already invested.”
“It seems ill-conceived from beginning to end, and is about censorship and destroying the economic foundation of our entire industry,” said Mr. Gero, who shot his debut feature film for $1.5-million with support from Telefilm and other government agencies. “It’s old [right-wing religious] people fucking with the Canadian film industry.”
clear you are the one who has a limited understanding of the terms.
By C. B. on 03.02.08 1:51 pm
Under Manning
In 1947, legislated free hospital and medical care for seniors and, in 1965, provincial civil servants were given the right to engage in collective bargaining.
Yep, as I was saying speaks like a rightly acts like a lefty. You were saying?
Sorry to be off topic but I just read, “Canada’s Oil Sands A Political Hot Potato”, & was flabbergasted to learn that under NAFTA we cannot cut oil production to the US, even if we’re in short supply ourselves. Also, that of 26 industrialized countries, Canada is the only country with a Strategic Oil Reserve program! We export so much of our Canadian oil to the US, that we must import oil from the Middle East. We can left the oil flow through the pipe line to the US, but not to Eastern Canada.
Garth will you please ask the government to put an oil reserve strategy in place for Canadians?
And, please if anyone who is more educated, would like to enlighten me about the problems Albertans & Canadians are facing because of the mismanagement of the Tar Sands, I’d sincerely appreciate it. Thank You.
By Gord on 03.02.08 1:44 pm
My dear Gordie, honestly, you are becoming not only obsessed with me, but the paranoia is becoming scary. Even so, playing with you is becoming much more fun than ignoring you.
Who am I?
I am what I am, that’s all that I am. I think, therefore I am. I am who I say I am. I am my voice, my thoughts, my soul. I am here, I am there, I am everywhere. I am my dream, my dream is who I am. I am but a constant whisper echoing in your head. I am your conscience, your voice, I am the breath of a deer on a cold winter morning, you can see me, but you can’t touch me. I am nothing, I am everything. I am the essence of the first kiss and the last embrace. Who are you?
********
Okay back to reality, if in fact there is such a realm on this or any board in cyberspace.
I checked out CBC at 11:30 this fine morning and was amazed at what I heard…what is this about Mr. Dion asking Ignatieff to discuss the budget with the media and he flatly refused? Why? They likened it to a ‘mutiny’. What’s up Iggy’s butt? Interesting, indeed.
**********
I’ll check in later Gordie, can’t wait for your response, I’m sure it will be a zinger! BTW, next week you can wish me a happy birthday…on the 5th, I’ll be 49. Almost exactly one decade younger than our fellow Pisces and host the Honourable Garth Turner!
XO Leasa
Forgot to mention Catherine – go into many homes today and you’ll also see pizza & fast (pre-prepared) food that you can stick in a m’wave oven cause so many parents are too stressed out. Just check your local supermarket. There’s more space devoted to these products than ever before. BTW, the same situation applies to European supermarkets.
By kpn on 03.02.08 11:37 am
I had small children in the 80′s and both of us worked long hours to keep a roof over my head. We didn’t get any free child care or government monthly allowances. We paid high taxes. And our mortgage interest rates were higher. We simply did without – including ready made meals, Disney vacations, new vehicles, big homes, and many, many luxuries (or by today’s standards, norms). We made meals from scratch. So don’t tell me how stressed people are in 2008. These stresses are no different than then.
Many people are lazier and do not take responsibilities for their actions. They want the best, bigger, and newer products today.
It is telling that your concern is more for “international investor confidence” than democracy. One of the major problems is that international investors seek freedom from democracy through a system of international law that protects them.
My concern is not the same as yours. My concern is that we are allowing the democratic system to be subverted in the interests of an self-interested oligarchy.
Most people choosing these instead of RRSPs will be taking the wrong path. — Garth
By Joe Calgary on 03.01.08 8:14 pm
Here’s the math assuming $1000 before tax income being invested at 8% for 20 years, tax bracket 40% at time of investing and time of withdrawal.
TFSA RRSP
Before Tax 1000 1000
Taxes 400
Invested 600 1000
After 20year 2796.57 4660.96
Taxes 0 1864.39
Amount Left 2796.57 2796.57
No difference.
Note to Garth, you have to put the entire $1,000 into the RRSP to get the $400 taxes back, therefore the tax refund puts you no further ahead, except if you use the Home Buyers Plan because this comes out tax free assuming you pay it back to you RRSP. Otherwise you’ve deferred taxes which is still of benefit.
If you’re using the money for anything else (except lifelong learning) there’s no dollar advantage. Just the taxman is better off because he gets the taxes when you earn the money rather than when you take it from your RRSP.
That Flaherty is one sneaky dude!
Other differences however of TFSA over RRSP. Withdrawal from TFSA will not be included in OAS/GIS clawback.
Unlike US. Roth IRA, TFSA no penalities for taking money out before age 59. (Poor Yanks when they try take money out of Roth IRA!) The Roth IRA is designed specifically for additional retirement savings, TFSA is not.
TFSA after age 71, no minimum required withdrawal. RRSP required minimum withdrawal because the taxman wants his taxes back.
TFSA and RRSP transfer to spouse tax free.
The advantages of an RRSP, the taxes give you a reason to leave the money for retirement. And I guess, thats one reason from a societal point of view against TFSA’s. Since most people don’t put more than $5000 into an RRSP, they may decide the flexibility of the TFSA is better. End result, they spend it and have no retirement savings, putting additional strain on CPP/OAS/GIS.
Was Mr. Flaherty born under a cabbage?
posted by Garth Turner on 03.01.08 @ 5:36 pm |
I though he was the original model for the Cabbage Patch Dolls!
And hopefully he will go the same way and become a collectors item!
“It’s old [right-wing religious] people fucking with the Canadian film industry.”
By Robert Gibbs on 03.02.08 2:17 pm
lol, One of the films that won`t get funded, a woman is obsessed with having sex with corpses. Don`t worry though it`s only government funding that was cut off. They can still fund them on their own so you won`t be missing any of your fav flicks.
WOW, kpn .. do you realize how archaic your thinking is …. believing that central government can shield and protect you from the ravages of globalization?? Your’s is a typical neanderthal Canadian concept of ’society’ where everybody is so giving that all are sheltered and protected in a socialistic blanket.
The effing world is coming in on us and you want to rescue the ‘poor’ and their feelings of inadequacy?? Sorry, but there is not enough money or jobs to provide Canadians with your altruistic view of Canadian society .. but it makes for good and tricky politics. Unfortunately for you, poor, disadvantage people are too dumb to vote, and it is the struggling middle class that drives the vote .. the Harper vote.
As for the ‘rich’ … you had better hope they reinvest their wealth in Canada rather than somewhere like China, so that Canadian jobs are saved from global competition. What you don’t seem to understand is that the forces of capitalism are paramount in our world, and it is the rich who decide where their money is invested. Be kind to the rich if you want your job ..!!!
Of course I suppose your altruism extends to the entire planet when it comes to the environment … and you won’t mind if a Canadian Liberal government purchases Billion$$$ of Kyoto Carbon Credits from China so they can build all those high-sulphur coal-fired power stations they so desperately need to provide power for their rapidly growing industrial base. Why would Powercorp of Montreal and Canada Steamship Lines be so heavily invested in those same Chinese power plants, if Canadians weren’t globally altruistic too … answer that suckah …??!!
By Harry S on 03.02.08 12:48 pm
Wow Harry, always in attack mode just like those you support.
No, I don’t believe that our govt. can totally can shield us against globalization. I do, however, believe that they can put forth policies that can help to offset the devastation to our Cdn. economy by providing sufficient investments in research, including green technologies, education and new technologies – $250M over 5 years in any one area doesn’t cut it.
I do realize that the forces of capitalism are paramount in this world. We are investors in the market. We’re not rich, but we have sufficient money. I retired 6 years ago at age 54 – so I don’t need a job, and my DH, whose 9 years younger than I & has a secure job, only has 8 years to go before retirement. With his skills in IT, should he ever lose his job, he would have no problem getting another. I doubt he’ll ever truly retire – he’ll do consulting work, etc. BTW, we spend next to nothing on maintenance on our Japanese cars as he provides services to them.
As to your last para, much of it, re Kyoto, IMHO, is kool aid that you’ve been fed by your beloved cons.
Sorry Harry, our finances are in OK shape, and we are ones who will be able to take advantage of the savings plan, but I still believe in helping out those less fortunate than we. You see Harry, I grew up in a family of 6 children who more than struggled and I can empathize with those less fortunate. Do you give to charities Harry. Somehow I doubt it.
It is telling that your concern is more for “international investor confidence” than democracy. .
My concern is not the same as yours.
By C. B. 03.02.08 2:37 pm
Couldn`t agree more CB. I`m a free trader and I will debate the pros and cons anytime although we need not waste time. As the global economy retreats you will have your taste of what the world looks like without globalization.
I also believe the society must be built and supported by the rule of law and not some here today changed tomorrow ideology promoted by `this will get a few votes` political agenda.
As McCain and Huckabee, I want change I can count on.
Many people are lazier and do not take responsibilities for their actions. They want the best, bigger, and newer products today.
By Catherine on 03.02.08 2:31 pm
Sounds like your bitter because you missed out on your chance to do the same. Looks like you’ve replaced your “hardships” with the “I am better than all the rest” mantra chant cause you went without for a while. It sucks for some people to acknowledge that they are common (and what do they base uncommon on, a bank account? yawn)
I really don’t care what party you are affiliated with Catherine, how you vote or even how rabid partisan you are. In my day, I’ve met fine Conservatives, Liberals, NDP’ers, Greens and the rest of the “others”. And I’ve sure met my share of of people who weren’t so fine who thought they were “refined” and that kind of shiny because of “what” they were. I doubt that you’d have to guess to hard as to what I think of you, Catherine. As a small hint, its not much.
In addition seniors over 62 who are having difficulty paying the bills and remaining in their homes have what is called a “Reversed Mortgage” plan they can tap into. This frees up some of the equity in their homes and is tax free. The person can remain in their home as long as they wish. When they leave the house is sold and the mortgage is retired and any money left over goes to the owner.
I do not personally favour this approach. However, it is an option.
I believe some of the tax measures that have been introduced for seniors the past two years have been a good step in the right direction. The organization named “CARP” has enthuiastically endorsed the governments tax policy towards seniors. However, they are still working with the government to futher improve these benefits.
By DHalfkenny on 03.02.08 12:52 pm
Right DH for those who are too stupid to realize that they would be better off selling their house and move into an apt. Only the banks profit from this reverse mortgage.
As McCain and Huckabee, I want change I can count on.
By not again on 03.02.08 3:11 pm
Yeah we sure do need to stay in Iraq and Afgan for the next 25 years or 100 years and we sure do need Huckabee’s evangelical ideology. McCain has been riding on his Vietnam ‘hero’ status but, from what I’ve read knows little about economics. And, what can one say about Huckabee
Do we really need another Repuglithon in WH. Look where its got America today. Need I say more.
***BREAKING NEWS***
Telefilm Canada To Fund New Austin Powers Movie Starring Stephen Harper
————————————-
Telefilm Canada has been given the go-ahead by the Canadian Conservative government to fund the new Austin Powers movie.
Unfortunately, Mike Myers will not be the lead actor.
In his place, Stephen Harper will be starring as:
DR EVIL
(No mention of envelopes of cash or insurance policies though)
Federal government transfers $2M to wrong bank accounts: Report
Mar 02, 2008 02:41 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA–The federal government transfers money electronically into the wrong bank accounts more than 3,000 times each year, newly disclosed documents show.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/308680
By kpn on 03.02.08 3:06 pm
Fair enough kpn … you and your DH personally feel good when you express your concern for the ‘poor’ and believe that government can help the poor .. like the poor children that the Chretien-Martin-Dion governments proclaimed they would end by the year 2000. Of course now your concern and sense of urgency is transfered on to the current 24 month Harper minority government who you expect must complete all the Liberal promises from their 13 years of government .. and in whom you had ultimate faith. Perhaps a return to another Liberal government would restore your faith in them .. !!
As for you poopoo-ing my Liberal-Kyoto-China linkage, perhaps you should just google “powercorp, liberals, china, power plants” to join me in my koolaid. Your response to my explanation is really fascinating, because it makes me feel like you have an interest in Liberals sending Billion$$$ to China for sham Kyoto Carbon Credits.
It is common knowledge that Powercorp-CITIC is the link to Chinese power plant construction and operation, while Pauly Martin’s CSL is building two coal-carrying conveyor ships in Chinese shipyards and intended only to transport Chinese coal to the Powercorp-CITIC power stations along the Sea of China and inland rivers. As I said before, this is all common knowledge that you dispute. Why ??
I call it CRAPSAND, similar to quicksand but easy to spot.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/02/4887796-cp.html
By Andrea Timmons on 03.02.08 2:26 pm
One of the main reasons why the next — and NEW — gov’t. should give the US and Mexico six months’ written notice that Canada will withdraw from NAFTA.
The EU now has one currency, the Euro — the UK has stayed out of the EU for the time being, but that can change with Gordon Brown now in charge — and as the US greenback sinks into it’s own morass of debt, none of which will ever be paid off, it becomes increasingly clear that the US needs and wants full integration with Mexico and Canada, then dump the dollar and switch to the Amero.
Best thing for the majority of Cdns. is an election (which will happen anyway), get the average person who feels a need to WANT to make a difference, and get rid of CRAP for once and all.
Only then will Cdns. have control of their own destiny again.
I had small children in the 80’s and both of us worked long hours to keep a roof over my head. We didn’t get any free child care or government monthly allowances. We paid high taxes. And our mortgage interest rates were higher. We simply did without – including ready made meals, Disney vacations, new vehicles, big homes, and many, many luxuries (or by today’s standards, norms). We made meals from scratch. So don’t tell me how stressed people are in 2008. These stresses are no different than then.
Many people are lazier and do not take responsibilities for their actions. They want the best, bigger, and newer products today.
By Catherine on 03.02.08 2:31 pm
Sorry Catherine – I think the stresses are greater today because of the ‘net’ and our changing society. I don’t agree with a lot that I see today, but I can at least try to understand what is happening and I don’t think that we can go back to the 80′s – almost 30 yrs ago. I too am dismayed by many young people – I’ve already spoken about neighbours’ children. While I can relate to what you have said above, I don’t think the con policies are in the best interests of Canadians. Considering what is happening today, let’s put more into early childhood development, more money into the 3 R’s of education, better and more focused support systems to get people off EI. I’ve read about so many people here who want to better themselves, but as soon as they they earn a little over the amount that qualifies them for EI, they are cut off. Some want to go to finish HS, but the govt. would cut them off so they’ll continue collecting benefits instead of becoming wage earners. Unfortunately, there’s little room for case-by-case situations. We’ve got to change our ways of supporting people in this society. BTW, I worked in our prov. govt. for 26 years and did IT bus. analysis in about half of govt. depts. over the years under both lib and Progressive Conservative political govts. Unfortunately, most Mins and DM’s of the departments were out to create their own empires and near year end fiscal time, they spent like drunken sailers. If they didn’t, their next year’s budget would be cut. I know, I was involved in IT purchases & March was the busiest month ever. If you don’t spend your budget, next fiscal year it’ll be cut.
Sorry to rant.
Repuglithon in WH. Look where its got America today. Need I say more.
By kpn on 03.02.08 3:46 pm
You speak with such authority I can`t imagine why or how you missed the Clinton `there is no evil left in the world` as the reason the US is where it is.
The TFSA DOES benefit those of us who have NO allowable RRSP room because we have no employment income! It is the ONLY way available to shelter what income we have from the tax man!
This applies to people receiving a disability pension.
The Cadscam stench is getting worse.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/29/4884870-cp.html
Your response to my explanation is really fascinating, because it makes me feel like you have an interest in Liberals sending Billion$$$ to China for sham Kyoto Carbon Credits. – Harry S
You do realize that China is a major emmiter of CO2 and that under Kyoto will not be recieving cheques of any kind. As for ships that ship coal and burn coal, what praytell is the alternative? Diesel? Nuclear energy? Please, Harry, tell us what you would like ships to run on since you’ve got it all figured out. Tell us about Chinese coastline infrastructure that gives the richest of rich better options for the environment.
As for Paul Martin’s dealings outside of public office, I don’t like it. I personally don’t like Members of the Commons running corporations, period. I find it to be a major conflict of interest. I saw flaws in Paul Martins leadership as well. But if this is the best you can do in an attack against the Liberals is to criticize an MP and former PM that won’t be running again, and paint/smear all Liberals as socialist (as if its even all that bad of a word, except maybe the U.S.?) I’d suggest you move on. After all, it wasn’t Paul Martin that was offering million dollar bribes to MP’s when Martin and Harper had their chance.
Mr. Flaherty has spent the week arguing that Ontario is the worst place for business after giving us a budget that does nothing for Ontario. The Liberals should be outraged by his comments about a premier that was just reelected with a majority and say they can no longer support the finance minister nor his budget
Should this Quebec man be charged for the death of this woman last Saturday night?
http://news.aol.ca/article/Quebec-Woman-Dies-During-Kinky-Sex/116650/
What think ye? Should criminal charges be laid?
Mr. Flaherty has spent the week arguing that Ontario is the worst place for business after giving us a budget that does nothing for Ontario. a premier that was just reelected with a majority and say they can no longer support the finance minister nor his budget
By Margaret Bedore on 03.02.08 5:17 pm
Actually he said Ontario was the worst place in Canada to do business. The data shows Canada is the worst place in the free world to do business so that really puts Ontario at the bottom of the dung heap. As to your second comment it took many years for Ontario to destroy investor confidence which productivity so heavily relies on. It`s more than likely that the people just voted in the best of the worst, which is no reason to have faith in the Ontario government.
I too, was bribed by Stephen Harper with a form of insurance policy
http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-too-was-bribed-by-stephen-harper-with.html
Mr. Flaherty has spent the week arguing that Ontario is the worst place for business after giving us a budget that does nothing for Ontario. The Liberals should be outraged by his comments about a premier that was just reelected with a majority and say they can no longer support the finance minister nor his budget
By Margaret Bedore on 03.02.08 5:17 pm
So Margaret, why are you not outraged by McGuinty. His Government has sat less than a few weeks since last June. Why isn’t his government sitting and discussing Ontario’s issues? Seems he doesn’t care about Ontario’s economy except for his extended hand out to the feds!
By slg on 03.02.08 1:54 pm
What’s good have to do with a kids’ spending habits? Why do kids need a cell phone stuck to their ears? You can see them everywhere – malls, buses, etc.
Can who everever posted a link to Israeli/palistinian territory pre ’47 to present day please post it again. Might be Greg W from Ontario.
I’d much appreciate it. TIA
Catherine: And how do you defend Mr. Flaherty’s blatant anti-Ontario rhetoric? Is he actively discouraging new commerce in Ontario? Is he trying to “create” another “crisis”–The Cons are so good at “crisis creation” where none exists.
Flaherty is supposed to be promoting economic growth throughout Canada –his remarks are remarkably anti-Canadian.
Garth, Monsieur Dion has indicated that he will be allowing this budget to pass the House of Commons.
If he does as promised, will you be following his lead, or go with what you believe to be right?
Harry S & Brain – many posts on the subject
I don’t like or approve of venality in my politicians (or anyone else for that matter) either, however I can accept that a certain amount is customary. After all, damn few who seek office, or for that matter of the population in general, qualify as saints.
So, as long as it is kept within bounds, and there is a display of shame when caught with one hand in the cookie jar, I can live with it. After all, Sir John A. said that a majority and a surplus would debauch a Parliament composed of Archangels.
What’s behind the blatant excesses we are seeing – perhaps it is the consequence of our convention system for choosing party leaders. The cost of getting selected leaves you with such a debt, not just financial but also and perhaps more important of favours owed, that only having your hands in the cookie jar lets you discharge them. Its kinda like being up to your armpits in credit cards – no honest person can pay them off, so you have to be to some degree dishonest.
I don’t expect things to change a lot, though the members of the house do have the power to change things around if they wanted to – in fact they can do it very fast – a simple majority of the members withdrawing their support of the front bench, and letting the GG know who they will accept instead would change things around – and it is entirely legal.
Implementing such a coup would require a couple of hundred people to grow a whole set of big brass ones – and practice some severe duplicity for a little while, but like eating a tennis ball, it is theoretically possible, just highly unlikely.
I guess I am not extremist enough for your taste Harry, I do agree with a lot of what you say when you take the time to be expository rather than didactic – in the short term I am really worried – the incumbents are not fit to run a raffle at a church social, and the main alternative doesn’t look like its got its poop in a group.
I had small children in the 80’s and both of us worked long hours to keep a roof over my head.
By Catherine on 03.02.08 2:31 pm
WARNING Selfish BITCH Alert! Rope, please tell us Catherine is not your Ex?
By Catherine on 03.02.08 6:17 pm
Is there anything you won’t complain about? All I’ve ever read from you is complaints. I can so easily hear someone like yourself think these words, “my kids are the best and my political party is the best and my circumstances were the worst, but I didn’t deserve it because I’m better than that because my favorites are the best and my opinion is superior and I’m never wrong because my way way of doing things is the best and if whats mine isn’t perfect, its still way better than all the rest cause its mine. And if someone finds dirt on my best, I’ll keep it best by slagging everything that isn’t mine.”
You sound so ultra convinced that if you were a kid living in the present, you wouldn’t have a cell phone. You’re quite the judge, Catherine and an unforgiving one at that. Bitter, to be truthful. Got news for you. Were products of our own environment, micro and macro. What have you done for the environment we live in beside bitch and complain on this site? Please give us a list of examples and reasons why you would have done so much better in the shoes of the rest you so quickly judge and condemn given the same circumstances.
And I know… I’m being unkind (but as they say, live by the sword, die by the sword). I believe Jesus once said, “treat others as you would want to be treated yourself”. But hey, maybe your better than him too! (or a principled saddist/machochist, take your pick)
Sorry if I’m a little longwinded, so I’l summarize and get right to the point. Have you ever done anything on this site (and in your life for that matter) other than bitch, complain and run others down?
We have lost another Canadian soldier to an IED explosion in Afghanistan today. Please try to remember that we live in a free country – especially free to agree, disagree, argue or simply annoy on a blog like this one – because of the sacrifices of our soldiers, past and present. Kindly reflect on the sacrifices of our Canadian soldiers for a moment before each one of us continues to argue our point of view.
lol, One of the films that won`t get funded, a woman is obsessed with having sex with corpses.
By not again on 03.02.08 3:02 pm
Well, now there is a film concept! What is the title “Jane Does John Doe’? I bet he is a a real ‘stiff’, and ‘cool’ too?
This could be an entirely new season for ‘Tail From the Crypt’ starring Gurney Halflick, Morbid Angel, and Form Mal de Hyde!
Brought to you by Depends and ‘Deep Heat Rub, When you really need some warmth’
A British production from the studios of ‘Stiff Upper Lip and other parts’ and Necromancer Arts.
Produced by I Cut Yu, MD and directed by Cool Hand Luke!
Catch it at a theater near you soon. Come and ‘Chill out’ with us!
(Actually such a film was made several decades ago)
TFSA will only benefit the financial institutions that charge a fat fee for administering them. Imagine a $100 annual fee for an account that starts with $5000 and earns 5% per year.
And let’s not forget how much the CRA will spend to track compliance.
Why can’t the govt just lower the tax rate if its true intention is to lower income tax? Why all these gimmicks that enslave the taxpayers?
Of course your last resort would be to vote NDP .. but then they will bring in an inheritance tax … but don’t let that stop you from continuing with your road of ‘revenge’ … you bunch of old and smelly farts .. !!!
By Harry S on 03.02.08 12:57 pm
Just like you to skip over the relevant part of a post.
I said CAMPAIGN. I will be the “Smelly Old Fart” standing, day in and day out in front of the Neo-Con. office with the sign, Are you going to support a lier??
This man is! Remember the 1st of November.
I will be spending my own money for the sign. (Is that an illegal campaign contribution?) LOL
By Catherine on 03.02.08 2:31 pm
Noone can compare the 80s to today. Costs to wages ration are not comparable to today. Of course the biggest problem in the 80s was Mulrony running the country into bankruptcy. Sorta what Flim Flam Flaharity is trying to do.
Harry S, seems that you don’t understand the ITs and what the seniors lost with the promise from Harper to never tax Income Trust. Some moved money into ITs based upon that promise as the returns (income) were higher. Many were receiving an extra $100 and more per month in extra income. Which they were paying taxes on. And now that income is gone. No IT investors will never forget.
http://www.caiti.info/
Rope, please tell us Catherine is not your Ex?
By Bill-on 03.02.08 7:20 pm
lol, no. The mother of my children wanted to stay home with the kids so I worked 75hrs/week and built a house for us on weekends.
Is there anything you won’t complain about? All I’ve ever read from you is complaints. By brain on 03.02.08 7:34 pm
Huh? Is there anyone who doesn’t complain on this board? Every post pretty much, top to bottom is nothing but moaning and groaning about their lots in life. More people should be like me and my buddy Gordie and learn to enjoy each other and have good old fashioned fun! Right Gordie?
Some moved money into ITs based upon that promise ~By Emilie on 03.02.08 7:41 pm
Wow! Really? People moved their savings to ITs based on what a campaigning leader of the Opposition told them? Now that was pretty goofy. ‘Gosh, honey, looky here this fella says if he gits elected he’s gonna not tax those IT thingys. I’ll call Billy Bob at the bank and see if he can git us some.’ Are you seriously telling me that people only invested because they thought they’d never be taxed? As I recall, Ralph WAS going to tax ITs but backed out because of the campaign. Taxing ITs was on the table, because it was necessary and it wouldn’t have mattered who got into power. Next. LOL
Leasa
The Feds Suck/Get Rope/Got Rope?/Not Again/Robin Hood,
c’mon, “Sucks-Rope-Again Hood”, have a heart, pick one handle and stick with it.
Why can’t the govt just lower the tax rate if its true intention is to lower income tax? Why all these gimmicks that enslave the taxpayers?
By Larry on 03.02.08 7:37 pm
Because, Larry, the TRUE intention is not to lower taxes for everyone–just their select few. We have seen these targeted tax cuts over and over again with this NEW govt. They are simply buying votes. Unfortunately, I haven’t fit into any of their preferred categories yet–I’m just too average. And, anyway, someone has to pay for the NEW govt.’s increased expenditures!
Blame it on income trusts like the NDP bought into, hook, line and sinker!!
After three Conservative budgets, the Government of Canada has been made financially incapable of offering costly new social programs or significant tax cuts for the foreseeable future.
Harper gradually tightening screws on government, advisor says TheStar.com – Canada – Harper gradually tightening screws on government, advisor says
March 02, 2008
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA–Perhaps the most significant act of the Harper government is being conducted so slowly, steadily, and silently that it has raised barely a whisper of public debate.
After three Conservative budgets, the Government of Canada has been made financially incapable of offering costly new social programs or significant tax cuts for the foreseeable future.
Remember the national day-care plan the Liberals talked about when the country was awash in $13-billion annual surpluses? Or the Kelowna treaty to deal with aboriginal poverty?
Those surpluses are now almost gone.
A mentor and advisor to Stephen Harper applauds the prime minister for working toward a long-standing conservative dream – a less-present federal government – and for doing it without any backlash.
Tom Flanagan says Conservatives are gradually “tightening the screws on the federal government,” leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets and making it harder for Ottawa to spend.
To launch any big-ticket initiatives over the next few years a prime minister – whether Harper or a successor – would either need to risk political suicide or hope for an economic miracle.
That’s because raising taxes, returning to a deficit or slashing existing programs could be the only ways to pay for new spending, barring an unexpected economic boom.
“They’ve gradually re-engineered the system. I’m quite impressed with it,” said Flanagan, a political strategist who ran the 2004 Conservative campaign.
“They’re boxing in the ability of the federal government to come up with new program ideas . . . The federal government is now more constrained, the provinces have more revenue, and conservatives should be happy.”
With only a minority government, says Flanagan, Harper could never have taken the instant slice-and-dice approach of the Mike Harris Tories during Ontario’s Common Sense Revolution.
Instead the prime minister has taken one cautious step at a time.
The Tories actually boosted spending dramatically in their first two budgets, often on conservative-friendly measures like tax credits for families, an equalization hike that went largely into provincial tax cuts by the Quebec government, and new military equipment.
There were no major budget cuts, with rare exceptions like the now-scrapped Court Challenges Program and Status of Women Canada which had long been targets for Conservatives.
While overall spending went up, measures were taken to deplete revenues. There were the GST cuts worth more than $11 billion annually, income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, bigger provincial transfers and income-splitting for seniors.
Some other measures will accelerate over time, Flanagan says, like Employment Insurance reforms and tax-sheltered savings accounts from this year’s budget.
Now the economy appears to be slowing down and spending increases are being curtailed considerably to avoid a deficit. The budget surplus has shrivelled from $13 billion last year to projected surpluses of $2.3 billion, $1.3 billion, $3.1 billion, and $4.7 billion over the next four years.
That means Ottawa can no longer wade into provincial jurisdictions like education and health care – forcing it toward a more minimalist agenda if it wants to keep the books balanced.
Flanagan says that in the prime minister’s step-by-step approach, spending control was the last piece to fall into place.
“Harper really didn’t have the option of the cataclysmic approach because you can’t do that without a majority,” he said in an interview.
“So he’s made the incremental approach work – all the time having the insecurity of a minority government.
“It’s really quite a performance, I think . . . Over a period of a few years they’ve got all this in place and they never appeared – at any one point – they never appeared to be making a radical shift.
“But the cumulative impact of all these together is creating a new profile.”
Not only are the Conservatives boxing in the federal spending power in general, said Flanagan, “they’re also boxing in the Liberals from being able to campaign on expensive promises.”
The Tories are fond of pointing to John Diefenbaker and noting that federal revenues as a share of GDP will fall by 2010 to their lowest level since The Chief was in office.
In fact, federal revenues will drop to their lowest level since Lester Pearson’s early days in office. They were at 14.9 per cent of GDP in 1963-64, grew to a high of 19.5 per cent in 1974-75, and are now projected to drop to 15.3 per cent in 2009-10.
But the world is not the same place it was in 1963 – nor are the financial pressures on the Canadian government.
That 1963 figure was posted before Pearson’s Liberal government introduced medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, and Canada Student Loans, and before the skyrocketing rates of post-secondary education.
Take Canadian universities as an example.
They’ve had 20-per-cent enrolment growth in the last decade alone and face increasingly intense international competition to build world-class research facilities. Canada’s economic future hinges in part on their success.
Recent federal budgets had featured overall spending increases of six per cent a year. This year’s budget still projects an increase – albeit at a much slower rate of three per cent – to $208 billion. But spending may need to be trimmed next year if current surplus projections are correct.
One economist has expressed concern that Ottawa is teetering on the edge of a deficit for the first time in a decade.
RBC’s Derek Holt warned that the federal government will have its “hands tied” for at least three years, and that measures in the latest budget will cut even deeper into the federal kitty for years afterward.
“The amount of foregone revenues is just going to skyrocket,” said Holt.
“Even within the first five years (of the new tax-free savings account) it’s almost a $1 billion cumulative price tag. Longer-term, that number only multiplies by itself as the portfolios compound.
“Over time, they’re going to whittle away at the taxes on investment income pretty aggressively over the next 10, 20 years.”
All the same, not all small-c conservatives are happy with the prime minister.
Gerry Nicholls worked closely with Harper at the National Citizens’ Coalition and compares him to a chess master who always thinks a few steps ahead of everyone else.
But Nicholls wishes this chess master would cut spending a little faster – and then reduce taxes. He’s not impressed by arguments that the federal government is already being run into a fiscal wall.
“Basically what the strategy is, it seems to me, is spend so much money that there’s nothing left for the Liberals to spend,” Nicholls said.
“That’s not fiscal conservatism. That’s the opposite of fiscal conservatism.
“That’s like saying the way to beat alcoholism is to keep drinking alcohol until you pass out – so then you can’t drink any more.”
He says the Harper approach may be great politics because it handcuffs the Liberals. But it’s lousy economics, says Nicholls, and an especially disappointing performance from a “fiscal hawk” like Harper.
As for the politics, the opposition may need to perform some creative budgeting to deliver any significant spending promises in an election campaign.
“We certainly haven’t abandoned our vision on aboriginals or child care or anything else,” said Liberal finance critic John McCallum.
“But this does make it somewhat more difficult for us to do these things – at least quickly.
“They’ve left us only a minor crisis away from going into deficit. But if history is any guide – and it may or may not be – over time, surpluses will turn out to be larger than they currently are.”
Flanagan insists the last three Conservative budgets have left the Liberals cornered. And he isn’t bothered by those on the political right, like Nicholls, who criticize the prime minister for not being drastic enough.
“Part of the execution of the plan was that there would be conservatives attacking him – like John Williamson (of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation), Gerry Nicholls,” Flanagan said.
“That’s extremely useful, to have that kind of pressure there, berating the prime minister for not doing enough.”
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/308685
IT investors DID receive higher returns than just about any other investment going. Does it follow, then, that they’re entitled to higher returns indefinitely? Keep in mind that, we’re told, they were mostly older folks. Interestingly one of the main arguments against the new TFSA program is that is discriminates in that only certain people will have the resources to take advantage of the program. Apparently investments geared toward older folks who’ve had the time to accumulate wealth and invest are good, sort of, in some cases, while programs which may allow younger people to participate are less so. Sorta like Garth’s claim that the “average Canadian” has a negative savings rate that assumes evrything should be geared to them. There are lots of middle-class Canadians who will have the means to use the TFSA program.
I am pasting the whole article here because I am hoping more people will read it. Those of us Christians/Non-Christians who care about the less fortunate will read it and weap.
I want my Canada back. I want to keep the USA out of Canada’s business. I want the right wing fundamentalists to keep their paranoia and rigidity in their church and not attempt to foist it on our society. Watch the DVD “Zeitgeist” and learn some truth.
Does one really want these right wing people in power over us?
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/02/pf-4888331.html
March 2, 2008
Harper gradually ‘tightening the screws’ on government, ex-advisor says
By Alexander Panetta, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Prime Minister Stephen Harper. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Tom Hanson
OTTAWA – Perhaps the most significant act of the Harper government is being conducted so slowly, steadily, and silently that it has raised barely a whisper of public debate.
After three Conservative budgets, the Government of Canada has been made financially incapable of offering costly new social programs or significant tax cuts for the foreseeable future.
Remember the national day-care plan the Liberals talked about when the country was awash in $13-billion annual surpluses? Or the Kelowna treaty to deal with aboriginal poverty?
Those surpluses are now almost gone.
A mentor and advisor to Stephen Harper applauds the prime minister for working toward a long-standing conservative dream – a less-present federal government – and for doing it without any backlash.
Tom Flanagan says Conservatives are gradually “tightening the screws on the federal government,” leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets and making it harder for Ottawa to spend.
To launch any big-ticket initiatives over the next few years a prime minister – whether Harper or a successor – would either need to risk political suicide or hope for an economic miracle.
That’s because raising taxes, returning to a deficit or slashing existing programs could be the only ways to pay for new spending, barring an unexpected economic boom.
“They’ve gradually re-engineered the system. I’m quite impressed with it,” said Flanagan, who ran the 2004 Conservative campaign and has been a longtime confidant and former chief of staff to Harper.
“They’re boxing in the ability of the federal government to come up with new program ideas . . . The federal government is now more constrained, the provinces have more revenue, and conservatives should be happy.”
With only a minority government, says Flanagan, Harper could never have taken the instant slice-and-dice approach of the Mike Harris Tories during Ontario’s Common Sense Revolution.
Instead the prime minister has taken one cautious step at a time.
The Tories actually boosted spending dramatically in their first two budgets, often on conservative-friendly measures like tax credits for families, an equalization hike that went largely into provincial tax cuts by the Quebec government, and new military equipment.
There were no major budget cuts, with rare exceptions like the now-scrapped Court Challenges Program and Status of Women Canada which had long been targets for Conservatives.
While overall spending went up, measures were taken to deplete revenues. There were the GST cuts worth more than $11 billion annually, income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, bigger provincial transfers and income-splitting for seniors.
Some other measures will accelerate over time, Flanagan says, like Employment Insurance reforms and tax-sheltered savings accounts from this year’s budget.
Now the economy appears to be slowing down and spending increases are being curtailed considerably to avoid a deficit. The budget surplus has shrivelled from $13 billion last year to projected surpluses of $2.3 billion, $1.3 billion, $3.1 billion, and $4.7 billion over the next four years.
That means Ottawa can no longer wade into provincial jurisdictions like education and health care – forcing it toward a more minimalist agenda if it wants to keep the books balanced.
Flanagan says that in the prime minister’s step-by-step approach, spending control was the last piece to fall into place.
“Harper really didn’t have the option of the cataclysmic approach because you can’t do that without a majority,” he said in an interview.
“So he’s made the incremental approach work – all the time having the insecurity of a minority government.
“It’s really quite a performance, I think . . . Over a period of a few years they’ve got all this in place and they never appeared – at any one point – they never appeared to be making a radical shift.
“But the cumulative impact of all these together is creating a new profile.”
Not only are the Conservatives boxing in the federal spending power in general, said Flanagan, “they’re also boxing in the Liberals from being able to campaign on expensive promises.”
The Tories are fond of pointing to John Diefenbaker and noting that federal revenues as a share of GDP will fall by 2010 to their lowest level since The Chief was in office.
In fact, federal revenues will drop to their lowest level since Lester Pearson’s early days in office. They were at 14.9 per cent of GDP in 1963-64, grew to a high of 19.5 per cent in 1974-75, and are now projected to drop to 15.3 per cent in 2009-10.
But the world is not the same place it was in 1963 – nor are the financial pressures on the Canadian government.
That 1963 figure was posted before Pearson’s Liberal government introduced medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, and Canada Student Loans, and before the skyrocketing rates of post-secondary education.
Take Canadian universities as an example.
They’ve had 20-per-cent enrolment growth in the last decade alone and face increasingly intense international competition to build world-class research facilities. Canada’s economic future hinges in part on their success.
Recent federal budgets had featured overall spending increases of six per cent a year. This year’s budget still projects an increase – albeit at a much slower rate of three per cent – to $208 billion. But spending may need to be trimmed next year if current surplus projections are correct.
One economist has expressed concern that Ottawa is teetering on the edge of a deficit for the first time in a decade.
RBC’s Derek Holt warned that the federal government will have its “hands tied” for at least three years, and that measures in the latest budget will cut even deeper into the federal kitty for years afterward.
“The amount of foregone revenues is just going to skyrocket,” said Holt.
“Even within the first five years (of the new tax-free savings account) it’s almost a $1 billion cumulative price tag. Longer-term, that number only multiplies by itself as the portfolios compound.
“Over time, they’re going to whittle away at the taxes on investment income pretty aggressively over the next 10, 20 years.”
All the same, not all small-c conservatives are happy with the prime minister.
Gerry Nicholls worked closely with Harper at the National Citizens’ Coalition and compares him to a chess master who always thinks a few steps ahead of everyone else.
But Nicholls wishes this chess master would cut spending a little faster – and then reduce taxes. He’s not impressed by arguments that the federal government is already being run into a fiscal wall.
“Basically what the strategy is, it seems to me, is spend so much money that there’s nothing left for the Liberals to spend,” Nicholls said.
“That’s not fiscal conservatism. That’s the opposite of fiscal conservatism.
“That’s like saying the way to beat alcoholism is to keep drinking alcohol until you pass out – so then you can’t drink any more.”
He says the Harper approach may be great politics because it handcuffs the Liberals. But it’s lousy economics, says Nicholls, and an especially disappointing performance from a “fiscal hawk” like Harper.
As for the politics, the opposition may need to perform some creative budgeting to deliver any significant spending promises in an election campaign.
“We certainly haven’t abandoned our vision on aboriginals or child care or anything else,” said Liberal finance critic John McCallum.
“But this does make it somewhat more difficult for us to do these things – at least quickly.
“They’ve left us only a minor crisis away from going into deficit. But if history is any guide – and it may or may not be – over time, surpluses will turn out to be larger than they currently are.”
Flanagan insists the last three Conservative budgets have left the Liberals cornered. And he isn’t bothered by those on the political right, like Nicholls, who criticize the prime minister for not being drastic enough.
“Part of the execution of the plan was that there would be conservatives attacking him – like John Williamson (of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation), Gerry Nicholls,” Flanagan said.
“That’s extremely useful, to have that kind of pressure there, berating the prime minister for not doing enough.”
There was a picture of Steve Harper with his back to the camera in one of the Toronto papers early this morning. I cannot locate it again and should have copied it when I saw it. However the idea of using it for a poster didn’t come to later in the day. If anyone can, will they post the URL.
If the Liberals decide to do negative posters for an election, it would be a great one. Looks like he is leaving in the picture.
By Emilie on 03.02.08 7:41 pm
Harry S, seems that you don’t understand the ITs and what the seniors lost with the promise from Harper to never tax Income Trust. Some moved money into ITs based upon that promise as the returns (income) were higher. Many were receiving an extra $100 and more per month in extra income. Which they were paying taxes on. And now that income is gone. No IT investors will never forget.
…………………………………
Please help me on this IT affair … exactly why did Flaherty/Harper decide to stop ITs .. who recommended it and why did they accept their advice..??
It must have been a difficult decision that so badly gored IT investors, and brought the wrath of Khan on the Conservatives .. so why ..??!!
Thanks in advance ….
By Bill-Muskoka on 03.02.08 7:20 pm
Billy, you’re such weird bird. Of course, I meant to write “OUR” heads…. But, hey, if that’s all you have got to say, then, I feel you have NOTHING to contribute, except for maybe being a Libber red Koolaid drinking goon.
I have two teenage grandchildren who are saving up for University by working part-time and going to high school. They don’t go to Casinos, and don’t spend money foolishly–especially in Casinos. Heck I don’t even do that (although obviously you do Catharine).
Typical response though…tar everyone with the same brush.
By Lana on 03.02.08 12:04 pm
Lana, so you don’t go out to see any shows, eh? Will you, Libber, begrudge a middle age couple, who have raised their children (without any government programs), an evening out? Why are you Libbers so mean spirited?
Catherine, take that brush out of your hand…the one that you use to tar everyone with. I am not a “libber”. Many people on this blog who are not CONS like you, aren’t automatically “libbers”. Not all people are black and white, right and left, cons and libbers.
You criticized young people going to Casinos…you had to be there to see them. Why is it right for you and wrong for them? Because you paid your “dues” and they haven’t? Man, it must be easy to live in your black and white world.
Catherine: Did you not get the baby bonus every month until your children were 16 years old? That was a government programme.
pick one handle and stick with it.
By Herb on 03.02.08 8:18 pm
The topics and responses have been the same for a year now, the only thing that`s changed on this blog are the handles. I know how change confuses people and roots some people in place but Herb it`s only a handle.
By Catherine on 03.02.08 8:57 pm
Read Freud CC. You are EXPOSED!
Remember the 1st of November.
By A.R.Wainwright on 03.02.08 7:37 pm
I say, do you mean the 5th of November’?
By not again on 03.02.08 7:56 pm
I am most joyful for you from being delivered from CC.
Freud would write another book, were he alive, just about her!
Imagine the Mrs. Stephen Harper edition? Hoorah!
Why are you Libbers so mean spirited?
By Catherine on 03.02.08 9:05 pm
I am not a Liberal CC. But in your world there are only two possible polarities. I am your Nexus!
Now, go look into your mirror! Can you see any image? Is garlic a non-food for you?
Still the Duty Parrot tonight, eh? Such dedication. Have you been promised a Ministerial position, eh?
Tiliting at the windmills passing
Who can the brave you horse’s ass be?
LMAOAY Goodnight Gracie!
I couldn’t agrre more with your assessment of the TFSA Garth. Better to max out the RRSP first, which like most Canadian families, we can’t even dream of.
The Flim Flam TFSA. Looks and sounds great. Less filling too. And Jimbo wants us to believe it’s such a great thing because it costs the feds in lost revenue.. That man is one cat that’ll never change it’s spots. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that he is hoping people will be fooled into thinking that using TFSA’s are a better idea than RRSP’s.
I have to wonder how long it’ll take before someone figures out how the deficit and debt “shell game” have been played this time around. He sure ran it well in Ontario.
By Leasa on 03.02.08 8:10 pm
In your rush to be smart, you are just silly. What Billy Bob banker was selling ITs? Since when are banks allowed to sell shares in companies? Huh?
As for what Ralph Goodale was going to do – after studying ITs he announced new tax guidelines that not only left tax policy on income trusts unchanged, but made dividend stocks more attractive for investors.
Harry S
What’s a trust?
Without going too deeply into Canadian tax law, a trust is a company that has a special legal structure that allows it to pass its profits to the people who own it without having to pay corporate taxes.
The advantage here is obvious. By paying less corporate taxes, the company can pass on more cash to its owners.
A share of an income trust is called a “unit” and investors can buy and sell them just like a stock, either through a broker or through a discount brokerage.
Investors flocked to the sector, especially seniors who needed steady income to live on in an era when banks were paying miniscule amounts of interest.
But, that caught the attention of the feds. Companies that were once paying corporate taxes to Ottawa were sending that cash straight to investors. And while those investors still had to pay income taxes, they were paying less than the corporations.
One study estimated that Ottawa was losing $300 million a year in lost revenue. And with more companies eyeing trust status, that amount figured to rise.
In the end, Goodale decided simply to lower the amount of taxes corporations pay on their dividends, that decreases the incentive of corporations to make the switch to a trust. A move that was applauded by many in the business community.
Of course Harper used this IT issue during the election to say “never forget, they tried to tax your IT. A conservative government will never tax ITs”. What a scumbag.
Read this link: http://www.caiti.info/lies.php
and this one:
http://www.caiti.info/resources_it_mythbusters.php
Many, many ITs have been taken over by US companies. Much of what this government is doing benefits the USA companies. Like Cargil waiting in the wings to take over the Canadian barley market.
By Leasa on 03.02.08 7:59 pm
Tokyo Rose couldn’t have said it better.
Garth, Thanks for your suggestion that A TFSA will help us grow our money quicker. Summer of 2012 as opposed to Christmas of 2012. Why is this a bad thing again?
Keep in mind that since we are using 40K RRSP on a first time home buyers plan, we are also 2 people so do we not get to contribute 5K each to a TFSA for a total of 10K as a couple if desired? I think this idea of a TFSA is a good thing if first time home buyers can reach their desired down payment quicker the better.
When you say that this was a good idea when you brought it up in March 06, and now it is not such a good idea now that the national savings is near 0, was the national savings rate much better 2 years ago? Is it ever too late to bring in an idea that was good albeit 2 years late still not a good policy still, or is it just that the money can be used freely and not required to stay put until retirement age that you are not as attracted to this model?
Forgot to mention that I floated to my wife about going to work across the street some time ago, but she would rather see me some times other then when I sleep. After we have children then I intend that I will have to put in more then my usual too stay afloat after buying into a grossly high housing market while she moves into a new career as chief caregiver to the little one.
Thanks Geoffrey and Bonnie for the article. I’ll be passing it around at work today, along with Garth’s post. Let’s hope Canadians can be woken from their stupor and see what these New Conservatives are doing to OUR Canada!
Nice to see Flaherty keeping up the attack on Ontario.
“Letter urges Harper to rein in Flaherty over finance minister’s ‘extraordinary attack’ on Ontario’s business tax”
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/308811
I wrote to Peter van Loan about a month ago telling him how his calling McGuinty “the small man of confederation” was uncalled for and unfair, and asked him to please explain why Ontario was being short-changed by 10 seats under Bill C-56. I received back a 3-page letter with the dumbed-down spin about how we in lucky Ontario will have the most seats of all, how we will be better off than without the bill, etc. etc. He doesn’t address the fact that I am aware of the inequity Ontario will see, as I made it clear in my letter that I was asking for an explanation beyond the spin I had already been fed. Seems I wasted my time.
By Emilie on 03.02.08 11:10 pm
Morning Emilie, I am silly sometimes, try it, it’s fun! BTW…Billy Bob at the bank is also a Stock Broker…small town, ya know.
Leasa
By Emilie on 03.02.08 11:10 pm
Chretien promised “No GST” .. and Canadians re-elected him when he broke his promise.
Chretien promised “No child poverty by 2000″ … and Canadians still re-elected him when it was obvious he was failing.
Chretien promised to “honour Kyoto” and then intentionally built up a 32% GHG excess over Kyoto targets … and Canadians ignored Kyoto and re-elected Chretien and then Martin ..!!!
PM Martin who said: “I know what’s in the Red Book .. I wrote all that crap !!!”
Now you are claiming that Harper broke his “promise” to those rich old farts who invested into ITs and now want his political scalp hanging from their belts.
To all you old fart IT investors, is say go to Hell and rot there if you intend to take your revenge on Harper and put Canadian advancement at risk. You are mostly Liberals anyway …
What single mother has $5000 at the end of the year?
I certainly don’t.
I have just enough to pay daycare so I can go to work and afford a bedroom apt. for my son and I. This is all about the rich getting and having more.
1. “Remember, $3,000 plunked into a registered retirement plan will yield up to $1,500, courtesy of your fellow taxpayers.” Only if you’re at a 50% marginal tax rate. I’m not aware of any provinces with 50% income tax rates. In Ontario, the highest tax rate on income is 46.41% (including the federal tax) and that’s only on income over $123,184. If the single mother you describe is so hard up, maybe earning $30000/yr or less, she’ll get a refund of about $630 (21.05% marginal tax rate).
2. An RRSP is not a magical refund generating, tax free account. It’s tax deferred until you start drawing from it in retirement. All of your original contributions as well as all capital gains, dividends, and interest are taxed in the future. And it’s all included as taxable income, so you don’t get a preferred tax rate for capital gains and dividends as you do with a non registered investment. Just a side note, I don’t like the name of the Tax Free Savings Account. It should really be called a Tax Prepaid Savings Account as you are investing with after tax dollars.
RRSP’s work best if the contributions are claimed when you’re at the peak of your earning and the withdrawals are made at a lower tax bracket. If you are at the lowest tax rate and have $1 to invest for 30 years at 5%:
RRSP
$1 into RRSP: $1 x 0.2105 = $0.21
invest the refund: $0.21 x 0.2105 = $0.05
invest the refund: $0.04 x 0.2105 = $0.01
invest the refund
Total invested today: $1.27
30 years of compounding interest: $1.27 x (1+0.05)^30 = $5.48
Amount after tax (assuming you remain in the lowest tax bracket and tax rates are the same): $5.48 x (1-0.2105) = $4.32
TFSA
$1 x (1+0.05)^30 = $4.32
no tax refunds, no tax at withdrawal, no GIS clawbacks.
You have to assume that the person with the TFSA is disciplined enough to leave the money until retirement, but you also have to assume that the RRSP investor will be disciplined enough to reinvest the refund (or have their RRSP deduction done at the source so there is no refund). Garth Turner suggests this money is “courtesy of your fellow taxpayers.” If you spend your refund, the RRSP account will have a much lower net result: $4.32 x (1-.2105) = $3.41
3. Are the ‘rich’ going to be satisfied with being able to invest only $5000/yr tax free? I’m assuming the rich will continue to have non registered accounts that will be taxed accordingly. $5000/yr is not going to “accumulate a pile of money” big enough for the rich to retire on.
4. The Home Buyer’s Plan requires that you pay back the money that you’ve essentially borrowed from your RRSP, otherwise you’ll end up paying tax on it.
5. “Think hard before you leap into this tax-free account. This one’s also free of common sense.” What? If anything, this should make you think hard about your RRSP account(s). Considering you can access the money at any time, you’ll have options going forward. I read an interesting strategy where you’d contribute to a TFSA when early in your career, then as your income increases and you find yourself in a higher tax bracket, you could transfer assets from the TFSA to an RRSP. You’ll have more to invest in the RRSP to generate the refund and it will be based on a higher tax rate.
I’m not a Conservative elitist with earnings in the top 1% of the country, even though I’m able to max out my RRSP and am trying to save for the future. I’m in my mid-twenties, recently purchased my first home, and am starting to get a few years of experience in my career. I usually side with Liberal or NDP positions, but I don’t see why the TFSA is at all a contentious issue. The only group not benefiting from the TFSA is the government and big government spending.
does this new tax free account need earned income or can you contribute five thousand dollars no matter how much income you earn
Harry S – it’s not just about some old farts being mad cause they lost their life savings.
It also fu*ked up the economy and Canadian businesses.
http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/03/ceo-of-tsx-criticizes-government-with.html
Monday, March 3, 2008
CEO of TSX criticizes government with confusion caused by Flaherty’s trust tax
The Canadian Press
March 3, 2008 – 4:47 p.m.
TORONTO – Canada needs more public policy that welcomes foreign investment and less of an environment in which Canadian companies are confined and isolated, the co-CEO of TSX Group Inc. (TSX:X), parent of the Toronto Stock Exchange, said Monday.
“The broader policy environment needs work. As a destination for foreign capital, we are not as attractive as we could be and should be to global markets,” Rik Parkhill said in an address to the annual convention of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.
“That means Canada needs public policies that welcome foreign investors in our economy and welcome Canadians going abroad to build this country’s wealth.”
Parkhill, who became co-CEO of the TSX Group along with CFO Michael Ptasznik in January, suggested Canada is behind other countries in the area of “mutual recognition”
“For us, depending on the final form it takes and the critical details that determine whether the rink is level or tilted toward U.S. goals, mutual recognition will make it easier for us to attract U.S. listings,” Parkhill said.
“That is because it will be easier for U.S. investors to trade U.S. companies on TSX and TSX Venture and, of course, Canadian companies whether they are looking for gold, digging for potash or building a solar panel business. As it stands right now, there are significant barriers for retail investors who want to access our markets in Canada.”
On top of confusion caused by the federal government’s decision to begin taxing income trusts in 2011, a policy that caused “fuzziness” surrounding interest-deduction taxation related to takeovers by Canadian companies of foreign firms, the country’s overall policy is lacking, he said.
The trust legislation “spooked” larger players “….but the bigger problem is a policy approach that views the Canadian market and especially Canadian capital markets as an island unto itself,” Parkhill said.
“It is not a matter of protecting Canadian champions that is involved here. It is a matter of supporting global champions – like our mining industry, and, in our chosen niches, our exchange industry.”
Parkhill’s remarks come after years of concern among some over the potential “hollowing out” of corporate Canada as foreign-owned firms scoop up valuable resource players and hallowed icons.
Among notable companies bought out in recent years by non-Canadian firms have been retailer Hudsons Bay Co., miners Falconbridge and Inco, metals giant Alcan and steelmakers Stelco, Dofasco and Algoma Steel
The association’s annual convention each year is one of the biggest gatherings of mine industry executives in the world.