Policy alert

  1. Trust fund babies rejoice!

  2. Trust fund babies rejoice!

    • Really?

      I'm no trust fund baby, but I am the kind of person who is currently saving to buy a home, and am saving more than $5000 a year towards it. Given the limited returns on safe, short-term investments, I am pretty happy not to have to pay taxes on the fairly meager interest that I'm earning as I'm barely keeping pace with inflation, and am fairly far behind increases in the housing market.

      By the time Harper puts this increase into effect, I probably won't be in the same situation, but $5000 is not a whole lot these days, depending on your saving habits.

      • Given that you can deduct the money immediately if you put it into an RRSP, and take it out tax free for the down payment, is it not better to keep your money in an RRSP instead of a TFSA? Especially if, as you say, the interest is meagre?

        • Yes, but my case is complicated by lower previous earnings and Pension adjustment affecting the RRSP max contribution.

          I'm not totally sure that the TFSA was the best option, but it is a very simple one. The home buyers plan may still be an option, but I just haven't bothered to see exactly what the impact of one route vs. the other, or a hybrid of both.

        • We're now using the TFSA account as an investment vehicle. The interest you earn with a TFSA bank account hardly covers inflation. We've maxed out our TFSA, but I agree with Andrew (not PorC) below. We're not wealthy, but not hurting. I believe if you take out money for an RRSP tax free for a downment that money has to be returned within 15 years else you be hit by the taxman.

      • I sympathize (I'm in the same situation), but realise that this move is designed to disproportionately benefit those with high incomes. It's quite astonishing that there are probably many people who could never manage to use $10k per year in TFSA room but are cheering this. It's brilliant strategy used by the republicans: get poor working class folks to support measures designed to benefit exclusively or disproportionate the wealthy.

        • Where did this idea come from that "the poor" must benefit from any given policy? It's a SAVINGS plan, it's intended to help people who SAVE money. If a low-income family manages to sock away $10k in a year, it benefits them just the same as any other family. Not every single government policy needs to be targeted at aiding "the poor". There are many other people in this country, and the government is right not to ignore them.

          • The rich have the advantage of being rich. I don't see why we need to allow them to shelter ever more of their income.

            Why don't we cut the marginal tax rate instead? That would be fairer and benefit all Canadians who pay income tax.

          • Exactly right — if you are having policies directed to those who already have money to sock away, where are the policies for those who don't? Canada has created a decent social services network that provides for those that need them, however it has been slowly chiselled away by recent governments. Harper has been incredibly ambivalent about such programs — even diabolically discriminating to them (axing the mandatory census will be one of the worst attacks that people won't realize until five years have passed)… A CON candidate has gone on the record as saying there is no poverty in Canada; one of Harper's most trusted henchmen tried to get his hooker-fiancee rich off the backs of first nations communities that are desperate for clean drinking water.
            The word poverty is rarely stated by Harper — perhaps because it is one group that can't get around his facebook thugs. Although i suppose i doubt many people on the downtown eastside (or the poorer neighbourhoods of Halifax, Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto) are as wired in as us nerds.

  3. Are there figures about how many accounts are currently maxed out?

    The obvious disadvantages are that it favours those with higher disposable income and it's difficult to calculate the cost of the program.

  4. Are there figures about how many accounts are currently maxed out?

    The obvious disadvantages are that it favours those with higher disposable income and it's difficult to calculate the cost of the program.

    • It will end up costing many billions in 30 years, that is clear.

    • There has been $17.9 billion put into TFSA. Since each person should be entitled to deposit a maximum fo $10,000 for 2009 and 2010. There could be at most 1.79 million people that have maxed out their TFSA, that is 7.5% of Canadian adults. So this measure will help at most 7.5% of the population… though I am sure the actual figure is much less. The people it helps are the wealthiest Canadians.

      • You mean $10,000 for 2015 and 2016, right?

  5. Stephen Harper, the post-dated Prime Minister.

  6. Stephen Harper, the post-dated Prime Minister.

    • Unless you're a corporation looking for a tax cut.

      • What are you – one of those soclialist coalitionists?

        • Rats. Is it that obvious?

    • How harper plans to balance the budget…
      …“It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act.” (Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997)

  7. Really?

    I'm no trust fund baby, but I am the kind of person who is currently saving to buy a home, and am saving more than $5000 a year towards it. Given the limited returns on safe, short-term investments, I am pretty happy not to have to pay taxes on the fairly meager interest that I'm earning as I'm barely keeping pace with inflation, and am fairly far behind increases in the housing market.

    By the time Harper puts this increase into effect, I probably won't be in the same situation, but $5000 is not a whole lot these days, depending on your saving habits.

  8. LOL everything he's 'promised' is years down the road…by which time everyone will have forgotten about them anyway.

    He's selling us air.

  9. Given that you can deduct the money immediately if you put it into an RRSP, and take it out tax free for the down payment, is it not better to keep your money in an RRSP instead of a TFSA? Especially if, as you say, the interest is meagre?

  10. I sympathize (I'm in the same situation), but realise that this move is designed to disproportionately benefit those with high incomes. It's quite astonishing that there are probably many people who could never manage to use $10k per year in TFSA room but are cheering this. It's brilliant strategy used by the republicans: get poor working class folks to support measures designed to benefit exclusively or disproportionate the wealthy.

  11. It will end up costing many billions in 30 years, that is clear.

  12. Unless you're a corporation looking for a tax cut.

  13. I swear, it's the platform from the 2015 campaign. They must have mistakenly pulled out the wrong blue book.

  14. Dude, you really don't want to see the real plans for 2015.

  15. Dude, you really don't want to see the real plans for 2015.

  16. So like Harper to take things to the nth degree too far.

    Not good enough not to be seen as "yesterday's man".

    Not good enough to be "tomorrow's man".

    He's got to be "way way in the future's man".

  17. There has been $17.9 billion put into TFSA. Since each person should be entitled to deposit a maximum fo $10,000 for 2009 and 2010. There could be at most 1.79 million people that have maxed out their TFSA, that is 7.5% of Canadian adults. So this measure will help at most 7.5% of the population… though I am sure the actual figure is much less. The people it helps are the wealthiest Canadians.

  18. So like Harper to take things to the nth degree too far.

    Not good enough not to be seen as "yesterday's man".

    Not good enough to be "tomorrow's man".

    He's got to be "way way in the future's man".

  19. Wait a minute… I'll be collecting my old-age pension by then.

    Anyway, I haven't heard that a party wants to do away with the TFSA. So, if Mr. Harper is still in power, if he has curbed his spending addiction and IF he has balanced the books, so when chckens have teeth, we'll see this come true.

    When will he announce his platform for this election?

  20. Wait a minute… I'll be collecting my old-age pension by then.

    Anyway, I haven't heard that a party wants to do away with the TFSA. So, if Mr. Harper is still in power, if he has curbed his spending addiction and IF he has balanced the books, so when chckens have teeth, we'll see this come true.

    When will he announce his platform for this election?

    • after the debates?

    • 2015.

    • Supposed to be Friday.

  21. Grrrreat!!! Best news yet!!!!!

    "TFSA contribution room was already on track to rise along with inflation over the years, but now the Conservatives have proposed to jump ahead to a $10,000 contribution limit as soon as the deficit is eliminated. Immediate beneficiaries of the increase would be people who have used up the current level of TFSA room and have been asking for more.

    Among the people in this group are seniors who are required to make a minimum withdrawal from their registered retirement income funds every year, but don't actually have a need for this money. They'll be able to shelter excess RRIF withdrawals in a TFSA and generate tax-free investment income.

    People as young as 18 can contribute to a TFSA, and if you can't contribute this year you can carry your room forward. It's versatility like that which will undoubtedly make the Conservative promise to boost contribution room popular."
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/per

  22. Grrrreat!!! Best news yet!!!!!

    "TFSA contribution room was already on track to rise along with inflation over the years, but now the Conservatives have proposed to jump ahead to a $10,000 contribution limit as soon as the deficit is eliminated. Immediate beneficiaries of the increase would be people who have used up the current level of TFSA room and have been asking for more.

    Among the people in this group are seniors who are required to make a minimum withdrawal from their registered retirement income funds every year, but don't actually have a need for this money. They'll be able to shelter excess RRIF withdrawals in a TFSA and generate tax-free investment income.

    People as young as 18 can contribute to a TFSA, and if you can't contribute this year you can carry your room forward. It's versatility like that which will undoubtedly make the Conservative promise to boost contribution room popular."
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/per

    • "Among the people in this group are seniors who are required to make a minimum withdrawal from their registered retirement income funds every year, but don't actually have a need for this money."

      Well obviously tax policy should favour people who don't actually need money, but I'm concerned about these people having to wait to 2015 to shelter all the funds they don't need. Whatever will they do to cope in the meantime? Can we pass a hat or something?

  23. You mean $10,000 for 2015 and 2016, right?

  24. no wait, i get it, you combined years.

  25. Yes, but my case is complicated by lower previous earnings and Pension adjustment affecting the RRSP max contribution.

    I'm not totally sure that the TFSA was the best option, but it is a very simple one. The home buyers plan may still be an option, but I just haven't bothered to see exactly what the impact of one route vs. the other, or a hybrid of both.

  26. I meant $5,000 for each of 2009 and 2010 for a total of $10,000 max contribution since the program began in 2009.

  27. We're now using the TFSA account as an investment vehicle. The interest you earn with a TFSA bank account hardly covers inflation. We've maxed out our TFSA, but I agree with Andrew (not PorC) below. We're not wealthy, but not hurting. I believe if you take out money for an RRSP tax free for a downment that money has to be returned within 15 years else you be hit by the taxman.

  28. Where did this idea come from that "the poor" must benefit from any given policy? It's a SAVINGS plan, it's intended to help people who SAVE money. If a low-income family manages to sock away $10k in a year, it benefits them just the same as any other family. Not every single government policy needs to be targeted at aiding "the poor". There are many other people in this country, and the government is right not to ignore them.

  29. It may be better than the Liberals selling us water but giving us air.

    If the revenue from the corporate tax hike is less than they project, which parts of their platform do we get?

    Having said that, these far-off Conservative promises would be welcome in a 'Long-term Goals' portion of their platform, but I sure as hell hope that there is some more immediate content coming our way (preferably that does not cost $Billions). In other words, I hope their are working towards some good ideas, not scraping the bottom of the barrel, or this election is never going to heat up.

  30. It may be better than the Liberals selling us water but giving us air.

    If the revenue from the corporate tax hike is less than they project, which parts of their platform do we get?

    Having said that, these far-off Conservative promises would be welcome in a 'Long-term Goals' portion of their platform, but I sure as hell hope that there is some more immediate content coming our way (preferably that does not cost $Billions). In other words, I hope their are working towards some good ideas, not scraping the bottom of the barrel, or this election is never going to heat up.

  31. "Among the people in this group are seniors who are required to make a minimum withdrawal from their registered retirement income funds every year, but don't actually have a need for this money."

    Well obviously tax policy should favour people who don't actually need money, but I'm concerned about these people having to wait to 2015 to shelter all the funds they don't need. Whatever will they do to cope in the meantime? Can we pass a hat or something?

  32. It's not necessary, but if there's going to be state expenditure it's nice to have it distributed equitably or even geared towards the less fortunate, rather than those who need it least.

  33. The rich have the advantage of being rich. I don't see why we need to allow them to shelter ever more of their income.

    Why don't we cut the marginal tax rate instead? That would be fairer and benefit all Canadians who pay income tax.

  34. Chickens really don't have teeth? Weird!

  35. after the debates?

  36. What are you – one of those soclialist coalitionists?

  37. They won't be sheltered, they'll still be taxed – the investment income from them will be sheltered. And as the reitree ages the growth window become shorter.

  38. Since the tax cut is already operating we know how much it involves….as to the Cons we already know they are planning on buying jets and building prisons….plus more corporate tax cuts of course..

  39. Bottom line – whether your rich, poor or anywhere in between – any investment vehicle that provides growth without being taxed is a good thing for you.

  40. Bottom line – whether your rich, poor or anywhere in between – any investment vehicle that provides growth without being taxed is a good thing for you.

    • For a bottom line, that's a pretty big fail.

  41. SH is scrapping the bottom of the 2015 barrel.

  42. SH is scrapping the bottom of the 2015 barrel.

    • Cheeky

  43. 2015.

  44. Cheeky

  45. Supposed to be Friday.

  46. He's much more sanguine about balancing the budget than I am. As far as I'm concerned, it'll be a race between the balancing of the budget (and implementation of this policy) and the time in which regular inflation adjustments will hit $10,000 on their own.

  47. He's much more sanguine about balancing the budget than I am. As far as I'm concerned, it'll be a race between the balancing of the budget (and implementation of this policy) and the time in which regular inflation adjustments will hit $10,000 on their own.

  48. Let's look at this "promise" in a logical manner.

    On the whole, the TFSA isa good idea and allowing a higher limit would be a positive step for Canadians who have the ability to do so.

    But IT IS NOTa Conservative idea. They never ran on int as much as I can remeber. It was probably something bubbling up from the Policy desks at Finance and might very well have bben introduced in 2006 Ralph Goodale budget.

    What have the Conservatives done when it comes to taxes?

    Well, they broke their solemn promise NOT to tax Income Trusts.

    They put off tax cut promises to some day in the future when they will have supposedly slayed the deficit (Income splitting and this raise in the TFSA).

    Or, they give tax breaks to the Upper Middle Class for things they would have done anyway (little Johnny's piano lessons or little Susie's ski classes).

  49. Let's look at this "promise" in a logical manner.

    On the whole, the TFSA isa good idea and allowing a higher limit would be a positive step for Canadians who have the ability to do so.

    But IT IS NOTa Conservative idea. They never ran on int as much as I can remeber. It was probably something bubbling up from the Policy desks at Finance and might very well have bben introduced in 2006 Ralph Goodale budget.

    What have the Conservatives done when it comes to taxes?

    Well, they broke their solemn promise NOT to tax Income Trusts.

    They put off tax cut promises to some day in the future when they will have supposedly slayed the deficit (Income splitting and this raise in the TFSA).

    Or, they give tax breaks to the Upper Middle Class for things they would have done anyway (little Johnny's piano lessons or little Susie's ski classes).

    • And let's not forget that this day in the future when the deficit will eventuially be slayed is:

      One year later than their original timetable.

      To slay a deficit they said they would never run.

      Which they only ran to face the biggest global financial crisis since the depression.

      The biggest global financial crisis which we were going to avoid because if it was going to happen we would already have had it.

      Maybe Steve was taking a drink of water at the same time he was announcing this rise on the annual amount for the TFSA.

  50. And let's not forget that this day in the future when the deficit will eventuially be slayed is:

    One year later than their original timetable.

    To slay a deficit they said they would never run.

    Which they only ran to face the biggest global financial crisis since the depression.

    The biggest global financial crisis which we were going to avoid because if it was going to happen we would already have had it.

    Maybe Steve was taking a drink of water at the same time he was announcing this rise on the annual amount for the TFSA.

  51. We don't know how much it involves. Both the PBO and Finance have differing numbers, but both numbers are much lower than the ones used in the Liberal platform. I am hoping that the mandate years in the platform are fiscal years, but the Liberal platform has $3B in year one and $5.2B in year two, vs $1.6B/$2.5B and $3.8B/$4.3B from Finance/PBO (respectively). Regardless, those are very different, and certainly enough to knock out a promise or two, especially if revenues do not return to where they were previously at 18% (in other words, if companies work harder to reduce their tax expense once it starts to go up again)

    There is money to be saved, no question, but the liberal number is much higher than either gov't resource who should know.

    (and yes, the Conservatives also use an inflated number – to try and show more tax cutting than apparently is the case)

  52. We don't know how much it involves. Both the PBO and Finance have differing numbers, but both numbers are much lower than the ones used in the Liberal platform. I am hoping that the mandate years in the platform are fiscal years, but the Liberal platform has $3B in year one and $5.2B in year two, vs $1.6B/$2.5B and $3.8B/$4.3B from Finance/PBO (respectively). Regardless, those are very different, and certainly enough to knock out a promise or two, especially if revenues do not return to where they were previously at 18% (in other words, if companies work harder to reduce their tax expense once it starts to go up again)

    There is money to be saved, no question, but the liberal number is much higher than either gov't resource who should know.

    (and yes, the Conservatives also use an inflated number – to try and show more tax cutting than apparently is the case)

    • I agree they're estimates at best, and until the Libs can check it out we don't know who's more accurate….however there are other sources of revenue they plan on using, so I don't see a problem with keeping this promise.

      • The CIT tax hikes are 3/4 of the projected new revenues in the Liberal platform. If the PBO or Finance numbers are more correct, the Liberals will be a about 15 or 20% short in new funds to pay for their platform. That ought to be worth a new program or two.

        • Like I said, there are other sources of funding.

          It's a rich country after all

          • Fair enough.

            In a sense, that's what I was getting at. If the numbers don't add up, how do the various aspects of a given party's platform rank in terms of priority? Social programs (and which are the most important among them), fiscal responsibility, tax cuts or increases, implementation time, etc.

            The Conservatives are saying corp tax cuts now, personal tax cuts later, and even then only after balancing the budget. Thats a reasonable glimpse at priorities.

            The Liberal plan doesn't seem to prioritize very much at all, so that's what I'm questioning. If they said 'we'll increase corporate taxes until they pay for these things:' that's fair. Or, 'if corporate income tax increases don't get us to our revenue goal in time then we will look at these other sources', thats fair too. Even an indication of delaying until a given revenue milestone is reached would be welcome.

          • Not sure what that link was supposed to do, but I read the platform, rather than just the reporting.

            As far as fighter planes go, the Liberals are going to buy planes, just not necessarily those ones, and the prisons are the logical result of the crime bills that have already been passed.

            You are right to suggest that those are two expenses that the Liberals have identified, but they are not on the balance sheet in the Liberal platform, so its not like they are counting on savings coming from those areas as part of their revenues.

          • It identified other sources of funding

            Fighterplanes will probably never be bought, and empty prisons are a waste of time and money

          • I'm pretty sure that only the NDP has said that they don't want to buy planes. I haven't heard any Liberals say that they won't buy planes – they just are critical of the process.

            As for prisons, they are not empty now, and given the changes in sentencing over the last few years, there may be fewer convictions but longer incarceration times – leading to a larger prisoner pop.

          • I said I doubt the planes will ever be bought…I didn't say it was Lib policy.

            I also doubt all these new 'crimes' will be added, and in any case the crime rate is going down and we don't need to add to our prison count.

        • It is a concern, but fortunately they built into the costing a contingency fund. So, if the revenues aren't what the Conservatives have been touting we should still be okay.

  53. I agree they're estimates at best, and until the Libs can check it out we don't know who's more accurate….however there are other sources of revenue they plan on using, so I don't see a problem with keeping this promise.

  54. For a bottom line, that's a pretty big fail.

  55. The CIT tax hikes are 3/4 of the projected new revenues in the Liberal platform. If the PBO or Finance numbers are more correct, the Liberals will be a about 15 or 20% short in new funds to pay for their platform. That ought to be worth a new program or two.

  56. Like I said, there are other sources of funding.

    It's a rich country after all

  57. Fair enough.

    In a sense, that's what I was getting at. If the numbers don't add up, how do the various aspects of a given party's platform rank in terms of priority? Social programs (and which are the most important among them), fiscal responsibility, tax cuts or increases, implementation time, etc.

    The Conservatives are saying corp tax cuts now, personal tax cuts later, and even then only after balancing the budget. Thats a reasonable glimpse at priorities.

    The Liberal plan doesn't seem to prioritize very much at all, so that's what I'm questioning. If they said 'we'll increase corporate taxes until they pay for these things:' that's fair. Or, 'if corporate income tax increases don't get us to our revenue goal in time then we will look at these other sources', thats fair too. Even an indication of delaying until a given revenue milestone is reached would be welcome.

  58. Not sure what that link was supposed to do, but I read the platform, rather than just the reporting.

    As far as fighter planes go, the Liberals are going to buy planes, just not necessarily those ones, and the prisons are the logical result of the crime bills that have already been passed.

    You are right to suggest that those are two expenses that the Liberals have identified, but they are not on the balance sheet in the Liberal platform, so its not like they are counting on savings coming from those areas as part of their revenues.

  59. It is a concern, but fortunately they built into the costing a contingency fund. So, if the revenues aren't what the Conservatives have been touting we should still be okay.

  60. It identified other sources of funding

    Fighterplanes will probably never be bought, and empty prisons are a waste of time and money

  61. I'm pretty sure that only the NDP has said that they don't want to buy planes. I haven't heard any Liberals say that they won't buy planes – they just are critical of the process.

    As for prisons, they are not empty now, and given the changes in sentencing over the last few years, there may be fewer convictions but longer incarceration times – leading to a larger prisoner pop.

  62. I said I doubt the planes will ever be bought…I didn't say it was Lib policy.

    I also doubt all these new 'crimes' will be added, and in any case the crime rate is going down and we don't need to add to our prison count.

  63. The tax free savings account is an excellent idea. I am using one, and if invested wisely, it could start generating quite a bit of tax free income over the years, specially if one would fill such account to the max and let it earn a generated income.

    Great stuff – being allowed to make money with our own money _ TAX FREE !!

  64. The tax free savings account is an excellent idea. I am using one, and if invested wisely, it could start generating quite a bit of tax free income over the years, specially if one would fill such account to the max and let it earn a generated income.

    Great stuff – being allowed to make money with our own money _ TAX FREE !!

  65. The great ad man Howard Gossage, doing advertising for Fina (remember them?) in the 60s, told his client that all gas was the same, all service stations were the same and that they had no 'point of difference'. So he suggested they tell the consumer that if they got gas, they should put some Fina air in their tires, because that air would be different. It would be pink. Thus, Fina became the only service station to offer Pink Air.

    People lined up at the pumps just to get some of that sweet Pink Air.

    Gossage also invented the T-Shirt with a picture or slogan on it.

  66. The great ad man Howard Gossage, doing advertising for Fina (remember them?) in the 60s, told his client that all gas was the same, all service stations were the same and that they had no 'point of difference'. So he suggested they tell the consumer that if they got gas, they should put some Fina air in their tires, because that air would be different. It would be pink. Thus, Fina became the only service station to offer Pink Air.

    People lined up at the pumps just to get some of that sweet Pink Air.

    Gossage also invented the T-Shirt with a picture or slogan on it.

    • Pink air eh?

      I remember Fina, and certainly he's right about the same gas and same garages…but I don't remember the pink air. Mind you, I hate pink, so maybe I blotted it out of the memory bank.

      I guess Cons are trying to sell us blue air. LOL

  67. Pink air eh?

    I remember Fina, and certainly he's right about the same gas and same garages…but I don't remember the pink air. Mind you, I hate pink, so maybe I blotted it out of the memory bank.

    I guess Cons are trying to sell us blue air. LOL

  68. Some history on the TFSA and why it is not just for 'rich' people.

    TFSAs beat RRSPs for the less wealthy

    When Jon Kesselman of Simon Fraser University and I published A New Option for Retirement Savings: Tax-Prepaid Savings Plans, the road map for what was to become TFSAs, we had high hopes for tax free savings accounts. I doubt we would have believed anyone who told us that in less than 10 years' time nearly five million Canadians would hold these accounts, but we would have agreed that if you built it, they would come — and Canadian savers did. For folks in the tax policy business, TFSAs are a grand slam.

    The class division question, whether ­TFSAs favour the rich over the poor, lies at the heart of why we thought developing TFSAs was good policy: because the old system did not serve the poor well. Today, more people understand that for low-income savers, the RRSP is often not the best tool. If your income is low, your tax rate is probably low, so the tax savings from deducting an RRSP contribution from taxable income is correspondingly low.
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/tfsas

  69. Some history on the TFSA and why it is not just for 'rich' people.

    TFSAs beat RRSPs for the less wealthy

    When Jon Kesselman of Simon Fraser University and I published A New Option for Retirement Savings: Tax-Prepaid Savings Plans, the road map for what was to become TFSAs, we had high hopes for tax free savings accounts. I doubt we would have believed anyone who told us that in less than 10 years' time nearly five million Canadians would hold these accounts, but we would have agreed that if you built it, they would come — and Canadian savers did. For folks in the tax policy business, TFSAs are a grand slam.

    The class division question, whether ­TFSAs favour the rich over the poor, lies at the heart of why we thought developing TFSAs was good policy: because the old system did not serve the poor well. Today, more people understand that for low-income savers, the RRSP is often not the best tool. If your income is low, your tax rate is probably low, so the tax savings from deducting an RRSP contribution from taxable income is correspondingly low.
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/tfsas

    • But a raise in the limit to 10K doesn't matter because the poor can't afford the current limit.

  70. Exactly right — if you are having policies directed to those who already have money to sock away, where are the policies for those who don't? Canada has created a decent social services network that provides for those that need them, however it has been slowly chiselled away by recent governments. Harper has been incredibly ambivalent about such programs — even diabolically discriminating to them (axing the mandatory census will be one of the worst attacks that people won't realize until five years have passed)… A CON candidate has gone on the record as saying there is no poverty in Canada; one of Harper's most trusted henchmen tried to get his hooker-fiancee rich off the backs of first nations communities that are desperate for clean drinking water.
    The word poverty is rarely stated by Harper — perhaps because it is one group that can't get around his facebook thugs. Although i suppose i doubt many people on the downtown eastside (or the poorer neighbourhoods of Halifax, Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto) are as wired in as us nerds.

  71. Rats. Is it that obvious?

  72. It is refreshing to see a leader willing to postpone his vote-buying to a time when the deficit should be significantly reduced or eliminated.

    Summary of campaign fiscal plans:
    Harper: work the plan.
    Ignatieff: spend more now.
    Layton: whatever Ignatieff said, I raise.
    Duceppe: spend more in Quebec now.

  73. It is refreshing to see a leader willing to postpone his vote-buying to a time when the deficit should be significantly reduced or eliminated.

    Summary of campaign fiscal plans:
    Harper: work the plan.
    Ignatieff: spend more now.
    Layton: whatever Ignatieff said, I raise.
    Duceppe: spend more in Quebec now.

    • Hide the facts
      Don't the address the issue

      That's the Conservative plan. Not credible.

  74. If someone has the time and patience, would you explain to me how on the one hand we have the Bank of Canada warning us about endebtedness and the possibility and risks of rising interest rates on the finances of Canadian families while the government is ignoring that effect on the public endebtedness of Canadian families through government debt and rising interest rates.

    It is fine for the Conservative to promise the moon when they lick the deficit but at some point they'll need to provide some credible plan for attaining this. So far, everything points to uncontrolled increases in spending, and promises of decreasing revenue. In fact, it sounds like a plan to increase deficit spending ! The fact that they refuse to provide Canadians through their parliament the required documentation to support their spending plans further aggravates my skepticism on their ability to control spending and return the government to balanced budgets.

    Would Mr. Harper promise to grow palm trees and harvest pineapples in the Canadian outdoors some will believe in him, but I just don't see any of point in discussing this unless condition one, elimination of the deficit, is addressed intelligently.

  75. If someone has the time and patience, would you explain to me how on the one hand we have the Bank of Canada warning us about endebtedness and the possibility and risks of rising interest rates on the finances of Canadian families while the government is ignoring that effect on the public endebtedness of Canadian families through government debt and rising interest rates.

    It is fine for the Conservative to promise the moon when they lick the deficit but at some point they'll need to provide some credible plan for attaining this. So far, everything points to uncontrolled increases in spending, and promises of decreasing revenue. In fact, it sounds like a plan to increase deficit spending ! The fact that they refuse to provide Canadians through their parliament the required documentation to support their spending plans further aggravates my skepticism on their ability to control spending and return the government to balanced budgets.

    Would Mr. Harper promise to grow palm trees and harvest pineapples in the Canadian outdoors some will believe in him, but I just don't see any of point in discussing this unless condition one, elimination of the deficit, is addressed intelligently.

  76. Hide the facts
    Don't the address the issue

    That's the Conservative plan. Not credible.

  77. But a raise in the limit to 10K doesn't matter because the poor can't afford the current limit.

  78. Just checked the calendar, it's 2011. You can have contributed 15,000 by now.

  79. Just checked the calendar, it's 2011. You can have contributed 15,000 by now.

  80. How harper plans to balance the budget…
    …“It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act.” (Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997)

Sign in to comment.