Canadian Federal Election

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by theman23

We fixated too much on income. A 45 year old earning $150,000 is not necessarily better off than an age matched person owning a home that earns less. The latter also gets the benefit of an unlimited tax free savings vehicle that the former doesn't.

What's the statisticcal likelihood of a 45 yr old with $150k income (top 5% income in Canada) being a lifelong renter with insubstantial assets?

Even setting aside the debate on assets vs income (which I actually side with you on), why are we creating policy to benefit the top 5%? It seems silly to me. I want policy to help the guy making $70k per year as an auto mechanic or the working class couple whose combined income may be less than $100k. Not the 45 yr old lawyer.

Also, if you really want to help your hypothetical top 5% earning 45 yr old, you're going to have be honest about what the problem is: wealth inequality. And the solution to that isn't a piddling tax break on a savings plan. It's cutting his actual taxes while taxing those with a lot more assets. Tax wealth. Not work. You want that 45 year old to have a real shot at wealth creation? Jack up property taxes and cut income taxes.

[NotToScale]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

It's weird. According to Conservatives, under Trudeau the cost of living has skyrocketed so that people can't afford groceries, yet also according to Conservatives raising the TFSA will help people save money... that they don't have because they're spending too much on groceries?

People can budget an amount to put into savings every year and still be affected by the cost of living... its not weird.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theman23

We fixated too much on income. A 45 year old earning $150,000 is not necessarily better off than an age matched person owning a home that earns less. The latter also gets the benefit of an unlimited tax free savings vehicle that the former doesn't.

I am all for addressing the primary residence tax exemption, but we are talking about TFSAs specifically here. Increasing TFSA room will benefit the wealthy, and limit the revenue of the Federal government in the long term. We need to be especially careful about the latter IMO.

I say this as somebody who has maxed my TFSA and would benefit from more room.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

“Blowing a 25-point lead and being like 10 points down is campaign malpractice at the highest level.” Kory Teneycke, conservative strategist...

Poilievre didn’t “blow” anything, he likely always had a 10-point deficit against Harper’s Governor of the BoC, while he probably still has a huge lead against JT (which, unfortunately for the Tories, doesn’t matter anymore).

As I and others said earlier — PP did great vs JT, defeated him so thoroughly that he ended up with a new opponent. In fact one could argue that PP would’ve benefitted from not being as good as he was at taking down JT.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What's the statisticcal likelihood of a 45 yr old with $150k income (top 5% income in Canada) being a lifelong renter with insubstantial assets?

Even setting aside the debate on assets vs income (which I actually side with you on), why are we creating policy to benefit the top 5%? It seems silly to me. I want policy to help the guy making $70k per year as an auto mechanic or the working class couple whose combined income may be less than $100k. Not the 45 yr old lawyer.

I know a few people who'll be in their mid 40s by the end of the next prime minister's term who will be in that situation if things go as expected. They are not uncommon in the larger cities. Well, not the "insubstantial assets" part but the point is that they'll face a tax burden on those assets that previous generations did not because they've been locked out of the housing market. Hence why it might appeal to younger people.

And like I said earlier - people don't get younger and policy needs to be forwarding thinking. If Carney or PP last 10 years like the last two prime ministers before them, a 28 year old now will be approaching 38 by the time they're kicked to the curb. Their income will have grown but their ability to save for retirement would have been less than, say, a Gen Xer that had access to both a larger TFSA and cheaper housing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Even setting aside the debate on assets vs income (which I actually side with you on), why are we creating policy to benefit the top 5%?

Some thoughts:

- This demographic is more productive and mobile and pays a lot of tax and so investing in them is likely to produce dividends for Canada while investing in low income earners and wealthy retirees does not. If we make life shitty for professionals they will leave for places like the USA.

- We should have a fair and rational system where you pay more taxes as you have more income and wealth so that there's a marginal return to earning more.

- $150k a year needs to be put into the context of local cost of living. A person earning this income in a market like Vancouver or Toronto won't necessarily have an upper class standard of living but does pay high income taxes. Averages are of limited use.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I am all for addressing the primary residence tax exemption, but we are talking about TFSAs specifically here. Increasing TFSA room will benefit the wealthy, and limit the revenue of the Federal government in the long term. We need to be especially careful about the latter IMO.

I say this as somebody who has maxed my TFSA and would benefit from more room.

There is no difference if someone puts $1 into housing versus a TFSA. The government is missing out on that tax revenue for both in the long term. This gives people who can't do the former the ability to do the latter, hence why it is popular amongst that group of people.

Obviously there are others who would take advantage of this too. They should be excluded. But since no one has proposed the perfect plan, good is enough.

Originally Posted by TrueNorth

Also, if you really want to help your hypothetical top 5% earning 45 yr old, you're going to have be honest about what the problem is: wealth inequality. And the solution to that isn't a piddling tax break on a savings plan. It's cutting his actual taxes while taxing those with a lot more assets. Tax wealth. Not work. You want that 45 year old to have a real shot at wealth creation? Jack up property taxes and cut income taxes.

I agree. Have discussed this many time and been laughed off the forum, so probably not realistic.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theman23

There is no difference if someone puts $1 into housing versus a TFSA.

The difference is that a homeowner is already ahead of the game and more likely to be able to take advantage of the extra $1 in TFSA contribution room.

The rich getting richer.

[someone123]

Those $250k+ earners who max out their TFSAs paid a high income tax rate on those dollars and they were only able to save a tiny percentage of their income in the tax-free account. The TFSA contribution limit is pretty low and in principle pretty widely accessible.

You can dump as much money as you want into your primary property. You can net $200k in income and dump $200k in if you want. Not max $7k a year.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Charest, O'Toole, Mulroney, Ford - they'd all be +20% and be able to keep a unified party together and none of them would have relied on Jenni Byrne...

No they wouldn't.

The issue for the Tories is not so much the leader but rather the ideological differences you have between the classic "Progressive" Conservatives in the East and "Reform" Conservatives of the West. Catering to one, alienates the other.

Mulroney managed to do it but that was pre-Reform and the conservative landscape has changed radically since then. The Tories are a Party of 2 solitudes and I don't know how they are going to fix it but fix it they must.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

The Conservatives just needed someone who was a uniter instead of a divider. Someone who is patriotic for the whole country, not just their voters and hateful to everyone else. Instead, they went with a mean, petty, smug jerk off of a guy imaginable. I'm confident that if Jean Charest or Erin O'Toole were leaders they would be sitting where Carney is in the polls.

Agreed. Heck, I could have seen myself voting for Charest. Maybe even O'Toole. But never the constantly barking attack dog.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The difference is that a homeowner is already ahead of the game and more likely to be able to take advantage of the extra $1 in TFSA contribution room.

The rich getting richer.

Like I said, ideally they need to be excluded to both mitigate the revenue hit and to ensure fairness.

But even under the current proposal, it won't seem like a zero sum game from the perspective of the younger voter. Most popular investments don't have a meaningful minimum buy-in and we're talking about the demographic least likely to rely on services provided by the federal government.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Younger people who have more than $7k/year after tax to sock away into savings? Still in the upper end of the income spectrum.

I make 60k a year and save 9-12k a year routinely.

Im not gifted or above average in IQ , just reasonably disciplined and willing to sacrifice non essentials/entertainment/travel.

I dont carry a credit card balance either, only relatively conservative 50% margin account leverage for trading stocks.

Its very do-able in a non car dependent urban area. I don't drive a vehicle which saves a massive amount of money.
On what planet is 60k a year high income??

We clearly have very different world views.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

...a quarter of the financial benefits of what public sector beurocrats , teachers and civil servants...

Is there any reason you felt the need to highlight "teachers"? It's a bit frustrating when people regurgitate the trope that teachers are overpaid in discussions like these. Teachers are important, if for no other reason than they'd accurately spell the term for government officials as "bureaucrats" and not "beurocrats".

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I make 60k a year and save 9-12k a year routinely.

Its very do-able in a non car dependent urban area.
On what planet is 60k a year high income??

We clearly have very different world views.

You're not the average 60k earner though. There's a difference between a single person and the average or median person.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I make 60k a year and save 9-12k a year routinely.

Its very do-able in a non car dependent urban area.
On what planet is 60k a year high income??

We clearly have very different world views.

You clearly have no kids.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Is there any reason you felt the need to highlight "teachers"? It's a bit frustrating when people regurgitate the trope that teachers are overpaid in discussions like these. Teachers are important, if for no other reason than they'd accurately spell the term for government officials as "bureaucrats" and not "beurocrats".

If anything teachers are underpaid for the amount of work and stress they have to deal with.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I make 60k a year and save 9-12k a year routinely.

Im not gifted or above average in IQ , just reasonably disciplined.

Its very do-able in a non car dependent urban area. I don't drive a vehicle which saves a massive amount of money.
On what planet is 60k a year high income??

We clearly have very different world views.

Where did I say you were high income?

I congratulated your savings rate and said you're saving a ton more than your (economic) peers.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

You clearly have no kids.

Nor does he live in Yaletown.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Tell that to MarshSparrow and your liberals

I do fact check... and rely on data, science and research... unlike your convoy clown conspiracy network you uphold.