Personal Finance

2018 Federal Budget - Canada's first full-blown social justice budget

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 18th, 2018 9:39 pm
Newbie
Mar 16, 2014
67 posts
20 upvotes
Toronto
apnayloags wrote:
Feb 18th, 2018 7:45 pm
Dont expect anything for the middle class, they finished transit tax credit already
The middle class already got more than enough from the Libs. Aside from passive corporate investment and some soft social issues I don't expect much of substance from this budget.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
4954 posts
319 upvotes
FrancisBacon wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 4:57 pm
A limit to the principal residence exemption to $500,000.
Regardless of the possible merit of this idea from an economic perspective, I think there is zero chance of it happening because of the political cost.
[OP]
Penalty Box
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
32228 posts
8497 upvotes
GTHA
Federal budget to include incentive for 5-week, use-it-or-lose-it leave for second parent, official says
The government has been under increasing pressure from advocates to make further changes to Canada’s parental leave policies.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... -says.html
Deal Addict
Sep 23, 2009
4303 posts
1354 upvotes
CheapScotch wrote:
Feb 19th, 2018 7:47 pm
Regardless of the possible merit of this idea from an economic perspective, I think there is zero chance of it happening because of the political cost.
It's in line with the current narrative of economic equality for all.

Just because you disagree with a policy does not make is less likely to be implemented.

Also note that the government needs more tax revenue.

Spend and Tax policy at work.
Deal Addict
May 12, 2014
1913 posts
1328 upvotes
Montreal
tk1000 wrote:
Feb 24th, 2018 11:10 pm
Federal budget to include incentive for 5-week, use-it-or-lose-it leave for second parent, official says
Disgusting social engineering. Couples are in the best position to decide amongst themselves how to split parental leave.

Now because one member is unable to take time off, they lose it?
Deal Addict
Feb 25, 2007
1161 posts
577 upvotes
Ottawa
tk1000 wrote:
Feb 24th, 2018 11:10 pm
Federal budget to include incentive for 5-week, use-it-or-lose-it leave for second parent
FrancisBacon wrote:
Feb 25th, 2018 7:37 am
Disgusting social engineering. Couples are in the best position to decide amongst themselves how to split parental leave. Now because one member is unable to take time off, they lose it?
I think that's the intent. Since they'd lose it, more of second parents -- generally men -- will take it, therefore normalizing the taking of parental leave in general without (as much) putting one's career on the slow track.

I see where you're coming from, but the *goal* is to have couples do the split differently than -- the thinking goes -- they would be socially conditioned to otherwise.
Deal Addict
May 12, 2014
1913 posts
1328 upvotes
Montreal
houska wrote:
Feb 25th, 2018 7:53 am
the *goal* is to have couples do the split differently than -- the thinking goes -- they would be socially conditioned to otherwise.
I know that's the goal. If the government can't convince people to act in their preferred way in the most intimate spheres of their life, then they'll force people by penalizing them financially.

And if for some reason it makes more sense for only one parent to take time off, or if for some reason the other parent can't take time off, too bad for them.
Deal Addict
Feb 25, 2007
1161 posts
577 upvotes
Ottawa
FrancisBacon wrote:
Feb 25th, 2018 7:58 am
I know that's the goal. If the government can't convince people to act in their preferred way in the most intimate spheres of their life, then they'll force people by penalizing them financially.

And if for some reason it makes more sense for only one parent to take time off, or if for some reason the other parent can't take time off, too bad for them.
Since ultimately there's no free lunch, i.e. any new benefit, whether an entitlement or a tax break or whatever, to a subgroup is spread out as a cost to society as a whole, it would indeed be "penalizing" those who don't take advantage. But that seems a pretty strong word given (correct me if I'm wrong) that the idea is *additional* parental leave (with the requirement it be by the 2nd parent) than a forced reallocation of existing parental leave?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
4954 posts
319 upvotes
renoldman wrote:
Feb 25th, 2018 5:57 am
It's in line with the current narrative of economic equality for all.

Just because you disagree with a policy does not make is less likely to be implemented.

Also note that the government needs more tax revenue.

Spend and Tax policy at work.
I am not saying I disagree with it. I am saying that: 1) If the government taxes capital gains on primary residences, the will lose the next election, 2) The government does not want to lose the next election.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 21, 2004
8307 posts
993 upvotes
FrancisBacon wrote:
Feb 25th, 2018 7:37 am
Disgusting social engineering. Couples are in the best position to decide amongst themselves how to split parental leave.

Now because one member is unable to take time off, they lose it?
I don't think that's the reasoning for it. This is a "gender equality" thing. Some studies have shown that gender wage gap can be solely attributed to taking maternity leave. The gender pay gap is non-existent pre-kids. Post kids, men who don't take leave have their pay unaffected. Only women who take leave have lowered wages. Thus by forcing men to take paternity leave, they will take a hit on their wages and reduce the gender wage gap.

Crazy logic. I know.
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2016
1336 posts
962 upvotes
Hamilton, ON
Stock R wrote:
Feb 25th, 2018 9:53 am
I don't think that's the reasoning for it. This is a "gender equality" thing. Some studies have shown that gender wage gap can be solely attributed to taking maternity leave. The gender pay gap is non-existent pre-kids. Post kids, men who don't take leave have their pay unaffected. Only women who take leave have lowered wages. Thus by forcing men to take paternity leave, they will take a hit on their wages and reduce the gender wage gap.

Crazy logic. I know.
Instead of couples thinking about the financial situation logically and having the individual who makes less income stay home with the child, whether it be man or woman ...
Deal Addict
May 12, 2014
1913 posts
1328 upvotes
Montreal
houska wrote:
Feb 25th, 2018 8:22 am
the idea is *additional* parental leave (with the requirement it be by the 2nd parent) than a forced reallocation of existing parental leave?
It's additional to those couples who conform to this government's social preferences.

Imagine if they instead said: new children's benefit! But only to kids born of a lawful marriage. No benefit to kids born out of wedlock.

Would that be OK? Would that not be considered penalising some children?

It's bad enough when a government wastes money subsidizing failing industries. It's offensive when you have to tow the line in your most personal decisions to qualify for their programs.
Deal Addict
Feb 25, 2007
1161 posts
577 upvotes
Ottawa
FrancisBacon wrote:
Feb 25th, 2018 1:23 pm
It's additional to those couples who conform to this government's social preferences.
[...]
It's bad enough when a government wastes money subsidizing failing industries. It's offensive when you have to to[e] the line in your most personal decisions to qualify for their programs.
Well, my wife and I don't have children. Should we get offended we're not getting an equivalent-to-parental leave, or that we don't get various financial benefits or discounts for parents or families? Or should families that homeschool (or private school) be upset they don't get the same governmental contributions to their childrens' education as those who use the publically funded system? Those are somewhat extreme examples, but governments try to encourage ("nudge" in current economic parlance) certain forms of social behaviour all the time, in ways that disadvantage those that choose to hew their own path. This one seems low on the priority list to get offended about to me, but I respect that it is important (and offensive) to you and doubtless to some others.

Top