2015 TFSA limit is to increase to 10K??
Saw this on the news item.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/03 ... l-deficit/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/03 ... l-deficit/
Oct 3rd, 2014 8:05 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 8:41 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 9:21 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 9:30 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 9:42 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 9:49 am
I have a credit line for use in an emergency, but haven't had one of those in years. I don't like that when you withdraw from a TSFA you cannot re-deposit the amount withdrawn until the first business day of the next year.
Oct 3rd, 2014 9:51 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 10:14 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 10:19 am
The conservatives can make the TSFA contribution limit $100K a year and I still won't vote for them!
Oct 3rd, 2014 10:25 am
LIKE! wouldnt mind that for sure.
Oct 3rd, 2014 10:30 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 10:46 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 11:03 am
It is what it is. I think it would be too difficult to track if you could re-deposit any time. It's suppose to be a savings account also, not a bank account.
Oct 3rd, 2014 11:17 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 11:30 am
Agreed - those who get the most benefit are those that need it least, and to whom it makes the least actual difference.TorontoDavid wrote: ↑Selfishly - it's great as I can take advantage of it.
Socially - it's a tax cut for the rich. I'd rather the government invest in our infrastructure and provide funding to our cities for projects like transit.
Oct 3rd, 2014 11:32 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 11:34 am
Dropping the income tax at the lower levels will hardly do any benefit for them because their taxation base is already low to begin with. An extra few hundred or few thousand will not be a game changer for them. On the other hand, increasing taxes for the rich will just drive them away to lower tax jurisdiction. Remember, the wealthy are very mobile and can move anywhere either in name or in person to avoid taxes.
Oct 3rd, 2014 11:39 am
no they aren't/ don't... there are lots of existing loopholes for the wealthy who are wealthy enough to do that....but majority of high income earners can't.traderjay wrote: ↑Dropping the income tax at the lower levels will hardly do any benefit for them because their taxation base is already low to begin with. An extra few hundred or few thousand will not be a game changer for them. On the other hand, increasing taxes for the rich will just drive them away to lower tax jurisdiction. Remember, the wealthy are very mobile and can move anywhere either in name or in person to avoid taxes.
Oct 3rd, 2014 11:41 am
Oct 3rd, 2014 12:13 pm
This is why I added in "name" because they can use tax loopholes to have themselves taxed at a different jurisdiction without moving, or employ sophisticated tax planning services to negate any increase in tax. The rich, while being the smallest in number, already pays the largest pie of the government tax revenue so adding "RICH" tax will just give them more incentive do something creative.GodRFD wrote: ↑no they aren't/ don't... there are lots of existing loopholes for the wealthy who are wealthy enough to do that....but majority of high income earners can't.
but I find it laughable how you say a few hundred or few thousand to low income earners won't mean anything to them..yet it will to the high income so much that they'll move lol
There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)