Personal Finance

Trudeau going after Personal Services Corps disguised as small businesses

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 20th, 2017 9:45 am
Member
Apr 14, 2015
464 posts
103 upvotes
Tsuu T'Ina, AB
I am surprised that they didn't extend the consultation period. It has been clear from the start that they didn't think this through and there will be all sorts of unintended consequences they never thought of. People brought up legitimate concerns and they dug in their heels. Eventually they admitted that this was going to cause problems and promised to make small tweaks, but they wouldn't say what. They expect everyone to just trust them to somehow get it right when they have already demonstrated that they don't understand how these changes will affect people, and they don't seem interested in talking to people who do understand.

Funny how electoral reform, another of their big promises, got dropped as soon as they had a little opposition, but on this issue they won't even extend their pretence of consultation.
Member
Jul 20, 2017
229 posts
53 upvotes
This will be done...consultation is a sham...
If the electoral reform would have been implemented. then this would have caused a big loss for liberals..
with the current system the votes lost will be scattered across the country


the only hope for us is that the votes lost because of this changes are lost forever...I will never vote liberal
Member
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
334 posts
161 upvotes
Jermyzy wrote:
Oct 2nd, 2017 2:31 pm
I think what taxrage suggested with an annual cap might be a reasonable compromise if the proposals go through, but unsure how much extra paperwork/accounting is needed to track it properly. The bottom line is if the government truly feels the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes, do a royal commission looking at tax reform and do it properly. Why are you targeting just one specific group of people?
I'm not sure how workable something like a $50K/year cap on RE that would not be immune to the punitive 73% tax rate would be.

What happens if there is more than one owner that needs to save for his/her retirement, benefits etc? When more than one owner (voting shares?), things become a lot more complicated. Perhaps this is why the CCPC is not intended to be a savings account for the owner(s).
Member
Apr 14, 2015
464 posts
103 upvotes
Tsuu T'Ina, AB
It sounds like his goal is still to get it done fast, not to do it right. Do you think they'll have another round of consultations to make sure the second version isn't just as sloppy as the first?
Deal Addict
Oct 7, 2007
2938 posts
634 upvotes
Operatime wrote:
Oct 3rd, 2017 10:33 am
I am surprised that they didn't extend the consultation period. It has been clear from the start that they didn't think this through and there will be all sorts of unintended consequences they never thought of. People brought up legitimate concerns and they dug in their heels. Eventually they admitted that this was going to cause problems and promised to make small tweaks, but they wouldn't say what. They expect everyone to just trust them to somehow get it right when they have already demonstrated that they don't understand how these changes will affect people, and they don't seem interested in talking to people who do understand.

Funny how electoral reform, another of their big promises, got dropped as soon as they had a little opposition, but on this issue they won't even extend their pretence of consultation.
You are 100% bang on! The PM and Finance Minister seem to have really got themselves into a pickle and it is incredible that instead of them saying to everyone, "...sorry, this was a big mistake", they are being very defiant saying "there is zero chance of dropping this whole thing" and "this is what they ran on when elected so they are going to do it no matter what". Their logic and their explanations to the public on this subject are flawed in so many ways. And is this really a consultation period if they are going to slam it through no matter what? I am sure this is a no-no in the book of "How to Be a Successful Politician" or "How to Avoid Political Suicide".

It is interesting that the U.S. is currently working on their tax reform policy right now and all they seem to be talking about is lowering taxes for small business, reducing bureaucracy and putting in all kinds of incentives to help small businesses thrive, expand and flourish. Our leaders seem to be looking at the U.S. and "doing the opposite" on every possible policy including immigration, refugee admission, tax policies, etc. Hopefully, the damage to our country will cease with a change of power in 2019.
Deal Addict
Nov 9, 2013
1846 posts
630 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
Operatime wrote:
Oct 4th, 2017 11:15 am
It sounds like his goal is still to get it done fast, not to do it right. Do you think they'll have another round of consultations to make sure the second version isn't just as sloppy as the first?
Morneau mentions they will NOT extend the consultation period. I suspect they want something in place Jan 1 2018. So as you mention get it done fast, but not necessarily right.
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2006
1114 posts
174 upvotes
treva84 wrote:
Oct 4th, 2017 5:16 pm
Morneau mentions they will NOT extend the consultation period. I suspect they want something in place Jan 1 2018. So as you mention get it done fast, but not necessarily right.
If they don't do it before Dec 31, 2017 then they will have to wait for enforcement until 2019. The changes will prob come out late this month - early next
[OP]
Sr. Member
Jun 27, 2015
860 posts
64 upvotes
East York, ON
J_u_n_i_o_r_3 wrote:
Oct 4th, 2017 6:48 pm
If they don't do it before Dec 31, 2017 then they will have to wait for enforcement until 2019. The changes will prob come out late this month - early next
why would they have to wait till 2019?
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2006
1114 posts
174 upvotes
CuriousC wrote:
Oct 4th, 2017 7:46 pm
why would they have to wait till 2019?
This is not personal taxes. This is corporate taxes. If they change it mid way through peoples calendar year they cannot enforce rules as they dont know when income came in.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Jun 27, 2015
860 posts
64 upvotes
East York, ON
J_u_n_i_o_r_3 wrote:
Oct 4th, 2017 7:58 pm
This is not personal taxes. This is corporate taxes. If they change it mid way through peoples calendar year they cannot enforce rules as they dont know when income came in.
oh so you are saying end of 2018 as opposite to beginning of 2018 if they would put the law in place this year
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2006
1114 posts
174 upvotes
CuriousC wrote:
Oct 4th, 2017 8:21 pm
oh so you are saying end of 2018 as opposite to beginning of 2018 if they would put the law in place this year
If they make change before Dec 31, 2017 then it will be for calendar year 2018. If change is after Dec 31, 2017 - Dec 31, 2018 then its for 2019 calendar year.
Deal Addict
May 22, 2003
2258 posts
1017 upvotes
Vancouver
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/p ... le36497362

Sorry, have to be a member to read the article, but this line pretty sums it up: "Finance Department officials admit they are "struggling" to find a way to address concerns about the intergenerational transfer of family businesses and are hoping to get inspiration from suggestions that emerged in public consultations.

Officials have also warned that one broad policy option the department has analyzed would reduce federal tax revenues by about $1-billion a year."


So basically they're clueless...maybe they should have had consultation before putting forth the proposals???!!!
Member
Apr 14, 2015
464 posts
103 upvotes
Tsuu T'Ina, AB
Jermyzy wrote:
Oct 4th, 2017 9:04 pm
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/p ... le36497362

Sorry, have to be a member to read the article, but this line pretty sums it up: "Finance Department officials admit they are "struggling" to find a way to address concerns about the intergenerational transfer of family businesses and are hoping to get inspiration from suggestions that emerged in public consultations.

Officials have also warned that one broad policy option the department has analyzed would reduce federal tax revenues by about $1-billion a year."


So basically they're clueless...maybe they should have had consultation before putting forth the proposals???!!!
Maybe it will end up like the middle class tax cut and actually decrease tax revenue!
Deal Addict
Jan 20, 2016
1211 posts
431 upvotes
Burlington, ON
After being beaten for starting social war with their "middle class fairness" they decided to go on more guaranteed way of "gender fairness"
Conduct a gender-based analysis on finalized proposals, to ensure any changes to the tax system promote gender equity.
Gender-equal tax system? WTF? The whole "western" tax system is based on ~income, NOT a social status or gender. Are we going back to feudalism or "some animals are more equal than others" ?

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (1 member and 0 guests)

omairv