Personal Finance

Trudeau going after Personal Services Corps disguised as small businesses

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 17th, 2018 2:51 pm
Member
Jul 20, 2017
485 posts
109 upvotes
sandeeS wrote:
Oct 30th, 2017 7:23 pm
LOL. and they showed on CTV how Mr Smiles answered the questions. Are you going to name them? Simple answer is Yes or No.
But being Trudeau looks like he talked for 3-4 mts. anything but No.
the standard liberal response to any unpleasant question is like this ( seen morneau on global tv)
-I would like to remind all that our government has enacted tax cuts for the middle class and enhanced the CCTB
Member
Dec 20, 2006
365 posts
10 upvotes
York
"Don't believe what politicians say let's look at what they do"

Quoted VN2000 :-)
Deal Addict
Oct 7, 2007
3638 posts
996 upvotes
None of what they are doing here seems well thought out politically or otherwise. I agree, let's see what they DO.
Deal Addict
Nov 13, 2013
1146 posts
416 upvotes
OTTAWA
choclover wrote:
Oct 29th, 2017 9:35 am
I was surprised to see a Liberal elected in the recent by-election in Quebec based on all of the negative energy and poor policy making by the Liberals since being elected. Are the Liberals going to be re-elected in 2019?
Almost certainly. Generally we associate with people who think and vote like we do so there is a tendency to not realize the current political environment and/or believe the polls are wrong. Barring a recession it will be very tough to even limit the Liberals to a minority gov't in 2019.
Deal Addict
Nov 13, 2013
1146 posts
416 upvotes
OTTAWA
itoothache wrote:
Oct 26th, 2017 3:05 pm
We should all be supporting others (neighbours and friends etc) and helping others towards to paying less tax. Our governments do good (and I believe that) but there are too many occasions where our hard earned money is wasted everywhere. If they need more they just tax more and it should not be that way. Tax system is NOT fair even if all these implementation seems or is promoted that is to make it fairer. It simply does not make it better or more simple. Individuals who have worked and lived hard should be rewarded. Our society and our taxation system discriminates against that. If everyone wants fair and justice, we should have a fixed rate for all income levels but that's not how it works of course. For example, support programs not being offered to high income families how is that fair and what justice is there? It is just fueling class war. Higher tax bracket for extra money earned, how is that fair? Stop criticizing each other and we should promote and push for more efficiency from our government.
This sounds nice but the math is simple if successful people pay less someone needs to pay more. As for inefficiencies. We had a government that was obsessed with finding them for almost 10 years and I don't think they left too many stones unturned. In the end only way to save money is to cut a service the government provides. You are probably fine with this but someone else might not be. In a democracy the public opinion gets to decide.
Member
Jul 20, 2017
485 posts
109 upvotes
fogetmylogin wrote:
Nov 1st, 2017 11:03 am
This sounds nice but the math is simple if successful people pay less someone needs to pay more. As for inefficiencies. We had a government that was obsessed with finding them for almost 10 years and I don't think they left too many stones unturned. In the end only way to save money is to cut a service the government provides. You are probably fine with this but someone else might not be. In a democracy the public opinion gets to decide.
You are right, but they did not look very hard for efficiencies
Gov should cut services.. lets enforce that budget covers should be plain paper, no images
Not sure how efficient is when they spend half a billion on a payroll system that was supposed to cost 150 mil...
Member
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
442 posts
189 upvotes
choclover wrote:
Nov 1st, 2017 10:34 am
None of what they are doing here seems well thought out politically or otherwise. I agree, let's see what they DO.
That's what happens when you rush to implement policy without first defining some clear objectives.

Tax fairness, alone, is not a clear objective. Of the policies they had planned to put in place:
  • restriction on income sprinkling
  • cancellation of RDTOH
  • limits on use of LCGE
  • preventing treatment of income as capital gains

the only one that seemed to have an objective was the restriction on income sprinkling, to prevent business owners from reducing their personal tax liability by spreading income around to immediate family.

If there was an objective for the remaining three, it wasn't communicated - even after 4 months. As a result, they were mostly rescinded/reduced.

I guess if clear objectives were a prerequisite to tax policy, we'd probably have to rewrite 70% of the ITA, starting with why we tax individuals but distribute benefits to families. They are two sides of the same coin.
Sr. Member
Apr 14, 2015
527 posts
142 upvotes
Tsuu T'Ina, AB
taxrage wrote:
Nov 1st, 2017 1:02 pm
That's what happens when you rush to implement policy without first defining some clear objectives.

Tax fairness, alone, is not a clear objective. Of the policies they had planned to put in place:
  • restriction on income sprinkling
  • cancellation of RDTOH
  • limits on use of LCGE
  • preventing treatment of income as capital gains

the only one that seemed to have an objective was the restriction on income sprinkling, to prevent business owners from reducing their personal tax liability by spreading income around to immediate family.

If there was an objective for the remaining three, it wasn't communicated - even after 4 months. As a result, they were mostly rescinded/reduced.

I guess if clear objectives were a prerequisite to tax policy, we'd probably have to rewrite 70% of the ITA, starting with why we tax individuals but distribute benefits to families. They are two sides of the same coin.
Good points. This is why a lot of people are saying it’s time for another royal commission on the tax code.
Member
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
442 posts
189 upvotes
Operatime wrote:
Nov 1st, 2017 4:41 pm
Good points. This is why a lot of people are saying it’s time for another royal commission on the tax code.
Yeah, don't get me going. There's a reason I have my Taxrage moniker, not the least of which is how taxes on a family increase as the % of the family income earned by one spouse increases...unless of course you have a $750K pension like former Nortel CEO John Roth, and able to split it right down the middle with your spouse, saving $30K in taxes.

Remind me again what the objective of that tax policy is supposed to be, other than not wanting to rile wealthy pensioners by removing it?
Deal Addict
Oct 7, 2007
3638 posts
996 upvotes
fogetmylogin wrote:
Nov 1st, 2017 10:58 am
Almost certainly. Generally we associate with people who think and vote like we do so there is a tendency to not realize the current political environment and/or believe the polls are wrong. Barring a recession it will be very tough to even limit the Liberals to a minority gov't in 2019.
Oh what a disaster that would be. I didn't vote for the Liberals but when they were elected I told myself to be open-minded about it but I have never seen such a trainwreck like this ever before.
Newbie
Oct 25, 2010
86 posts
11 upvotes
Cornwall
taxrage wrote:
Nov 1st, 2017 4:50 pm
Yeah, don't get me going. There's a reason I have my Taxrage moniker, not the least of which is how taxes on a family increase as the % of the family income earned by one spouse increases...
Yep... I have a good job and make decent money. My wife doesn't.... why should we pay more tax than a couple with more balanced incomes?
Member
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
442 posts
189 upvotes
BrianV wrote:
Nov 2nd, 2017 1:32 pm
Yep... I have a good job and make decent money. My wife doesn't.... why should we pay more tax than a couple with more balanced incomes?
From www.liberal.ca:
We will cancel tax breaks and benefits for the wealthy
Hmmm, reality check time:
  1. $85K bus driver had his $2K Family Tax Cut axed by Trudeau
  2. Former Nortel CEO John Roth gets to keep splitting his $750K pension and save $30,000 in taxes annually

If we had actual tax policy objectives clearly stated somewhere, we would be able to measure whether or not the objectives are being met. The lack of such objectives means it must be okay for families like yours to pay $10K or more tax than your neighbours with the same income - but more nicely distributed - while a retiree like John Roth gets a $30K tax break.
Newbie
May 7, 2017
86 posts
35 upvotes
BrianV wrote:
Nov 2nd, 2017 1:32 pm
Yep... I have a good job and make decent money. My wife doesn't.... why should we pay more tax than a couple with more balanced incomes?
I make a decent income and don't have a wife. Why should you pay less tax than me?
Why should your colleague who has a wife who also makes a decent income pay more tax than you?

It seems reasonable that a couple who both make $50k deserve to pay less tax than a $100k earner with a stay at home wife with no kids.
I guess the argument on pension splitting is a non working spouse actually earned half of that pension. In a divorce they would get half after all. I personally don't agree with this logic and think it was cynical politics by the Cons for introducing it and Liberals for keeping it.
Jr. Member
Mar 30, 2010
100 posts
45 upvotes
Toronto
onthefence wrote:
Nov 3rd, 2017 1:24 am
I make a decent income and don't have a wife. Why should you pay less tax than me?
Why should your colleague who has a wife who also makes a decent income pay more tax than you?
Because two people are living off that income?
onthefence wrote:
Nov 3rd, 2017 1:24 am
It seems reasonable that a couple who both make $50k deserve to pay less tax than a $100k earner with a stay at home wife with no kids.
What about a couple where one makes $60K/yr and one makes $40K/yr, both working full-time? Do they deserve to pay more tax as a family than one where both people make $50K? The difference is $414 annually in Ontario, which is not huge but isn't immaterial either (ask such a family if they could use an extra $400!)

Top