Personal Finance

Trudeau going after Personal Services Corps disguised as small businesses

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 20th, 2017 11:00 am
Deal Addict
Nov 9, 2013
1902 posts
665 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
Sebastian6300 wrote:
Oct 28th, 2017 10:24 am
last night I have seen on TVO an interview with the chief scientist of the government
This is a new position created. They explained that they spent 2 years defining what the new position should be. They talked to the governments in Israel, New Zeeland, Japan and lots of other countries ( not sure if there was travel involved)
Would be nice to have a total cost ( 10 budget covers?)
My point: they spend all this money and 2 years of consultations to define a position, but they spend 75 days trying to ram trough the small business changes.
Were is the science in the whole process? Calculations on both sides ( employees vs small business)??
My other point: Never underestimate the ability of trudeau, morneau and liberals to waste money
The Liberals generally have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Deal Addict
Oct 7, 2007
3024 posts
674 upvotes
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?
Member
Jul 20, 2017
269 posts
67 upvotes
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?
spending gets (buys) votes, cutting deficits does not...The trudeaus are popular in Quebec...after all a lot of the money is going there ( bombardier)...
Penalty Box
User avatar
Aug 23, 2006
2946 posts
186 upvotes
Jermyzy wrote:
Oct 30th, 2017 4:50 pm
Looks like it's not just Morneau taking advantage of loopholes

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/p ... e36763899/
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.
“There are some things money can’t buy, and for everything else there’s MasterCard. Well, get out your checkbooks ladies and gentlemen, because it seems like the entire liberal cabinet can be bought. TRUDEAU: I CAN’T BE BOUGHT...LMAO. Because its 2017
Member
Jul 20, 2017
269 posts
67 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
354 posts
10 upvotes
York
"Don't believe what politicians say let's look at what they do"

Quoted VN2000 :-)
Deal Addict
Oct 7, 2007
3024 posts
674 upvotes
None of what they are doing here seems well thought out politically or otherwise. I agree, let's see what they DO.
Sr. Member
Nov 13, 2013
714 posts
245 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.
Sr. Member
Nov 13, 2013
714 posts
245 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
269 posts
67 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
372 posts
174 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.
Member
Apr 14, 2015
476 posts
109 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
372 posts
174 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
3024 posts
674 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.

Top