The "LOLCANADA" thread...again

The point i made about the deficit is true regardless of the country which is why i can make that point even if i don't live in canada nor i know canada particularly well.

Unclear why uke wanted me not to answer about factual macroeconomical claims ITT just because i don't live in Canada.

Indeed he did, back in 2015. Before the pandemic. This situation basically played itself twice. Harper also promised balanced budgets repeatedly and failed to deliver. Harper also had a big crisis (did you know he had a 55 billion dollar deficit in 2009 post recession, much bigger than today's deficit and that was in 2009 dollars?). And guess what, it is highly unlikely that Poilievre will balance the budget despite promises to do so. Just like Ford. Let's call it an across the spectrum problem.

That said, the Liberals take a different tone. They have been clear for many years now that the primary metric they are using is NOT deficit vs no deficit. It is about debt as a percentage of the gdp, and keeping our numbers nice and healthy among peer countries, which they have done despite the pandemic. This is correct.

Meh , making big deficit while the economy is strong is a very dangerous thing to do .
You shouldn’t have too and it totally destroy your ability to intervene to another big crisis.
Japan is not an envious model to follow .

And it even goes against Keynesian economic .
JT isnt 100% right on economic .

Why shouldn't grandma's cottage be taxed? Capital gains having a different tax rate is dumb altogether. Should be taxed at the same rate as any other income.

But it’s my granny ?

Trudeaus taxes almost as bad as BC that introduces a new 12% PST 2 tax

The capital gains adjust is really smart. It now aligns income, dividends, and capital gains making it neutral which to structure your business as. Previously the offset biased stock buybacks to increase capital gains.

And it does NOT count on principle residents, nor under 250,000, nor against the increased 1.25 million life time small business exemption.

Smart smart smart

Why do you think it isn't taxed as any other income?

Yes ok fine but don’t tell us it’s aiming at the top 1% of income ?
250k for something you might hold for 20-30 years is nothing shrug .
For context , Majority of doctors do more than that in less than a year in salary ….
It just aim again at middle class and retirees in general at that amount .

Make it at the very least 500k if u really aim at the “Rich’s” ?

It isn't going to affect almost all non-super-rich retirees. Most retires don't make more than 250,000 in capital gains a year unless they are super rich OR they sell a principle residence or small business, both of which are exempt. If a retiree happens to own multiple properties, makes a killing on one of their investment properties over the threshold AND they have a high retirement income (such that the capital gains counting as income comes at a high tax rate) then it can possibly affect them, but again this is describing a very well off retiree. And that person would have to pay the same tax if instead of investment properties they had bought, say, dividend stock.

0.13%. Almost all of that is the rich.

How much you think a simple duplex is worth in Canada nowadays ?
You don’t need many properties, u just need one little duplex bought 20 years ago and get killed immediately….
I’m not sure you realize how far the prices went up just in the last 10 years.
Anyone that bought a duplex/triplex or w.e 10-15 years ago will get clobbered badly .
No need to have a high income whatsoever….

Just an example and this situation is replicated in many other places :

https://www.toronto.com/news/here-s-how-...

Fwiw 250k might be ok for the little provinces in the east coast but it’s a real joke for almost everywhere else .
The new reality is 250k is nothing when It come to real estate now .
You just totally aiming the middle class .

I mean Montreal, not really a known expensive place to stay , a « median » price , not average …median(!) Is at 750k for a duplex .
Median as in half the duplex mostly own by middle class !

https://wowa.ca/marche-immobilier-montre...
Ps: and we are talking today !
As if prices won’t keep up going up in the next 10 years ???

Seriously, 250k for real estate , then u have to include salary ?
We aren’t in the early 2000 anymore , been 25 years now….
Its ridiculous .
You are directly at the core of the middle class .

Good luck trying to solve the housing crisis by building single homes , who would want to buy any kind of plex with such a low return on investment ?
And that is not even taking into account all the risk !

I love how Justin says it will only effect .13% . I swear he just makes these numbers up like his 8 out of 10 get more back than they pay or framers do not pay carbon tax

Bottom line all the experts say it will limit investment and hurt the country .
I haven’t seen one opinion piece or economist say this was a good budget

Uke can love it but it’s sad when he ignores basic math for the love of Justin

250k from salary , u make it every year and u pay taxes once !

250k from real estate takes a lot of year ,
massive investment (roof/windows replacement ,etc) to keep it liveable,
u pay taxes every year from tax properties already ,
u payed the house already with money that was already taxed from ,
u payed the rest of the mortgage with interest rates , etc.

Furthermore let’s say u make 250k in 10 years .
That represent 25k per year of income , u think it’s fair to tax it at 66% while someone winning 25k pays nothing in tax ?
About 250k in 20 years ?
Taxing it 66% of a income profit of 12,5k per year ( which amount to pay 8,25k in taxes !) makes sense ?

And I didn’t even put some value of the risk involve in buying real estate properties which usually need some kind of derive value from taking risk …

You are comparing 2 thing that are totally different .

People that think like you usually never invest a penny in their life .

FWIW I’m not necessarily against it but the baseline of 250k is a real joke if the aim is to tax the « Rich’s »….its utter hor$e$h!t !

Your welcome to just make up your own facts to believe and not PBO confirmed numbers, but nobody needs to take you seriously.

What's the point of it then? Other than the obvious, to drive away investment and put Canada/Canadians more in debt so that the Conservatives inherit an even bigger mess?

the point is to raise tax revenues, but specifically to do it in a way that causes minimal harms. The inequity between income/capital gains/ dividends always broke the basic tax principle that the different choices should be tax neutral, so it’s a sensible policy.

I liked the take of Trevor tonne who I’ve quoted here which is that this should always be done, but if you don’t want to raise tax revenue you should do this AND lower income taxes.

Well yeah, why do we need to raise tax revenues?

Can we not play the 20-stupid-questions game? You can be all roaring mad at raising taxes on the top 0.13%, but the point is that if one is going to raise taxes, this is actually a fairly sensible way to do it.

I'll go so far as make a prediction: when poilievre forms government, he probably will find some fairly small tax to cut, but it won't be undoing this one. I think this one is going to stick. Could be wrong on that, but that's my spidey sense right now.

More just everyday lies from Poilievre. Sad to see this empty fearmongering.

I am not sure other than the carbon tax what he can cut with the amount of debt Justin has amassed in his 8 years. I am sure he will cut all the consultants Justin uses and the federal workforce which is bloated under Justin .

This is probably about right. Carbon tax is revenue neutral so he can SAY he is "cutting taxes" when in reality it costs the government nothing and he is just cutting something that is mostly rebated right back to people and so at most marginal benefits. And I think you are probably also right, he will make all sorts of vague comments like "consultants" and "bloated workforce" that sound like lovely ways to magically save oodles of money without any drawbacks to services! If only! A brave courageous leader would come out clearly and say I am going to cut these services that will hurt these Canadians, as opposed to promising unspecified savings magically appearing. But Poilievre is not that type of politician.

So what you would like is a leader to make promises to be more transparent, bring clean drinking water to all in 4 years and electoral reform ..... and I could go on and on

Imagine if he actually eliminated the GST on rental projects in 2015 like he said instead of waiting till 2024

Please I know your a math professor explain this to me

Carbon tax Rebate according To Justin (A-B)=C with C always being a positive number 80 % of the time . We know the variable A which is fixed the amount of the rebate but we have no idea how they calculate B . So how can we trust that C is positive 80% of the time

Carbon Tax from the PBO (A-B) -D =C Now A is still a fixed number but C is a negative number because of D . Again we have no way to know how B and D are calculated

Exactly. Clean drinking water is an EXCELLENT example of phenomenal transparency by the Liberals. We get to see not just the tremendous progress they have made on that file, we get to see for each community precisely what the plan is, when new issues come up with were not there previously, etc. Yes, more politicians should be like Trudeau in that regard. I care more about substantial and sustained action and clear transparency towards the goal than I do binary black/white claims. One is reality, the other is election-speak.

Um, we have a PBO report for a reason. They are the ones that calculate costs and deduce that the fiscal costs for 80% of households is a net benefit. The "Apples to Nothing" comparison you love so much where they look at income reductions across the economy is not some simple formula, so unless you are some expert economist who has the ability to dive deep on how large scale economic modelling occurs, the rest of us get reports like the PBO and others who crank those numbers. I'm a math professor, not an economics professor.

This is incorrect.

We should always reward capital deployment because that is the main driver of the economy and a ton more valuable to society than simple labour input.

Risking capital needs to be rewarded, not punished unless you are a regressive society.

The capital gains tax should be no more than 10%.