Eh-Oh-Canada-Go

bloop bloop blah
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3301 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:48 pm

This is the perfect year for this to happen for me. S was on mat leave so there is a significant wage gap for 2014. I should not have bought so much RRSPs back in mid-2014.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3302 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:49 pm

If the Conservatives weren't all douchey asshole secretive mismanaging incompetent lying cheating criminal religious whackos, I'd totally consider voting for them on this point.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53269
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1052 times
Received rep: 641 times

Post #3303 by Dog » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:09 pm

AD wrote:This is the perfect year for this to happen for me. S was on mat leave so there is a significant wage gap for 2014. I should not have bought so much RRSPs back in mid-2014.


Differ them to 2015.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3304 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:13 pm

Dog wrote:Differ them to 2015.


Good idea.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53269
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1052 times
Received rep: 641 times

Post #3305 by Dog » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:19 pm

AD wrote:Good idea.


Play around with yer numbers when preparing yer income taxes, differ rrsp contribution to 2015 as needed to get max abatement for your buck.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29438
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 201 times
Received rep: 122 times

Post #3306 by mayoradamwest » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:21 pm

Sad to see the CPC lose one of their best MPs.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3307 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:31 pm

You mean defer (to put off; postpone) right doggie? Not differ (To be dissimilar or unlike in nature, quality, amount, or form).
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38072
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #3308 by Craig » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:33 pm

If you defer, can you change your mind later and have it count against 2014? Deferring only makes sense if income splitting comes in. It's kinda risky to try that without knowing.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3309 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:34 pm

Craig wrote:If you defer, can you change your mind later and have it count against 2014? Deferring only makes sense if income splitting comes in. It's kinda risky to try that without knowing.


Income splitting is already here no?
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38072
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #3310 by Craig » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:37 pm

AD wrote:Income splitting is already here no?


It's going in the next budget, then we have an election. If anyone but the Cons win, I think it's gone.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 6775
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 251 times
Received rep: 215 times

Post #3311 by senate » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:38 pm

[CENTER]Image[/CENTER]
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3312 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:41 pm

Big#D wrote:no budget, no split.


What!?
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38072
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #3313 by Craig » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:41 pm

Although they already announced the capped version for the 2014 tax year, didn't they? I suppose that one we're stuck with, no?
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3314 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:43 pm

It is effective as of the 2014 tax year. My 2014 return is going in before the next election. So I don't see how this might be retro-actively denied. I'll get my deduction and corelative tax return way before the Cons get defeated.

I don't care for it for 2015 because my wife will be back to close to par with me. (Not quite but close).
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38072
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #3315 by Craig » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:44 pm

AD wrote:It is effective as of the 2014 tax year. My 2014 return is going in before the next election. So I don't see how this might be retro-actively denied. I'll get my deduction and corelative tax return way before the Cons get defeated.

I don't care for it for 2015 because my wife will be back to close to par with me. (Not quite but close).


Enjoy your at most $2k. You absolutely do not deserve it.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3316 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:46 pm

Craig wrote:Enjoy your at most $2k. You absolutely do not deserve it.


Thank you. It's going straight to my TSFA! Or maybe I'll go wild and make an extra mortgage payment. Whoo-wha! The endless possibilities!
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3317 by AD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:46 pm

Big#D wrote:they can't retroactively change the tax act to tax previous years' incomes (well, they probably could, but it'd be political suicide). i think whomever gets in in 2015 will have a hard enough time with changing the 2015 tax year let alone 2014.


Exactly, so what the hell were you guys arguing?
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53269
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1052 times
Received rep: 641 times

Post #3318 by Dog » Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:14 pm

AD wrote:You mean defer (to put off; postpone) right doggie? Not differ (To be dissimilar or unlike in nature, quality, amount, or form).


Yes.

Craig wrote:If you defer, can you change your mind later and have it count against 2014? Deferring only makes sense if income splitting comes in. It's kinda risky to try that without knowing.


You make the election when you are preparing your 2014 return. Simply play with the numbers to get optimum result. I would assume it's gone for 2015 in planning (ie. The deferred deduction would go on marginal rates without income splitting) as 2015 returns are post election and the libs will surely scrap it. So, it's up in the air for 2015.

Craig wrote:Although they already announced the capped version for the 2014 tax year, didn't they? I suppose that one we're stuck with, no?


Yes.

Craig wrote:Enjoy your at most $2k. You absolutely do not deserve it.


The difference between using it all in 2014 and deferring it to 2015 is minimal. Few hundred bucks at most. Banana's splitting hairs. I like that.
User avatar
Transplanted Caper
Posts: 16034
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:04 pm
Has given rep: 54 times
Received rep: 149 times

Post #3319 by Transplanted Caper » Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:12 pm

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/house-spending-watchdog-agrees-to-send-bills-to-ndp-mps-for-satellite-office-costs

A large group of NDP MPs will soon be getting big bills from the House of Commons for money they funnelled from their office budgets to pay for staff in the party’s so-called satellite offices in Quebec.

The Board of Internal Economy met Tuesday and agreed to tell House administrators to invoice a number of MPs for “inappropriate use of parliamentary resources” related to staff who were stationed in party offices in downtown Montreal and Quebec City.

Although the staff members worked outside of the Parliament precinct and were not stationed in MP constituency offices, the NDP pooled contributions from the party’s 59 Quebec MPs’ office budgets to pay their salaries.

The board found last year this constituted a violation of bylaws governing the use of MP budgets and asked the House to calculate how much each MP will be required to repay. That figure was presented to the board on Tuesday a meeting held, like all of its meetings, behind closed doors.

The House will now try to collect on this debt.


Image
AD wrote:Fucking Caper.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53269
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1052 times
Received rep: 641 times

Post #3320 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:14 am

Quebec raised their provincial sales tax by the same amount as the GST cut. It was effectively a fiscal transfer from Ottawa to Quebec. Other provinces (ie. Ontario) should do the same.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67309
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 315 times
Received rep: 387 times

Post #3321 by AD » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:21 am

I think they can. And if they can't, it shouldn't be that difficult to deal with Ottawa on this issue.
User avatar
Puck
Registered Broad
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:26 am
Has given rep: 4 times
Received rep: 1 time

Post #3322 by Puck » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:47 am

Thomas Malthus wrote:....Harper's approach is simply to treat all deficits as bad and he should know better as an economist.

Best cutting one-liner last week came from Liberal MP John McCallum discussing the new JTF2 mission: "We are still not sure if Harper is a real economist but we are sure he is not a General."
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53269
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1052 times
Received rep: 641 times

Post #3323 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:59 am

Big#D wrote:I agree with both points that the structural deficit is small and that deficits in and of themselves aren't bad. My issue, which it appears you agree with it, is that there was no need for creating one other than to appease the oil lovers out west.

Also Stevie PM has shown time and time again that he's a shitty economist... and fiscal manager. He's a savvy politician and a decent piano player though and that's what gets him by (with a little help from his friends).


CPC have been a hopelessly special interest focused government -with a populist tone.
User avatar
Puck
Registered Broad
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:26 am
Has given rep: 4 times
Received rep: 1 time

Post #3324 by Puck » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:07 am

The current budget deficit might be small but there is a much bigger funding deficit. You can create the short run illusion that the deficit is small or balanced by putting off procurements, infrastucture investments and cutting programs but those items come back down the road later to haunt a subsequent government. When things aren't getting done they still pile up on another balance sheet.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53269
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1052 times
Received rep: 641 times

Post #3325 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:10 am

Puck wrote:The current budget deficit might be small but there is a much bigger funding deficit. You can create the short run illusion that the deficit is small or balanced by putting off procurements, infrastucture investments and cutting programs but those items come back down the road later to haunt a subsequent government. When things aren't getting done they still pile up on another balance sheet.


Yeap. Quite a few observers and critics have pointed to this. Very short term focused/electoralist government.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38072
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #3326 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:26 am

Big#D wrote:I agree with both points that the structural deficit is small and that deficits in and of themselves aren't bad. My issue, which it appears you agree with it, is that there was no need for creating one other than to appease the oil lovers out west.

Also Stevie PM has shown time and time again that he's a shitty economist... and fiscal manager. He's a savvy politician and a decent piano player though and that's what gets him by (with a little help from his friends).


I think it was more about appeasing the doofuses in Ontario, to be honest with you. He used the GST cut to win an election. He was winning the oil lovers regardless, it was all about Ontario.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38072
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #3327 by Craig » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:35 am

While I agree that deficits aren't inherently bad and I would be alright with infrastructure spending, I don't mind eliminating the deficit either. We're in a growth period with low interest rates, this is a great time to pay down the debt a bit. Yes, the debt to GDP ratio isn't that bad, but it's still better if it's lower. If I were in charge, I'd probably do a mix of spending and debt reduction. Probably not nearly as much spending as it seems like Malthus wants though. The nice thing about a tidy little surplus and paying down the debt is it braces us pretty well to handle it when interest rates go up on our $600 billion debt.

What I absolutely would not do is look at a temporary surplus like this when things are going good and figure it's time for some marginally effective tax cuts. Harper really does enact economic policy almost entirely for political reasons.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53269
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1052 times
Received rep: 641 times

Post #3328 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:37 am

Agreed, greg. However, our surplus seems to have lasted what...15minutes? Could well have a recession in 2015.
User avatar
Puck
Registered Broad
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:26 am
Has given rep: 4 times
Received rep: 1 time

Post #3329 by Puck » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:44 am

Thomas Malthus wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. And the longer the wait for procurement and infrastructure investments, the more expensive they're going to be (ideally they should have done this shit when the dollar was strong, but at least interest rates are still low).
Also tricks like finding ingenious ways not to fund vet programs, and saving a billion, it doesn't make the problem really go away. Re-funding science programs will cost money. The CPC also did not cut many regulatory laws off the books (to avoid court challenges) they merely cut the regulators and public servants staffing those programs. If a subsequent government decides to staff again, and do the regulatory enforcement it will cost money. A lot of the programs will never come back, but some will.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 53269
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1052 times
Received rep: 641 times

Post #3330 by Dog » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:44 am

Big#D wrote:we have to wait until after march to find out if we actually have/had a deficit. for all we know, the government will run another deficit again this year (ended march 31, 2015)


They'll very likely balance it with dipping into the $3B contigency budget (ie. The contingency budget will finance income splitting).

Return to “bleetbloop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests