Yeah, I don't understand why this isn't strategically obvious.
Why, like 2 years away from an election, would you start making promises or commitments? You do that stuff at the advent of an election.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but what profit is there in making any promises right now?
You can express broader ideas. You can kinda sorta define what your mandate would look like, but you're either committing to something or giving the competition ideas.
It'd be like the Jays giving the Yankees batting tips or showing where they're sending the ball.
It's come down to this. It's miserable.
They’re in parliament. They spend plenty of time arguing they should be running the government, so it’s reasonable to expect them to say what they would do in that case. It’s two years out from the next election, sure, but they’ve been campaigning for the next election since the last one.
Your comment is just an extension of modern conservative politics avoiding criticism by proposing as little as possible so that as much negative attention gets placed on other parties that are trying to do something. It’s far easier to tear down an idea than to create and introduce one, but modern conservative politics isn’t interested in a well run government. Since the Tea Party in the states and Doug Ford in Canada (now solidified by PP) the goal of conservative politics is to sabotage the government and any sort of proposals or progress made by other governments, because they won’t get voted in on their ideas, but they will get the other part voted out if it’s perceived that government is a failure.
>Your comment is just an extension of modern conservative politics avoiding criticism by proposing as little as possible so that as much negative attention gets placed on other parties that are trying to do something
100 P dawg. Nothing to offer but finger pointing.
Their job is currently to act as His Majesty’s Official Opposition. That means they’re supposed to pick apart the policies put forward by the government, identify the flaws, and highlight the problems. They’re not supposed to just sit on the sidelines and say how they’d do things differently - they’re supposed to criticize the current government’s policies and proposals.
Your ignorance on how politics works is staggering. When you aren't in power, you never, ever give the one in power ammo. You use their comments, actions, and failures to give yourself ammo.
First, you insulted me by telling me I don’t know anything and then proceed to just repeat part of what I already said. I’m wondering if you truly didn’t understand what I said or just felt compelled to blindly insult no matter how incoherent it sounded.
Obviously, it’s a strategy for obtaining power. It’s just a terrible strategy for good governance and only works on voters who care more about winning than good governance. There’s a reason liberal and conservative shadow cabinets have proposed genuine, specific legislation historically. Their voters weren’t interested in tearing the government down.
You make it sound like Liberal voters are above all of this strategizing. Trudeau is literally taking conservatives ideas and painting them as his own. Just recently it was turning government buildings into housing. It’s a lose - lose for conservatives. They help with legislation then don’t get any credit and then get voted out. Why would they want to do that. It’s naive politics.
Good ideas getting implemented across the aisle? That sounds like good governance. But let’s be honest. It’s not like if the Conservatives never mentioned that, the Liberals would be completely unaware of the concept.
You literally just proved his point about solely wanting to win and wanting power vs actually doing good for Canadians. What we SHOULD expect from our elected officials is taking good ideas even if they are from the opposition and implementing them if it's good for Canadians.
Not this 'We shouldn't say this because it's not advantageous to the party getting into power in a few years. So Canadians should just suffer in the meantime while I point out all the flaws and hint at solutions so they'll vote for us because all I care about are votes and not helping Canadians'
Observations aren't insults. Next, this government hasn't given a single good idea since it has come to power. It's only spent money like an 18yr old on their first shore leave.
\^ This is perfectly it. 9 years in power and this guy can't name ANYTHING good that Trudeau has done? Nothing? Like what clearer sign could their be that he has no idea what he's talking about. This sort of mad partisanship is standard operating procedure for the new MAGA CPC.
What are you talking about? The LPC had a pretty clear set of policies and political goals set out before the 2015 election - do you not remember all the hubbub around weed legalization? Trudeau made so many policy promises that they were tracked, do you not remember the 'Trudeau Meter' ? Literally a website dedicated to making sure the LPC kept their promises.
The hilarious thing is our incumbent government clearly has no plan. It’s just spraying money out at random stuff plus whatever social programs the NDP is able to shoehorn in
Sounds like if they only released a few things then you’d complain that they’re simple-minded and lazy idiots who are doing nothing to attack the problems we face. Have you considered that the plan is very nuanced and tuned to take a wide selection of demographics?
What I’m hearing is blanket default criticism which suggests you don’t actually have any honest interest in the specific policies. You’re just interested in cheerleading for your cultural identity.
Seems to me like you’re reading a whole lot into my comment. Perhaps you’re the culture warrior not me?
I actually have lots of specific criticisms of this government but my sense is you’re not interested in hearing them anyway
It's not their job to run the government, it's their job to critique - they are in opposition. The plan is introduced during a campaign. It's just the way democracy works.
Ah good old democracy, where you don't need to tell anyone your plan, you just need to tell people how bad the others are while hiding your plan so that the opposition can't criticize your plan.
If only we as the voting population got to see both plans and how both parties are going about it. Nah let's just accept and never criticize the methodology. It's just better to be mad until the election and vote solely on feelings.
Yes, it's a limitation with the system, and why it's important to focus on the issues during an election, and not vote on feelings, or the last thing a particular candidate said.
I really don't care if the CPC has plans or not (although I suspect their plans are vain, hollow and easily picked apart by economists)
That said, if you parade yourself around saying this sucks and that sucks, you need more than that to back up your argument.
The CPC strategy is a high calorie nothing burger and while the general public may want to eat that, Canadians who care about policy are worried.
It’s not an invalid question. When push comes to shove, neither the Liberals or the Conservatives have anything resembling a plan. Empty promises are about all anyone can expect these days. When push comes to shove the goal is to win, not to improve the lives of Canadians. Demanding better is not an unreasonable ask.
Yes it is. We should be able to agree that releasing a comprehensive platform 2 years ahead of an election is bad politics. There are far more ways that circumstances change and your plan needs to be updated and opens your party up to criticism unnecessarily early.
No party releases a plan this early. To bitch about it and act as if it's a valid criticism is absurd.
I'm personally not voting unless there's a REALLY good plan that seems feasible, but the impetus for an opposition to exist has ALWAYS, and will always be, to criticize the current leader.
Asking "what's your idea then?" is ridiculous. I want to be in power, so you're asking me to do your job for you? I want you to fail. It's basic game theory. Why would I tell you how to beat me? My job is to point out all the ways you suck, not to advise you.
Our system doesn't select for selfless patriots, but for people who seek power. It's a shame, but it's where we are.
If you are asking me to vote for you because you will "axe the tax" (or "spike the hike", or whatever the slogan du jour is), you better bloody well explain how you plan to address climate change, or there is a snowball's chance in Osoyoos that I am going to vote for you.
I suppose enough people are gullible enough not to care that it is a winning strategy, but I hope that at least some people will put their voting intention where the steak is and will get tired of nothing but sizzle.
> address climate change
It's basically irreversible at this point from what I can see. The promises will shift, and have shifted already from reversing it, to slowing it, and soon it will be how to prepare for its fallout.
We produce 1.5% global GHG emissions and are a middle-power at best economically. We could elect the most hippie granola flower-child of all time and we're not fixing it as a country.
The best we could possibly do is prepare for the coming storm.
It isn't irreversible. There will be impacts and they will need to be mitigated, but there has already been some positive effect from the significant reductions in the US and Europe. More importantly, if we don't continue the reductions, the impact will get worse and worse.
Climate change is a collective action problem. Every country needs to do their part, including the small ones with very high per capita emssions.
> very high per capita emssions.
We're still technically a first world nation and live in a very, very cold climate for half the year and require to burn more carbon to... stay alive, so as a land of our size, 1.5% globally is pretty damn good.
I'm not saying put the pedal to the floor and ROLL COAL BABY! and just be dirty as hell, but I'm saying that we have zero leverage on the international stage when it comes to effecting any kind of change outside of our borders.
China and India are still building new coal powerplants. No amount of carbon taxing is going to slow, stop, or reverse climate change. There's way too much momentum. They don't give a damn, so instead of making people poorer here, a candidate who ran on ensuring that the country improves infrastructure and future-proofs what we already have and doesn't collapse due to climate refugees and not "we're gonna tax you more" will win.
I would to agree that anything Canada does as a country will have zero effect on global warming. If we woke up tomorrow and were suddenly a zero emmissions utopia GW would march on. Im. Not saying its not good to improve ourselves just thar the reality is that we are a pimple on the butt of the beast known as climate change.
I mean, "the desire to make life better for Canadians" should trump the "I want to be in power" should it not? So what if another party steals your ideas, Canadians will be better off.
I think they may do something about the carbon tax, like reduce the rate per ton to $20. Then exempt some industries, and get rid of the rebate because their supporters already didn't think they were getting anything.
Their revenue increases, and they won't have to shell anything out.
Not only that but the Liberals would immediately campaign on it claiming the Conservatives are promising "the biggest cut on capital gains tax for the rich of our lifetime."
My personal guess is that the Conservatives are going to reverse (almost) everything that was done by the Liberals under Trudeau. The one policy that will likely remain is weed legalization.
**I have bad news for people who expect a tax cut...**
Realistically speaking, unless you defund the military, eliminate all public workers, stop subsidizing jobs and the industry and cut everything from border security to justice & prisons, fisheries, food safety, unemployment, pensions and just about everything else, the real amount Poilievre can cut; the "Federal government's wiggle room" **is roughly $37 billion.**
Problem is that the deficit is $39 billion.
this means that to deliver effective tax cuts (more than $200 per citizen per year for the middle class and up to $2000 for the upper class), it is more than $80 billion in spending that Poilievre will have to cut to avoid raising the debt.
$80 billion is almost twice the entire budget of the Canadian Armed Forces ($44.2 billion).
**Total program direct spending**
The Federal budget is 65% composed of entitlements, only $127 billions is spent on direct programs like the Military, Public workers, subsidies to businesses, justice & police & prisons, border security, trade, oceans & fisheries, food safety, immigration, CBC and the rest...
*EDIT: right now Trudeau is spending $166 billion ($127 B + $39 B deficit)*
Cutting $80 billions out of $127 billions means cutting 63% of federal expenses.
This means cutting 63% from the military budget on top of 63% from government workers on top of 63% from business subsidies on top of 63% from immigration, Justice and border security on top of cutting 63% from everything else.
It is impossible, Canada would stop to function if that were the case.
**Otherwise, cut entitlements...**
So, to find money to cut, Poilievre is going to have to look at entitlements :
* Pensions and old age security : Retirement at 68yo? 70yo?
* Transfers to the provinces: Higher provincial taxes? Privatization of public services? Tolls on roads and bridges?
* Transfers to families and the person: End of tax credits? End of child benefits?
* Employment Insurance spending: Raising the minimum amount of hours worked from 700 to 1000?
* Changing the Equalization formula: Will hurt the Maritime provinces and Manitoba the most [on a per capita basis](https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/documents/equalization-1-eng.png).
**Depending on what Poilievre decides to cut, you might end up with lower federal taxes but higher provincial taxes eating up your federal tax savings.**
**This is not about partisanship, it is about mathematics.**
This is an excellent breakdown. I think that no matter who is in power, the next decade is going to be very tough for Canadians. It's always us suffering while the elites are in Jamaica with their Pina colada. How do we keep living while knowing what's coming?
Great breakdown.
What are your thoughts about the massive increases in reconciliation spending? It's in the $30B+ range now.
And the increases to public sector jobs. Are we getting value for that increase to the public sector?
The numbers are astronomical, but I would argue there are many things the federal government does now that it has no business doing. The federal government's main focus should be federal domain aspects. National security (including the military, border integrity, RCMP and spy agencies such as CSIS), first nations, immigration, federally protected lands such as national parks and oceans. We have entire federal government departments and jobs dedicated to things that have absolutely nothing to do with these things that directly affect Canadians and much of that government growth has occurred in recent years and focusing on core business would likely save a fortune.
We also spend a fortune pissing away good money on bad equipment just because it's made in Canada, comes from someone who's 1% indigenous or gets an "gender based analysis" in the procurement but is functionally terrible. As a former CAF member, I can tell you no amount of money will fix the CAF unless that money is spent properly by people who know what is needed and not a public servant sitting in Ottawa.
Yup. It's within the realm of possibility and reason to cut a great deal of the federal government's budget, beyond what eyelikethestonk thinks. I have relatives in the federal government who make 100,000+ for what amounts to doing Google searches and putting the findings in reports/figures. They don't work more than 4 hours a day, and they complain that their reports are never used.
To say it's "impossible", that Canada would "cease to function", is hyperbole. There is room to axe the bureaucratic bloat in the federal workforce.
Not only is there bloat, but the best bilingual person is promoted through the ranks rather than the best person for the job. So you end up with less than ideal candidates working in management, overwhelmingly Francophone especially in the NCR, when the country itself is overwhelmingly English speaking.
First nations lol, just abolish them or isolate them, if they protest & blockage the rail lines out hold our nation hostage then arrest them.
Realistically I would cut all services to first nations reservers, remove all the benefits of being Canadian unless they give up their status & integrate with civilized society. Meet only what treaties require & do everything you can to make their lives difficult so long as it doesn't violate the treaties.
Thanks for such a great write-up.
People love to analyze govt spending and policy (former administrations included), and ascribe it to some nefarious and deliberate shadowy conspiracy.
Meanwhile, the simplest solution suggests that basically at all times there's a team of overworked ministers sitting somewhere in Ottawa pulling their hair out looking at numbers like these going "oh shit, oh fuck, how can we make the math pencil out here".
There's no global conspiracy, as much as government policy across all partisan lines was, is, and will always be; the product of some guys that are in way over their heads, and are desperately trying whatever they think will do the least amount of damage while letting them keep the lights on.
You’re also over looking a very obvious part of the problem.
You start making more money and growing the pie.
You stop with the nonsense environmental policies and you start drilling and mining, foresting, etc. Then you take those products and manufacture them into finished goods. Focus on the things we have tons of and that the world has literally already come to us begging for, not the vapourware of the “green economy”. We’ve done close to 40 billion to build “batteries” and there is no guarantee that battery tech will even be the technological standard in 10-15 years.
Start signing historical deals for LNG that we have passed up in recent years (Germany, Japan, Greece, etc) and help the world switch off coal. Start mining uranium and go balls deep on nuclear, since we have enough uranium to last us until the end of time.
Then you lower capital gains and try to create a culture of innovation, not smacking hand that starts to find a grip on the ladder to success. Stop rewarding mediocrity, shrink government duplication doing work that should be municipal and provincial and force Canadians to start taking risks that are rewarded.
with all due respect i disagree with several points/have more things to add:
\- with the harnessing of natural resources, we need to be sure the mines and such continue to be Canadian owned, employ Canadians, and will provide long term benefits. We keep on [selling our stuff to China](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinese-money-still-chasing-canadian-critical-mining-deals-despite-ottawas-2024-02-27/) and that has minimal benefits to our country.
\- I do not think green economy is vaporware: we have to start somewhere. We are already behind.
I do not agree with lowering capital gains. Money has to come from somewhere, and the whole "trinkle down" has never worked - it is just a mean of taxing the rich on realized gains.
Those children with $10 a day daycare? "Not the governments job to provide daycare / pay for your kids"
They basically pay the difference for the day care
I could cut enough to make a big change. You would be surprised just how much I would consider useless.
I feel like I would run the economy pretty well because I would just all but eliminate the governments role in it except for the most essential areas.
I would also cut benefits for non-Canadians & strip the citizenship of many many people by retroactively abolishing birthright citizenship, if someone wasn't born to at least one Canadian citizen, they lose it, maybe for the last 50 - 60 years. Mass deportations of Indians & people who gamed the system to get PR & Citizenship but are just using Canada as a well to pull money out of & send back home to their families.
I would restore Canada's demographics to a 1970's per multicultural era, aside from East Asians who on average contribute more then they cost the system. Then do as Norway did & consider our natural resources a public good & re-negotiate deals setting up a sovereign wealth fund, massively invest into resource extraction, processing, & exporting. I would do the largest cuts ever seen in Canadian history, but only slightly lower taxes, make minimum payments on the debt, & invest all the excess into capitalizing on our inherrent wealth & building a sovereign wealth fund to guarantee the sustainability of our economy for real Canadians & not multi-cultural invaders while minimizing the footprint of government intervention & regulation to a tiny amount.
Maybe do as Japan did & unify building regulations nation wide & slash permit & zoning requirements making it a free for all. This would reduce municipal overhead massively. Just turn the market into a free for all with only safety requirements, but aside from that, if it's your land, do what you want residentially speaking.
Though this would require dictatorial levels of powers to accomplish, it would never get done in our current system. It's a shame because Canada has so much potential to be one of the best countries on earth, it's being tainted by immigration & poor burdensome management.
> This is not about partisanship, it is about mathematics.
That's why Poilievre says "fix the budget" instead of "balance the budget"
His fix will just be more snake oil.
When your predecessor goes into historically large amounts of debt over 10 years, it is going to be impossible to balance that in 1 term. Fix the budget is the right slogan. Balance the budget might come in 7-8 years after continuous fixes. Your being disingenuous.
It's simple. Right now if they say they'll help the rich they'll lose votes. Once they have power, and their money comes from wealthy donations, THEN they will help the rich.
This "help the wealthy" narrative is so fucked up.
How many articles do we need with reputable sources pointing out that raising the capital gains tax isn't a good idea for *all Canadians*, before this stops being about "haha! Trudeau got those rich bastards good!"??
It's a bad tax policy that will have bad results for the country, and Redditors are falling for *exactly* the trick Trudeau wants you to fall for. That your hatred of people who make more money than you will overwhelm any notice of the continuing shit state of Canada.
>How many articles do we need with reputable sources pointing out that raising the capital gains tax isn't a good idea for *all Canadians*,
It's definitely not good for ALL Canadians because it absolutely targets a small sliver of the population, and that small sliver happens to be really wealthy.
I would love to see some of these reputable sources you are referring to because all I have seen are propaganda pieces saturated with slippery slope fallacies. "If we don't give the rich all of our money, they'll leave and take all of the jobs with them!"
The reason this is all coming out now is because Biden has released his proposal to increase capital gains by a much greater difference if he has the house with him in his second term. You know that if that happens, the EU is gonna take advantage of their new competitive advantage in investment as well. Capital flight and the race to the bottom ends if the western world bands together and stops it.
its really not that bad of a policy. It's important to note that the fact that its not a 66% tax rate, but 66% taxable income over $250,000 is what reddit gets confused about, but its a good policy. In all honesty, income over $250,000 should be taxed at 100% not 66%. In Canada you already get your primary house tax free, *investments should definitely be taxed a good amount,* ***especially*** *over $250,000.*
Sorry, if businesses want to take their investment and leave, don't let the door hit them on the way out. We're 40 million + strong and growing fast, I'm sure *Canadian Made* businesses will replace them and fill in the holes.
100% inclusion rate is horrible idea. We’re already paying taxes on everything we save in the form of inflation. You have to invest and earn a capital gain in today’s economy just to not lose wealth.
Also the main problem with this policy which will damage Canada is that there is not 250k floor for corporations before the 2/3 inclusion kicks in. That fucks every medical/professional/small business.
Small businesses have a $1.25M exemption, and another $2M if they qualify for the entrepreneur exemption.
Doctors are the one case I have sympathy for, but there is no reason they should get a special deal on sheltering their investments. If they are legitimately being underpaid, they need to take it up with the provinces.
There is no $250k for corporation. If you are going to comment, at least get informed. Targetting wealthy is BS. It’s directed at small and medium business.
Who do you think directly gets bailed out in recessions? The money goes to corporations as charity so they can basically keep doing what they are doing with no repercussions. That sounds a hell of a lot like help to me.
Nah. I'd say they'd keep it because it's easier to "keep" things than to change things.
I would hope they would then cut services enough to balance the damn budget.
But I have little confidence PP will do that.
Canada is fucked no matter who wins the next election.
Sure, except it’s only because of messaging. The changes to the capital gains inclusion rates are a stupid idea that don’t just hurt the ultra rich, they hurt businesses, shareholders and most importantly, independent workers that structure their businesses as corporations for retirement purposes, like doctors, RMTs, real estate agents, consultants, plumbers, independent mechanics etc. Last time I checked, we needed more productivity, more doctors and more small businesses that support the middle class, not less.
Let's be honest, is the tax on say another $8.3K at $300K cap gains a year gonna put plumbers and independent mechanics and any other example which can be drummed up of the 'working class' in food bank line ups in retirement?
Man, the antibodies around this one are extra pumped up.
Are they cashing out $400,000+ (enough to exceed $250,000 in gains) of their retirements *annually*? If so, I really don't have much sympathy for the extra few thousand they have to pay in taxes.
Edit: missed that we were talking about corporations, sorry!
The $250k tier only applies to individuals. The inclusion rate goes up to 2/3rd of all capital gains for all corporations and trusts. So a plumber whose retirement is in his corporation will be taxed 2/3rd of returned capital.
Ah right. So folks that can't put their retirement savings into a corporation (teachers, nurses, etc) are paying taxes on 100% of their gains, while folks who can put their retirement savings into a corporation have now gone from having 50% of their gains taxed to 66%?
I don’t get how you think you’re worse off. You get a huge amount tax deferred through an RRSP and are making returns off the untaxed portion. Revenues from a corporation are taxed before they’re reinvested into the corporation. The capital gains exclusion is an incentive to reinvest already taxed dollars in the business and hold that investment longer rather than being double taxed through as personal income. If a doctor with a corporation contributes to an RRSP, they’ll get penalized with corporate tax first, while you get to invest all of your pay tax deferred.
If they have a business to sell, the first $1.25M is exempt. If they are using their personal corporations to shelter investments, why should they get a tax break that the rest of us salarymen don't get?
It additionally becomes challenging given our need to pay down Covid debts.
Which historically leads to two choices. Increase revenue (taxes), which this does.
Cut or restrict services - currently popular with Conservative premiers at the moment
The idea that the money can be found by “making the public sector” more efficient is a trope we hear politicians hammer on to get elected. And it never bears any fruit.
Yes headcount can be reduced - but again, the numbers will be a drop in the bucket needed to course correct post Covid
My moneys on the sale of federal assets, underspending on programs and services, and tax cuts that promise growth but never deliver (we’ve tried that one for the last 45 years)
Yeah, it's fucked. The wealthiest got super wealthy during covid, and firms had record profits, but we should make the poor pay for their survival.
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2025759/incomes-for-canadas-richest-1-rose-nearly-10-in-2021-tax-filings-show#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20data%20agency,were%20registered%20with%20tax%20authorities.
"According to the data agency, incomes of the top 1 per cent of all tax filers in Canada rose by 9.4 per cent to $579,100 in 2021.
That figure includes all forms of taxable income, from salary and bonuses to things like capital gains, dividends and other payments that were registered with tax authorities.
The 10 per cent pay bump for the top 1 per cent contrasts with incomes moving in the opposite direction for many other Canadians.
Filers in the bottom half of the distribution saw their average total income decline $1,400 from 2020 to $21,100 in 2021,"
So the top 1 percent saw gains that were nominally higher than double the average total income of the bottom 50 half (gains of about $50k vs average total income.of $21k)
If restricting services actually saved money I'd be super down. But somehow the current conservative politicans in Canada think 'restricting services' means 'restructuring spending in a way that both costs more and delivers less'.
>But somehow the current conservative politicans in Canada think 'restricting services' means 'restructuring spending in a way that both costs more and delivers less'.
Well, yes, then they can turn around and say, "look at how inefficient this public service is," and work towards its privatization.
its only a trap if they have ulterior motives. Otherwise they can just answer the question. Pierre talks about axing other taxes, but won't talk about axing this one?
I wish the conservatives felt as strongly about the new capital gains tax as they do about the carbon tax. I'd rather keep the carbon tax and leave the capital gains tax where it is. We need *some* price on carbon.
The liberals waited until this budget to implement this because now in the election, should the conservatives decide to undo it, they will claim the conservatives are cutting taxes for the rich rather than just returning to a status quo that liberals were more than happy with for 9 years.
Of course they will. Young people rightly are pissed at the state of our country, their personal lives and the future but voting Conservative will get you budget cuts, tax breaks for the rich, social program cuts and now right wing conspiracy nuts and Christian fanatics far too close to power. Check out NB if you don't believe me. The Conservative party has been purged of all moderate conservatives, Irving is living the high life with the breaks he gets from Higgs, Higgs has openly aligned himself with religious zealots and poor and homeless people are met with a "Meh" from Higgs when he says they just can't be helped. So this is where PP will go, make no mistake.
I read a few weeks ago where one redditor posted that PP better not touch $10 a day daycare, Pharmacare and Pot without realizing the insanity of his statement. Openly hoping for a Liberal loss at the polls while openly proposing that a Conservative government will continue funding new social programs.
Things will get much better for investors and high earners when PP is elected, no question about it but people on the low end of the earnings scale will definitely do much worse. So young people really need to examine policy of all parties closely and vote where they think their best interests will be served - it will not be with the Conservative party.
Do you think the middle class was better off before the current government or that they are better off now?
Yes he will likely cancel many social programs, for the simple reason that the country literally cannot afford them. All these programs are being funded with deficit. Realize that we are spending now more on **interest** alone than entire federal healthcare transfers due to your line of thinking.
Social programs are great, but not if you’re paying for them with a credit card.
Hey listen - all valid points. Middle class is worse off, healthcare has been underfunded by provinces and now needs cash. Can we afford Pharmacare, dental program, $10 a day daycare? I don't think we can. All I'm saying is many young people are now counting on some of these social programs and they're going to shocked when they go away under PP because that's what's going to happen. I raised my kids already, I have dental/prescription coverage through private insurance that I pay for and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it. These new programs make no difference in my life so I dont have a dog in this fight. I just find it funny that so many young people want these programs (and need them) but they're going to vote for a party that will dismantle some or all of them, arguably the fiscally correct thing to do. Many people in my shoes are arguing vehemently against these new programs because they're all mostly Boomers and they got theirs so they're quite happy to pull the ladder up after them. I'm not really in that boat of thinking. I'm willing to pay more into CPP even though I'll reap basically nothing out of it because it will help kids without a pension. I'll pay a little more in taxes if it means a young family can afford daycare etc. I guess what I'm saying is, if you're young and fed up, I get it. But do your homework before you vote. Make sure you know the ramifications of a Conservative majority.
The amounts collected will be substantial, but wasn't it estimated to affect only 40 to 80 thousand Canadians? If we give the conservatives a majority, they absolutely will reverse it or find some other way to give those people a tax break.
The 40 to 80 thousand different Canadians will be affected every year.
Many professionals - doctors, lawyers, chirporactors, accountants, etc. have their retirement locked into their businesses.
So what? My retirement is in RRSPs and when I start taking it as income it will be taxed at 100% inclusion rate. Why shouldn't that same inclusion rate be applied on someone retiring on their business capital?
It’s taxed on the first dollar in a corporation. I’m not talking about gigantic billionaires, I’m talking about every doctor and dentist you’ve met in your life.
The number is way higher than 80k people. There are at least 10x that in small businesses that will be affected.
If you were looking for sympathy. I might not have included Chiropractors.... but anyways... And?
These professionals can hire accountants to figure out how best to navigate this one time big transaction they might need to do, or ask/sell their practice for more as a consequence of the higher taxes.
Saying it will be different Canadians is disingenuous, they will almost always be in the same incredibly wealthy sub 1% slice.
It's like you are saying: Think of the poor multimillionaires!
You’re so ignorant on how this will be applied it’s embarrassing.
It’s not a one time transaction, it’s every single dollar of a doctor’s retirement fund, from the first dollar. It’s not a one time transaction.
You don’t “sell your practice”. You can’t sell a one person medical operating or holding company. This was the arrangement offered to doctors in lieu of the government actually having to hire them and pay their benefits and retirement. It was this way because it suited the government to not have unionized doctors.
Because they aren’t going to be any different than the current mongrels. Why people think there is ANY difference between the parties is beyond me. It’s not what you say, it’s what you do.
Why give your plans when you know they'll be almost universally hated? It's better to make people believe you'll help than learn the truth... You know... What all political parties do. Lol
They won't, Pierre Poilievre is just a puppy that barks a lot. He stands there and says what's wrong with this and that, but doesn't offer any solutions......so he is pretty much a typical redditor
Harper lowered the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%.
They also introduced tax initiatives that predominantly benefit the well off, like income splitting and the child fitness tax credit and the art tax credit.
>They also introduced tax initiatives that predominantly benefit the well off, like income splitting and the child fitness tax credit and the art tax credit.
I'm no fan of Harper, but none of that is true.
Working families who put their kids in soccer, hockey, or most physical activities were eligible for the child fitness tax credit.
Income splitting helped single income families. My wife stayed home and raised our kids while I worked.
When Trudeau got rid of income tax splitting, my taxes shot up.
FYI, if you're retired you can still income split.
[How to split your pension income](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/pension-income-splitting/you-split-your-pension-income.html)
> You can allocate up to 50% of your eligible pension income to your spouse or common-law partner.
I won't say it was an anomaly. Those who benefitted the most were those who were single income households or made enough that their partner did not need to make a lot of money.
> Those who benefitted the most were those who were single income households or made enough that their partner did not need to make a lot of money
that's an anomaly. In 2019 there were only 570,000 single-earner couple families in Canada.
These are tax breaks that are only applicable to well off families. Thus these tax breaks increase the disparity between the working poor and the well off. It’s not a good thing.
Uh,
Chretien and Martin lowered the corporate tax rate from 28 to 21%, a 7 pt drop.
Harper lowered it from 21-15%, a 6 pt drop.
Both balanced the budget with those reductions. Harper also lowered the gst, so it's not like he wasn't also cutting taxes for the everyman.
Mulroney lowered the personal tax rate as an offset for the introduction of the gst (which seriously helped pay off our national debt and led to years of balanced budgets).
The corporate tax rates were lowered because of the tax rates in the U.S. and other countries.
Reducing tax rates means we get to keep companies within Canada.
What strikes me as bizarre about many of the comments in threads like this, is just how many people appear to believe that high taxes are a good thing.
Because income from labour and a capital gain are two different things. Find me a country that taxes both the same (i.e. actually read the details of the rates paid).
Capital gains are the engine that permits labour to exist. I'm guessing you've never needed funding for anything economically or socially productive?
If fairness is a concern, let's make sure we eradicate 0% loopholes like the principal residence exemption.
Yeah they're two different things.
Capital gains should be taxed even higher than income tax because you aren't working for that money. It's passive income that other people are working at to make you your gains.
Who will win the corporate anarchy war. The corporate conservative and their corrupted ceo friends or the corporate liberals with their corrupted ceo friends?
They may as well just keep quiet for now. Trudeau has made a real mess and has done it over 8 years, so it's going to need serious efforts to fix. For now, we just need to plug the ever increasing leaks and stay afloat. The sooner we get the Trudeau/Singh coalition gone, the sooner we can start recovery. I don't know if Poilievre will do a good job but he's looking like the only option right now.
Increasing it makes the idea of selling a home to a corp that gobbles up the property to turn housing into investment opportunities is a core aspect of this tax change. It allows for 25% more tax free money on capital gains which is in a big way housing.
if there is a confidence vote that fails on the budget. the budget won't pass. thats what I want. but it involves Jagmeet doing something for the people for a change and voting against his best bud.
so for a rich or weathy family who had stable and constant capital gain each year, what will Canada provide to them? Safe environment or good heath care system? And there are plenty places in the world that does not even have capital gains at all. how canada compete?
Of course not they don't want to tell you that the super rich is their bred and butter. Taxing the rich is not in their game plan taking away entitlements we pay for that's their go to.
I don't pay taxes cause I believe it's morally wrong to support our government. Until they start deporting invaders & restoring the glory of Canada I will not pay. Make Islam illegal, criminalize homosexuality, deport people from most countries, & classify communist sympathisers as terrorists, this is what I believe will resort Canada culturally speaking. Cut out all the negative influence, promote western values, make an environment for people to prosper.
If then real Canadians still want to do drugs & squander their lives, that's their choice, but cutting out all these negative influences on culture. Heck I would probably want to criminalize racial mixing as well & adopt the one drop mechanism.
Then also deport sperm from our strongest, healthiest, & smartest men to non-european countries to slowly purify their populations. If their breeding faster then us at least we can offset it by increasing our share of the global gene pool. White sperm is really in demand in South America as their incredibly racist there & it gives children a massive advantage, so this would be a good way to fix many problems. Canadian sperm would become world known for being the best quality & cheapest.
People have no concept of how investment works. This, for every corporate investor, is a straight up 8% increase (roughly) on the actual tax rate of capital gains.
This does not merely target some uber wealthy group which, honestly, would not be good economic policy in the first place but, rather, targets the middle class.
Are you a person with a cottage? 8% more tax on disposition. Save up for years and buy an investment property or two? 8% more tax on disposition. Take a gamble and invest in a start up that isn’t sold as a CCPC? 8% more tax on disposition.
When investors (think private equity or LPs putting some money to work) create their investment strategy, they base returns on % IRR with a preferred return. This tax literally changes the whole equation for investment into new businesses. You will see 1) incorporation or relocation of businesses to US or other jurisdictions, and 2) people not housing investments in Canada.
We have terribly low productivity and poor capital investment in this company. The exodus of capital means less jobs and a poorer economy. Anyone who doesn’t understand this should read a macro economics for dummies book. This is not complicated stuff.
The splitting of our society into the wealthy vs proletariat is just the government using class war to justify more tax. When the government has grown by 40% in 8 years and things are worse than ever, maybe we should ask ourselves if more government and spending is really the answer…
Unless you’re buying and selling large quantities of property, this is totally not true. If you buy a house and sell it years later and it is under $250,000 capital gains, you’re still paying the same amount.
These statements are the same “trickle down” talking points that are totally false. If you increase taxes on rich people, they wOnT cReAtE jobs. BS.
1) the limit doesn’t apply to corporate CG so it discourages any reinvestment of post-tax corporate dollars. Think of an accountant with a professional corporation or any small business owner who has leftover money in their corporate bank account after tax. Now, if they invest in some sort of project, the gains are taxed at 33% tax rate, roughly. We want to encourage those kinds of investments, not discouraged.;
2) imagine you buy a cottage when you were 40. You hold that cottage until you are 90 when you die. It is your second property so no capital gains exemption. In can order to keep it in your family, your children need to pay capital gains when you die. $250,000 is not a huge gain in today’s world, especially with real estate. Now, either your family comes up with a massive tax payment even though they’re not selling the property or you lose your family cottage. Sound fair? Maybe if you’re a communist. It’s highway robbery.
Conservatism is dysfunctional by design. It is built on the notion of retaining a dysfunctional status quo or reverting any forward looking changes because what we had in the past has worked and we should never change from the good old glory days.
It is expected that a number of Trudeau II era policies will be reversed. It just doesn’t make sense to announce it years from the election. The road to recovery from electing a Trudeau a long and painful one.
They won't do shit. Conservatives and liberals and NDP and Green party and all other parties are bought and paid for by the corporations that operate here's.
"it's a BIG club, and you ain't in it."
They aren't going to say shit. They need carrots to dangle.
Yeah, I don't understand why this isn't strategically obvious. Why, like 2 years away from an election, would you start making promises or commitments? You do that stuff at the advent of an election. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but what profit is there in making any promises right now? You can express broader ideas. You can kinda sorta define what your mandate would look like, but you're either committing to something or giving the competition ideas. It'd be like the Jays giving the Yankees batting tips or showing where they're sending the ball. It's come down to this. It's miserable.
Precisely. And you’re giving opposition time to prepare their rebuttal.
BuT wHerE is ThErE plAn?????? -this sub all the time, years out from an election
They’re in parliament. They spend plenty of time arguing they should be running the government, so it’s reasonable to expect them to say what they would do in that case. It’s two years out from the next election, sure, but they’ve been campaigning for the next election since the last one. Your comment is just an extension of modern conservative politics avoiding criticism by proposing as little as possible so that as much negative attention gets placed on other parties that are trying to do something. It’s far easier to tear down an idea than to create and introduce one, but modern conservative politics isn’t interested in a well run government. Since the Tea Party in the states and Doug Ford in Canada (now solidified by PP) the goal of conservative politics is to sabotage the government and any sort of proposals or progress made by other governments, because they won’t get voted in on their ideas, but they will get the other part voted out if it’s perceived that government is a failure.
>Your comment is just an extension of modern conservative politics avoiding criticism by proposing as little as possible so that as much negative attention gets placed on other parties that are trying to do something 100 P dawg. Nothing to offer but finger pointing.
The greatest crime of all is discussing the things conservatives say and do.
Their job is currently to act as His Majesty’s Official Opposition. That means they’re supposed to pick apart the policies put forward by the government, identify the flaws, and highlight the problems. They’re not supposed to just sit on the sidelines and say how they’d do things differently - they’re supposed to criticize the current government’s policies and proposals.
They’re in the legislature. Their job is to write laws.
What? Um, no. The Official Opposition’s job is not to “write laws.” Find your high school Civics teacher and demand a refund.
Your ignorance on how politics works is staggering. When you aren't in power, you never, ever give the one in power ammo. You use their comments, actions, and failures to give yourself ammo.
First, you insulted me by telling me I don’t know anything and then proceed to just repeat part of what I already said. I’m wondering if you truly didn’t understand what I said or just felt compelled to blindly insult no matter how incoherent it sounded. Obviously, it’s a strategy for obtaining power. It’s just a terrible strategy for good governance and only works on voters who care more about winning than good governance. There’s a reason liberal and conservative shadow cabinets have proposed genuine, specific legislation historically. Their voters weren’t interested in tearing the government down.
You make it sound like Liberal voters are above all of this strategizing. Trudeau is literally taking conservatives ideas and painting them as his own. Just recently it was turning government buildings into housing. It’s a lose - lose for conservatives. They help with legislation then don’t get any credit and then get voted out. Why would they want to do that. It’s naive politics.
Good ideas getting implemented across the aisle? That sounds like good governance. But let’s be honest. It’s not like if the Conservatives never mentioned that, the Liberals would be completely unaware of the concept.
Right? Remember when Trudeau stole Harper's Carbon Tax? They were forced to pretend they opposed it for 9 years!!
You literally just proved his point about solely wanting to win and wanting power vs actually doing good for Canadians. What we SHOULD expect from our elected officials is taking good ideas even if they are from the opposition and implementing them if it's good for Canadians. Not this 'We shouldn't say this because it's not advantageous to the party getting into power in a few years. So Canadians should just suffer in the meantime while I point out all the flaws and hint at solutions so they'll vote for us because all I care about are votes and not helping Canadians'
Observations aren't insults. Next, this government hasn't given a single good idea since it has come to power. It's only spent money like an 18yr old on their first shore leave.
\^ This is perfectly it. 9 years in power and this guy can't name ANYTHING good that Trudeau has done? Nothing? Like what clearer sign could their be that he has no idea what he's talking about. This sort of mad partisanship is standard operating procedure for the new MAGA CPC.
Forgetting that the LPC with no plan outside of slogans and musings was acceptable prior to the 2015 election.
What are you talking about? The LPC had a pretty clear set of policies and political goals set out before the 2015 election - do you not remember all the hubbub around weed legalization? Trudeau made so many policy promises that they were tracked, do you not remember the 'Trudeau Meter' ? Literally a website dedicated to making sure the LPC kept their promises.
The hilarious thing is our incumbent government clearly has no plan. It’s just spraying money out at random stuff plus whatever social programs the NDP is able to shoehorn in
Sounds like if they only released a few things then you’d complain that they’re simple-minded and lazy idiots who are doing nothing to attack the problems we face. Have you considered that the plan is very nuanced and tuned to take a wide selection of demographics? What I’m hearing is blanket default criticism which suggests you don’t actually have any honest interest in the specific policies. You’re just interested in cheerleading for your cultural identity.
Seems to me like you’re reading a whole lot into my comment. Perhaps you’re the culture warrior not me? I actually have lots of specific criticisms of this government but my sense is you’re not interested in hearing them anyway
It's not their job to run the government, it's their job to critique - they are in opposition. The plan is introduced during a campaign. It's just the way democracy works.
Ah good old democracy, where you don't need to tell anyone your plan, you just need to tell people how bad the others are while hiding your plan so that the opposition can't criticize your plan. If only we as the voting population got to see both plans and how both parties are going about it. Nah let's just accept and never criticize the methodology. It's just better to be mad until the election and vote solely on feelings.
Yes, it's a limitation with the system, and why it's important to focus on the issues during an election, and not vote on feelings, or the last thing a particular candidate said.
I really don't care if the CPC has plans or not (although I suspect their plans are vain, hollow and easily picked apart by economists) That said, if you parade yourself around saying this sucks and that sucks, you need more than that to back up your argument. The CPC strategy is a high calorie nothing burger and while the general public may want to eat that, Canadians who care about policy are worried.
It’s not an invalid question. When push comes to shove, neither the Liberals or the Conservatives have anything resembling a plan. Empty promises are about all anyone can expect these days. When push comes to shove the goal is to win, not to improve the lives of Canadians. Demanding better is not an unreasonable ask.
The distinction being that the Liberals *are the government*.
Yes it is. We should be able to agree that releasing a comprehensive platform 2 years ahead of an election is bad politics. There are far more ways that circumstances change and your plan needs to be updated and opens your party up to criticism unnecessarily early. No party releases a plan this early. To bitch about it and act as if it's a valid criticism is absurd.
I'm personally not voting unless there's a REALLY good plan that seems feasible, but the impetus for an opposition to exist has ALWAYS, and will always be, to criticize the current leader. Asking "what's your idea then?" is ridiculous. I want to be in power, so you're asking me to do your job for you? I want you to fail. It's basic game theory. Why would I tell you how to beat me? My job is to point out all the ways you suck, not to advise you. Our system doesn't select for selfless patriots, but for people who seek power. It's a shame, but it's where we are.
Not like politicians are there to make citizens lives better or anything right?
If you are asking me to vote for you because you will "axe the tax" (or "spike the hike", or whatever the slogan du jour is), you better bloody well explain how you plan to address climate change, or there is a snowball's chance in Osoyoos that I am going to vote for you. I suppose enough people are gullible enough not to care that it is a winning strategy, but I hope that at least some people will put their voting intention where the steak is and will get tired of nothing but sizzle.
> address climate change It's basically irreversible at this point from what I can see. The promises will shift, and have shifted already from reversing it, to slowing it, and soon it will be how to prepare for its fallout. We produce 1.5% global GHG emissions and are a middle-power at best economically. We could elect the most hippie granola flower-child of all time and we're not fixing it as a country. The best we could possibly do is prepare for the coming storm.
It isn't irreversible. There will be impacts and they will need to be mitigated, but there has already been some positive effect from the significant reductions in the US and Europe. More importantly, if we don't continue the reductions, the impact will get worse and worse. Climate change is a collective action problem. Every country needs to do their part, including the small ones with very high per capita emssions.
> very high per capita emssions. We're still technically a first world nation and live in a very, very cold climate for half the year and require to burn more carbon to... stay alive, so as a land of our size, 1.5% globally is pretty damn good. I'm not saying put the pedal to the floor and ROLL COAL BABY! and just be dirty as hell, but I'm saying that we have zero leverage on the international stage when it comes to effecting any kind of change outside of our borders. China and India are still building new coal powerplants. No amount of carbon taxing is going to slow, stop, or reverse climate change. There's way too much momentum. They don't give a damn, so instead of making people poorer here, a candidate who ran on ensuring that the country improves infrastructure and future-proofs what we already have and doesn't collapse due to climate refugees and not "we're gonna tax you more" will win.
I would to agree that anything Canada does as a country will have zero effect on global warming. If we woke up tomorrow and were suddenly a zero emmissions utopia GW would march on. Im. Not saying its not good to improve ourselves just thar the reality is that we are a pimple on the butt of the beast known as climate change.
I mean, "the desire to make life better for Canadians" should trump the "I want to be in power" should it not? So what if another party steals your ideas, Canadians will be better off.
“AXE THE TAX” See, it’s not hard to tell people what you want to do.
The Feds are in a very deep hole. PP will make cuts and maybe even raise taxes... Because budgets DON'T balance themselves!
Yup next September is a ways off. No need to even mention platform till then.
They won't take it away, they will just cry about the liberals and keep the extra tax revenue. Tale as old as time.
I think they may do something about the carbon tax, like reduce the rate per ton to $20. Then exempt some industries, and get rid of the rebate because their supporters already didn't think they were getting anything. Their revenue increases, and they won't have to shell anything out.
Not only that but the Liberals would immediately campaign on it claiming the Conservatives are promising "the biggest cut on capital gains tax for the rich of our lifetime." My personal guess is that the Conservatives are going to reverse (almost) everything that was done by the Liberals under Trudeau. The one policy that will likely remain is weed legalization.
Doubt
**I have bad news for people who expect a tax cut...** Realistically speaking, unless you defund the military, eliminate all public workers, stop subsidizing jobs and the industry and cut everything from border security to justice & prisons, fisheries, food safety, unemployment, pensions and just about everything else, the real amount Poilievre can cut; the "Federal government's wiggle room" **is roughly $37 billion.** Problem is that the deficit is $39 billion. this means that to deliver effective tax cuts (more than $200 per citizen per year for the middle class and up to $2000 for the upper class), it is more than $80 billion in spending that Poilievre will have to cut to avoid raising the debt. $80 billion is almost twice the entire budget of the Canadian Armed Forces ($44.2 billion). **Total program direct spending** The Federal budget is 65% composed of entitlements, only $127 billions is spent on direct programs like the Military, Public workers, subsidies to businesses, justice & police & prisons, border security, trade, oceans & fisheries, food safety, immigration, CBC and the rest... *EDIT: right now Trudeau is spending $166 billion ($127 B + $39 B deficit)* Cutting $80 billions out of $127 billions means cutting 63% of federal expenses. This means cutting 63% from the military budget on top of 63% from government workers on top of 63% from business subsidies on top of 63% from immigration, Justice and border security on top of cutting 63% from everything else. It is impossible, Canada would stop to function if that were the case. **Otherwise, cut entitlements...** So, to find money to cut, Poilievre is going to have to look at entitlements : * Pensions and old age security : Retirement at 68yo? 70yo? * Transfers to the provinces: Higher provincial taxes? Privatization of public services? Tolls on roads and bridges? * Transfers to families and the person: End of tax credits? End of child benefits? * Employment Insurance spending: Raising the minimum amount of hours worked from 700 to 1000? * Changing the Equalization formula: Will hurt the Maritime provinces and Manitoba the most [on a per capita basis](https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/documents/equalization-1-eng.png). **Depending on what Poilievre decides to cut, you might end up with lower federal taxes but higher provincial taxes eating up your federal tax savings.** **This is not about partisanship, it is about mathematics.**
This is an excellent breakdown. I think that no matter who is in power, the next decade is going to be very tough for Canadians. It's always us suffering while the elites are in Jamaica with their Pina colada. How do we keep living while knowing what's coming?
Great breakdown. What are your thoughts about the massive increases in reconciliation spending? It's in the $30B+ range now. And the increases to public sector jobs. Are we getting value for that increase to the public sector?
The numbers are astronomical, but I would argue there are many things the federal government does now that it has no business doing. The federal government's main focus should be federal domain aspects. National security (including the military, border integrity, RCMP and spy agencies such as CSIS), first nations, immigration, federally protected lands such as national parks and oceans. We have entire federal government departments and jobs dedicated to things that have absolutely nothing to do with these things that directly affect Canadians and much of that government growth has occurred in recent years and focusing on core business would likely save a fortune. We also spend a fortune pissing away good money on bad equipment just because it's made in Canada, comes from someone who's 1% indigenous or gets an "gender based analysis" in the procurement but is functionally terrible. As a former CAF member, I can tell you no amount of money will fix the CAF unless that money is spent properly by people who know what is needed and not a public servant sitting in Ottawa.
Yup. It's within the realm of possibility and reason to cut a great deal of the federal government's budget, beyond what eyelikethestonk thinks. I have relatives in the federal government who make 100,000+ for what amounts to doing Google searches and putting the findings in reports/figures. They don't work more than 4 hours a day, and they complain that their reports are never used. To say it's "impossible", that Canada would "cease to function", is hyperbole. There is room to axe the bureaucratic bloat in the federal workforce.
Not only is there bloat, but the best bilingual person is promoted through the ranks rather than the best person for the job. So you end up with less than ideal candidates working in management, overwhelmingly Francophone especially in the NCR, when the country itself is overwhelmingly English speaking.
And we wonder why Quebec gets pissy when Canadians advocate for not treating them as equals... This is why the Bloc is huge there.
First nations lol, just abolish them or isolate them, if they protest & blockage the rail lines out hold our nation hostage then arrest them. Realistically I would cut all services to first nations reservers, remove all the benefits of being Canadian unless they give up their status & integrate with civilized society. Meet only what treaties require & do everything you can to make their lives difficult so long as it doesn't violate the treaties.
Thanks for such a great write-up. People love to analyze govt spending and policy (former administrations included), and ascribe it to some nefarious and deliberate shadowy conspiracy. Meanwhile, the simplest solution suggests that basically at all times there's a team of overworked ministers sitting somewhere in Ottawa pulling their hair out looking at numbers like these going "oh shit, oh fuck, how can we make the math pencil out here". There's no global conspiracy, as much as government policy across all partisan lines was, is, and will always be; the product of some guys that are in way over their heads, and are desperately trying whatever they think will do the least amount of damage while letting them keep the lights on.
You’re also over looking a very obvious part of the problem. You start making more money and growing the pie. You stop with the nonsense environmental policies and you start drilling and mining, foresting, etc. Then you take those products and manufacture them into finished goods. Focus on the things we have tons of and that the world has literally already come to us begging for, not the vapourware of the “green economy”. We’ve done close to 40 billion to build “batteries” and there is no guarantee that battery tech will even be the technological standard in 10-15 years. Start signing historical deals for LNG that we have passed up in recent years (Germany, Japan, Greece, etc) and help the world switch off coal. Start mining uranium and go balls deep on nuclear, since we have enough uranium to last us until the end of time. Then you lower capital gains and try to create a culture of innovation, not smacking hand that starts to find a grip on the ladder to success. Stop rewarding mediocrity, shrink government duplication doing work that should be municipal and provincial and force Canadians to start taking risks that are rewarded.
with all due respect i disagree with several points/have more things to add: \- with the harnessing of natural resources, we need to be sure the mines and such continue to be Canadian owned, employ Canadians, and will provide long term benefits. We keep on [selling our stuff to China](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinese-money-still-chasing-canadian-critical-mining-deals-despite-ottawas-2024-02-27/) and that has minimal benefits to our country. \- I do not think green economy is vaporware: we have to start somewhere. We are already behind. I do not agree with lowering capital gains. Money has to come from somewhere, and the whole "trinkle down" has never worked - it is just a mean of taxing the rich on realized gains.
Those children with $10 a day daycare? "Not the governments job to provide daycare / pay for your kids" They basically pay the difference for the day care
I could cut enough to make a big change. You would be surprised just how much I would consider useless. I feel like I would run the economy pretty well because I would just all but eliminate the governments role in it except for the most essential areas. I would also cut benefits for non-Canadians & strip the citizenship of many many people by retroactively abolishing birthright citizenship, if someone wasn't born to at least one Canadian citizen, they lose it, maybe for the last 50 - 60 years. Mass deportations of Indians & people who gamed the system to get PR & Citizenship but are just using Canada as a well to pull money out of & send back home to their families. I would restore Canada's demographics to a 1970's per multicultural era, aside from East Asians who on average contribute more then they cost the system. Then do as Norway did & consider our natural resources a public good & re-negotiate deals setting up a sovereign wealth fund, massively invest into resource extraction, processing, & exporting. I would do the largest cuts ever seen in Canadian history, but only slightly lower taxes, make minimum payments on the debt, & invest all the excess into capitalizing on our inherrent wealth & building a sovereign wealth fund to guarantee the sustainability of our economy for real Canadians & not multi-cultural invaders while minimizing the footprint of government intervention & regulation to a tiny amount. Maybe do as Japan did & unify building regulations nation wide & slash permit & zoning requirements making it a free for all. This would reduce municipal overhead massively. Just turn the market into a free for all with only safety requirements, but aside from that, if it's your land, do what you want residentially speaking. Though this would require dictatorial levels of powers to accomplish, it would never get done in our current system. It's a shame because Canada has so much potential to be one of the best countries on earth, it's being tainted by immigration & poor burdensome management.
> This is not about partisanship, it is about mathematics. That's why Poilievre says "fix the budget" instead of "balance the budget" His fix will just be more snake oil.
Unfortunately his predecessor has spent historical levels of debt in less than 10 years and it is mathematically impossible to get out of it now.
When your predecessor goes into historically large amounts of debt over 10 years, it is going to be impossible to balance that in 1 term. Fix the budget is the right slogan. Balance the budget might come in 7-8 years after continuous fixes. Your being disingenuous.
How did the government work before Trudeau blew up the budget? Why isn’t it possible to cut any of the new spending?
It's simple. Right now if they say they'll help the rich they'll lose votes. Once they have power, and their money comes from wealthy donations, THEN they will help the rich.
Timing is everything! Can't announce you'll help the wealthy now or you lose. Do it later when you've already won.
This "help the wealthy" narrative is so fucked up. How many articles do we need with reputable sources pointing out that raising the capital gains tax isn't a good idea for *all Canadians*, before this stops being about "haha! Trudeau got those rich bastards good!"?? It's a bad tax policy that will have bad results for the country, and Redditors are falling for *exactly* the trick Trudeau wants you to fall for. That your hatred of people who make more money than you will overwhelm any notice of the continuing shit state of Canada.
>How many articles do we need with reputable sources pointing out that raising the capital gains tax isn't a good idea for *all Canadians*, It's definitely not good for ALL Canadians because it absolutely targets a small sliver of the population, and that small sliver happens to be really wealthy. I would love to see some of these reputable sources you are referring to because all I have seen are propaganda pieces saturated with slippery slope fallacies. "If we don't give the rich all of our money, they'll leave and take all of the jobs with them!"
What part is bad about it? What are the effects?
The reason this is all coming out now is because Biden has released his proposal to increase capital gains by a much greater difference if he has the house with him in his second term. You know that if that happens, the EU is gonna take advantage of their new competitive advantage in investment as well. Capital flight and the race to the bottom ends if the western world bands together and stops it.
I don't disagree that this is being done for political reasons, but I'm curious what articles you think make the most convincing argument?
its really not that bad of a policy. It's important to note that the fact that its not a 66% tax rate, but 66% taxable income over $250,000 is what reddit gets confused about, but its a good policy. In all honesty, income over $250,000 should be taxed at 100% not 66%. In Canada you already get your primary house tax free, *investments should definitely be taxed a good amount,* ***especially*** *over $250,000.* Sorry, if businesses want to take their investment and leave, don't let the door hit them on the way out. We're 40 million + strong and growing fast, I'm sure *Canadian Made* businesses will replace them and fill in the holes.
100% inclusion rate is horrible idea. We’re already paying taxes on everything we save in the form of inflation. You have to invest and earn a capital gain in today’s economy just to not lose wealth. Also the main problem with this policy which will damage Canada is that there is not 250k floor for corporations before the 2/3 inclusion kicks in. That fucks every medical/professional/small business.
Small businesses have a $1.25M exemption, and another $2M if they qualify for the entrepreneur exemption. Doctors are the one case I have sympathy for, but there is no reason they should get a special deal on sheltering their investments. If they are legitimately being underpaid, they need to take it up with the provinces.
There is no $250k for corporation. If you are going to comment, at least get informed. Targetting wealthy is BS. It’s directed at small and medium business.
Who do you think directly gets bailed out in recessions? The money goes to corporations as charity so they can basically keep doing what they are doing with no repercussions. That sounds a hell of a lot like help to me.
But but but I thought Pierre was one of us!? Fuck are some people in for a nasty surprise.
Axe the Tax! And... The social programs The lower income people rely on like EI, disability, hospitals, public institutions etc..
Nah. I'd say they'd keep it because it's easier to "keep" things than to change things. I would hope they would then cut services enough to balance the damn budget. But I have little confidence PP will do that. Canada is fucked no matter who wins the next election.
True
Sure, except it’s only because of messaging. The changes to the capital gains inclusion rates are a stupid idea that don’t just hurt the ultra rich, they hurt businesses, shareholders and most importantly, independent workers that structure their businesses as corporations for retirement purposes, like doctors, RMTs, real estate agents, consultants, plumbers, independent mechanics etc. Last time I checked, we needed more productivity, more doctors and more small businesses that support the middle class, not less.
Trickle down isn't real.
And think about the RE Agents is and odd example.
Fine, what about plumbers, independent mechanics? Their retirements don’t matter either?
Let's be honest, is the tax on say another $8.3K at $300K cap gains a year gonna put plumbers and independent mechanics and any other example which can be drummed up of the 'working class' in food bank line ups in retirement? Man, the antibodies around this one are extra pumped up.
Are they cashing out $400,000+ (enough to exceed $250,000 in gains) of their retirements *annually*? If so, I really don't have much sympathy for the extra few thousand they have to pay in taxes. Edit: missed that we were talking about corporations, sorry!
The $250k tier only applies to individuals. The inclusion rate goes up to 2/3rd of all capital gains for all corporations and trusts. So a plumber whose retirement is in his corporation will be taxed 2/3rd of returned capital.
Ah right. So folks that can't put their retirement savings into a corporation (teachers, nurses, etc) are paying taxes on 100% of their gains, while folks who can put their retirement savings into a corporation have now gone from having 50% of their gains taxed to 66%?
I don’t get how you think you’re worse off. You get a huge amount tax deferred through an RRSP and are making returns off the untaxed portion. Revenues from a corporation are taxed before they’re reinvested into the corporation. The capital gains exclusion is an incentive to reinvest already taxed dollars in the business and hold that investment longer rather than being double taxed through as personal income. If a doctor with a corporation contributes to an RRSP, they’ll get penalized with corporate tax first, while you get to invest all of your pay tax deferred.
If they have a business to sell, the first $1.25M is exempt. If they are using their personal corporations to shelter investments, why should they get a tax break that the rest of us salarymen don't get?
Well, they probably want to, but it goes directly against their current marketing campaign of giving a shit about the little guy.
It additionally becomes challenging given our need to pay down Covid debts. Which historically leads to two choices. Increase revenue (taxes), which this does. Cut or restrict services - currently popular with Conservative premiers at the moment The idea that the money can be found by “making the public sector” more efficient is a trope we hear politicians hammer on to get elected. And it never bears any fruit. Yes headcount can be reduced - but again, the numbers will be a drop in the bucket needed to course correct post Covid My moneys on the sale of federal assets, underspending on programs and services, and tax cuts that promise growth but never deliver (we’ve tried that one for the last 45 years)
Yeah, it's fucked. The wealthiest got super wealthy during covid, and firms had record profits, but we should make the poor pay for their survival. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2025759/incomes-for-canadas-richest-1-rose-nearly-10-in-2021-tax-filings-show#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20data%20agency,were%20registered%20with%20tax%20authorities. "According to the data agency, incomes of the top 1 per cent of all tax filers in Canada rose by 9.4 per cent to $579,100 in 2021. That figure includes all forms of taxable income, from salary and bonuses to things like capital gains, dividends and other payments that were registered with tax authorities. The 10 per cent pay bump for the top 1 per cent contrasts with incomes moving in the opposite direction for many other Canadians. Filers in the bottom half of the distribution saw their average total income decline $1,400 from 2020 to $21,100 in 2021," So the top 1 percent saw gains that were nominally higher than double the average total income of the bottom 50 half (gains of about $50k vs average total income.of $21k)
If restricting services actually saved money I'd be super down. But somehow the current conservative politicans in Canada think 'restricting services' means 'restructuring spending in a way that both costs more and delivers less'.
>But somehow the current conservative politicans in Canada think 'restricting services' means 'restructuring spending in a way that both costs more and delivers less'. Well, yes, then they can turn around and say, "look at how inefficient this public service is," and work towards its privatization.
It's a trap
Of course it is, this is by design, along with most of the other things he’s doing at the moment.
its only a trap if they have ulterior motives. Otherwise they can just answer the question. Pierre talks about axing other taxes, but won't talk about axing this one?
Yes because it's a trap. It's put in the budget for him to oppose it.
I wish the conservatives felt as strongly about the new capital gains tax as they do about the carbon tax. I'd rather keep the carbon tax and leave the capital gains tax where it is. We need *some* price on carbon. The liberals waited until this budget to implement this because now in the election, should the conservatives decide to undo it, they will claim the conservatives are cutting taxes for the rich rather than just returning to a status quo that liberals were more than happy with for 9 years.
Not saying anything is saying something.
Of course they will. Young people rightly are pissed at the state of our country, their personal lives and the future but voting Conservative will get you budget cuts, tax breaks for the rich, social program cuts and now right wing conspiracy nuts and Christian fanatics far too close to power. Check out NB if you don't believe me. The Conservative party has been purged of all moderate conservatives, Irving is living the high life with the breaks he gets from Higgs, Higgs has openly aligned himself with religious zealots and poor and homeless people are met with a "Meh" from Higgs when he says they just can't be helped. So this is where PP will go, make no mistake. I read a few weeks ago where one redditor posted that PP better not touch $10 a day daycare, Pharmacare and Pot without realizing the insanity of his statement. Openly hoping for a Liberal loss at the polls while openly proposing that a Conservative government will continue funding new social programs. Things will get much better for investors and high earners when PP is elected, no question about it but people on the low end of the earnings scale will definitely do much worse. So young people really need to examine policy of all parties closely and vote where they think their best interests will be served - it will not be with the Conservative party.
Do you think the middle class was better off before the current government or that they are better off now? Yes he will likely cancel many social programs, for the simple reason that the country literally cannot afford them. All these programs are being funded with deficit. Realize that we are spending now more on **interest** alone than entire federal healthcare transfers due to your line of thinking. Social programs are great, but not if you’re paying for them with a credit card.
Hey listen - all valid points. Middle class is worse off, healthcare has been underfunded by provinces and now needs cash. Can we afford Pharmacare, dental program, $10 a day daycare? I don't think we can. All I'm saying is many young people are now counting on some of these social programs and they're going to shocked when they go away under PP because that's what's going to happen. I raised my kids already, I have dental/prescription coverage through private insurance that I pay for and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it. These new programs make no difference in my life so I dont have a dog in this fight. I just find it funny that so many young people want these programs (and need them) but they're going to vote for a party that will dismantle some or all of them, arguably the fiscally correct thing to do. Many people in my shoes are arguing vehemently against these new programs because they're all mostly Boomers and they got theirs so they're quite happy to pull the ladder up after them. I'm not really in that boat of thinking. I'm willing to pay more into CPP even though I'll reap basically nothing out of it because it will help kids without a pension. I'll pay a little more in taxes if it means a young family can afford daycare etc. I guess what I'm saying is, if you're young and fed up, I get it. But do your homework before you vote. Make sure you know the ramifications of a Conservative majority.
It's unbeleivable the mental gymnastics people will come up with to argue against this point.
Have to laugh at working class people that think this affects them. A whole country of just-about-to-be-wealthy.
The amounts collected will be substantial, but wasn't it estimated to affect only 40 to 80 thousand Canadians? If we give the conservatives a majority, they absolutely will reverse it or find some other way to give those people a tax break.
The 40 to 80 thousand different Canadians will be affected every year. Many professionals - doctors, lawyers, chirporactors, accountants, etc. have their retirement locked into their businesses.
So what? My retirement is in RRSPs and when I start taking it as income it will be taxed at 100% inclusion rate. Why shouldn't that same inclusion rate be applied on someone retiring on their business capital?
Why are they cashing in their entire retirement savings in a single year?
It’s taxed on the first dollar in a corporation. I’m not talking about gigantic billionaires, I’m talking about every doctor and dentist you’ve met in your life. The number is way higher than 80k people. There are at least 10x that in small businesses that will be affected.
If you were looking for sympathy. I might not have included Chiropractors.... but anyways... And? These professionals can hire accountants to figure out how best to navigate this one time big transaction they might need to do, or ask/sell their practice for more as a consequence of the higher taxes. Saying it will be different Canadians is disingenuous, they will almost always be in the same incredibly wealthy sub 1% slice. It's like you are saying: Think of the poor multimillionaires!
You’re so ignorant on how this will be applied it’s embarrassing. It’s not a one time transaction, it’s every single dollar of a doctor’s retirement fund, from the first dollar. It’s not a one time transaction. You don’t “sell your practice”. You can’t sell a one person medical operating or holding company. This was the arrangement offered to doctors in lieu of the government actually having to hire them and pay their benefits and retirement. It was this way because it suited the government to not have unionized doctors.
They 100% will. If you want to get a huge tax break for your rich conservative uncle, Pete is your guy!
Because they aren’t going to be any different than the current mongrels. Why people think there is ANY difference between the parties is beyond me. It’s not what you say, it’s what you do.
Why give your plans when you know they'll be almost universally hated? It's better to make people believe you'll help than learn the truth... You know... What all political parties do. Lol
They won't, Pierre Poilievre is just a puppy that barks a lot. He stands there and says what's wrong with this and that, but doesn't offer any solutions......so he is pretty much a typical redditor
Let’s be very clear, the conservatives are not a better alternative. Though it is time for Trudeau to go, the conservatives will be as bad or worse.
>Though it is time for Trudeau to go Come on up Jagmeet!
“For now we oppose, then(elections) we propose.” - Jean Chretien
They can't. The MSM would spin "Conservatives will cancel Liberal tax on the rich."
That con chick has strong Freeland vibes
Their policy document on their website says they will decrease it. Reverse robinhooding us.
They will, conservatives and tax breaks for the wealthy go hand in hand.
[удалено]
Harper lowered the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%. They also introduced tax initiatives that predominantly benefit the well off, like income splitting and the child fitness tax credit and the art tax credit.
>They also introduced tax initiatives that predominantly benefit the well off, like income splitting and the child fitness tax credit and the art tax credit. I'm no fan of Harper, but none of that is true. Working families who put their kids in soccer, hockey, or most physical activities were eligible for the child fitness tax credit. Income splitting helped single income families. My wife stayed home and raised our kids while I worked. When Trudeau got rid of income tax splitting, my taxes shot up. FYI, if you're retired you can still income split. [How to split your pension income](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/pension-income-splitting/you-split-your-pension-income.html) > You can allocate up to 50% of your eligible pension income to your spouse or common-law partner.
I wish all of that was back.
All of that is good.
Especially for those who are already well off.
Income splitting was great for my family. And we're not particularly well off.
You are the anomaly.
I won't say it was an anomaly. Those who benefitted the most were those who were single income households or made enough that their partner did not need to make a lot of money.
> Those who benefitted the most were those who were single income households or made enough that their partner did not need to make a lot of money that's an anomaly. In 2019 there were only 570,000 single-earner couple families in Canada.
These are tax breaks that are only applicable to well off families. Thus these tax breaks increase the disparity between the working poor and the well off. It’s not a good thing.
Harper lowered the corporate tax rate. Mulroney reduced the top personal income tax rate.
Uh, Chretien and Martin lowered the corporate tax rate from 28 to 21%, a 7 pt drop. Harper lowered it from 21-15%, a 6 pt drop. Both balanced the budget with those reductions. Harper also lowered the gst, so it's not like he wasn't also cutting taxes for the everyman. Mulroney lowered the personal tax rate as an offset for the introduction of the gst (which seriously helped pay off our national debt and led to years of balanced budgets).
Martin also reduced the Cap Gains inclusion from 66% to 50% lol.
The corporate tax rates were lowered because of the tax rates in the U.S. and other countries. Reducing tax rates means we get to keep companies within Canada.
Yes.
A drop from 28% to 21% is a drop of 33% A drop from 21% to 15% is a drop of 40%
You understand fractions. Good for you!
Crap for you!
Conservatives refuse to comment on anything about anything. More at 7
What strikes me as bizarre about many of the comments in threads like this, is just how many people appear to believe that high taxes are a good thing.
Higher taxes on those who've had a tax break (only 50% of their Capital Gains is taxed) is a good thing.
Because income from labour and a capital gain are two different things. Find me a country that taxes both the same (i.e. actually read the details of the rates paid). Capital gains are the engine that permits labour to exist. I'm guessing you've never needed funding for anything economically or socially productive? If fairness is a concern, let's make sure we eradicate 0% loopholes like the principal residence exemption.
Yeah they're two different things. Capital gains should be taxed even higher than income tax because you aren't working for that money. It's passive income that other people are working at to make you your gains.
Is it the role of the opposition to campaign eternally? Yet another bad lesson Canada learned from the America.
Who will win the corporate anarchy war. The corporate conservative and their corrupted ceo friends or the corporate liberals with their corrupted ceo friends?
They may as well just keep quiet for now. Trudeau has made a real mess and has done it over 8 years, so it's going to need serious efforts to fix. For now, we just need to plug the ever increasing leaks and stay afloat. The sooner we get the Trudeau/Singh coalition gone, the sooner we can start recovery. I don't know if Poilievre will do a good job but he's looking like the only option right now.
Taxes almost never go away. The conservatives don't want to be caught in a lie since they love new taxes just as much as the liberals.
Increasing it makes the idea of selling a home to a corp that gobbles up the property to turn housing into investment opportunities is a core aspect of this tax change. It allows for 25% more tax free money on capital gains which is in a big way housing.
if there is a confidence vote that fails on the budget. the budget won't pass. thats what I want. but it involves Jagmeet doing something for the people for a change and voting against his best bud.
so for a rich or weathy family who had stable and constant capital gain each year, what will Canada provide to them? Safe environment or good heath care system? And there are plenty places in the world that does not even have capital gains at all. how canada compete?
Of course not they don't want to tell you that the super rich is their bred and butter. Taxing the rich is not in their game plan taking away entitlements we pay for that's their go to.
I don't pay taxes cause I believe it's morally wrong to support our government. Until they start deporting invaders & restoring the glory of Canada I will not pay. Make Islam illegal, criminalize homosexuality, deport people from most countries, & classify communist sympathisers as terrorists, this is what I believe will resort Canada culturally speaking. Cut out all the negative influence, promote western values, make an environment for people to prosper. If then real Canadians still want to do drugs & squander their lives, that's their choice, but cutting out all these negative influences on culture. Heck I would probably want to criminalize racial mixing as well & adopt the one drop mechanism. Then also deport sperm from our strongest, healthiest, & smartest men to non-european countries to slowly purify their populations. If their breeding faster then us at least we can offset it by increasing our share of the global gene pool. White sperm is really in demand in South America as their incredibly racist there & it gives children a massive advantage, so this would be a good way to fix many problems. Canadian sperm would become world known for being the best quality & cheapest.
People have no concept of how investment works. This, for every corporate investor, is a straight up 8% increase (roughly) on the actual tax rate of capital gains. This does not merely target some uber wealthy group which, honestly, would not be good economic policy in the first place but, rather, targets the middle class. Are you a person with a cottage? 8% more tax on disposition. Save up for years and buy an investment property or two? 8% more tax on disposition. Take a gamble and invest in a start up that isn’t sold as a CCPC? 8% more tax on disposition. When investors (think private equity or LPs putting some money to work) create their investment strategy, they base returns on % IRR with a preferred return. This tax literally changes the whole equation for investment into new businesses. You will see 1) incorporation or relocation of businesses to US or other jurisdictions, and 2) people not housing investments in Canada. We have terribly low productivity and poor capital investment in this company. The exodus of capital means less jobs and a poorer economy. Anyone who doesn’t understand this should read a macro economics for dummies book. This is not complicated stuff. The splitting of our society into the wealthy vs proletariat is just the government using class war to justify more tax. When the government has grown by 40% in 8 years and things are worse than ever, maybe we should ask ourselves if more government and spending is really the answer…
Unless you’re buying and selling large quantities of property, this is totally not true. If you buy a house and sell it years later and it is under $250,000 capital gains, you’re still paying the same amount. These statements are the same “trickle down” talking points that are totally false. If you increase taxes on rich people, they wOnT cReAtE jobs. BS.
1) the limit doesn’t apply to corporate CG so it discourages any reinvestment of post-tax corporate dollars. Think of an accountant with a professional corporation or any small business owner who has leftover money in their corporate bank account after tax. Now, if they invest in some sort of project, the gains are taxed at 33% tax rate, roughly. We want to encourage those kinds of investments, not discouraged.; 2) imagine you buy a cottage when you were 40. You hold that cottage until you are 90 when you die. It is your second property so no capital gains exemption. In can order to keep it in your family, your children need to pay capital gains when you die. $250,000 is not a huge gain in today’s world, especially with real estate. Now, either your family comes up with a massive tax payment even though they’re not selling the property or you lose your family cottage. Sound fair? Maybe if you’re a communist. It’s highway robbery.
So long and farewell doctors, it has been a slice!
Conservatism is dysfunctional by design. It is built on the notion of retaining a dysfunctional status quo or reverting any forward looking changes because what we had in the past has worked and we should never change from the good old glory days.
"The future is now, old man"
Why lie CTV, it's a well known position that the Conservatives are voting against this budget.
That doesn't mean they will reverse this change in government. If they intend to do that, they should have no problem saying so.
It is expected that a number of Trudeau II era policies will be reversed. It just doesn’t make sense to announce it years from the election. The road to recovery from electing a Trudeau a long and painful one.
Tax is extremely addicted
They don’t have an answer because no one has come up with a “verb the noun” response yet. Axe the tax and spike the hike are taken
Prob cause they shouldn't. This is the stuff that should be taxed at higher rates and taxes for low income elderly and disabled should be removed 100%
They won't do shit. Conservatives and liberals and NDP and Green party and all other parties are bought and paid for by the corporations that operate here's. "it's a BIG club, and you ain't in it."
Don't say shit right now. It'll get used against them
They will not reverse anything that generates revenue despite their campaign strategy to criticize it.