Support for Trudeau remains high

[hobbyguy]

Good grief. The tax proposal was just a proposal for consultation.

There are Canadians out there who feel that those tax advantages have been unfairly applied. Certainly there are cases where the use of those provisions has been unfair. On the flip side there are cases where those tax advantages are needed, and have offsetting benefits.

For one example farmers, and ensuring that family ownership of farms remains possible. For another as an indirect subsidy to keep physicians on this side of the border (IF the American "system" wasn't so screwed up, that would not be as big an issue, but it is what it is.).

The family farm one is fairly easy to resolve. The physician one not quite so easy - but that is a needle that can be threaded, perhaps outside of the current taxation provisions.

Small business is actually one that can also be resolved, but it requires more work. A whole bunch of "and then whats" emerged that have to be dealt with. Perhaps the most difficult one is that where Canadians feel the tax break is fair is where the capital is active, growing a business and generating jobs. Where most Canadians feel unfair advantage is being given is where passive capital and gains is being sheltered under the provisions.

So before going all purple over the proposed changes, lets wait and see the final proposals.

In the meantime, bumper stickers are fun, but not particularly useful. Making up your mind before even seeing the end product is unproductive.

[butcher99]

If you followed the news youd know selfie boy was hiking taxes insanely on doctors, But what about paying terrorists 10 million dollars, does every country do that?

.

If you had done some research on the topic instead of just reading the news sites that support your view you would understand that they are not raising taxes on doctors. They are getting rid of a loop hole that you, unless you are a businesman making over $200,000 a year and I cannot take advantage of. The loophole allows incorporated business to split their before tax income with their family who has to do nothing to earn it. You cannot split your income and I cannot split mine. Why should a Dr. or lawyer making $250,000 or so a year be able to split theirs?

As to the terrorist comment, if that had gone to court it was believed he would have won at least $20,000,000 instead of just $10,000,000. Like it or not, the Canadian government had a responsibility to him that they did not fulfill. The Harper government ignored him.
We could argue for ages whether he was a terrorist or not. He was 15. He was indoctrinated. But that is not a topic for here. Canada did not provide basic Canadian Human rights to him. That is why he got the money. Blame the Tories.

[hobbyguy]

http://www.moneysense.ca/save/taxes/small-business-tax-proposals-ottawa/

Actually, in terms of the specific physicians case - it is a special case:

"Then in 2000, a new twist—Ontario doctors wanted a fee increase and the province had an idea. They allowed doctors with corporations to split income by being named shareholders in the corporation. So the province gave doctors the tax break and then, according to Krishna, lawyers and dentists screamed “that’s unfair” and they too were allowed to tax split with family members in the corporation. “So Ontario saved tax money and the federal government had to pick up the tab, and all the while the province thought they were brilliant,” says Krishna. “And the doctors didn’t care who paid for this, as long as they got more.”"

There is some justification for the physicians, as we have to compete with the US. Either we pay doctors more money to compete with the US, or we give them tax breaks. However, the tax break has since spun out to lawyers, dentists and more. There is no justification for that. That's the nut of the problem when politicians get clever to maintain "appearances" instead of simply dealing with the reality.

Part of the way out may be to provide a temporary "incentive" to physicians to compensate them, and then sit down with the provinces and figure out fee schedules, or alternative payment methods that would satisfy physicians concerns. No matter what, it will be a rancorous discussion - and some physicians will inevitably not like the outcome - simply because it is different (even though the same $$$).

Certainly the application of that tax break that has spun out to other less critical professions who don't need a tax break is unfair. There is little choice but to remove it. In doing so, lawyers and dentists etc. will be paying for the cost increase from higher physician recompense.

[The Green Barbarian]

If you had done some research on the topic instead of just reading the news sites that support your view you would understand that they are not raising taxes on doctors. They are getting rid of a loop hole that you, unless you are a businesman making over $200,000 a year and I cannot take advantage of. The loophole allows incorporated business to split their before tax income with their family who has to do nothing to earn it. You cannot split your income and I cannot split mine. Why should a Dr. or lawyer making $250,000 or so a year be able to split theirs?

It's a lot more complex than that. Why don't you start a small business and then walk a mile in the shoes of these people before you just arbitrarily decide that what they are doing "isn't fair". Read some news sites that don't support your view for a change and wrap your head around the reality here.

As to the terrorist comment, if that had gone to court it was believed he would have won at least $20,000,000 instead of just $10,000,000.

This is just bogus crap that you've taken from web sites that support your view.

Like it or not, the Canadian government had a responsibility to him that they did not fulfill. The Harper government ignored him.

It's not about "liking it", it's about reality. The Canadian government, as per our extremely lame Supreme Court, had a responsibility to repatriate this murdering terrorist to Canada. That was it. The Harper government didn't ignore him - that's total and complete crap. If they had ignored him, he wouldn't have been sitting in an Edmonton prison, being defended by that publicity seeking lawyer.

We could argue for ages whether he was a terrorist or not.

Not much to really argue about here.



He's a terrorist. His whole family are terrorists. They used Canada as a country of convenience to train and launch terror attacks. That's it. Nothing to argue about.

Canada did not provide basic Canadian Human rights to him. That is why he got the money. Blame the Tories.

I can see if you only read websites that support your view, you could come to this backward and wrong conclusion.

Canada did provide "basic Canadian human rights" - whatever the hell that even means. Canada repatriated him. I blame the airhead PM we have now for secretly paying him $10.5 million if taxpayer cash. What a total bonehead.

[Ka-El]

I can see if you only read websites that support your view, you could come to this backward and wrong conclusion.

I love irony

[dieseluphammerdown]

Keep discussion to the subject please don't start making it personal.

[dogspoiler]

Of course his support is high, when weed is legalized it will become higher.

[Ka-El]

Of course his support is high, when weed is legalized it will become higher.

as will his supporters

[hobbyguy]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-money/trudeau-tax-change-fact-check/article36541242/

"So if the proposals are enacted, does it mean great suffering for the "average Joe" business owner – for example, the mechanic cited by Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer cited in Question Period?

In most cases, no. By looking closely at the impacts at different income levels, it's clear these proposals were designed to hit high-net-worth individuals, not mom-and-pop shops. The reforms are impactful, but their narrow scope means the spectre of ills attributed by some opponents – business closures, mass layoffs and recession – seem exaggerated.

For high-income business owners, the combined weight of the reforms won't put them in the poorhouse or result in the failure of their businesses, but they could result in a need to rejig retirement plans and make some tradeoffs. These people often have carefully crafted plans around the existing rules, so they say the proposals feel like a slap in the face.

At the same time, it's clear there will be some effects for business owners making less than $150,000."

The biggest "rethink" will have to be around the issue then issue of selling a family business to another family member (e.g. you want to sell your business to your daughter and retire).

Other that that, and the specific issue regarding physicians (who were given tax breaks in lieu of pay), seems the proposals are not nearly as far off the mark as has been ginned up.

[The Green Barbarian]

I love irony

me too!

[Catsumi]

How many days before next election??

For once, I am looking forward to that!

[hobbyguy]

It will be interesting, but Sheer hasn't acquitted himself very well so far. Without strong opposition, and with a strong economy, Trudeau will be forgiven the occasional gaff.

All depends on whether or not:

1) Trump puts a spoke in the economic wheels (which looks possible if congress lets him)
2) How well the joint Conservative/Liberal CETA deal pans out

CETA could offset a lot of the nonsense games Trump is playing, but that remains to be seen.

In the background, China starts formalizing a new 5 year plan next week. That also could have big economic ramifications for Canada. (China is playing chess, while Trump is playing sand castles).

My guess is that the economy will be solid going into 2020, which would augur well for Trudeau.

[Catsumi]

I am going to ignore your last sentence as otherwise I might become suicidal.



Kidding !

[Queen K]

It will be interesting, but Sheer hasn't acquitted himself very well so far. Without strong opposition, and with a strong economy, Trudeau will be forgiven the occasional gaff.

All depends on whether or not:

1) Trump puts a spoke in the economic wheels (which looks possible if congress lets him)
2) How well the joint Conservative/Liberal CETA deal pans out

CETA could offset a lot of the nonsense games Trump is playing, but that remains to be seen.

In the background, China starts formalizing a new 5 year plan next week. That also could have big economic ramifications for Canada. (China is playing chess, while Trump is playing sand castles).

My guess is that the economy will be solid going into 2020, which would augur well for Trudeau.

OH GOD, I had to bold this out for all anti-Trudeau crowd which hasn't been around lately. You know who you are.

Saved if from Hobbyguy just for Rwede and Gone_Fishin'.
You're welcome guys!

[hobbyguy]

Queen - it is only a guess.

CETA - the one Harper trade agreement effort I agreed with as having solid potential got finished off and by the Liberals (given the Brexit type rhetoric that was floating around - I found that amazing). I honestly haven't a clue how good it is, but what have I have seen looks generally ok. It didn't take effect until September. So by 2020 we should be experiencing an appreciable uptick in European trade.

My expectation is that Trump will keep throwing sticks in the spokes, but possibly just a return to a bilateral agreement IF (big IF) congress votes to decertify NAFTA. Either way, trade with the US will likely decline some.

US market = 325 million people. CETA market = 500 million people (but not as easy access due to distance, and not as wealthy on average). One market gets more difficult to access, one market gets easier to access. Hopefully balances out. Meanwhile, China has plans to become 25% of the world's economy, India continues to rise (in 1600 those two represented half of the world's economy). So I see eastern Canada getting a boost from CETA and western Canada getting a boost from China/India, and all of Canada losing some from US isolationism.

Net-net ought to balance out in Canada's favor. Timing is hard to predict though.

Reading Harper's comments about NAFTA, I sort of got the sense he saw NAFTA as under threat a long time ago, and looked for CETA and possibly the TPP as ways to minimize the risks to Canada from a NAFTA collapse. I am NOT a fan of the TPP precisely because it was negotiated by US hardball. CETA seems more of a win-win, as the US is not involved (fair trade deals are easier to achieve when wages, environmental standards, etc. are similar).

So will all that work out by 2020? Just a guess that it will. Part of that is watching China fill the vacuums that Trump and crew are leaving as they retreat. Australian economists are paying much less attention to the US (whom they seem to think have gone bonkers) and much more to what China and India are up to....