scrubbedexpat091

TFSA is about the most useless program for us, wouldn't get a vote (If I could vote) from me over this program, nor would someone lose a vote for wanting to repeal it.

Liberal guy want's to lower taxes for those making something like 44k to 80 something per year, and raise taxes 2% I think the amount was for wealthier income folks.



I'd support a candidate who wanted to make access to RDSP's easier as it's one of the few savings options available to those on provincial disability that doesn't affect their disability, normal methods people can use disabled can't always access them as their disability is deducted dollar for dollar after the exemption is met leaving many disabled with no old age savings.

The provinces and CRA have different definitions and requirements for disability so being on provincial disability doesn't automatically mean you are eligible for a RDSP.


Too many segments of society for any party to appeal to everyone, when one side benefits, another may lose, part of the political game.

JonboyE

Contributions yes, that makes sense. But over a lifetime the vast majority of your TFSA will be the income and gains the fund has earned. They have not, and will not, be taxed.

Tax-free money and government benefits for the affluent. I suppose the poor can always rely on charity.

scrubbedexpat091

Unemployment may be Harper's downfall if the trend continues.

Canadian EI Claims Jump To Highest Level Since Financial Crisis

Pizzawheel

As I say for a conservative government to **** the economy is the ultimate sin- you can expect them to screw the masses and free their paymasters of the needs to pay taxes and suchlike. But you expect them to produce a functional economy.

It's like labour banning unions and abolishing the dole, or the greens dropping the tax on petrol.

We only expect you to do one thing, don't screw that up!

Steve_

The question is whether people give a crap, the Tories knew it would come up and the reality is that the main thing people care about is whether the money was paid back or not. It was, so practically it's a pretty minor thing. It's nothing compared to the sponsorship scandal.

Clearly Harper is lying, but do people really care at the end of the day, the money was paid back.

Steve_

Yes, because unlike an ISA your contribution room accumulates indefinitely, based on how long you've resided in Canada. So eventually it will be an enormous amount. This is what the NDP and Liberals are getting at.

Also the Tories are lying, I saw the figures Joe Oliver produced, Harper said it benefits people who earn median incomes, that is not what the figures show. They show the people who use it the most are 65+ with median incomes, which likely means they're rolling over their RRIF into their TFSA. So not earned income.

Personally I think the TFSA is a bit of a flawed idea, I would have preferred if they'd raised the percentage of income you can put into an RRSP. Pensions are recognized under tax treaties, trusts like the TFSA are not.

One thing is for sure, whoever wins they're going to have to cut off how far back you can go to contribute.

BristolUK

People are usually not satisfied if someone defrauds a business or employer or something and money is repaid. Or bank robbers, say, are caught and money paid back. Generally they want some further punishment as opposed to a cheery wave from the cops with an "on your way lads."

Do people feel differently when politicians are the thieves and liars?

Oakvillian

Harper has always campaigned on "integrity." Right from the sponsorship scandal onwards, he has claimed that he's cleaner than the other guys. This Duffy/Senate thing is not, and never has been, about a $90k cheque. It is, and remains, about Harper's inner circle, and Harper himself, being more concerned for public perception than for honesty. It's about political spin trumping his much-vaunted integrity. He can't have it both ways - and if the Liberal or NDP campaign machines cannot bring down Harper on this one, they really don't deserve to be in government. They have two huge sticks to beat him with: the economy is in the toilet, thanks to Harper's single-minded determination to bet everything on the oil patch. And he is a lying toad, undermining his own campaign rhetoric in the preceding three elections. That really ought to be enough to unseat him.

I've noticed that an awful lot of Harper's campaign pronouncements have been about "national security" stuff - a lot of bluster about "protecting Canadians" and other such guff. That really is a complete irrelevance: the only people who try and fight elections on foreign and security policy are those who have no other defensible platform positions (with the possible exception of GWB in 2004, but that was something of a special case). If the Libs or NDP allow the Tories to fight the election on their own invented issues, they are doomed to failure.

caretaker

The senate hearings on C-51 on CPAC made it obvious that so much was either redundant or perilously close to unconstitutional it never should have passed, but it did, which implies that a deep-rooted paranoia fuelled by events far from Canada and several acts committed by unstable homegrown "jihadis" can trump common sense quite handily. None of the party leaders has said a word about foreign policy so there's no reason to think the status quo won't be maintained no matter who is elected. Imo that's the real shame. This 90 thou is nothing, get over it and think about what really matters to Canada; who we are and where we are going within the world. The way our government interacts with all other nations defines our national identity.

Tinpusher63

Lying piece of sh*t.


Based on current testimony at the Duffy trial.

It would appear the gentleman (and I use that term extremely loosely) had the right phrase he just directed it at the wrong person. It should have been aimed at his hero Harper.

Just sayin'

Oakvillian

Here's a pretty fair (IMO) analysis of how badly Harper has damaged Canada. It's written by a Canadian, but published in the NY Times:

The Closing of the Canadian Mind. I particularly like the parting lines: "The Harper years have not been terrible; they’ve just been bland and purposeless. Mr. Harper represents the politics of willful ignorance."

Moreover, it's when he's tried to play at International Statesman that Harper has come most spectactularly undone. His relationship with Obama has been poisonous, by all accounts. He doesn't seem to have realised that, as Canadian PM, he really can't dictate to the US president what he should do. He more or less told Obama that Keystone XL should be a no-brainer, for example, and wouldn't take no for an answer - unsurprising, really, that Obama called his bluff on that one and answered precisely in the negative. His arrogance on the international stage has seriously damaged Canada's reputation abroad: snubbed by the UN on the Security Council vote; the laughing-stock of successive climate change summits; under pressure from all sides on Arctic sovereignty; isolated on Israel and, increasingly, on Iran... the list goes on.

JamesM

I saw that floating around Facebook.

This is less watered down:
The Guardian view on Canada’s elections: is the Stephen Harper era over?| Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

BristolUK

What did he say? A bit of change? $90k worth?

Pizzawheel

Both good articles chaps!

el_richo

It's no different from tax free property gains, in my opinion. Especially in Bubbly Vancouver and Toronto where people choose to "invest" in property rather than any other tax avoidable vehicle.

Unfortunately in countries such as Canada and the UK, the poor will always be *****ed over.