How Trudeauís policies have meant higher taxes for families who can least afford to p


Colpy
Conservative
+1
#1
Since being elected, the Trudeau government has repeated over and over again that it wants to help families “who are working hard to join the middle class.” Which raises an important question — has the government actually lived up to this rhetoric on personal income taxes, a key policy area where it has been particularly active?


Over the last two years, the Trudeau government has made a number of changes to federal personal income taxes, including changing tax rates and eliminating several tax credits. And what have been the overall effect of those tax changes? Higher income taxes for many families who can least afford to pay.


Consider taxpaying families with children in the bottom 20 per cent of income earners (defined as a family income below $66,44.
These families benefited little from the Trudeau government’s signature tax policy that reduced the second lowest federal tax rate from 22 to 20.5 per cent. Why? Because this rate reduction only applies to individual incomes between $45,916 and $91,831, so few families in the bottom 20 per cent received a meaningful tax cut. In fact, in many cases, these families do not have members with income high enough to benefit from the tax rate cut at all.


However, many of these same families now pay higher income taxes because the Trudeau government eliminated a series of tax credits that previously allowed them to reduce their tax burden. This includes tax credits for income splitting for couples with children, children’s fitness, public transit, education and textbooks.


As noted in a recent Fraser Institute study, once all the major tax changes are accounted for, 61 per cent (or nearly two-thirds) of the bottom 20 per cent of taxpaying families with children now pay higher income taxes — $269 more, on average.
The government will, of course, claim it has delivered on its rhetoric of helping families working hard to join the middle class, citing increased transfers through the Canada Child Benefit (CCB). Indeed, the prime minister recently implied that increasing government transfers is equivalent to cutting taxes.


But in reality, there’s a critical difference. A tax cut rewards families who work hard by allowing them to keep more of their money. In contrast, increased transfers make families more reliant on government.


Perversely, if families in the bottom 20 per cent earn more income, they will lose part of their CCB transfer because its value declines as family income rises. In other words, not only has the federal government increased taxes on the bottom 20 per cent of families with children, but it has also created circumstances where families who succeed and begin to progress get penalized through reduced CCB benefits. (The specific amount the transfer is reduced depends on a family’s income and number of children.) Simply put, raising taxes and increasing transfers will not encourage Canadian families in the bottom 20 per cent to join the middle class by working hard. Instead, history shows that it will lead to greater dependency on government.


Encouraging hard-working Canadians to join the middle class is a vitally important policy goal. Unfortunately, the Trudeau government’s tax policies run contrary to this aim.

http://business.financialpost.com/op...e-middle-class

Yep.


Liberal politicians in general are scum, the eaus are super-scum.


Simple as that.
 
Hoid
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post



As noted in a recent Fraser Institute study, once all the major tax changes are accounted for, 61 per cent (or nearly two-thirds) of the bottom 20 per cent of taxpaying families with children now pay higher income taxes — $269 more, on average.


Yep.


Liberal politicians in general are scum, the eaus are super-scum.


Simple as that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so the Frasercons are saying that increasing someone's taxes b $269 while giving them an extra $1,200 a year per child in cash is a bad deal and you are agreeing with them?

I wonder why?

I know you're not just stupid.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3
How are people going to be encouraged to work hard and upgrade their skills to move up the ladder if you coddle them like li'l baby bunnies for being poor?
 
Hoid
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

How are people going to be encouraged to work hard and upgrade their skills to move up the ladder if you coddle them like li'l baby bunnies for being poor?

you mean by lowering their taxes?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

you mean by lowering their taxes?

Yep.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+3
#6  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so the Frasercons are saying that increasing someone's taxes b $269 while giving them an extra $1,200 a year per child in cash is a bad deal and you are agreeing with them?

I wonder why?

I know you're not just stupid.

Because not everyone has kids.

Because they cancelled a number of Conservative tax credits.

Because they haven't even gotten a good start yet..........still to come, carbon taxes and payroll tax (CPP) increases. I read somewhere the Carbon Tax is expected to cost $1250 for a family of four. In the beginning, and it will just get worse.

Because when you offer tax relief, as the idiot eaus did for the vaunted "middle class" it should actually go first to the working poor.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#7
Every time they elected a liberal government ....I lost money...
Trudeau senior brought in wage and price control two months after we had signed a contract agreement for a raise, we thought we were safe from it but it was made retroactive to before our agreement and I had to reimburse the company for the extra money we received...
Martin.... well he changed the lifetime capital exemption laws just when I sold my shares in Spruce falls at a 1000% profit and I paid a bundle in tax that I wouldn't have paid otherwise...what saved me was that I had never bought RRSP,s before so I was eligible to buy a bunch that year....
Now you can quit wondering why I despise the Liberals so much
Despite them, I can live comfortably for another 25 years....
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#8
Every time they elect a government of any stripe, I lose money. Of course I'm the one filling the trough, not feeding out of it.
 
Hoid
#9
[QUOTE=Colpy;2531063]Because not everyone has kids.

/QUOTE]

the whole example is the bottom 20% with childen.

what possible difference is there between a monthly check and an annual check? There is no differnce.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
[QUOTE=Hoid;2531074]
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Because not everyone has kids.

/QUOTE]

the whole example is the bottom 20% with childen.

what possible difference is there between a monthly check and an annual check? There is no differnce.

Well, I would hope that an annual check is twelve times as big (thirteen if you follow a lunar calendar).
 
Hoid
#11
but you just finished saying that you shouldn't be babying these poor people.

this is a typical Frasercon spam piece.

no difference between income tax rebates and monthly supp payments. It's all money
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

but you just finished saying that you shouldn't be babying these poor people.

this is a typical Frasercon spam piece.

no difference between income tax rebates and monthly supp payments. It's all money

In what way is that inconsistent with what I just said? I said an annual check would be 12 times a monthly check.

Didn't say either was a good idea.

Arithmetic and policy aren't the same thing.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

but you just finished saying that you shouldn't be babying these poor people.

this is a typical Frasercon spam piece.

no difference between income tax rebates and monthly supp payments. It's all money

Frasercon , just shut your ears if you don't like the source . Eh ! I gather you spend time watching Rebel media as well .
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#14
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
+1
#15
Liberals jacked off the dad to feed the mom basically.

Most families dad will pay 1200$ more in taxes while mom will get 1200$ more in universal children benefit.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Liberals jacked off the dad to feed the mom basically.

Most families dad will pay 1200$ more in taxes while mom will get 1200$ more in universal children benefit.

  • Libs have been making waves about income splitting
  • Capping TFSA
  • Eliminating subsidies to folks (kids too) that are diabetics and require expensive insulin daily
  • Forced provincial carbon tax
  • Reduction in transfer payments
  • Increase in income taxes (personal and corp)

Many more examples can be attached to this list.

In the end, the sum that he claims will go to a select demographic, that represents only a fraction of the middle class (and low income demographic) will have fewer dollars in their pocket when all the math is done.

As the old observation goes: Gubmint makes a lot of noise when they lower taxes an amazing 0.5%, and is a lot quieter when they raise some other tax by a puny, hardly noticeable 8%
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

  • Libs have been making waves about income splitting
  • Capping TFSA
  • Eliminating subsidies to folks (kids too) that are diabetics and require expensive insulin daily
  • Forced provincial carbon tax
  • Reduction in transfer payments
  • Increase in income taxes (personal and corp)

Many more examples can be attached to this list.

In the end, the sum that he claims will go to a select demographic, that represents only a fraction of the middle class (and low income demographic) will have fewer dollars in their pocket when all the math is done.

As the old observation goes: Gubmint makes a lot of noise when they lower taxes an amazing 0.5%, and is a lot quieter when they raise some other tax by a puny, hardly noticeable 8%

He did what he said he would. I knew this was going to happen. So i voted conservative for the first time in my life
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#18
He did say that so there's no faulting him on that.

The point is that all of this wonderful benefit that some folks were going on about are negated (and then some) by the actions he took.... this is 1 step forward and 10 steps back for the very people that he claims to want to help
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

He did say that so there's no faulting him on that.

The point is that all of this wonderful benefit that some folks were going on about are negated (and then some) by the actions he took.... this is 1 step forward and 10 steps back for the very people that he claims to want to help

Well to be fair , how else can you cut taxes and still maintain the same level of revenue .
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

He did say that so there's no faulting him on that.

The point is that all of this wonderful benefit that some folks were going on about are negated (and then some) by the actions he took.... this is 1 step forward and 10 steps back for the very people that he claims to want to help

And thatís how you win elections in a country where 95% of the population is as intelligent as cannuck