Cheap Gas
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
In Canada there is. No wonder so many people pay too much income tax, they have no concept of how the system works.
Tax credit means you first have to have some income and expenses to apply the credit to. Amounts can be changed on a whim by tax people.
Subsidy: AKA grant. Free money usually a ploy by politicians to buy votes but sometimes used by government to assist a business do something that while it won't pay its own way would be even more expensive if government had to pay the full load.
Entitlement: Think of government employees paycheques. You don't have to do anything for it and there is no way on earth the government can ever take it away from you.
Don't know about up there, but hereabouts the distinction between a subsidy and a tax credit is meaningless semantics. Though we also have surly anti-tax hysterics who shriek whatever bullsh*t serves their pathological hate.
A tax credit up here gets applied to the gross revenues of the entity, thereby lowering the taxable income and lowering the overall tax bill... It is very indirect and dependent on the financial performance of the entity.
If the entity does not perform in generating sufficient revenues, the tax credit is somewhat worthless as the credits have a shelf-life
Subsidies in Canada amount to a (physical) cheque (bank transfer, etc) of capital to the recipient entity... Use of funds is detailed, but it is a direct capital injection that is not in the form of a loan
Are you sure? The reason I ask is that down here, that would be called a "deduction." A deduction is taken off your gross income to produce your taxable income. A "credit" comes off your actual tax bill.
Example: Income (or for corporations, profit) - $200,000
Deductions - $50,000
Taxable income - $150,000
Tax on taxable income - 30% - $45,000
Tax credit - $15,000
Taxes owed - $30,000
Not saying you're wrong, we could use different terms. Just checking. In Canada, are "credits" taken off gross revenues, profits, or the actual tax bill?
Really good question, for which I can not give you an answer with absolute confidence.
I'm going to put this to SLM as she is very knowledgeable in the tax dept.
I don't know. This could threaten the venerable CanCon tradition of screaming past each other with undefined and mutually misunderstood terms!
They'd hafta rescind mine too. We'll grab a bottle of Jack and a slab of Molson and go ice fishing. Start our own damn club.
You're on... Think of all the fun that can be had as the 2 sole directors of the new membership committee
I do understand tax credits and entitlement and subsidies the point is all of these
measures are used depending on the circumstance but all in the end are really
investments in the future at some level.
The idea we are better than you because we have a tax credit for investing in something
is nonsense companies are investing in a product service or business to make even
more money and in that they are doing their part
People who have pensions and Medical benefits paid for the programs over time and the
government was supposed to reinvest the money to keep the program running if they made
bad choices the consequences should not fall on the back of those who paid into the fund.
The money could and should have been invested properly
In the end medical and other programs actually lead to companies doing business here
because universal health care is a benefit to business the outlay is cheaper in the long run.
Things that benefit business and entitlements are investments and good for the country in
the long run its just we should not be playing one off against another
measures are used depending on the circumstance but all in the end are really
investments in the future at some level.
The idea we are better than you because we have a tax credit for investing in something
is nonsense companies are investing in a product service or business to make even
more money and in that they are doing their part
People who have pensions and Medical benefits paid for the programs over time and the
government was supposed to reinvest the money to keep the program running if they made
bad choices the consequences should not fall on the back of those who paid into the fund.
The money could and should have been invested properly
In the end medical and other programs actually lead to companies doing business here
because universal health care is a benefit to business the outlay is cheaper in the long run.
Things that benefit business and entitlements are investments and good for the country in
the long run its just we should not be playing one off against another
Apparently you don't.
If you are lumping them all into the same category, then you do not understand them
Every business in Canada have 2 silent partners.... Their name is the Federal Government of Canada and the Jr Partner is the (respective) Province. Combined, they participate on the upside at a minimum of 40% and to a max of just over 50%.
Now, for the trick questions.
- How much risk do the silent Partners assume?
- What happens to the revenues of the silent Partners as revenues/sales escalate?
Pensions: Defined Benefit vs Defined Contribution.
Only those that have a Defined Contribution plan actually paid fully. Defined Benefit costs the system far more than what was ever contributed.
Medical Care: No way in hell that the average income earner will pay for their use (on average) of the system.
... And there is no pension or healthcare system without the employers to create the jobs and revenues.
Thanks. So it means the same thing there as here (or here as there, depending on your perspective).
Don't thank Harper. It's his Cult of Global Free Market Capitalism that has entrenched Canada into 'a world oil price'.. that will ever remove any competitive advantage we have from being energy self sufficient. But Harper doesn't care about that. He is intent on destroying all of our tarriff defenses that will allow us to protect any sense of a national, integrated industrial economy.
He doesn't have a partriotic bone in his body. He is utterly fawning, bootlicking and obedient to his masters in the Global Trading and Financial oligarchy.. to which he is a bought and payed for political commodity.
Face it, Harper is at a best a petty, dumb ideological brain fart.. at worst a traitor.
Last edited:
You knew of course that Canada was committed to world oil pricing long before harper came to power? Right?
