HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #14001  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 1:12 AM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
So you'd be opposed to a measure that appears to be good for Canadians simply because you have suspicions about the sincerity behind it?
How good is this really for Canadians? We are talking about a $7,500 year difference for corporations making at-the-limit 500k net income a year to qualify for the small business rates.

Sure, small business owners will take it and gladly put that into their pockets, but it seems the effort might be better spent taking a more serious look at the tax code and perhaps simplifying things in other areas.

This 1.5% does come across as a knee jerk "please don't pay attention to what just happened in the last few months" move, which lets them advertise lower taxes while not really doing very much of anything at all.

At least in my small business owner community, people aren't really complaining about high taxes anymore, as much as high payroll costs (which continue to increase), inconsistent unstable tax rebate programs (such as SR&ED, which are actually supposed to promote hiring), and a general feeling that the balance between taxes, legislation, incentives are out of wack to actually promote hiring.

All this tax cut will do is give small business owners at/near the limit some spending money maybe for a new vacation every year (and again, they are doing pretty well already making mid-6 figure net income).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14002  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 1:37 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,178
Besides the obvious political damage control, this has Wynne written all over it. It's large increase in minimum wage over the next 18 months has some businesses fuming and it looks like Trudeau is trying to come to her fellow Liberal rescue before Ontario's election next year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14003  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 2:36 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
I used to be THAT guy
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 28,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
How good is this really for Canadians? We are talking about a $7,500 year difference for corporations making at-the-limit 500k net income a year to qualify for the small business rates.

Sure, small business owners will take it and gladly put that into their pockets, but it seems the effort might be better spent taking a more serious look at the tax code and perhaps simplifying things in other areas.

This 1.5% does come across as a knee jerk "please don't pay attention to what just happened in the last few months" move, which lets them advertise lower taxes while not really doing very much of anything at all.

At least in my small business owner community, people aren't really complaining about high taxes anymore, as much as high payroll costs (which continue to increase), inconsistent unstable tax rebate programs (such as SR&ED, which are actually supposed to promote hiring), and a general feeling that the balance between taxes, legislation, incentives are out of wack to actually promote hiring.

All this tax cut will do is give small business owners at/near the limit some spending money maybe for a new vacation every year (and again, they are doing pretty well already
making mid-6 figure net income).
Perhaps I should have said *might* be good for Canadians but still...

I am not sure that one can categorically say that it is useless when Liberals and Conservatives are arguing over who thought of it first.

If it were that bad no one would care.
__________________
Va où il y a des livres. - Robert Sabatier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14004  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 2:41 AM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Besides the obvious political damage control, this has Wynne written all over it. It's large increase in minimum wage over the next 18 months has some businesses fuming and it looks like Trudeau is trying to come to her fellow Liberal rescue before Ontario's election next year.
Wynne will almost certainly follow up with tax cuts of her own this spring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14005  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 2:42 AM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Perhaps I should have said *might* be good for Canadians but still...

I am not sure that one can categorically say that it is useless when Liberals and Conservatives are arguing over who thought of it first.

If it were that bad no one would care.
Meanwhile, another promise kept ....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14006  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 2:49 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
I used to be THAT guy
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 28,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Meanwhile, another promise kept ....
Yeah, that too.
__________________
Va où il y a des livres. - Robert Sabatier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14007  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 3:53 AM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is online now
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Wynne will almost certainly follow up with tax cuts of her own this spring.
She'll try anything at this point - a Liberal who's about to be trounced in an election is about the most dangerous spectre a taxpayer can contemplate. From her perspective, the worst that can happen is that the next government gets saddled with her unsustainable generosity.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14008  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 1:22 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
She'll try anything at this point - a Liberal who's about to be trounced in an election is about the most dangerous spectre a taxpayer can contemplate. From her perspective, the worst that can happen is that the next government gets saddled with her unsustainable generosity.
More a political strategy backed up by favourable economics than a "try". In theory, the PCs should walk away with the election next year, but I'm not ready to put any money on it yet. Patrick Brown has been wise, imo, to keep a low profile since he became PC leader, but that is now changing. If he makes it through the November policy convention unscathed, he'll be in a better position to go head to head against Wynne.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14009  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 5:07 PM
Jaws Jaws is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 486
As far as I'm concerned the small business tax reduction to 9% is more of diversionary tactic by Morneau than anything. I'm more interested to see what he does with "passive investments" retained within corporations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14010  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 5:23 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws View Post
As far as I'm concerned the small business tax reduction to 9% is more of diversionary tactic by Morneau than anything. I'm more interested to see what he does with "passive investments" retained within corporations.
There will undoubtedly be a trade off in terms of the availability of deductions, along with the reduced tax rate (that was in the Liberal campaign platform, iirc). Other changes announced yesterday will, I think, take farmers out of the lobby groups opposing the changes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14011  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 7:13 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ottawa-Gatineau
Posts: 11,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws View Post
As far as I'm concerned the small business tax reduction to 9% is more of diversionary tactic by Morneau than anything. I'm more interested to see what he does with "passive investments" retained within corporations.
Same for me.

Don't care much about the 1.5 point tax cut, that's just so they can say, "Look! We cut taxes for small business." It won't amount to much.

They haven't said what they will do with "passive investments" yet. Without details, nobody knows how this will affect things.

Personally, I fundamentally disagree with increasing taxes on money passively invested within a corporation. It's the company's money, not the owner's. And there are many legit reasons to accumulate money in a corporation. If the owner wants the money, it has to come out as salary or dividends, and it's taxed in the owner's hands. I don't see a problem with the way things are now.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14012  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 3:55 AM
Bcasey25raptor's Avatar
Bcasey25raptor Bcasey25raptor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver-False Creek
Posts: 2,052
So sick of fake news being spewed everywhere

[url]http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-15-2017-1.4353223/opponents-of-the-liberals-proposed-tax-reforms-may-not-be-telling-the-truth-1.4353235[/url
__________________
~ Singles life in Vancouver 2017, 200sq ft micro condos, thanks mayor Moonbeam.
~ Just a girl trapped in an inner city micro studio
~ Just Watch me
- Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Last edited by Bcasey25raptor; Oct 18, 2017 at 9:22 AM. Reason: Profanity, drunk post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14013  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 2:14 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor View Post
So sick of fake news being spewed everywhere

[url]http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-15-2017-1.4353223/opponents-of-the-liberals-proposed-tax-reforms-may-not-be-telling-the-truth-1.4353235[/url
OK, so what's the "fake news" part? All I see is a legitimate report on the view of a leftist NGO on the lobbying campaign against the tax proposals. Are you saying the person DIDN't say what is quoted in the CBC report? Or is if "fake" because you don't agree with what the person said?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14014  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 2:23 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 13,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Are you saying the person DIDN't say what is quoted in the CBC report? Or is if "fake" because you don't agree with what the person said?
I think that's it precisely - in the echo chamber of modern social media, any news that you don't personally agree with becomes "fake news".

It's the modern equivalent of covering your ears and repeating "la la la la la" until the bad man goes away........
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14015  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 3:03 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 13,565
Excellent opinion piece on CBC.ca today.

Please, no questions for the finance minister: Robyn Urback
Just be patient. You will get your canned answers soon enough
By Robyn Urback, CBC News Posted: Oct 18, 2017 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Oct 18, 2017 6:32 AM ET

As you all know, the finance minister has found himself in a few little pickles lately, so Bill Morneau made himself available and accountable, as per the Trudeau government's commitment to real change.

Indeed, there he was: available to be stared at in a pizzeria in Stouffville, Ont., Monday (but please direct your questions to the prime minister); and for a brief statement during a news conference in Montreal Tuesday (sorry, couldn't make it back for question period); and to again be stared at in the House of Commons Wednesday (when it's the "prime minister's question period," meaning Justin Trudeau is supposed to field all of the questions).

Yes, clearly there are some issues that need to be addressed by the finance minister in a formal setting. For one, why did he opt against putting his $43 million worth of shares in Morneau Shepell in a blind trust, and why does Morneau Shepell think he did?

After a day or so of waiting for an answer and getting nothing (Morneau was busy sampling the menu offerings at that Stouffville pizzeria, and ostensibly he couldn't talk with his mouth full) CTV News found the answer itself: Morneau used a loophole in ethics law that would allow him to indirectly maintain ownership of his shares through the use of a holding company.

After railing on for months about "loopholes" exploited by small business owners, would the minister like to address the obvious irony here? Or perhaps explain why he waited two years to disclose his partnership in a private company that owns his villa in southern France?

And while we're on this openness and accountability kick: why did the Finance Department spend more than $200,000 on just the cover of its 2017 budget? And speaking of the budget, how come there was nothing in there about cutting the small business tax rate to nine per cent — you know, the type of thing that's typically included in a federal budget, especially after campaigning on a promise to do so — only to surprise everyone with an about-face Sunday evening, and then pretend it was the plan all along?

And how does this government reconcile its goal of trying to close the gap between the personal income and business tax rates — which is how it has been trying to sell its tax reform proposals for the past several months — with its abrupt introduction of this new lower business rate, which only incentivizes incorporation.

These are all very important questions, and they will probably be addressed with vague, opaque talking points by Morneau himself, maybe Thursday afternoon. Just be patient. You will get your canned answers. In the interim, we should mind our manners and be thankful that Trudeau gave the press "a chance to talk to the prime minister," because Stephen Harper didn't even bother to stand there and say nothing. Trudeau, at least, stands there and talks while he says nothing.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14016  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 3:12 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,943
Rumour has it he regrets getting in to politics, but there doesn't seem to be a graceful way out at this stage of the game. Although, in the unlikely event that he didn't conform to the rules wrt the disposition of his assets, the exit could be anything but graceful. (Whether the current rules on disposition of assets are adequate is a discussion for another day...)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14017  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 3:27 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
I used to be THAT guy
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 28,696
Bill Morneau gave a one-on-one interview to Radio-Canada in the past 24 hours. In his second language. I didn't listen to it but I heard it starting in the background when I was at home.
__________________
Va où il y a des livres. - Robert Sabatier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14018  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 3:39 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,943
I just came across this CTV report re Morneau's assets. It appears that the conflict of interest rules indeed need amendment, and that this has been known for some time (because it has been done by others previously?). The fact that he used a "loophole" is irrelevant in legal terms, but it's going to cost him (and the Liberals) in political terms, even if he now puts his assets in a blind trust, istm.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/exclu...ness-1.3635880
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14019  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 3:52 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
I think that's it precisely - in the echo chamber of modern social media, any news that you don't personally agree with becomes "fake news".

It's the modern equivalent of covering your ears and repeating "la la la la la" until the bad man goes away........
It's even worse than that. If they don't agree with your sources they just block you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14020  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 4:19 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
I used to be THAT guy
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 28,696
The contemporary revolution in media (and social media especially) is an extremely messy one and IMO society urgently needs to re-learn the art of discourse as a result.

Even among the higher level interlocutors among us it seems like anything resembling the Platonic dialectic and critical thinking (important parameters of human discourse for several millennia) has gone totally out the window.

Holy paradigm shifts, Batman.
__________________
Va où il y a des livres. - Robert Sabatier
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.