I just don't know what to do!

[Old Ironmaker]

Canuck2fan, thank you for your thoughts. A "secret deal", this is 2015, in a democracy, what's so secret that I can not see when it effects my life seriously. COME ON MAN. I told a few people today at our neighbourhood Thanksgiving feast/horseshoe tourney. "If you see OPP or RCMP helicopters flying over my place they are trying to bust me for selling illegal Insulin and Blood pressure meds on the streets to my former crew". Can you imagine?

If I don't get insulin I don't go to rehab to kick Diabetes and deal with withdrawals. I don't learn to eat better. I don't get a pancreas transplant paid by OHIP, I die. So if I pay for it from my pension I loose my home to stay alive. What choice do I have? Do what you have to do to stay alive, or just sit back and wait to die? This is absolutely insane. I hear people talk in the check out line and on social media, "No way we should bail out these 22,000 pensioners with taxpayers money, no way". I'm not asking for a hand out, I just don't want to die yet.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Old Ironmaker

[Canuck2fan]

 

Ontario is now officially a 'have not' province. We were not a 'have not' province before the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals took power; but we are now. The only way a province can go from not being a 'have not' province, to being a 'have not' province; is for that province to have poor economic performance relative to the other provinces in Canada.

 

That is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.... Also if Alberta and Newfoundland weren't on top of rotting dead dinosaurs they would always have been have not provinces.

 

http://cwf.ca/commentaries/ontarios-economic-woes-much-exaggerated

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/01/equalization-payments-ontario-canada_n_2992486.html

[Canuck2fan]

Canuck2fan, thank you for your thoughts. A "secret deal", this is 2015, in a democracy, what's so secret that I can not see when it effects my life seriously. COME ON MAN. I told a few people today at our neighbourhood Thanksgiving feast/horseshoe tourney. "If you see OPP or RCMP helicopters flying over my place they are trying to bust me for selling illegal Insulin and Blood pressure meds on the streets to my former crew". Can you imagine?

 

I was shocked the judge upheld the publication ban on the deal from 2007 between US Steel and Ottawa. I am also appalled that in 2015 a secret trade deal couldn't be shown the populations of the 18 countries involved until it was struck, but 600 corporate consultants were there with all the details the whole time?

 

I can relate in a very small way to your pension situation. I am one of the executors for an aunt who passed away 7 yrs ago, we are STILL waiting to finalize her estate because the company she worked at stole her pension in a bankruptcy. The Ontario government used to look after settling this type of situation, but have farmed it out to private businesses. We have had 2 different companies handling it because of corporate mergers and 4 different people as contacts. My aunt was very lucky in that she didn't need the money while alive and now it is just a matter of being able to disperse it to her beneficiaries (2 of who have also passed away) to finally settle her estate. We do know people she worked with though who are waiting who desperately NEED their money. The ironic thing is a really good friend of the family was a manager there and when we asked him about it, he said he was shocked because he got his entire severance payout and pension the DAY THE PLANT CLOSED...

[Henricus]

For years Alberta led the provinces in terms of economic growth. With oil prices currently well below recent averages it no longer holds that position. Add to that an NDP government and Alberta is in trouble.

 

Ontario has actually seen a mild resurgence in manufacturing, not because of the Liberal government but because natural gas prices in North America are a third of what they are in either Europe or Asia.

 

With China's economy slowing, Canada's natural resources are no longer in demand like they were prior to the financial crisis.

 

The moral of the story is neither our federal nor provincial governments have anything to do with global economic trends. Fiscal responsibility is a necessity as a result of years of overspending. Don't vote for who you think is going to turn China's economy around, vote for who you think is going to manage your tax dollars like you manage your own money.

[John Bacon]

 

So we shouldn't just be doing well against the other countries in the G7 we should be eating their lunch.

 

 

 

That is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.... Also if Alberta and Newfoundland weren't on top of rotting dead dinosaurs they would always have been have not provinces.

 

http://cwf.ca/commentaries/ontarios-economic-woes-much-exaggerated

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/01/equalization-payments-ontario-canada_n_2992486.html

 

Funny; you claim that Harper should have given Canada great economic numbers during a world wide recession; but make excuses for Ontario doing worse than the other provinces.

 

Alberta and Newfoundland had oil when Ontario was leading Canada in economic growth. And Ontario would always be a 'have not' province too if it did not have resourses resources either.

[Canuck2fan]

The moral of the story is neither our federal nor provincial governments have anything to do with global economic trends. Fiscal responsibility is a necessity as a result of years of overspending. Don't vote for who you think is going to turn China's economy around, vote for who you think is going to manage your tax dollars like you manage your own money.

 

I absolutely agree don't vote for Harper's trickle down economic failure for another 4 yrs.... 156 billion in new national debt from a guy who supposedly has a masters in economics? Biggest trade deficit with China in our history, if you want to create jobs in China Steve is your guy. He even signed a secret trade deal to make sure no Chinese corporation will have their potential profits hampered by any pesky law our sovereign government passes.

 

Also remember that In the last 19 yrs the cons have been in power in Canada they have added over 400 billion to our national debt with deficit spending and posted only 3 balanced budgets in those 19 yrs, so they most certainly DO NOT look after our money very well.

[Canuck2fan]

 

 

 

Funny; you claim that Harper should have given Canada great economic numbers during a world wide recession; but make excuses for Ontario doing worse than the other provinces.

 

Alberta and Newfoundland had oil when Ontario was leading Canada in economic growth. And Ontario would always be a 'have not' province too if it did not have resourses resources either.

 

I don't excuse Ontario's poor economic performance either... I was merely pointing out the fact that Ontario which you labeled a have not province still put in 11 billion more to the federal coffers than we took out. Seems sort of wrong to me to be labeled a taker when in fact we were giving more than we got. But whatever floats your boat.

[Toronto_Angler]

Lucas there is no need to put Hitler's name next to Harpers. Call him what you wish but a murderer of millions isn't one of them. No he might not give everyone or anyone in fact a warm and fuzzy feeling but he is no Hitler.

Smartest comment in this thread!

[Dusky]

 

How about a reality check.

 

In 2006 when Harper get into government Canada had fiscal surplus of $13.8B , by end of 2013 a deficit of $25.9B. Conservatives blew all the good money management done by liberals before them.

Here is realty check with evidence. Look yourself how conservatives drive the country into the "RED" in last few years of their rule.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/

[lookinforwalleye]

 

In 2006 when Harper get into government Canada had fiscal surplus of $13.8B , by end of 2013 a deficit of $25.9B. Conservatives blew all the good money management done by liberals before them.

Here is realty check with evidence. Look yourself how conservatives drive the country into the "RED" in last few years of their rule.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/

With the exception of Lucas`s Hitler comment.....the above comment is right up there... :wallbash:

[Dusky]

With the exception of Lucas`s Hitler comment.....the above comment is right up there... :wallbash:

 

So all these numbers are cooked by CBC?

[GbayGiant]

Harper’s math on Liberal tax hikes doesn’t always add up

By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Oct 12 2015

Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email

OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper played game show host Monday to demonstrate the thousands of dollars Conservatives claim would be taken from the average family's pocket if Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau were to win power on Oct. 19.

To the constant "ka-ching, ka-ching" chirp of a cash register, Nicole Ropp, a married mother of three, piled up $20 bills as Harper rhymed off a list of a purported tax increases Canadians can expect from a Liberal government. For the Ropp family, it all added up to about $8,000, according to Harper.

However, Harper's list included a number of alleged tax hikes that aren't on the Liberal agenda and omitted a number of other measures aimed at giving middle class families more, not less, money.

What Harper said: A Liberal government would limit contributions to Tax-Free Savings Accounts.

What Liberals are promising: This is correct. Liberals would cap the annual amount Canadians can sock away in TFSAs at $5,500, rolling back the Harper government's recent increase to $10,000. Liberals maintain increasing the cap would benefit primarily the wealthy.

What Harper said: Liberals would "cancel child care cheques for some families ... That's nearly $2,000 per year per child under the age of six and over $700 for children between 6 and 17 — gone." For the Ropp family, he said that would amount to a loss of $3,360 per year.

What Liberals are promising: Harper didn't mention that the Liberals are proposing to replace the Conservatives' existing universal child care benefit with a new monthly, tax-free child benefit. Liberals maintain their benefit would give more money to 90 per cent of Canadian families than they currently receive. However, the benefit would be gradually phased out for those earning more than $150,000.

What Harper said: Liberals would eliminate the tax advantage enjoyed by couples with children by allowing them to split their income for tax purposes.

What Liberals are promising: This is correct. Trudeau has promised to scrap income splitting for parents, pointing to studies which have shown the benefits flow primarily to the wealthiest 15 per cent of families. Contrary to Conservative attack ads which infer that Liberals would also scrap income splitting for seniors, Trudeau has repeatedly said he'd keep that tax advantage in place.

What Harper said: Liberals would make $6.5 billion in cuts to tax credits and deductions in order to balance their budget in the fourth year of a first mandate. Among other things, the child fitness credit, the children's art credit and the volunteer firefighter tax credit are all "likely on the table."

What Liberals are promising: As part of their plan to find $6.5 billion in savings, the Liberals have promised to review boutique tax credits and deductions that have multiplied like topsy over recent years, with an eye to reducing benefits that unfairly go to those earning more than $200,000 a year. They have not identified which tax benefits could be cut, other than to propose a cap on stock option deductions.

As for the specific credits Harper predicted would be cut, Trudeau said Monday: "We're not going to be cutting those tax credits."

Not all the Liberals' anticipated savings would come from cutting tax credits and deductions. Other savings would come from a promised crack down on tax evasion, reducing the government's advertising budget and reducing the use of external consultants.

What Harper said: Liberals would increase payroll taxes by hiking Employment Insurance premiums.

What Liberals are promising: Liberals are promising to reduce EI premiums in 2017 from $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings to $1.65. That is not as steep a cut as that promised by Harper — to $1.49 by 2017 — but it's still a reduction.

What Harper didn't say: He didn't mention that the Liberals are promising to cut taxes across the board for Canadians earning between $45,000 and $90,000, tax relief Trudeau says is worth up to $670 per person, per year. Nor did Harper mention that Trudeau is also promising to hike taxes on the wealthiest one per cent of Canadians.

 

[John Bacon]

 

So all these numbers are cooked by CBC?

 

The 2014 figure is wrong. It should read $1.9 billion surplus instead of $16.6 billion deficit.

 

The government fiscal year runs from April 1st to March 31st. The site states that the years listed represent the year that the fiscal year started. Thus, 2014 would represent the fiscal year from Apr 1st 2014 to Mar 31st 2015. The $1.9 billion surplus for the year ended Mar 31, 2015 has been pretty well reported recently.

 

Overall, I think that Canada's return to deficits had more to do with the world wide economic situation than poor fiscal management by Harper.

[Dusky]

 

The 2014 figure is wrong. It should read $1.9 billion surplus instead of $16.6 billion deficit.

 

The government fiscal year runs from April 1st to March 31st. The site states that the years listed represent the year that the fiscal year started. Thus, 2014 would represent the fiscal year from Apr 1st 2014 to Mar 31st 2015. The $1.9 billion surplus for the year ended Mar 31, 2015 has been pretty well reported recently.

 

Overall, I think that Canada's return to deficits had more to do with the world wide economic situation than poor fiscal management by Harper.

 

Pretty interesting that conservatives finds a way to not only balance the budget but put a surplus as soon we get into election year. Something which they were not able to achieve all these years. That too by cooking books, major cuts to vital public services and using $1.8 billion in surplus EI funds in federal budget. Wonder, if ever, how they are going to put this money back in EI funds?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/21/ei-fund-budget-surplus-canada-2015_n_7113322.html

 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/09/28/tory-budget-surplus-came-at-cost-to-public-safety.html

[Dusky]

Overall, I think that Canada's return to deficits had more to do with the world wide economic situation than poor fiscal management by Harper.

 

For Canada's deficit under conservative, had more to do with the world wide economic situation. Ontario fiscal deficit under liberal is a liberal miss management? What am I missing?

[John Bacon]

 

Pretty interesting that conservatives finds a way to not only balance the budget but put a surplus as soon we get into election year. Something which they were not able to achieve all these years. That too by cooking books, major cuts to vital public services and using $1.8 billion in surplus EI funds in federal budget. Wonder, if ever, how they are going to put this money back in EI funds?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/21/ei-fund-budget-surplus-canada-2015_n_7113322.html

 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/09/28/tory-budget-surplus-came-at-cost-to-public-safety.html

 

The Liberals used EI funds to fund their surpluses too. They also cut health and transfer payments to provinces. Is it okay for the Liberals but not okay for the Conservatives?

 

 

 

 

For Canada's deficit under conservative, had more to do with the world wide economic situation. Ontario fiscal deficit under liberal is a liberal miss management? What am I missing?

 

The world wide economic situation would have contributed to both. However, Canada didn't do too bad compared other countries. Ontario fared poorly compared to other provinces. I believe that Canada's debt to GDP ratio has actually improved slightly since Harper came to power. I doubt the Ontario ratio has improved. Canada has a lot of debt; but we do not have the highest debt of any country in the world. Ontario has the highest debt of any state/province, etc. in the world.

[manitoubass2]

I still have no clue who to vote for???

 

Our whole area is liberal, farmersare conservative, natives are NDP.

 

My gramps always told me vote NDP but never said why lol.

 

Politics just confuse me. I study alot of this not only here but worldwide, and I honestly cant conclude my decision other then a "we are slaves" setiment.

 

I wish Canada had real change. So much opportunity...

[manitoubass2]

And as for "real change", Ill be the first to admit I dont even know what that means?

Edited October 13, 2015 by manitoubass2

[Big Cliff]

 

Harper’s math on Liberal tax hikes doesn’t always add up

By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Oct 12 2015

Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email

OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper played game show host Monday to demonstrate the thousands of dollars Conservatives claim would be taken from the average family's pocket if Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau were to win power on Oct. 19.

To the constant "ka-ching, ka-ching" chirp of a cash register, Nicole Ropp, a married mother of three, piled up $20 bills as Harper rhymed off a list of a purported tax increases Canadians can expect from a Liberal government. For the Ropp family, it all added up to about $8,000, according to Harper.

However, Harper's list included a number of alleged tax hikes that aren't on the Liberal agenda and omitted a number of other measures aimed at giving middle class families more, not less, money.

What Harper said: A Liberal government would limit contributions to Tax-Free Savings Accounts.

What Liberals are promising: This is correct. Liberals would cap the annual amount Canadians can sock away in TFSAs at $5,500, rolling back the Harper government's recent increase to $10,000. Liberals maintain increasing the cap would benefit primarily the wealthy.

What Harper said: Liberals would "cancel child care cheques for some families ... That's nearly $2,000 per year per child under the age of six and over $700 for children between 6 and 17 — gone." For the Ropp family, he said that would amount to a loss of $3,360 per year.

What Liberals are promising: Harper didn't mention that the Liberals are proposing to replace the Conservatives' existing universal child care benefit with a new monthly, tax-free child benefit. Liberals maintain their benefit would give more money to 90 per cent of Canadian families than they currently receive. However, the benefit would be gradually phased out for those earning more than $150,000.

What Harper said: Liberals would eliminate the tax advantage enjoyed by couples with children by allowing them to split their income for tax purposes.

What Liberals are promising: This is correct. Trudeau has promised to scrap income splitting for parents, pointing to studies which have shown the benefits flow primarily to the wealthiest 15 per cent of families. Contrary to Conservative attack ads which infer that Liberals would also scrap income splitting for seniors, Trudeau has repeatedly said he'd keep that tax advantage in place.

What Harper said: Liberals would make $6.5 billion in cuts to tax credits and deductions in order to balance their budget in the fourth year of a first mandate. Among other things, the child fitness credit, the children's art credit and the volunteer firefighter tax credit are all "likely on the table."

What Liberals are promising: As part of their plan to find $6.5 billion in savings, the Liberals have promised to review boutique tax credits and deductions that have multiplied like topsy over recent years, with an eye to reducing benefits that unfairly go to those earning more than $200,000 a year. They have not identified which tax benefits could be cut, other than to propose a cap on stock option deductions.

As for the specific credits Harper predicted would be cut, Trudeau said Monday: "We're not going to be cutting those tax credits."

Not all the Liberals' anticipated savings would come from cutting tax credits and deductions. Other savings would come from a promised crack down on tax evasion, reducing the government's advertising budget and reducing the use of external consultants.

What Harper said: Liberals would increase payroll taxes by hiking Employment Insurance premiums.

What Liberals are promising: Liberals are promising to reduce EI premiums in 2017 from $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings to $1.65. That is not as steep a cut as that promised by Harper — to $1.49 by 2017 — but it's still a reduction.

What Harper didn't say: He didn't mention that the Liberals are promising to cut taxes across the board for Canadians earning between $45,000 and $90,000, tax relief Trudeau says is worth up to $670 per person, per year. Nor did Harper mention that Trudeau is also promising to hike taxes on the wealthiest one per cent of Canadians.

 

 

Well that does a much better job of explaining it! Thank you so much for posting that!

[wkrp]

The 2014 surplus just about pays for Harpers boondoggle of the G8 summit expenses of 1.3 billion to protect his ass. You must know you are not liked when you have to spend that much for security.

[lookinforwalleye]

Brilliant....Your still paying for Provincial Liberal boondoggles as you call them...and the federal Liberal Gun Registry boondoggle...and perhaps Liberals adscam as well!!!

[Toronto_Angler]

There is no right and wrong of who to vote for. I respect everyone opinions on the candidtaes they like even though I may or may not agree with them. The only important thing is that you vote and have a say in how your country is run. If you're conservative, Liberal, NDPer or something else thats great just get out there and do it. Even if you don't believe any of these people deserve your vote go out there and abstain.

Never understood why people would get mad at others opinions on who they believed in. There is no right or wrong answer (Unless your comparing harper to hitler, thats wrong. And stupid)

[cram]

 

For Canada's deficit under conservative, had more to do with the world wide economic situation. Ontario fiscal deficit under liberal is a liberal miss management? What am I missing?

The fed drives stimulus programs

The provincial govs don't?

[lookinforwalleye]

Agreed....and there is no shortage of stupid around here lately.....

[cram]

Well that does a much better job of explaining it! Thank you so much for posting that!

 

 

Harper’s math on Liberal tax hikes doesn’t always add up

By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Oct 12 2015

Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email

OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper played game show host Monday to demonstrate the thousands of dollars Conservatives claim would be taken from the average family's pocket if Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau were to win power on Oct. 19.

To the constant "ka-ching, ka-ching" chirp of a cash register, Nicole Ropp, a married mother of three, piled up $20 bills as Harper rhymed off a list of a purported tax increases Canadians can expect from a Liberal government. For the Ropp family, it all added up to about $8,000, according to Harper.

However, Harper's list included a number of alleged tax hikes that aren't on the Liberal agenda and omitted a number of other measures aimed at giving middle class families more, not less, money.

What Harper said: A Liberal government would limit contributions to Tax-Free Savings Accounts.

What Liberals are promising: This is correct. Liberals would cap the annual amount Canadians can sock away in TFSAs at $5,500, rolling back the Harper government's recent increase to $10,000. Liberals maintain increasing the cap would benefit primarily the wealthy.

What Harper said: Liberals would "cancel child care cheques for some families ... That's nearly $2,000 per year per child under the age of six and over $700 for children between 6 and 17 — gone." For the Ropp family, he said that would amount to a loss of $3,360 per year.

What Liberals are promising: Harper didn't mention that the Liberals are proposing to replace the Conservatives' existing universal child care benefit with a new monthly, tax-free child benefit. Liberals maintain their benefit would give more money to 90 per cent of Canadian families than they currently receive. However, the benefit would be gradually phased out for those earning more than $150,000.

What Harper said: Liberals would eliminate the tax advantage enjoyed by couples with children by allowing them to split their income for tax purposes.

What Liberals are promising: This is correct. Trudeau has promised to scrap income splitting for parents, pointing to studies which have shown the benefits flow primarily to the wealthiest 15 per cent of families. Contrary to Conservative attack ads which infer that Liberals would also scrap income splitting for seniors, Trudeau has repeatedly said he'd keep that tax advantage in place.

What Harper said: Liberals would make $6.5 billion in cuts to tax credits and deductions in order to balance their budget in the fourth year of a first mandate. Among other things, the child fitness credit, the children's art credit and the volunteer firefighter tax credit are all "likely on the table."

What Liberals are promising: As part of their plan to find $6.5 billion in savings, the Liberals have promised to review boutique tax credits and deductions that have multiplied like topsy over recent years, with an eye to reducing benefits that unfairly go to those earning more than $200,000 a year. They have not identified which tax benefits could be cut, other than to propose a cap on stock option deductions.

As for the specific credits Harper predicted would be cut, Trudeau said Monday: "We're not going to be cutting those tax credits."

Not all the Liberals' anticipated savings would come from cutting tax credits and deductions. Other savings would come from a promised crack down on tax evasion, reducing the government's advertising budget and reducing the use of external consultants.

What Harper said: Liberals would increase payroll taxes by hiking Employment Insurance premiums.

What Liberals are promising: Liberals are promising to reduce EI premiums in 2017 from $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings to $1.65. That is not as steep a cut as that promised by Harper — to $1.49 by 2017 — but it's still a reduction.

What Harper didn't say: He didn't mention that the Liberals are promising to cut taxes across the board for Canadians earning between $45,000 and $90,000, tax relief Trudeau says is worth up to $670 per person, per year. Nor did Harper mention that Trudeau is also promising to hike taxes on the wealthiest one per cent of Canadians.

 

 

His math on those tax hikes applied to that family. Not everyone in Canada.

 

I'm no fan of Stephen Harper, but some of the math that Trudeau is selling you guys as fact is just wrong. The "putting money in the pockets of 9/10 households" just doesn't seem possible to me. The income splitting benefits almost 70% of 2 parent families, not "the richest 15% of Canadians". That whole concept is a complete lie.

 

A family with 2 parents, 2 kids will lose:

- up to 2k in income splitting

- up to 10k in TFSA room

If combined to earn over 150k they're losing $2400 in UCCB

So if you make >150k as a family, know that you're 4400+ in the hole next year, plus whatever future benefit you would have seen from 10k in TFSA contributions. I'm not saying Harper is a better option, just pointing out that Trudeau isn't being completely truthful here either.