Jump to content

Who is this middle class I hear them spout about?


Old Ironmaker

Recommended Posts

I remember back to one of the first debates where Mulcair just kept saying "what's the number, Justin." It was comical and Trudeau nenver, ever mentioned what his number was.

 

Facts are facts - the vast majority of people/families identify themselves as middle class, even if they aren't. That's part of how shady and aloof this guy is. Can't be trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember back to one of the first debates where Mulcair just kept saying "what's the number, Justin." It was comical and Trudeau nenver, ever mentioned what his number was.

 

Facts are facts - the vast majority of people/families identify themselves as middle class, even if they aren't. That's part of how shady and aloof this guy is. Can't be trusted.

 

Nice hair though!!!! :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reality check on Stephen Harper’s math: ‘Ka-ching.’

Joan Bryden explains why Stephen Harper’s tax equations doesn’t always add up

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.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.

 

 

ps

 

 

Ka Ching

Edited by GbayGiant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the thick of the US Steel fiasco as are a few good members here.. The one positive is that we have some of the best facilities in North America..we just need someone to properly run them.. As for the guys currently running for government, I see no one that I can say for sure that I support.. We have Harper spewing bull about his coveted child care benefit money but it's taxed as income anyways and with my type of luck it will bump me into the next tax bracket .. the spin goes on and on... I will support anyone who stands up for the average guy while telling corporations what to do..not the other way around as it is now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have Harper spewing bull about his coveted child care benefit money but it's taxed as income anyways and with my type of luck it will bump me into the next tax bracket

 

If it did bump you into the next tax bracket, you would only pay more tax on the amount that is above the tax bracket; not your entire income. E.g. if the next tax bracket starts at $50,000 and the benefits push your from $49,000 to $51,000; then you would only pay a higher rate of tax on the $1,000. The other $50,000 will be taxed at a low rate(s).

 

So being pushed into the next tax bracket isn't going to cost you a lot. You will still be better off with the benefit than you would without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why is some one earning 90 grand getting a tax reduction :wallbash:

 

Almost a third of the paycheck they make goes to tax making in that area, a lot of guys I work with in the trades are in that area and you pay quite a bit, gross 1700 roughly on the week and take home around 1200 is what I've heard, though I'm not there yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to keep neutral when it comes to politics and this is not going to be any different.

 

They all give you half truths. The article listed above is a prime example of this. Harper is giving you what he feels is what you need to hear in order to vote for the conservative party. I imagine Trudeau and Mulcair are doing the same thing.

 

What you need to do is not take their word at face value and go read the platforms of the parties you are considering voting for. It is the only way you will get the most accurate facts when it comes to what the party is willing to do. Now, does this mean the party will do it? not always but it is still better than listening to another party spew "facts that are inaccurate.

 

one thing is for sure though, no matter who gets in, there will be people complaining. Not a single party will ever support all of your views but hopefully there is one out there that you can see supports them more than the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A reality check on Stephen Harper’s math: ‘Ka-ching.’

Joan Bryden explains why Stephen Harper’s tax equations doesn’t always add up

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.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.

 

 

 

ps

 

 

Ka Ching

 

Did you actually read the article?

 

It didn't really refute the math at all? Just said it won't apply that way to all families the way it applied to that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Better ask Harper! That's what will happen with his income splitting bill-----primarily benefit those with higher incomes.

What are you going on about? Income splitting helps any family where one person makes a significantly higher income than the other. ie. families where one parent stays home or works PT to watch the kids. Typically, the middle class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Better ask Harper! That's what will happen with his income splitting bill-----primarily benefit those with higher incomes.

 

 

What are you going on about? Income splitting helps any family where one person makes a significantly higher income than the other. ie. families where one parent stays home or works PT to watch the kids. Typically, the middle class.

 

I got a pretty good benefit from it and I am not a high income earner. My wife and I were both out of work for part of the year so neither of us earned a whole lot. But income splitting still saved us well over a grand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Better ask Harper! That's what will happen with his income splitting bill-----primarily benefit those with higher incomes.

 

My wife has not worked a day since we got married in the late 90's, also a step daughter grown up now, yes an old style traditional family , income splitting helps my meager pension go a lot further. People making 90 grand crying they want a tax reduction, :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you going on about? Income splitting helps any family where one person makes a significantly higher income than the other. ie. families where one parent stays home or works PT to watch the kids. Typically, the middle class.

The whole 15% richest thing is a complete lie.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/new-numbers-on-who-wins-from-income-splitting/

 

2/3 of the families benefiting are below the average income for 2 parent family households (~120k.)

2/3 of the overall financial benefit goes to that same pool.

 

Trudeau painted it as a benefit for the rich, but it actually serves the middle class pretty well.

Edited by cram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having some significant difficulty figuring out who I should lend my support to; I don't trust any of them to do the right thing for the people of the country.

The fact that Uncle Katy is supporting Justin, just sounds like an extension of the provincial Liberals, then anything else to me. i guess that if Uncle Katy supports it, I just have to consider my position with her and look elsewhere.

On topic, 90K per year is not an un-common salary for professionals in the business world; especially in the large metropolitan areas. How do you think people can afford a $900k house in the GTA?

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having some significant difficulty figuring out who I should lend my support to; I don't trust any of them to do the right thing for the people of the country.

The fact that Uncle Katy is supporting Justin, just sounds like an extension of the provincial Liberals, then anything else to me. i guess that if Uncle Katy supports it, I just have to consider my position with her and look elsewhere.

On topic, 90K per year is not an un-common salary for professionals in the business world; especially in the large metropolitan areas. How do you think people can afford a $900k house in the GTA?

HH

 

2 years ago the average yearly salary in Yellowknife was $97,000 according to the local news outlets. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 15% richest thing is a complete lie.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/new-numbers-on-who-wins-from-income-splitting/

 

2/3 of the families benefiting are below the average income for 2 parent family households (~120k.)

2/3 of the overall financial benefit goes to that same pool.

 

Trudeau painted it as a benefit for the rich, but it actually serves the middle class pretty well.

 

OK, but also note this: "This policy, as we already knew, offers little to most of those struggling families at the bottom, the ones who could really use some help."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK, but also note this: "This policy, as we already knew, offers little to most of those struggling families at the bottom, the ones who could really use some help."

they already do get additional help, through other policies.. ie lower income tax bracket, gst rebates, higher cctb payments, etc which middle class earners lose out on.

 

why does every policy need to help 'those who need most'. what about the rest of us?

 

all income splitting does is make the tax bill of a couple making 80k and 20k each equal the tax bill of a couple who makes 50k each. sounds pretty equitable & fair to me?

 

the scare tactics in this campaign have been flying left and right from all sides of the fence. it's just politricks.

Edited by Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK, but also note this: "This policy, as we already knew, offers little to most of those struggling families at the bottom, the ones who could really use some help."

 

That is the nature of tax cuts. If someone is paying little or no taxes to begin with, then a tax cut isn't going to help them.

 

As Raf mentioned, they will receive other benefits.

 

p.s. Justin's tax cut won't help the lowest income people either.

Edited by JohnBacon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recent Topics

    Popular Topics

    Upcoming Events


×
×
  • Create New...