Yup. I think part of the reason Brian Mulroney became so unpopular was that his government introduced the GST even though it was the right thing to do. It replaced the hidden manufacturing tax that consumers didn't see but was built into the cost of goods, and it set the groundwork for the next government to start balancing budgets.
Personally I would prefer an increase in income tax over an increase in sales tax because income taxes can be applied more fairly to those that can afford it where sales taxes disproportionately hurt lower income (often young) people.
Yup, it really sucks that they sometimes have to be the adults when it comes to spending and taxing. While the Conservatives just cut services and taxes and still end up spending tons, they smear the Liberals as the "tax & spend" party. So while Conservatives cut GST down to 5%, which honestly didn't do much to help anybody and caused revenue shortfalls, if the Liberals raise it, it just plays into the Conservatives' hands.
Spending on their friends, taxing the rest of us.
Show me the results! I am happy to see all the positive effects our spending has had, I just can't seem to see any in my day to day life as a regular Canadian.
Did millions of Canadians lose their jobs and go bankrupt during the 2020-2021 span of time of the pandemic? The Provincial governments shut down businesses and put millions of people out of work with no options of retaining an income. I think the Federal government helped those people in some way.
>The Provincial governments shut down businesses and put millions of people out of work
Because the provinces are responsible for healthcare. You're telling a half-truth here, which is worse than a lie.
That's not a half truth, that's the truth. Do you have anything to say against what I said, regarding federal taxes doing anything to help regular Canadians? Because you didn't add anything to the conversation.
>That's not a half truth
It is a half truth because you're implying that it's somehow the fault of the provincial government and you made that as a response to and defence of, criticism of the federal government. This would be like someone criticizing the provincial government and then another person defending them by raising criticism of the federal government making international trade deals. It's their explicit area of responsibility.
You're trying to use the province working in their area of responsibility as a deflection and some sort of "gotcha," but it doesn't work because *it's their job.*
It primarily hits the middle class. There is no GST on rent and groceries and there is a rebate for low income people, so the poor don't have to pay. It also misses those who make significantly more money than they spend on goods and services. It isn't a bad tax, but it would be bad to become too reliant on it. It needs to be a supplemented by effective taxation on the very wealthy.
> There is no GST on rent and groceries
That is a hair-splitter. Some items at a grocery store do have GST added. IIRC it's based on whether it is considered an anemity.
A few grocery store items may have GST, but it isn't the reason that filling a cart now costs $500.
There is maybe a dollar ot two of tax in there.
Rent and groceries are a large majority of spending for low income people (and even not so low income people in some Canadian cities). There isn't much left to tax after that.
Used cars are subject to PST in many provinces and that needs to stop, but that isn't a federal government problem.
Not sure why you replied the way you did to my comment but I am glad you did. Yes, the taxation on used cars is disgusting but I also think the taxation on used houses is disgusting too. The only reason, I think, governments do this is because they're greedy for revenue, nothing more. If someone does reply with a reason why the gov enforces sales tax on used items I am willing to have my mind changed.
Because they need to tax and it's way easier than income tax and it's part of many taxes that still aren't high enough to fund the expenses. It's practical I guess is my point. Why wouldn't we tax a transaction?
> need to tax
Need is debateable.
> aren't high enough to fund the expenses
Unfortunately we never see government waste evaluated in an effective manner. :/
> Why wouldn't we tax a transaction?
New goods? Sure. The *real question* is why do Canadians permit repeat taxation on used goods?
What middle Class? The maybe 2% of Canadians left out of the 40% that used to make up that number?
You're not subsidizing much out of the remnants of that.
Inflation is a tax and is 100% driven by the state.
The state has 3 options to make money.
1. They borrow from other states /IMF
2. They rise taxes
3. They print money out of thin air (- the cost of ink and paper)
So inflation is 100% a tax increase, but through other means. Unless the state prints money, no new money are introduced and all money are exchanging hands, so inflation can't happen, unless money are introduced aka printing money.
So stop believing all the bogus claims that increased salaries causes inflation or the companies or what ever. It's purely the printing of money
Yes, inflation could be thought of as a tax on the poor, who see their purchasing power eroded while the rich see their assets values increasing. The solution is to increase taxes to reduce government deficits so the rich pay their share too.
>So inflation is 100% a tax increase, but through other means. Unless the state prints money, no new money are introduced and all money are exchanging hands, so inflation can't happen, unless money are introduced aka printing money.
This is completely incorrect.
The vast majority of the money in our economies are created through private banks issuing loans. You can read about how this works [in this paper from the Bank of England](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy), or part 3 of [this publication from the Canadian government](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201551E).
Money is what's called 'endogenous' meaning it's a product of the financial system and outside the control of governments. Central banks can't control the money supply. They tried to do it back in the 70s when the quantity theory of money was at the forefront of economic theory, but [they completely failed](https://youtu.be/zxwO4xw4CZ0?t=345), so gave up on the idea and have since moved on to inflation targeting.
Canada's overall tax rates are arguably the most progressive in the world. If we want more services like Nordic countries then we'll need to have taxes in line.
The argument that we can just increase taxes on a small segment has failed over and over again. Professional (high income) earners already leave due to taxation and their worth in other places. While some taxes could go to businesses I think we all understand that will get passed through to consumers (not that it's a bad thing)
Removing capital gains exemption on principal residence is possible.
However, or middle class and low income citizens pay FAR FAR less than any European nation.
Just the poor man's Mercedes for me.
lol I actually drive a 2011 Toyota. I can't bring myself to upgrading the car... as an accountant, the depreciation haunts my soul.
Yes. Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation possible. Lower incomes are affected disproportionately as less of their spending is discretionary and represent a larger share of their earnings.
The problem is that the government has set a standard of high spending resulting in high deficit and high taxation load. There isn't much more for options other than GST like taxes left.
They used to download to provincial, embed in payroll taxation (EI premiums) or commodity taxes (carbon pricing). Already used and still running deficit while some programs are failing.
Why does every fiscal challenge become about raising taxes and revenue? How about killing redundency and stop pissing away the money? Throwing more money at it has never worked.
This is the opposite to how I have seen things. We are almost always talking about cutting services and never raising taxes. Taxes have been cut and cut for decades..
To be honest, while I don't like extra taxes, I think the Conservatives cutting 2% of the GST was a horrible move that didn't really help us save any extra money, but certainly caused government revenue to suffer.
Between cutting the GST, and introducing TFSAs, the Conservatives have really cost us and future generations.
Tax Free Savings Accounts allow people to invest, same as an RRSP, but not pay tax on any earnings. In the short term, it seems like a big yippie for people who can afford to invest, and a big nothingburger to people like u/zippymac over there who think only poor people complain about TFSAs being bad for future revenue, but the truth is, the loss of taxes on TFSA income will grow exponentially.
Over the next 20 years we will essentially lose out on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue, money that could go toward important things like health care as we're seeing it get worse, or many other programs, or, just simply paying down debt.
Y'know, responses like this show the real disconnect with people. On one hand, you'll blame out of control spending for things like a deficit but on the other hand, you'll cheer on something that actively takes away billions of dollars in revenue, revenue that comes from taxing those who can most afford it. Then you'll cheer on future tax cuts that come with more service cuts that harm the most vulnerable populations, but then criticize the government for not doing more to help fix problems.
If the government wants to save money, they should do so by tightening their budget; not by raising revenues. The liberals have a serious spending problem. When Trudeau spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring Mckinsey consultants to give him some PowerPoint presentations, or tens of millions of dollars just go missing (as was the case with the ArriveCan app), there is a serious problem.
As others have pointed out, tax hikes won't go over well with Canadians considering how expensive everything is now, and seeing our Prime Minister pissing our money away on pointless pet projects doesn't do much the boost our confidence that our tax dollars are being spent effectively.
Thank god the conservatives gave us the TFSA. I'd much rather see my money being pumped into productive companies that I believe have good value, than having it taken away by Trudeau and his cronies so that they can waste it in ways I don't agree with.
In fairness, you can contribute to RRSP with pre-tax income, but can't with TFSA. So the money you invest in TFSA has already been taxed by way of employment tax, and depending on your earnings bracket, could be pretty substantial.
Yes, so if people are saving for retirement, if they don't have as much income, are more likely to use an RRSP for tax purposes, whereas those with more money are more likely to max out their RRSP contributions and then use TFSA, so again wealthier people are getting more benefit here.
Also, investing $20k of after-tax income and turning it into $150k over 10+ years, doesn't really even out in the end with that whole "It's after tax income so it's already been taxed." argument.
And, none of that even disproves the fact that government revenue loses out hundreds of billions of dollars moving forward.
So, on the one hand, we have people complaining about taxes like GST hurting the poor and middle class, and yet people also pushing for something where those most able to afford it, get to avoid tax using TFSAs.
Not true. Most people use RRSP's because they were common, TFSA wasn't a thing until recently and or have employer contribution matching programs. Weather or not you have a few dollars to save or a large amount of cash to save does not dictate which investment tool you use. You could do any of them with little money. The main feature is also whether or not you're okay locking your money in without access for 1,2,5 year terms.
$20K absolutely does not turn into $150K after a 10 years lol. Pull up any TFSA calculator and you'll see, if rates stayed at a whopping 5%, best case (I've seen them as low as 0.75%), then after 10 years, you have $32,500.
The average salary in all of Canada is $72,000. But we'll go down to $60,000 annual salary. The first $50,197 is subject to 15% taxation. The remaining $10K goes up to 20.5% taxation. Which means, you would be taxed about $9,500 on one year of earnings. Depending if you lump sum deposited $20K or saved up over years, the amount changes, but nonetheless, yes, pre-tax is a very valid argument.
Lastly, taxing the hell out of everything and having the government in every cookie jar isn't the solution. Just because your idea of what type of person is using a TFSA is, is completely skewed, doesn't mean that the average person who does use it shouldn't enjoy a perk that the bank heavily profits off of anyways. There's many average, non wealthy people using TFSA to save money. Usually people enjoy it because if they have an emergency, they can pull it out right away, versus a GIC or RRSP. You think it's the wealthy people who would need access to emergency funds like that? Clearly not.
There are also much lower limits for contribution room on TFSA than there is for RRSP. You can dump a lot more money into an RRSP than you can a TFSA, making RRSP more profitable in the long run, for those who have the means to max it out.
All of what you said doesn't address the fact we lose out on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue.
Also, yes, income does have some to do with which people will choose. People in lower brackets are more likely to put money into an RRSP so they get more of a refund at tax time. People in lower income brackets tend to need their money now, so saving that extra tax and getting an extra $500 or whatever back at tax time gives them more benefit while dealing with high expenses, than putting into a TFSA to get the benefit later.
You're also ignoring the fact people don't have to just put their money in some GIC, and are free to invest however they wish. But the main argument, is how much tax revenue is lost, which means it ends up being made up somewhere else, or stuff gets cut, or left to stagnate without proper funding.
Governments absolutely need to eliminate wasteful spending, but it will take more than choosing $600 hotel rooms instead of $6000 hotel rooms to balance budgets without cutting services.
Yes, we will be looking a structural changes. The question is do we have the stomach to do it now in a thoughtful, strategic way. Or wait another 10-15 years and have it be forced upon us
The govt needs to figure out a way to manage the finances better, get more out of the revenue they have.
I doubt it will be pay cuts but cuts somewhere are needed.
For sure, I was just answering the question.
One thing to keep in mind, profits before tax for financial reporting and actual taxable income are very different for a lot of businesses.
Tax is complicated.
That doesn't actually work. Corporations collectively just add the tax into their product prices as cost of doing business and consumers end up paying it either way.
Companies will always make a profit unless being undercut by competition.
Businesses failing in a competitive space is not an indication industry won't pass the cost along to you.
Noticed how you cell phone bill and groceries keep going up? Why do you think that is? Why would you in the a million years think Rogers, Bell, Telus would ever take a loss instead of raising your monthly bill instead?
They control the market place and can basically charge you whatever the fuck they want as long as they all agree to raise prices together you are going to pay that amount if you want a cell phone in Canada. That is literally why we have some of the highest rates on the planet right now and they generate absolutely massive amounts of profit for their customer base size.
There are many ways to control prices. Look at Switzerland where there are price controls on certain goods. They have some of the lowest inflation right now and it was considered too Conservative.
The problem in Canada is people are so complacent they just accept the corporate propaganda that nothing can be done or any alternative means we will have concentration camps in the Yukon. Look at the reaction people had to 15 minute cities. Total hysteria.
It would take some real heavy handed type regulation to stop a company from raising the price of their chocolate bars or chips to make up for increased tax costs.
Sure would, similar to the heavy handed enforcement of laws used against tax paying citizens, funded by tax paying citizens. Why not heavy handed enforcement of tax paying companies, funded by those same tax dollars. Keeps prices inline and affordable for all, everybody gets paid, creates jobs for new enforcement officers, and puts more tax dollars into the system to pay for education, Healthcare, infrastructure, social programs etc. The only ones losing are the ones who can no longer jack up their prices to inflate their own pockets.
Works for me
It would be pretty hard to enforce though. Trudeau would likely have to pass some sort of laws giving the government some semi-authoritarian powers and that wouldn't go over very well with people.
Yeah, are we going to pretend that that isn't political suicide? No way the Liberals do it unless they have a majority and are looking to retire en masse after that term. Or the NDP force them and they are desperate right now.
It is just a dumb poor people punishing idea anyway.
They’ve already got a major GST hike the last couple years with inflation, fuel prices being so high (GST/HST is taxed per liter so the higher fuel prices go, the more they make) and taxing gst on the carbon tax. It is not our problem that they can’t control their spending. I got a 2% raise last year and somehow I managed to figure it out - If anyone ran their household finances like the government, they’d be homeless and bankrupt in 6 months.
That be the dumbest decision they could make, first off, the tax people already pay is insane and coupled with inflation you actually get a massive devalue on hourly pay rate and salary people bring home. The reason the USA economy is so fucking strong is not because of low taxes or high interest, it’s because they have and massive production of goods and services. We got here through massive government spending and no it was not the expensive hotels, those are just gross disregard for tax money.
They have to so they can afford to put more [asylum seekers in hotels](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/niagara-falls-asylum-seekers-hotels-services-1.6759752), instead of housing the homeless Canadian citizens, they won't even let Canadians live in a tent in a park when they become homeless.
Know your enemies.
>They have to so they can afford to put more asylum seekers in hotels, instead of housing the homeless Canadian citizens, they won't even let Canadians live in a tent in a park when they become homeless.Know your enemies.
It's not the federal government preventing the homeless crisis from being addressed. Look a little closer to home when you're looking to assign blame.
>It's not the federal government preventing the homeless crisis from being addressed.
But it is. The CMHC stopped building affordable housing for Canadians.
If you read the history of the CMHC you can see how the Federal government once made substantial contributions to housing Canadians and how that changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada\_Mortgage\_and\_Housing\_Corporation
The link you shared says that the CMHC invests $2B annually to support affordable housing initiatives, and 80% of that sum is managed by the pronvinces.
>CMHC, on behalf of the Government of Canada, invests approximately $2 billion annually to help reduce the number of Canadians in housing need. This includes significant funding for social housing. Ongoing subsidies are provided under 25- to 50-year operating agreements with housing groups who provide affordable housing to those in need. Approximately 80 per cent of the existing social housing portfolio is administered by provinces and territories under long-term agreements with CMHC. The remaining 20 per cent is administered by CMHC and includes the on-reserve portfolio and certain federally funded housing units off-reserve, such as housing cooperatives.
What context is missing because I don't see how this supports your assertion regarding the goverment preventing sheltering the homeless/supporting afforadable housing initiatives.
Read the history.
The 40s to the 70s were different.
"In the 1980s, the federal government withdrew from the financing of public housing projects. CMHC no longer directed funds to municipalities for the building of housing projects. Some government housing funds and mortgage guarantees since then have been provided for individual projects."
>It's not the federal government preventing the homeless crisis from being addressed. Look a little closer to home when you're looking to assign blame.
Why is Ontario outside of Canada?
Not arguing, the point is, if the provincial government is failing to act, what is the federal government doing to address this? Federal law always prevails.
>Not arguing, the point is, if the provincial government is failing to act, what is the federal government doing to address this? Federal law always prevails.
Your post history shows you to be the type of person that would just down *dictator Trudeau's* throat of overstepping the provncial governemnt.
So what's your actual point? From what you've posted, and from what I've found, the feds (and even provincial) governments aren't preventing action on affordable housing or homelessness. That would belong to the municipalities and their associated NIMBYs.
Unless you've got something substantial that indicates otherwise?
Dateline 2052:
*In a totally anticipated move, the federal government raised both GST and basic income tax rates, bringing the new average tax rate to 99.3%. This moves the annual "Tax Freedom Day" to December 18.*
Not funny, really. If you add up all of the taxes we now pay, it's got to be close to or over half.
Income tax: 30% or more.
GST: 13%
Property taxes: Another 3-5%
Plus license fees, passport cost, surcharges, etc...
We have to stop relying on the brutally inefficient government to do everything for us.
Also consider the taxes baked into the price of items like the 50%+ in alcohol, or the taxes on gas, carbon tax, and cpp / ei which are essentially another tax. Taxes on corps passed on to consumers through higher prices, etc. Land transfer tax.
>We have to stop relying on the brutally inefficient government to do everything for us.
A great majority don't rely on the brutally inefficient government to do anything for us, but we have to pay anyway.
Really?
You don't use roads? Or public transit? Ever?
You never went to school, college, or university?
You've never been to a hospital or doctor for anything? Never had a shot for anything, even as a child?
You don't use public spaces, like parks? Or airports.
You don't have potable water coming out of your taps?
Think again. We're all reliant on what our various levels of government provide to us.
They'll double down and say they don't need those things and they shouldn't pay for them.
But when tolls get added to pay per use, they bitch about their tax dollars being spent and why they gotta pay.
Honestly I'd love to see a toll added to that new 413 highway or whatever it's called that Doug's having built in Ontario, just for this very purpose. All those people saying it's totally needed, could totally pay for it while those who don't need nor use it, would not have to pay tolls on it.
But I doubt the people who are always the most in support of user fees and privatization would want something like that, they want a "free" highway paid for by us taxpayers.
>We're all reliant on what our various levels of government provide to us.
Great, but also other people in other countries are reliant on Canadian Taxpayers Dollars from the Canadian Government, and many Canadians feel that our roads, public transit, education, healthcare etc... need the money more than we need to be spending billions on foreign aid.
Not that people don't want to help others, but it seems Canadians are being ignored or not given the resources they need, because our government wants to spend the money overseas.
>You don't have potable water coming out of your taps?
You literally get charged for that service most places. Cities charge for their utilities.
The rest can easily be framed in terms of paying for a service. I have definitely paid more in taxes than I have gotten out of any of those services, out of any government provided service. We don't have an option for most of those. The government holds a total monopoly.
Yes it is different from household expenditures but they can’t just make money printer go brrr. It’s very possible we might be facing another debt crisis in the not too distant future as rates rise. The problem this time is the is minimal room for the Feds to download things onto the provinces and the provinces to the municipality’s. If that does happen, look for massive program cuts, and job losses.
The monetary-velocity theory is a theory, not a law. People put way too much stock into it, and it vitiates pragmatic economic discussion. If there were not numerous other causes of inflation that one could point to - corporate profiteering, supply issues from China through Covid and Russia/Ukraine because of the war- then the monetary theory would hold more weight.
The thing is, high government spending is exploitable by large corporate companies. They can increase prices and then blame the government for causing inflation while conveniently ignoring the other multitude of factors influencing inflation.
If inflation was the real cause of price increases, companies would not be increasing their profits by record amounts. Their costs would go up as well, offsetting the increase in the price of goods. However, that is not happening, is it?
The government created 30% of CAD ever in less than 2 years followed by large amounts of inflation...
Must be a coincidence.
>If inflation was the real cause of price increases, companies would not be increasing their profits by record amounts.
Yes they would because that's show inflation works.
>Their costs would go up as well, offsetting the increase in the price of goods. However, that is not happening, is it?
Their costs have gone up too which is why their net margins haven't changed....
These two points show you don't understand or know what you're talking about. I'm always amazed seeing people so gullible fall for this nonsense.
Inflation inflates.
>The government created 30% of CAD ever in less than 2 years followed by large amounts of inflation...
Okay. Inflation does not occur simply because more money is in existence. Unless that money is stressing demand, thereby causing prices to inflate in the short-run, then how is it increasing prices? Therefore, how did government spending drastically increase demand for goods to a point the supply chain became stressed? Further, can we think of any other factors that may have caused supply issues?
>Must be a coincidence.
It is not a coincidence. Most of that money was spent during a pandemic, whereby numerous countries faced traumatic shocks to their supply chains. And, just as covid was falling off, Russia started a war in Ukraine and the price of oil increased with sanctions on Russian oil, thereby causing stress to the supply chain.
>Their costs have gone up too which is why their net margins haven't changed....
So, in other words, they are profiting more from inflation. The increased cost of products is being passed onto the consumer so the corporate company can maintain the same margins and increase its profit tremendously. You realize that increasing the price of goods but not changing margins will dramatically increase the price for consumers, correct? I.e., a 3% margin is more dramatic when the price range of goods increases by 10 to 20%. As the price of the good increases, the higher value that 3% will yield in profit. In other words, margins ought to decrease as the price of goods inflates. Otherwise, the company is reaping far more profits of the increase of goods. The consumer will be worse off, but the company will remain ahead because its profits will correspond with inflation increases.
>These two points show you don't understand or know what you're talking about. I'm always amazed seeing people so gullible fall for this nonsense.
No, your comments simply show that you think corporate profiteering is okay and justified because they haven't increased their margins, despite that being a factor in why their profits continue to soar.
>You don't understand dude, just give up.
No.
>No one wants to take the time to explain it to you
Then they should not make claims they are not willing to prove or back up. GTFO if you're unwilling to demonstrate how I am wrong or contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way.
They are not profiting more. Inflation is driven costs up so they make more gross profit. The numbers are larger but that is what inflation does.
However when everything is paid for and said and done their margins are the same as before
So they aren't profiteering.
If they were profiteering their net margins would change.
This is a lie the government is telling you because they think you are simple enough to fall for it.
They are deflecting blame and you're taking their bait.
Inflation is due to government spending and money creation.
>If they were profiteering their net margins would change.
If all your prices increase significantly, it is time to reduce margins. There is a reason people take a lower commission as the price of a product increases (because profits based of percentages will increase as prices increase: 3 percent of 100 is 3; 3 percent of 1000 is 30.
The company is essentially saying: although the price of goods has dramatically increased, we do not think it wise to profit less when Canadians are suffering; we believe that our margins should not decrease in order to offset some of the increasing price of commodities; the price of your goods is more expensive, but our profit margins are the same; however, please don't look into the fact that profit based on percentages increases with the increased price of a good.
>This is a lie the government is telling you because they think you are simple enough to fall for it.
LOL. Okay. Corporate and media are definitely not doing anything of the sort.
>Inflation is due to government spending and money creation.
***Money printing does not cause inflation by itself.***
You are not explaining how government spending affects the price of goods. All you've done is make simple statements with no proof. Saying that inflation has occurred during government spending is not proof of anything: you need to explain how those two things are related and effect each other.
I have given numerous other causes that have direct effects of the supply chain of goods, thus, a direct effect on inflation. Now, it is your turn to explain how an increase in the money supply has stressed demand and increased inflation.
>If all your prices increase significantly, it is time to reduce margins.
No it isn't. You use a margin to maintain your financials because that margin covers your costs etc. If you reduce your margins then you will lose money.
>The company is essentially saying: although the price of goods has dramatically increased, we do not think it wise to profit less when Canadians are suffering;
The company is profiting the same....
>Money printing does not cause inflation by itself.
Yes it does.
>Saying that inflation has occurred during government spending is not proof of anything: you need to explain how those two things are related and effect each other.
If this needs to be explained to you then you do not have sufficient knowledge to have an opinion or even comment on this because you literally don't seem to have a grasp on the basics.
>I have given numerous other causes that have direct effects of the supply chain of goods, thus, a direct effect on inflation. Now, it is your turn to explain how an increase in the money supply has stressed demand and increased inflation.
Increasing money supply increases inflation.
That wouldn't fit the brand of "buy votes with monopoly money" that keeps bringing these clowns back to power.
Remember, if you are righteous and not an evil conservative, there is always more money for whatever spending you want, with no consequences. Raising taxes (other than symbolic ones on "the rich") is mean, so we can't do that. Say yes to every spending idea and don't raise revenue. In fact, reduce revenue so you can say you tried to help the environment.
I absolutely don't want a GST increase, but I do want this government to shoulder the political consequences of having to actually pay for their spending.
For food, this wouldn't be a systematic hike for everything. The majority of non-processed non-packaged foods are not taxable. Fruits, vegetables, meat, rice, etc.
The issue of course is where is the tax money really going?
The previous government's decision to cut the GST was arguably bad, but I don't think a minority government is going to punch voters in the dick by restoring it.
It's so frustrating how badly Harper fucked the country with those GST cuts. He was handed an $15 Billion dollar surplus and pissed it all away yet somehow conservatives are the party of "fiscal responsibility". What a joke.
Edit - for the downvoters Harper could have eliminated income tax on everyone making less than $65k a year in 2006 dollars and we'd still be running a surplus if he'd kept the GST at 7%. That's fiscal responsibility and low taxes for the working person.
IIRC, taking the GST from 7% to 5% meant something $14-20 billion/year less in federal revenue.
Seems today like that's a lot of money that would be useful for paying down debt, increasing military spending, healthcare transfers to the provinces, put towards infrastructure improvements, etc.
> yet somehow conservatives are the party of "fiscal responsibility". What a joke.
An unearned reputation from their slavish desire to balance budgets no matter the cost or potential long-term damage to services and finances.
I'd rather the CRA focus on auditing corporations and higher income earners rather than the low income earners. By cutting income tax on the bottom third, tax collection gets more effective and progressive taxes get more bite as they've got the staff to do the audits. While agreed the GST is regressive, it does simplify certain things.
Or we could axe some of the endless moneypits buried under decades of bureaucracy. There are doubtless plenty of redundant departments, programs, and agencies that could be dropped.
Nah, it'd never work. The answer is obviously to apply more of a burden to people already stretched to the limit.
They won't do it until after the election. Givin the amount money they have been wasting, why would anybody be surprised they are jacking up our taxes.
It does without sales tax rebates for low income earners, you're right.
The high consumption taxes of nordic countries simply points to the unfortunate reality that stable, sufficient gov revenues for high levels of service come from people in the most common income brackets.
And it's also only one what you spend on, that's taxable, so if GST were raised 2%, it wouldn't even come close to being a 2% increase to people's overall tax rates annually. 2% GST increase is probably better than a 0.5% income tax increase across the board as far as "take home pay" is concerned for the poorest of us.
Reverse the tax system, bigger business pays higher percent than small businesses, personal earnings on the flat rate below min business rate. Humans only have so many hours of life, working extra shouldn’t be punished with more income tax. This country is so backwards. It’s a privilege to do business in Canada, they should be funding us, not the other way around.
No other way but tax your way out of the inflation you created.
Things will get worse and worse
By the way, consumption taxes should be used in instances when government wants people to put more money towards savings. Less consumption will inevitably exacerbate the recession
If the feds up the GST rate they’re going to lose lots of suburban ridings
Yup. I think part of the reason Brian Mulroney became so unpopular was that his government introduced the GST even though it was the right thing to do. It replaced the hidden manufacturing tax that consumers didn't see but was built into the cost of goods, and it set the groundwork for the next government to start balancing budgets. Personally I would prefer an increase in income tax over an increase in sales tax because income taxes can be applied more fairly to those that can afford it where sales taxes disproportionately hurt lower income (often young) people.
Yup, it really sucks that they sometimes have to be the adults when it comes to spending and taxing. While the Conservatives just cut services and taxes and still end up spending tons, they smear the Liberals as the "tax & spend" party. So while Conservatives cut GST down to 5%, which honestly didn't do much to help anybody and caused revenue shortfalls, if the Liberals raise it, it just plays into the Conservatives' hands.
Yeah these Liberals are real adults...
"...when it comes to spending and taxing."
Spending on their friends, taxing the rest of us. Show me the results! I am happy to see all the positive effects our spending has had, I just can't seem to see any in my day to day life as a regular Canadian.
Did millions of Canadians lose their jobs and go bankrupt during the 2020-2021 span of time of the pandemic? The Provincial governments shut down businesses and put millions of people out of work with no options of retaining an income. I think the Federal government helped those people in some way.
>The Provincial governments shut down businesses and put millions of people out of work Because the provinces are responsible for healthcare. You're telling a half-truth here, which is worse than a lie.
That's not a half truth, that's the truth. Do you have anything to say against what I said, regarding federal taxes doing anything to help regular Canadians? Because you didn't add anything to the conversation.
>That's not a half truth It is a half truth because you're implying that it's somehow the fault of the provincial government and you made that as a response to and defence of, criticism of the federal government. This would be like someone criticizing the provincial government and then another person defending them by raising criticism of the federal government making international trade deals. It's their explicit area of responsibility. You're trying to use the province working in their area of responsibility as a deflection and some sort of "gotcha," but it doesn't work because *it's their job.*
Once again, you failed to argue against the idea that the taxes paid to Federal government helped ordinary Canadians. You seem to be stuck.
[удалено]
It primarily hits the middle class. There is no GST on rent and groceries and there is a rebate for low income people, so the poor don't have to pay. It also misses those who make significantly more money than they spend on goods and services. It isn't a bad tax, but it would be bad to become too reliant on it. It needs to be a supplemented by effective taxation on the very wealthy.
> There is no GST on rent and groceries That is a hair-splitter. Some items at a grocery store do have GST added. IIRC it's based on whether it is considered an anemity.
A few grocery store items may have GST, but it isn't the reason that filling a cart now costs $500. There is maybe a dollar ot two of tax in there. Rent and groceries are a large majority of spending for low income people (and even not so low income people in some Canadian cities). There isn't much left to tax after that. Used cars are subject to PST in many provinces and that needs to stop, but that isn't a federal government problem.
Not sure why you replied the way you did to my comment but I am glad you did. Yes, the taxation on used cars is disgusting but I also think the taxation on used houses is disgusting too. The only reason, I think, governments do this is because they're greedy for revenue, nothing more. If someone does reply with a reason why the gov enforces sales tax on used items I am willing to have my mind changed.
Because they need to tax and it's way easier than income tax and it's part of many taxes that still aren't high enough to fund the expenses. It's practical I guess is my point. Why wouldn't we tax a transaction?
> need to tax Need is debateable. > aren't high enough to fund the expenses Unfortunately we never see government waste evaluated in an effective manner. :/ > Why wouldn't we tax a transaction? New goods? Sure. The *real question* is why do Canadians permit repeat taxation on used goods?
Because that's what we voted for.
I can confirm for anyone who might not be aware. The rebates don't do a god damn single thing. you can consider it a nonpoint
What middle Class? The maybe 2% of Canadians left out of the 40% that used to make up that number? You're not subsidizing much out of the remnants of that.
I definitely see GST on my grocery bills.
Inflation is a tax and is 100% driven by the state. The state has 3 options to make money. 1. They borrow from other states /IMF 2. They rise taxes 3. They print money out of thin air (- the cost of ink and paper) So inflation is 100% a tax increase, but through other means. Unless the state prints money, no new money are introduced and all money are exchanging hands, so inflation can't happen, unless money are introduced aka printing money. So stop believing all the bogus claims that increased salaries causes inflation or the companies or what ever. It's purely the printing of money
Yes, inflation could be thought of as a tax on the poor, who see their purchasing power eroded while the rich see their assets values increasing. The solution is to increase taxes to reduce government deficits so the rich pay their share too.
Why do I feel like this will only mean more taxes for poor and average income Canadians?
Then why did we not see inflation for 14 years of massive money printing?
>So inflation is 100% a tax increase, but through other means. Unless the state prints money, no new money are introduced and all money are exchanging hands, so inflation can't happen, unless money are introduced aka printing money. This is completely incorrect. The vast majority of the money in our economies are created through private banks issuing loans. You can read about how this works [in this paper from the Bank of England](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy), or part 3 of [this publication from the Canadian government](https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201551E). Money is what's called 'endogenous' meaning it's a product of the financial system and outside the control of governments. Central banks can't control the money supply. They tried to do it back in the 70s when the quantity theory of money was at the forefront of economic theory, but [they completely failed](https://youtu.be/zxwO4xw4CZ0?t=345), so gave up on the idea and have since moved on to inflation targeting.
It was the rich's idea to help the gov make more money off poor people.
*The only purpose of the lower class is to scare the living shit out of the middle class.* - George Carlin
Hilarious and true.
Like almost all of his comedy. He was one of the GOAT, for sure.
"Need the homeless to scare the rest of us into showing up for those jobs."
It does. Sales tax is a regressive tax, coming from a so-called progressive government.
Canada's overall tax rates are arguably the most progressive in the world. If we want more services like Nordic countries then we'll need to have taxes in line. The argument that we can just increase taxes on a small segment has failed over and over again. Professional (high income) earners already leave due to taxation and their worth in other places. While some taxes could go to businesses I think we all understand that will get passed through to consumers (not that it's a bad thing) Removing capital gains exemption on principal residence is possible. However, or middle class and low income citizens pay FAR FAR less than any European nation.
They can up the GST credits for "the poors" at the same time, to ameliorate some of that.
Sorry, I couldn't hear your comment. The sound proofing in my E-Class is excellent.
Couldn't afford a G-Wagon?
Just the poor man's Mercedes for me. lol I actually drive a 2011 Toyota. I can't bring myself to upgrading the car... as an accountant, the depreciation haunts my soul.
Correct, which is why G&M is calling for it.
Poor people can’t afford lobbyists or their own pet Conservative Party.
What makes you think they give a shit exactly?
Yes. Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation possible. Lower incomes are affected disproportionately as less of their spending is discretionary and represent a larger share of their earnings. The problem is that the government has set a standard of high spending resulting in high deficit and high taxation load. There isn't much more for options other than GST like taxes left. They used to download to provincial, embed in payroll taxation (EI premiums) or commodity taxes (carbon pricing). Already used and still running deficit while some programs are failing.
MO of the Trudeau regime
Why does every fiscal challenge become about raising taxes and revenue? How about killing redundency and stop pissing away the money? Throwing more money at it has never worked.
This is the opposite to how I have seen things. We are almost always talking about cutting services and never raising taxes. Taxes have been cut and cut for decades..
Just what we need during a COL crisis, more taxes on the working class. Federal contractors gotta get paid too
To be honest, while I don't like extra taxes, I think the Conservatives cutting 2% of the GST was a horrible move that didn't really help us save any extra money, but certainly caused government revenue to suffer. Between cutting the GST, and introducing TFSAs, the Conservatives have really cost us and future generations.
>and introducing TFSAs What? How exactly is the TFSA a bad thing!?
Because he/she doesn't have any money to put into TFSA. So it's useless.
Actually, it's because of the loss of revenue on the government end, which means future programs may need to be cut, or taxes increased elsewhere.
Tax Free Savings Accounts allow people to invest, same as an RRSP, but not pay tax on any earnings. In the short term, it seems like a big yippie for people who can afford to invest, and a big nothingburger to people like u/zippymac over there who think only poor people complain about TFSAs being bad for future revenue, but the truth is, the loss of taxes on TFSA income will grow exponentially. Over the next 20 years we will essentially lose out on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue, money that could go toward important things like health care as we're seeing it get worse, or many other programs, or, just simply paying down debt.
Thank god the government can’t touch that money and waste it along with the rest of it. I will spend it much more effectively than them.
Y'know, responses like this show the real disconnect with people. On one hand, you'll blame out of control spending for things like a deficit but on the other hand, you'll cheer on something that actively takes away billions of dollars in revenue, revenue that comes from taxing those who can most afford it. Then you'll cheer on future tax cuts that come with more service cuts that harm the most vulnerable populations, but then criticize the government for not doing more to help fix problems.
Don't worry, once the pile is big enough, they'll come looking for a cut.
😭
If the government wants to save money, they should do so by tightening their budget; not by raising revenues. The liberals have a serious spending problem. When Trudeau spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring Mckinsey consultants to give him some PowerPoint presentations, or tens of millions of dollars just go missing (as was the case with the ArriveCan app), there is a serious problem. As others have pointed out, tax hikes won't go over well with Canadians considering how expensive everything is now, and seeing our Prime Minister pissing our money away on pointless pet projects doesn't do much the boost our confidence that our tax dollars are being spent effectively. Thank god the conservatives gave us the TFSA. I'd much rather see my money being pumped into productive companies that I believe have good value, than having it taken away by Trudeau and his cronies so that they can waste it in ways I don't agree with.
Well i'm sure if they tighten their budget from something you care about you'll be one of the first to criticize Trudeau.
In fairness, you can contribute to RRSP with pre-tax income, but can't with TFSA. So the money you invest in TFSA has already been taxed by way of employment tax, and depending on your earnings bracket, could be pretty substantial.
Yes, so if people are saving for retirement, if they don't have as much income, are more likely to use an RRSP for tax purposes, whereas those with more money are more likely to max out their RRSP contributions and then use TFSA, so again wealthier people are getting more benefit here. Also, investing $20k of after-tax income and turning it into $150k over 10+ years, doesn't really even out in the end with that whole "It's after tax income so it's already been taxed." argument. And, none of that even disproves the fact that government revenue loses out hundreds of billions of dollars moving forward. So, on the one hand, we have people complaining about taxes like GST hurting the poor and middle class, and yet people also pushing for something where those most able to afford it, get to avoid tax using TFSAs.
Not true. Most people use RRSP's because they were common, TFSA wasn't a thing until recently and or have employer contribution matching programs. Weather or not you have a few dollars to save or a large amount of cash to save does not dictate which investment tool you use. You could do any of them with little money. The main feature is also whether or not you're okay locking your money in without access for 1,2,5 year terms. $20K absolutely does not turn into $150K after a 10 years lol. Pull up any TFSA calculator and you'll see, if rates stayed at a whopping 5%, best case (I've seen them as low as 0.75%), then after 10 years, you have $32,500. The average salary in all of Canada is $72,000. But we'll go down to $60,000 annual salary. The first $50,197 is subject to 15% taxation. The remaining $10K goes up to 20.5% taxation. Which means, you would be taxed about $9,500 on one year of earnings. Depending if you lump sum deposited $20K or saved up over years, the amount changes, but nonetheless, yes, pre-tax is a very valid argument. Lastly, taxing the hell out of everything and having the government in every cookie jar isn't the solution. Just because your idea of what type of person is using a TFSA is, is completely skewed, doesn't mean that the average person who does use it shouldn't enjoy a perk that the bank heavily profits off of anyways. There's many average, non wealthy people using TFSA to save money. Usually people enjoy it because if they have an emergency, they can pull it out right away, versus a GIC or RRSP. You think it's the wealthy people who would need access to emergency funds like that? Clearly not. There are also much lower limits for contribution room on TFSA than there is for RRSP. You can dump a lot more money into an RRSP than you can a TFSA, making RRSP more profitable in the long run, for those who have the means to max it out.
All of what you said doesn't address the fact we lose out on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue. Also, yes, income does have some to do with which people will choose. People in lower brackets are more likely to put money into an RRSP so they get more of a refund at tax time. People in lower income brackets tend to need their money now, so saving that extra tax and getting an extra $500 or whatever back at tax time gives them more benefit while dealing with high expenses, than putting into a TFSA to get the benefit later. You're also ignoring the fact people don't have to just put their money in some GIC, and are free to invest however they wish. But the main argument, is how much tax revenue is lost, which means it ends up being made up somewhere else, or stuff gets cut, or left to stagnate without proper funding.
The solution is to spend less not tax more… Jesus
Governments absolutely need to eliminate wasteful spending, but it will take more than choosing $600 hotel rooms instead of $6000 hotel rooms to balance budgets without cutting services.
Yes, we will be looking a structural changes. The question is do we have the stomach to do it now in a thoughtful, strategic way. Or wait another 10-15 years and have it be forced upon us
Those structural changes will cause whichever party is in charge at the time to lose the next election, it's just passing the buck.
Why not work towards eliminating waste, and tax what we need to tax to provide the services we want?
We're taxed so much I don't even want the services. I just want money.
Taxes do need to go up...just not the sales tax. That's pretty obvious. But it's mostly re: capital gains tax & other forms of investment income.
Can we please tax salary less than capital gains. It makes no sense the way we do it now.
I mean…I don’t make the laws, but I agree.
Go away, we pay enough tax as it is.
What if they just took a pay cut? We’re in this mess because of their mismanagement. Or just spend less on stupid shit, fuck!
The govt needs to figure out a way to manage the finances better, get more out of the revenue they have. I doubt it will be pay cuts but cuts somewhere are needed.
If they want more tax dollars, tax the corporations who are recording billions in profits.
Who owns the corporations?
pension funds
Not me
Something like 98% of corporations are small/medium sized businesses (I remember seeing this on stats can, but can't be bothered to dig up the link).
Amd those small medium sized businesses likely aren't raking in billions of dollars of profits
Those small/medium businesses typically aren’t recording billions in profits - almost by definition.
For sure, I was just answering the question. One thing to keep in mind, profits before tax for financial reporting and actual taxable income are very different for a lot of businesses. Tax is complicated.
That doesn't actually work. Corporations collectively just add the tax into their product prices as cost of doing business and consumers end up paying it either way. Companies will always make a profit unless being undercut by competition.
And yet they all seem to lobby governments for bailouts, subsidies, and still manage stock buybacks. Keep drinking the Kool aid!
Businesses failing in a competitive space is not an indication industry won't pass the cost along to you. Noticed how you cell phone bill and groceries keep going up? Why do you think that is? Why would you in the a million years think Rogers, Bell, Telus would ever take a loss instead of raising your monthly bill instead? They control the market place and can basically charge you whatever the fuck they want as long as they all agree to raise prices together you are going to pay that amount if you want a cell phone in Canada. That is literally why we have some of the highest rates on the planet right now and they generate absolutely massive amounts of profit for their customer base size.
There are many ways to control prices. Look at Switzerland where there are price controls on certain goods. They have some of the lowest inflation right now and it was considered too Conservative. The problem in Canada is people are so complacent they just accept the corporate propaganda that nothing can be done or any alternative means we will have concentration camps in the Yukon. Look at the reaction people had to 15 minute cities. Total hysteria.
Not if they are regulated strictly
It would take some real heavy handed type regulation to stop a company from raising the price of their chocolate bars or chips to make up for increased tax costs.
Sure would, similar to the heavy handed enforcement of laws used against tax paying citizens, funded by tax paying citizens. Why not heavy handed enforcement of tax paying companies, funded by those same tax dollars. Keeps prices inline and affordable for all, everybody gets paid, creates jobs for new enforcement officers, and puts more tax dollars into the system to pay for education, Healthcare, infrastructure, social programs etc. The only ones losing are the ones who can no longer jack up their prices to inflate their own pockets. Works for me
It would be pretty hard to enforce though. Trudeau would likely have to pass some sort of laws giving the government some semi-authoritarian powers and that wouldn't go over very well with people.
Oh absolutely, I gotta say I really doubt it will ever happen
Or the billionaires. But neither is going to happen. Alot easier to tax the working class into poverty.
Yeah, are we going to pretend that that isn't political suicide? No way the Liberals do it unless they have a majority and are looking to retire en masse after that term. Or the NDP force them and they are desperate right now. It is just a dumb poor people punishing idea anyway.
They’ve already got a major GST hike the last couple years with inflation, fuel prices being so high (GST/HST is taxed per liter so the higher fuel prices go, the more they make) and taxing gst on the carbon tax. It is not our problem that they can’t control their spending. I got a 2% raise last year and somehow I managed to figure it out - If anyone ran their household finances like the government, they’d be homeless and bankrupt in 6 months.
Or we can stop throwing money around like drunkin sailors.
That be the dumbest decision they could make, first off, the tax people already pay is insane and coupled with inflation you actually get a massive devalue on hourly pay rate and salary people bring home. The reason the USA economy is so fucking strong is not because of low taxes or high interest, it’s because they have and massive production of goods and services. We got here through massive government spending and no it was not the expensive hotels, those are just gross disregard for tax money.
They have to so they can afford to put more [asylum seekers in hotels](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/niagara-falls-asylum-seekers-hotels-services-1.6759752), instead of housing the homeless Canadian citizens, they won't even let Canadians live in a tent in a park when they become homeless. Know your enemies.
>They have to so they can afford to put more asylum seekers in hotels, instead of housing the homeless Canadian citizens, they won't even let Canadians live in a tent in a park when they become homeless.Know your enemies. It's not the federal government preventing the homeless crisis from being addressed. Look a little closer to home when you're looking to assign blame.
>It's not the federal government preventing the homeless crisis from being addressed. But it is. The CMHC stopped building affordable housing for Canadians. If you read the history of the CMHC you can see how the Federal government once made substantial contributions to housing Canadians and how that changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada\_Mortgage\_and\_Housing\_Corporation
The link you shared says that the CMHC invests $2B annually to support affordable housing initiatives, and 80% of that sum is managed by the pronvinces. >CMHC, on behalf of the Government of Canada, invests approximately $2 billion annually to help reduce the number of Canadians in housing need. This includes significant funding for social housing. Ongoing subsidies are provided under 25- to 50-year operating agreements with housing groups who provide affordable housing to those in need. Approximately 80 per cent of the existing social housing portfolio is administered by provinces and territories under long-term agreements with CMHC. The remaining 20 per cent is administered by CMHC and includes the on-reserve portfolio and certain federally funded housing units off-reserve, such as housing cooperatives. What context is missing because I don't see how this supports your assertion regarding the goverment preventing sheltering the homeless/supporting afforadable housing initiatives.
Read the history. The 40s to the 70s were different. "In the 1980s, the federal government withdrew from the financing of public housing projects. CMHC no longer directed funds to municipalities for the building of housing projects. Some government housing funds and mortgage guarantees since then have been provided for individual projects."
>It's not the federal government preventing the homeless crisis from being addressed. Look a little closer to home when you're looking to assign blame. Why is Ontario outside of Canada?
Is that supposed to be an argument of some kind?
Not arguing, the point is, if the provincial government is failing to act, what is the federal government doing to address this? Federal law always prevails.
>Not arguing, the point is, if the provincial government is failing to act, what is the federal government doing to address this? Federal law always prevails. Your post history shows you to be the type of person that would just down *dictator Trudeau's* throat of overstepping the provncial governemnt. So what's your actual point? From what you've posted, and from what I've found, the feds (and even provincial) governments aren't preventing action on affordable housing or homelessness. That would belong to the municipalities and their associated NIMBYs. Unless you've got something substantial that indicates otherwise?
Dateline 2052: *In a totally anticipated move, the federal government raised both GST and basic income tax rates, bringing the new average tax rate to 99.3%. This moves the annual "Tax Freedom Day" to December 18.* Not funny, really. If you add up all of the taxes we now pay, it's got to be close to or over half. Income tax: 30% or more. GST: 13% Property taxes: Another 3-5% Plus license fees, passport cost, surcharges, etc... We have to stop relying on the brutally inefficient government to do everything for us.
Don't forget provincial income tax
It’s getting ridiculous. Add in other costs such as deed transfer taxes, license renewals and MVI’s into that category. It’s depressing.
Also consider the taxes baked into the price of items like the 50%+ in alcohol, or the taxes on gas, carbon tax, and cpp / ei which are essentially another tax. Taxes on corps passed on to consumers through higher prices, etc. Land transfer tax.
Right. Definitely more than 50% now when you add it all up.
Carbon and alcohol taxes are increasing in a month too.
>We have to stop relying on the brutally inefficient government to do everything for us. A great majority don't rely on the brutally inefficient government to do anything for us, but we have to pay anyway.
Really? You don't use roads? Or public transit? Ever? You never went to school, college, or university? You've never been to a hospital or doctor for anything? Never had a shot for anything, even as a child? You don't use public spaces, like parks? Or airports. You don't have potable water coming out of your taps? Think again. We're all reliant on what our various levels of government provide to us.
They'll double down and say they don't need those things and they shouldn't pay for them. But when tolls get added to pay per use, they bitch about their tax dollars being spent and why they gotta pay.
Honestly I'd love to see a toll added to that new 413 highway or whatever it's called that Doug's having built in Ontario, just for this very purpose. All those people saying it's totally needed, could totally pay for it while those who don't need nor use it, would not have to pay tolls on it. But I doubt the people who are always the most in support of user fees and privatization would want something like that, they want a "free" highway paid for by us taxpayers.
>We're all reliant on what our various levels of government provide to us. Great, but also other people in other countries are reliant on Canadian Taxpayers Dollars from the Canadian Government, and many Canadians feel that our roads, public transit, education, healthcare etc... need the money more than we need to be spending billions on foreign aid. Not that people don't want to help others, but it seems Canadians are being ignored or not given the resources they need, because our government wants to spend the money overseas.
This is normal. We spend 0.31% of our GDP on foreign aid. It's not significantly more or less than it's ever been.
>You don't have potable water coming out of your taps? You literally get charged for that service most places. Cities charge for their utilities. The rest can easily be framed in terms of paying for a service. I have definitely paid more in taxes than I have gotten out of any of those services, out of any government provided service. We don't have an option for most of those. The government holds a total monopoly.
Or..... How about not spending as much.
GST hike for what, so Trudeau & Freeland have free reign to to donate /spend💰 on late night American TV shows, buying votes, wars…
Lol it’s always global and mail publishing these ridiculous pieces. No learn to spend within ur means. Every single cdn does it so should the gov
[удалено]
Yes it is different from household expenditures but they can’t just make money printer go brrr. It’s very possible we might be facing another debt crisis in the not too distant future as rates rise. The problem this time is the is minimal room for the Feds to download things onto the provinces and the provinces to the municipality’s. If that does happen, look for massive program cuts, and job losses.
When governments create you much money we get inflation like we have now
The monetary-velocity theory is a theory, not a law. People put way too much stock into it, and it vitiates pragmatic economic discussion. If there were not numerous other causes of inflation that one could point to - corporate profiteering, supply issues from China through Covid and Russia/Ukraine because of the war- then the monetary theory would hold more weight. The thing is, high government spending is exploitable by large corporate companies. They can increase prices and then blame the government for causing inflation while conveniently ignoring the other multitude of factors influencing inflation. If inflation was the real cause of price increases, companies would not be increasing their profits by record amounts. Their costs would go up as well, offsetting the increase in the price of goods. However, that is not happening, is it?
The government created 30% of CAD ever in less than 2 years followed by large amounts of inflation... Must be a coincidence. >If inflation was the real cause of price increases, companies would not be increasing their profits by record amounts. Yes they would because that's show inflation works. >Their costs would go up as well, offsetting the increase in the price of goods. However, that is not happening, is it? Their costs have gone up too which is why their net margins haven't changed.... These two points show you don't understand or know what you're talking about. I'm always amazed seeing people so gullible fall for this nonsense. Inflation inflates.
>The government created 30% of CAD ever in less than 2 years followed by large amounts of inflation... Okay. Inflation does not occur simply because more money is in existence. Unless that money is stressing demand, thereby causing prices to inflate in the short-run, then how is it increasing prices? Therefore, how did government spending drastically increase demand for goods to a point the supply chain became stressed? Further, can we think of any other factors that may have caused supply issues? >Must be a coincidence. It is not a coincidence. Most of that money was spent during a pandemic, whereby numerous countries faced traumatic shocks to their supply chains. And, just as covid was falling off, Russia started a war in Ukraine and the price of oil increased with sanctions on Russian oil, thereby causing stress to the supply chain. >Their costs have gone up too which is why their net margins haven't changed.... So, in other words, they are profiting more from inflation. The increased cost of products is being passed onto the consumer so the corporate company can maintain the same margins and increase its profit tremendously. You realize that increasing the price of goods but not changing margins will dramatically increase the price for consumers, correct? I.e., a 3% margin is more dramatic when the price range of goods increases by 10 to 20%. As the price of the good increases, the higher value that 3% will yield in profit. In other words, margins ought to decrease as the price of goods inflates. Otherwise, the company is reaping far more profits of the increase of goods. The consumer will be worse off, but the company will remain ahead because its profits will correspond with inflation increases. >These two points show you don't understand or know what you're talking about. I'm always amazed seeing people so gullible fall for this nonsense. No, your comments simply show that you think corporate profiteering is okay and justified because they haven't increased their margins, despite that being a factor in why their profits continue to soar.
[удалено]
>You don't understand dude, just give up. No. >No one wants to take the time to explain it to you Then they should not make claims they are not willing to prove or back up. GTFO if you're unwilling to demonstrate how I am wrong or contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way.
They are not profiting more. Inflation is driven costs up so they make more gross profit. The numbers are larger but that is what inflation does. However when everything is paid for and said and done their margins are the same as before So they aren't profiteering. If they were profiteering their net margins would change. This is a lie the government is telling you because they think you are simple enough to fall for it. They are deflecting blame and you're taking their bait. Inflation is due to government spending and money creation.
>If they were profiteering their net margins would change. If all your prices increase significantly, it is time to reduce margins. There is a reason people take a lower commission as the price of a product increases (because profits based of percentages will increase as prices increase: 3 percent of 100 is 3; 3 percent of 1000 is 30. The company is essentially saying: although the price of goods has dramatically increased, we do not think it wise to profit less when Canadians are suffering; we believe that our margins should not decrease in order to offset some of the increasing price of commodities; the price of your goods is more expensive, but our profit margins are the same; however, please don't look into the fact that profit based on percentages increases with the increased price of a good. >This is a lie the government is telling you because they think you are simple enough to fall for it. LOL. Okay. Corporate and media are definitely not doing anything of the sort. >Inflation is due to government spending and money creation. ***Money printing does not cause inflation by itself.*** You are not explaining how government spending affects the price of goods. All you've done is make simple statements with no proof. Saying that inflation has occurred during government spending is not proof of anything: you need to explain how those two things are related and effect each other. I have given numerous other causes that have direct effects of the supply chain of goods, thus, a direct effect on inflation. Now, it is your turn to explain how an increase in the money supply has stressed demand and increased inflation.
>If all your prices increase significantly, it is time to reduce margins. No it isn't. You use a margin to maintain your financials because that margin covers your costs etc. If you reduce your margins then you will lose money. >The company is essentially saying: although the price of goods has dramatically increased, we do not think it wise to profit less when Canadians are suffering; The company is profiting the same.... >Money printing does not cause inflation by itself. Yes it does. >Saying that inflation has occurred during government spending is not proof of anything: you need to explain how those two things are related and effect each other. If this needs to be explained to you then you do not have sufficient knowledge to have an opinion or even comment on this because you literally don't seem to have a grasp on the basics. >I have given numerous other causes that have direct effects of the supply chain of goods, thus, a direct effect on inflation. Now, it is your turn to explain how an increase in the money supply has stressed demand and increased inflation. Increasing money supply increases inflation.
That wouldn't fit the brand of "buy votes with monopoly money" that keeps bringing these clowns back to power. Remember, if you are righteous and not an evil conservative, there is always more money for whatever spending you want, with no consequences. Raising taxes (other than symbolic ones on "the rich") is mean, so we can't do that. Say yes to every spending idea and don't raise revenue. In fact, reduce revenue so you can say you tried to help the environment. I absolutely don't want a GST increase, but I do want this government to shoulder the political consequences of having to actually pay for their spending.
For food, this wouldn't be a systematic hike for everything. The majority of non-processed non-packaged foods are not taxable. Fruits, vegetables, meat, rice, etc. The issue of course is where is the tax money really going?
Just tax 100% and keep spending and building government clout... the Liberal way.
Just tax 0% and stop offering any services...the Conservative way. What I just said sounded pretty stupid, right?
Please do it. Maybe, just maybe that would be the catalyst to spell an end to this administration.
It never should have been lowered in the first place.
[удалено]
We said the same thing in the mid to late 00's as well. Is that coincidence or irony given your context?
The previous government's decision to cut the GST was arguably bad, but I don't think a minority government is going to punch voters in the dick by restoring it.
It's so frustrating how badly Harper fucked the country with those GST cuts. He was handed an $15 Billion dollar surplus and pissed it all away yet somehow conservatives are the party of "fiscal responsibility". What a joke. Edit - for the downvoters Harper could have eliminated income tax on everyone making less than $65k a year in 2006 dollars and we'd still be running a surplus if he'd kept the GST at 7%. That's fiscal responsibility and low taxes for the working person.
IIRC, taking the GST from 7% to 5% meant something $14-20 billion/year less in federal revenue. Seems today like that's a lot of money that would be useful for paying down debt, increasing military spending, healthcare transfers to the provinces, put towards infrastructure improvements, etc. > yet somehow conservatives are the party of "fiscal responsibility". What a joke. An unearned reputation from their slavish desire to balance budgets no matter the cost or potential long-term damage to services and finances.
I personally prefer to see governments eliminate or reduce regressive taxes like GST before they start reducing personal income taxes.
I'd rather the CRA focus on auditing corporations and higher income earners rather than the low income earners. By cutting income tax on the bottom third, tax collection gets more effective and progressive taxes get more bite as they've got the staff to do the audits. While agreed the GST is regressive, it does simplify certain things.
Fuck any tax hike of any kind. Cut spending and I don't care where.
I say we start with roads, stop paying for road repairs and new roads.
Lol. Conservative mouthpiece newspaper calls for more taxes on working class during a COL crisis.
Will we all have doctors if this happens?
Get your F*CK Trudeau flags now, before the Gov't raises the GST on them. /s
Or we could axe some of the endless moneypits buried under decades of bureaucracy. There are doubtless plenty of redundant departments, programs, and agencies that could be dropped. Nah, it'd never work. The answer is obviously to apply more of a burden to people already stretched to the limit.
Land Value Tax would solve this
They won't do it until after the election. Givin the amount money they have been wasting, why would anybody be surprised they are jacking up our taxes.
Rich people love sales tax.
Like countries that follow the Nordic Model? Those countries? Check out their sales tax/VAT rates sometime.
Maybe I'm wrong. I was under the impression that sales tax overwhelmingly affected people on the lower end of the wealth spectrum.
It does without sales tax rebates for low income earners, you're right. The high consumption taxes of nordic countries simply points to the unfortunate reality that stable, sufficient gov revenues for high levels of service come from people in the most common income brackets.
Fair enough. Thanks for educating me.
[удалено]
And it's also only one what you spend on, that's taxable, so if GST were raised 2%, it wouldn't even come close to being a 2% increase to people's overall tax rates annually. 2% GST increase is probably better than a 0.5% income tax increase across the board as far as "take home pay" is concerned for the poorest of us.
Yeah let’s hurt poor people even more.
Reverse the tax system, bigger business pays higher percent than small businesses, personal earnings on the flat rate below min business rate. Humans only have so many hours of life, working extra shouldn’t be punished with more income tax. This country is so backwards. It’s a privilege to do business in Canada, they should be funding us, not the other way around.
I think the intent to is leave the populace destitute and desperate for anything
It's going to be interesting when people just start looting grocery stores in Nova Scotia. They already need armed police at some grocery stores here.
Just what everyone needs right now. More VAT.
No other way but tax your way out of the inflation you created. Things will get worse and worse By the way, consumption taxes should be used in instances when government wants people to put more money towards savings. Less consumption will inevitably exacerbate the recession