eBay

gauge33 · ‎12-01-2015

Makes perfect sense since his election platform pledged to take away family income splitting as well as child care UCCB payments.

And replace it with what, hasn't said.

In these times, Mr. Harper's top priority is to give wealthy families like his and mine $2,000," Trudeau said in reference to the Conservatives' income-splitting tax credit. "Let me tell you something: We don't need it. And Canada can't afford it."

Trudeau is also entitled to collect annual UCCB payments of about $3,400 for his three children.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533

pierrelebel · ‎12-01-2015

Again!

The election is over. You lost. Move on.

By the way, yesterday, for the first time in Canadian history, electors got rid of the last provincial party running under the "Conservative" banner.

The Canadian world is turning RED (with a nice touch of orange here and there), federally and provincially.

Get used to it. Right wing policies and way of thinking have been rejected by the majority of Canadians.

Even big oil businesses in Alberta agree with the NDP oil policy! The world is changing folks. Get used to it.

Petty personal attacks - Harper style - are a thing of the past. We do not do that anymore. Did you not get the memo?

gauge33 · ‎12-01-2015

Are you ridiculing that CBC article. They need to get over it!

disisus · ‎12-02-2015

This article in the National Post seems to think it's ok Valve. I don't consider the Prime Minister to be a regular job and has always been the case, it does come with household help.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/michael-den-tandt-of-course-the-pm-should-be-complemented-c...

Let us first dispense with the notion that the employment of childcare workers by a prime minister and his spouse, particularly when the children are little, is in any way improper. Every prime minister with a young family in living memory has had such help. The job is 24/7, the demands incessant, the travel constant. In most public circumstances, both the PM and his wife are expected to attend, as Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau have done on their recent international swing. There would be harrumphing if this were not the case.

Likewise, it fails the test of logic to say nannies are less important to a prime minister’s proper functioning than are cooks, gardeners or drivers. The taxpayer-employed chef at 24 Sussex Drive (once the Trudeaus move back into the official residence, after renovations) presumably will be deemed a reasonable expense because the PM and his spouse can’t very well be leaping up during state dinners to clear the soup bowls, or grab the kettle before it boils over. The PM is not expected to mow his own lawn or rake his own leaves.

Every PM gets household help for whatever they need in their particular circumstances.

.
.
.

.
Unless each day can be looked back upon by an individual
as one in which he has had some fun, some joy, some
real satisfaction, that day is a loss.

gauge33 · ‎12-02-2015

And considering what Justin's platform promised to take away from middleclass families with children makes it OK? Unfortunately universality in most government programs (OAS for eg) includes the rich that could do quite well without it, the Trudeaus included. Will he fix that in his case?

disisus · ‎12-02-2015

And considering what Justin's platform promised to take away from middleclass families with children makes it OK?

I don't recall an election promise to take away from Middle Class Families with children. Can you provide a link to that?

.
.
.

.
Unless each day can be looked back upon by an individual
as one in which he has had some fun, some joy, some
real satisfaction, that day is a loss.

gauge33 · ‎12-02-2015

You usually are on top of these things Les. Living in a vacuum in Winterpeg?

http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/managing-wealth/the-liberals-taxing-policies-what...

disisus · ‎12-02-2015

Here ya go Valve:

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/05/Fairness-for-the-Middle-Class.pdf

.
.
.

.
Unless each day can be looked back upon by an individual
as one in which he has had some fun, some joy, some
real satisfaction, that day is a loss.

disisus · ‎12-02-2015

According to the chart on the Financial Post article you linked to, under the New Liberal Income tax structure, Middle Class Incomes that

are between $44,701. and $89,401 will have a tax reduction, which will benefit Middle Class Families. If you make over $200,000 then you'll pay more but that's not considered Middle Class.

.
.
.

.
Unless each day can be looked back upon by an individual
as one in which he has had some fun, some joy, some
real satisfaction, that day is a loss.

rose-dee · ‎12-02-2015

@gauge33 wrote:

In these times, Mr. Harper's top priority is to give wealthy families like his and mine $2,000," Trudeau said in reference to the Conservatives' income-splitting tax credit. "Let me tell you something: We don't need it. And Canada can't afford it."
Trudeau is also entitled to collect annual UCCB payments of about $3,400 for his three children.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

The distinction that everyone who has pounced on this subject has failed to take into account is that Trudeau was referring to himself as an ordinary citizen (one with a lot of money), before he became PM. There is no need or justification for him to receive tax credits or child care benefits while he is just another well-to-do Canadian. That changes when he becomes the leader of our country.

As Prime Minister, he will not in any case have the same access to his own pre-election wealth that he referred to. Much of it will have been placed in arm's-length trusts for the duration of his tenure as PM.

That reality aside, do we as Canadians relying on our PM to be focused on his job in directing the country, really want him to be worrying about arranging for, and dealing with paying and managing, household help to look after his young children? I don't. If he were paying for it out of his own funds, he'd be obliged to handle the details.

If it costs a couple of moderate yearly salaries to make sure our PM is not distracted by household management and child care issues, so be it. I think it is completely fair to expect Canadians to free up a PM's expenses and his mind for more critical tasks by providing reasonable personal and household services. To my mind this is a silly and frivolous complaint by those who haven't been able to find anything more significant to criticize.

Incidentally, although I can't verify the accuracy of this, it was reported that Trudeau was giving the child care benefits to which he was entitled (under our previous government benefit plan), to charity.

disisus · ‎12-02-2015

I think you were referring to this Rose-dee.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/21/justin-trudeau-wont-accept-his-familys-child-care-bene...

.
.
.

.
Unless each day can be looked back upon by an individual
as one in which he has had some fun, some joy, some
real satisfaction, that day is a loss.

rose-dee · ‎12-02-2015

Yes, that's the one.

pierrelebel · ‎12-02-2015

Brian Mulroney and his wife did not have a "nanny" paid by the government when he was PM.

They had a "maid" (paid by the government) who interacted with the children.

ilurkthereforiam · ‎12-02-2015

He campaigned on taking away government programs from the rich because the rich (himself included) don't need it, but now that he is PM he will take it.

He is like his father. Tells the voter what they want to hear and then break those promises after he gets elected.

gauge33 · ‎12-02-2015

Right on Lurk! Stay tuned to the Trudeau Peter thread.

disisus · ‎12-02-2015

He campaigned on taking away government programs from the rich because the rich (himself included) don't need it, but now that he is PM he will take it.

He is like his father. Tells the voter what they want to hear and then break those promises after he gets elected.

So what if you called them "special assistant" instead of nannies? Does that make a difference?. Laureen Harper had a full time "special assistant". Harper had his hairdresser/make-up artist that traveled with them. They didn't pay for them.

I don't remember Trudeau ever promising that if he became PM he would be the first Prime Minister in Canada that will manage the country without any special assistants as every PM before him has had. What he did say is that people in his income tax bracket don't need special tax breaks. That should go to the middle class. So if he changes the tax laws so rich people like him don't get those tax breaks he will have kept his promise.

.
.
.

.
Unless each day can be looked back upon by an individual
as one in which he has had some fun, some joy, some
real satisfaction, that day is a loss.

gauge33 · ‎12-03-2015

(What he did say is that people in his income tax bracket don't need special tax breaks. That should go to the middle class. So if he changes the tax laws so rich people like him don't get those tax breaks he will have kept his promise.)

The fed’s $4 billion hole

The newly elected government in Ottawa has committed to increase the tax burden on the richest 1 per cent of earners and redistribute the proceeds by reducing the burden on middle-income earners. More specifically, the federal tax rate on taxable income greater than $200,000 would rise from 29 to 33 per cent. The tax rate on taxable income from $45,000 to $90,000 would drop from 22 to 20.5 per cent. The Liberal platform expects these changes to cost nothing: The new top rate is anticipated to bring in as much as the decreased middle-income rate is supposed to forgo.

There is one potential hiccup to the plan, however: The electoral platform may have been overly optimistic with respect to how much additional revenues the new tax bracket at the top will raise. Starting with Nova Scotia in 2010, six provinces have already increased their top tax rate, with Quebec, Ontario, and four other provinces having combined federal/provincial top tax rates equal or greater than 50 per cent. The tax room at the top is shrinking. Promise in jeopardy?

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/the-feds-4-billion-hole

Les, will the one and a half % drop in middle class income tax cover the loss of the family income splitting which can be as much as $2000? Single income families, stay at home mothers etc you must know a few, I doubt it will be covered, just a tax grab. The new child payment revisions will they match the previous? Haven't seen them yet have you?

disisus · ‎12-03-2015

I'm not sure I understand your questions but maybe this will help you:

1. Only families with children under age 18 will be eligible for the proposed plan, however. They would be allowed to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to the spouse in a lower income bracket. The amount of the tax relief would be capped at $2,000 per year.

2. The vast majority of families are not likely to benefit, according to reports from The C.D. Howe Institute and The Broadbent Institute. They found that 85 to 90 per cent of households would see no rebates from this tax break at all.

3. Those likely to see the biggest benefit would be single-income families, in which one spouse is making at least a six-figure income and the other is making little to no money. According to the Broadbent report, in order to benefit most from the plan, one spouse would need to make at least $100,000 more than the other.

4. Single parents also miss out, since they have no one to split their income with. Families with children no longer under the age of 18 do not qualify either.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-is-income-splitting-1.2079299

.
.
.

.
Unless each day can be looked back upon by an individual
as one in which he has had some fun, some joy, some
real satisfaction, that day is a loss.

gauge33 · ‎12-03-2015

I'm not encouraging you to get pregnant however there's one other segment, two income families where one of them is on a one year maternity leave. Oh hold off Les the Liberals are cancelling family income splitting.