1trailmaker

so you are saying 2 people making 70k each should be taxed at 140k? I think you missed quoted what you are trying to say which is someone making 140k should be taxed at 70k if their partner doesn't work. Funny how you now think people sitting at home not working deserve a tax break

I remember you guys in rage over Harper Indeed, tax cuts to corporations and rich people are definitely going to outlast Mr. Harper. The problem with such cuts is that you need to make up the revenue from somewhere else. Mr. Harper is missing that part of the equation. After all, the Conservatives inherited a fiscally sound government. From 1997 to 2005, the Liberal government had budget surpluses. We paid down $92.7 billion of the national debt which freed up money to support programs. We were on the right track. Since then our budgets have ballooned and we have had unprecedented deficits. The debt has increased by $171 billion. It is chomping a bigger and bigger portion of the federal budget. As anyone with a credit card knows, it is not the principal that gets you - it's the interest. Our debt servicing costs are $29.3 billion per year or 11.1 per cent of the federal budget, according to the Fraser Institute. It is not often that I agree with the Fraser Institute but they, too, are worried about this government's ability to handle our finances. you ONEWAYS are pretty funny

"Fully one half of the $3 billion in savings flowing from the 'middle class' tax cut will in fact go to the top 10% of individual tax filers who had taxable incomes of more than $89,200 in 2012. Beneficiaries include the top 1% with incomes of more than $222,000, though this elite group will face a new top tax rate of 33%, up from 29% today. To summarize, the major gains from the 'middle class' tax cut will go to individuals with incomes between $89,200 and $200,000, roughly the top 10%, minus the top 1% who will pay higher taxes to pay for the tax cut for those below them on the income ladder."

just an example of posts that are not adding up The Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank, published a statement titled: “Income splitting not the best economic bang for the buck.” “Reducing personal income tax rates would provide broader-based tax relief and an enormous improvement in our tax competitiveness while strengthening the incentives for work effort, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship,” the institute said. “Canadians would get far bigger bang for their buck with big-picture reforms such as broad-based personal income tax cuts than tinkering with income splitting.” In fact, only about 15 per cent of households will benefit from the $2 billion a year in foregone federal revenue devoted to income-splitting, https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/07/conservative_tax_breaks_leave_out_vast_majority_of_households.html now tax cuts for all are not good Cutting income taxes is a laudable goal. And 80% will pay more Its clear Fraser twists the numbers just to get attention

keep posting the same article from the same admitted Conservative think tank Yes those that could take advantage of the one time income splitting year are going to be paying what they used to for 8 years of harper Eliminating the income-splitting tax credit effectively meant an average $949 tax increase on middle-class families — defined as families with incomes between $77,089 and $107,624. That same middle-class group only benefited $228 (on average) from the government’s cut to the second-lowest income tax rate. Simply put, eliminating just the income-splitting tax credit more than offset the benefit of the tax rate reduction. Pretty sad really no mention that ALL families that didn't get the income splitting now pay less I don't mind reports but do mind ONEWAY reports Why not give the numbers and dollars all people are paying? No mention that a single parent gets nothing under Harper? why is that? If a household has two earners at, say, $40,000 each, it would pay lower combined income taxes than a one-earner household with the same amount of income ($80,000)

good cbc National tonight on illegal border crossings

any Frank fans? seen dweezil 6 times and will see him every chance I get. Master band Scheila Gonzalez on wind and keyboard is the ultimate anyway Frank Fans enjoy it

never happen with my wife she barely goes now lol My place is too much out in the middle of nowhere, "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" could be come the quote winter one either way moving sucks ass, only time it might be good is the day you leave Mommy and Daddy

more for everyone it seems like a win

YOU SHOULD BE TAXED MORE IS WHAT i SAID second I said the 100k list is worthless, never once asked for more money - I did say all wages need to go up

lots of places to move to, nice bungalow 2800sf 1 acre land plenty of room for the loins at the driveway 1 million moving to the cottage isn't all its cracked up to be

rich guy eh!

HOUSING IN THE GTA needs a correction from insane to just below insane 1.1 million shithole drops to 990 000 big deal zero to do with the government - and for you to wish this insane price game to continue is dumb too be thankful you have that 3 million price tag for you home, cash in soon

I agree wages need to go up same goes for the 100k club you guys drool over, it is worthless by todays standards

There is no doubt we pay too much to the feds today and yesterday - when I brought this up under Harper you all disagreed You should be taxed extra just for being a ONEWAY nuisance A recent U.S Congressional Budget Office study found that Canadian corporations, on average, paid an effective tax rate of 8.5 per cent — a lot lower than the statutory combined federal and provincial corporate tax rate of 26 per cent. Every year, the richest 10 per cent get tax breaks of almost $58 billion. Those breaks have an impact on our capacity to deliver the services that make Canada a great place to live: health care, child care and education. RR if we are going to protect these huge money earners, you and I will be the ones to pay the bills - take your pick

left out single mom making 49k who pays less tax and receives way more today than yesterday Notice they only compared it to last year of Harper when he added income splitting - Lets agree they didn't just say 80% of workers pay more, they didn't give that number for a reason ONEWAY

I can dispute the brackets and get different numbers YES notice the low end is 50k? why? because it would throw the twisted numbers off. Dude percent game is played well here

You can apply for increases for repairs - they are shit holes because most owners don't give a rats ass just like the tenants - it goes hand and hand. condos are worse as bad with maintenance fees going up and up

20 more buildings coming BOLD is an interesting comment - explain that for say a 200 unit building

rent control has been set to inflation rate for 40 years New rental building set a rental rate that covers their costs and gives ROR - they are not losing, just not gouging

ya lets just work with the percentile that will make our claims seem true said the Conservative ONEWAY based institute I have no doubt a family member making 100k with a partner making nothing paid less in the one year of income splitting. (which was here 1 tax year) that same family where both made 50k are not paying more, they already were under Harpers schemes. This same report came out about income tax splitting, where so many are paying less taxes - except a single mom or dad or any partners making the same money ect ect ect How about getting a better break down lets start with Single Moms making xxK a year? How about Family with not kids? How about a single person making 60k a year? Ya I can make a list too Not sure how FRASER gets a hold of private income tax statements - but lets take the twisted percentiles numbers as fact. Answer to your question is GOLF - I guess I am in the low percentile that is paying less - lucky me

Just some History on Ontario advertising The law was change by Dulton because of Mike Harris mass of ONEWAY ads. He appeared in many if you remember As it now stands, the Government Advertising Act — the only legislation of its kind in Canada — bans partisan political advertising in newspapers, magazines, television and radio, leaving the interpretation to the auditor general’s office. Proposed changes would define an ad as partisan if it contains the name, voice or image of a member of cabinet or an MPP — unless the primary audience for the ad is outside Ontario. Ads could also not contain the name or logo of a recognized political party or “to a significant degree, a colour associated with the governing party, unless the item commonly appears in that colour.” The government would also extend the auditor’s power to vet ads for online use, public transit and movie theatres. Lysyk says she doesn’t want the powers if the law is changed, arguing it would weaken the auditor’s office from its watchdog role over ads to a “rubber stamp.” The law was passed by the Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty 11 years ago, shortly after taking power from a Progressive Conservative government led for seven years by Mike Harris after his landslide 1995 victory. He appeared in a number of ads that opposition parties said gave the government an unfair propaganda advantage. Matthews insists the legislation will keep its intent to “prevent any government every again running the kind of wasteful ads that Mike Harris ran.” Privately, some Liberals have said over the years that the law as originally passed was too strict and tied the government’s hands. https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/05/06/the-different-colours-of-partisan-adverising.html so far its looking like the Conservatives hold the spending record for ads too, they already own the largest debt accumulated

Finally realizing CBC is the #1 source for non bias news - you post enough from them to fuel your hatred for anything non Conservative you can add the Ontario Pension Plan ads too Grey area for some of these ads - public should be informed about certain things of course the outrage back in 2013 was huge by FS-ers here The BOLD ARE CONSERVATIVE CLASSICS Taxpayers spent $14.8-million last year promoting "Canada's Economic Action Plan," a catchphrase first created by the Conservative government to promote stimulus spending that ended nearly two years ago. A report on ad spending obtained by The Globe and Mail shows last year's totals came in about $5-million higher than what Treasury Board had previously listed as the approved advertising budget. The Conservative government faces continued criticism this year that it is pushing the boundaries of self-promotion at taxpayer expense, spending $2.5-million to advertise a job grant that does not yet exist and recently launching a weekly video of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's activities. Although the final ad spending numbers for 2012-13 came in higher than projected, overall ad spending is on a downward trend. The $69-million total is about $10-million less than the year before. It is also nearly half the size of the massive $136.3-million ad buy the Conservatives approved in 2009-10, primarily to promote stimulus spending during the recession. The Conservative government has spent more than $100-million on Economic Action Plan ads since 2009, (2013 REFERENCE DATE) in spite of opposition complaints that the ads amount to political propaganda at taxpayers' expense. The government now uses the phrase more broadly to describe its economic programs, and more action plan ads are booked for this year. The more the Political party's try to get citizens divided left right center the worse things are going to get.

Ontario has had rent control since 1975 and has been reworked by all governments since then. Without rent control we would be fucked. So you read a headline and posted about it, didn't read any further. Sonshine said the unit it converted to condominiums was driven by the fact it had a partner on the development in Allied REIT, so only half of the 133 units belonged to his REIT, and the price of the condominiums had gone higher than expected. Sonshine said the REIT has since reviewed every one of its rental projects and has about 20 underway at some point in the pipeline. The traditional retail landlord will have about 4,000 units in its portfolio as it takes advantages of some of its strategic locations in urban centres. “Our stated goals is to have 10,000 units across Canada,” he said, adding his company does not want to switch to condominiums over rentals. “We are in the cash flow business and we like cash flow even though the government has put a crimp in future growth.” SEEMS they are continuing to build more rental units in Ontario - yet you claim different With the large grow coming in the next bunch of years, landlords can increase by near 3%