Federal Budget 2017 - March 22

Recommended reading, economic debates, predictions and opinions.
SQRT
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Alberta/Ontario/Arizona

Re: Federal Budget 2017 - March 22

Post by SQRT » 24 Mar 2017 10:07

longinvest wrote:
24 Mar 2017 09:53
kcowan wrote:
24 Mar 2017 09:32
I think the problem is that politicians want something dumb enough for them to understand.
Yes. But, it's not such a bad thing, when you think about it. If it's dumb enough for politicians, it should be dumb enough for lots of people. As long as it's good enough (like the current 50% inclusion rule), I won't complain. It's the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid).
Yes, I agree. Sounds like any change to the inclusion rate is not immanent. Huge sigh of relief from this guy.

User avatar
AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 18841
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Federal Budget 2017 - March 22

Post by AltaRed » 24 Mar 2017 10:48

With the Trudeau gov't though, this is not going away. Per http://business.financialpost.com/perso ... tax-or-not our CG rate only dropped to 50% in the year 2000
While the Carter commission recommended full taxation of capital gains, the law, as originally introduced, only taxed 50% of capital gains. The inclusion rate was increased to 75% in 1990 and that inclusion rate stayed constant for about a decade. In February 2000, the rate was reduced down to two thirds, which lasted until October 2000, where it was dropped back to 50%, where it has remained to this day.
and only dropped, I believe, to 50% due to the heat from the political opposition at that time. It'll be an issue again a year from now.

Edited: Deleted superfluous material and added context.
Last edited by AltaRed on 24 Mar 2017 17:51, edited 3 times in total.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom

SQRT
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Alberta/Ontario/Arizona

Re: Federal Budget 2017 - March 22

Post by SQRT » 24 Mar 2017 11:02

AltaRed wrote:
24 Mar 2017 10:48
With the Trudeau gov't though, this is not going away. The Libs are heavy on policy that siphons from the successful and obviously anyone that has material cap gains can't be allowed to be that good over the long term. It'll be an issue again a year from now.
I hope not, but certainly a possibility. Morneau seems to imply he is much more concerned about preventing "income sprinkling".

User avatar
kcowan
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 13197
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 20:33
Location: Pacific latitude 20/49

Re: Federal Budget 2017 - March 22

Post by kcowan » 24 Mar 2017 16:36

I believe we need to stay vigilant on finding a better way than 66% or 75% inclusion rate. We have time thankfully. Now is not the time to relax!

These are major issues for the LIberals and it requires a major effort to counteract their natural tendency to do the easy thing and gain support of their base.
For the fun of it...Keith

kumquat
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 517
Joined: 09 Mar 2005 19:54
Location: North of Montana

Re: Federal Budget 2017 - March 22

Post by kumquat » 24 Mar 2017 18:47

longinvest wrote:
24 Mar 2017 09:53
Yes. But, it's not such a bad thing, when you think about it. If it's dumb enough for politicians, it should be dumb enough for lots of people. As long as it's good enough (like the current 50% inclusion rule), I won't complain. It's the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid).
I thought, for politions, it meant 'Keep it Stupid, Simple'
I don't intend to offend anyone, that part is just a bonus.

longinvest
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1517
Joined: 10 Sep 2012 17:26
Location: QC

Re: Federal Budget 2017 - March 22

Post by longinvest » 24 Mar 2017 19:29

kumquat wrote:
24 Mar 2017 18:47
I thought, for politions, it meant 'Keep it Stupid, Simple'
You're right. Fixed it.
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Simple index portfolios | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic/international)stocks/(nominal/inflation-indexed)bonds | VCN/VXC/VAB/ZRR

Post Reply