Author Topic: Canadian Budget 2017  (Read 5160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Canadian Budget 2017
« on: March 22, 2017, 22:16:59 »
They are increasing alcohol tax!?  That is mean.


Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2017, 22:30:04 »
They are increasing alcohol tax!?  That is mean.

I think it works out to ~0.01 per ounce.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 105,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,394
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2017, 00:06:34 »
That is not the point! They are increasing tax on alcohol!

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 472,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,903
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2017, 06:40:09 »
I think it works out to ~0.01 per ounce.
OK, most have come to accept that you consistently ignore people with experience -- who actually understand -- procurement, warships, fighter aircraft, etc.... but now we're talking alcohol.

Let me assure you, on this topic you are wayyyy  out of your league!

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,634
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,484
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2017, 06:44:33 »
OK, most have come to accept that you consistently ignore people with experience -- who actually understand -- procurement, warships, fighter aircraft, etc.... but now we're talking alcohol.

Let me assure you, on this topic you are wayyyy  out of your league!

 [cheers] [cheers]


Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 427,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,390
  • Crewman
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2017, 09:09:47 »
Let's see now......Trudeau has been repeating the same canned lines in the House of Commons for the past year ad nauseum on how he has taxed the top 1% and lowered the taxes of the Middle Classes........How does raising the taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, carbon products, and all those other new or increased taxes help the Middle Class?  How does doing away with the ability to claim Transportation on Public Transit help the Middle Class?  How does taking monies dedicated to infrastructure (Public Safety on roads, bridges, etc.) and directing it to Child Care really help the Middle Class or any Canadian?  I would say that what has actually happened is that the Middle Class is getting taxed even more than ever before and the Liberal claims of helping the Middle Class are 'Smoke and Mirrors'.  The Middle Class will soon have less in their pockets than before.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Lightguns

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • I live for trout and deer
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2017, 09:33:41 »
That is not the point! They are increasing tax on alcohol!

Which works out to an expected 55 million, la drop dans la bucket!  Nothing in this budget makes any sense.  it's like a five year old is punishing people who don't like him and rewarding people who do like him.
Done, 34 years, 43 days complete, got's me damn pension!

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2017, 11:00:01 »
Basically, the budget had no new taxes or spending.  It simply reallocated some money.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 427,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,390
  • Crewman
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2017, 11:36:07 »
Basically, the budget had no new taxes or spending.  It simply reallocated some money.

So there IS NO increase in taxes on alcohol and tobacco?

You mean the Liberal's actually lied in their budget when they announced those increases?  The Middle  Class will not be taxed more heavily on daily items such as alcohol, tobacco, Carbon Products, public transit, etc. 

I'll drink to that.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2017, 11:40:29 »
We're talking about taxes totalling less than $500M on a $300B budget in a $2T economy.  That's why I said basically no new taxes.  There was, from what I understand, zero new spending.  $1.3B was reallocated from already budgeted funds from last year.  Basically this budget did nothing in terms of either revenue or expenses.

Offline kratz

    Happy 150th.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 222,508
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,721
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2017, 11:42:14 »
The carbon tax is going to cost me another $204 per year for rent, and I'm not even in a PMQ / RHU. 
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,455
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2017, 13:06:37 »
We're talking about taxes totalling less than $500M on a $300B budget in a $2T economy.  That's why I said basically no new taxes.  There was, from what I understand, zero new spending.  $1.3B was reallocated from already budgeted funds from last year.  Basically this budget did nothing in terms of either revenue or expenses.

I would like to know what optometrist you're using, as your rose coloured glasses are even better than the Sunny Ways glasses that some others like wear here in Canada, and to be frank I really need a good pair or corrective lenses to block out the pile of garbage that is being presented on a plate.

Your glasses allow you to see budget increases where none came to exist, and now you're seeing
Quote
taxes totalling less than $500M on a $300B budget
...  Goddam, I wish I had these glasses right now, as it would enable me to not see the $5K+tax bill I'm paying this year.  Psst!!! a hot tip.... less than $500M is still greater than $0 (which would mean no new taxes)  But then, I'm not an accountant or economist myself...

So to sum up, you were contradicting people from within the defence community on what they were seeing happening on the basis of no current (or ever?) military experience, and now you're continuing to do more of the same on how the budget works.  I'm wondering, you're not even an economist either, are you?
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Flavus101

  • Member
  • ****
  • 12,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 218
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2017, 13:39:13 »
Some people just like to hear themselves...

Or in this case know that others are reading their posts.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2017, 14:19:38 »
So to sum up, you were contradicting people from within the defence community on what they were seeing happening on the basis of no current (or ever?) military experience, and now you're continuing to do more of the same on how the budget works.  I'm wondering, you're not even an economist either, are you?

I said basically:

in the most essential respects; fundamentally.

used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation.

I didn't say literally.  I didn't mean literally.  There were virtually no new taxes.  In other words, basically, there were no new taxes. 

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,455
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2017, 15:30:36 »
I said basically:

in the most essential respects; fundamentally.

used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation.

I didn't say literally.  I didn't mean literally.  There were virtually no new taxes.  In other words, basically, there were no new taxes.

When you're right, you're right.  No new taxes, except almost $500 million in new taxes. 

I've got you pegged now.  You're not military, not a mathematician, not an economist.  I've seen this kind of reasoning and solid fact based talking before, and with your keen interest in Canadian politics etc, you can only be...... Question Period at any of our Legislative Assemblies in Canada including the HoC, in human form.  That can be the only logical explanation why you're as hard to nail down on the wall as a bowl full of Jello.   :stars:
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2017, 15:49:36 »
When you're right, you're right.  No new taxes, except almost $500 million in new taxes. 

In the context of a $2T (slightly more) economy, that's basically no new taxes.  that's less than 0.05% of the economy.  That's less than 0.2% of the budget.  Some of you find some very strange things to argue about.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2017, 15:55:24 »
But yes - by my quick estimation, there are ~$500M in new taxes, none of which you actually have to pay if you don't take transit, uber, or buy alcohol or cigarettes.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,455
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2017, 16:35:06 »
 :pointdexter:   :brickwall:
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 16:38:04 by jollyjacktar »
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2017, 16:48:15 »
For anyone looking to add a little more depth to the discussion, the government has the budget available to see here: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/home-accueil-en.html

… or just take a pundit’s view that the budget was nonsense:
Quote
Andrew Coyne on federal budget 2017: No money, no ideas, but a wealth of bafflegab and buzzwords from the Liberals
Andrew Coyne
National Post
22 Mar 2017

The good news is they’ve run out of money.

The nonsense in this nonsense-filled budget might have cost us all a lot more if the Liberals had more faith in the fundamental piece of nonsense underpinning the rest: that deficits stimulate growth. But as the economy has once again failed to play its part in the old fiscal conjuring trick — can it be just a year ago that the Liberals were claiming the multiplier on government spending could reach as high as “between three and four”? — the Grits now find themselves having to finance their ambitions by reallocating existing spending, rather than simply tacking more on top. Give thanks for small favours.

Mind you, they’re still talking the same old game. “There is a general consensus,” the budget declares, falsely, “that fiscal policy is the right tool to grow our economy for the long-term.” But while the budget also repeats the usual ritual claims that “the plan is working,” the reality is that growth is coming in well below the levels forecast even last November, let alone way back in March of 2016.

Meanwhile, the fiscal situation continues to deteriorate: deficits over the next four years, forecast in last year’s budget to total $84-billion, are now headed for $101 billion, on the strength of spending that is now roughly $20 billion per year over the track laid out in the last Harper budget. The $10-billion deficits originally promised, of course, are but a distant memory; the balanced budget is nowhere in sight or even promised; even the steadily declining debt-to-GDP ratio, last and loosest of the Liberal benchmarks, is gone — it rose last year, is projected to rise again this, and may well rise again the next.

But of course it isn’t just that they’ve run out of money: they’ve run out of ideas. Or at least, good ideas. The Liberals had a good idea in the last budget: the rationalization of several different child benefit programs into a single, income-tested Canada Child Benefit, albeit at a cost of $4 billion-plus. And they had a bad one: the notion that Canada’s middle class is falling behind, a claim that is increasingly the object of ridicule. The middle class isn’t falling behind — median incomes have been rising steadily for the last 20-odd years — and if it were the Grits have no sensible plan for remedying it.

What they have are a lot of meaningless buzzwords. I have read a good many tedious, empty budgets in my time. I cannot recall ever reading one quite as mind-bendingly empty as this one. Innovation, strategic, whole-of-government, world-class, value chain, smart cities, centres of excellence: the budget burbles happily on for page after page in this vein; one has the strong sense its authors have no more idea of what any of it means than they do “middle class.” Much is promised, but put off until the future: I lost track of the number of plans that “will be proposed” or policies that “will be developed” at some later date.

But as to the here and now: almost none of the promised reform of tax expenditures — credits and deductions favouring this interest or that, to the detriment of general economic efficiency — materialized in the budget. Indeed, the government is adding new ones — for example, extending accelerated capital cost allowance to “a broader range of geothermal projects.” Perhaps they are holding off on this, until they have a clearer sense of what kind of tax cuts the Trump administration has in mind. Or perhaps the very public burial given to the notion of taxing employer health benefits was a sign of things to come.

If there is a theme to the budget, it is of course “innovation.” As with “infrastructure,” last year’s favourite buzzword, the Liberals tend to attach this to virtually everything that catches their eye, including Liberal campaign slogans (“Innovation is, simply put, the understanding that better is always possible.”) But as the budget drones on, it becomes apparent that to this government it means the very latest in advanced, state-of-the-art 1930s-style state planning.

As the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy has lately reminded us, the federal government alone already has 147 different programs with interchangeable names intended to foster innovation. To these will be added, inter alia, an Innovation and Skills Plan, an Impact Canada Fund, a Venture Capital Catalyst Initiative, a Canadian Business Growth Fund and a Strategic Innovation Fund, though in fairness the last is intended to replace several existing funds. Indeed, the budget promises a review — sorry, a “whole of government review” — of current innovation programs. Perhaps they could throw in the new ones to save time.

Talking of sucking and blowing at the same time, I’d be more exercised about the proposal to throw public money at six industries the government is so sure will prove to be winners that it cannot be left to people investing their own money — “Canada can be a world leader in digital innovation,” was one of the things Finance Minister Bill Morneau professed to “know” in his budget speech, a page after confessing “we never could have imagined” the impact of mobile computing — if they were not also proposing to support virtually every other industry.

Some of the subsidy is disguised as procurement: rather than buy the best product at the lowest price for the taxpayer, government will serve as “first customer.” And there’s a truly bizarre proposal to seed what are called, inevitably, “Superclusters” — clusters is no longer enough — on the theory that if we can observe the spontaneous evolution of clusters, in places like Silicon Valley, in retrospect, we can surely envision them in advance, and create them by policy.

Oh, and there’s a chapter devoted to gender-based analysis. The point of this would seem to be that some programs benefit women more than men, and others benefit men more than women. Another data nugget turned up by the same analysis — that men pay 66 per cent of the taxes — seemed to attract rather less attention.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-no-money-no-ideas-but-a-wealth-of-bafflegab-and-buzzwords-in-the-liberal-budget

 

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 427,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,390
  • Crewman
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2017, 19:26:53 »
But yes - by my quick estimation, there are ~$500M in new taxes, none of which you actually have to pay if you don't take transit, uber, or buy alcohol or cigarettes.

Ah!  So now we do have new taxes, and the only way to avoid them is to be dead or not leave the comfort of your own home and live the life of a sequestered Nun.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2017, 19:52:12 »
Ah!  So now we do have new taxes

I never said otherwise.  I said there were basically no new taxes.  I then gave the definition of basically for context, since the statement was obviously very controversial for some reason.

Look, I think that's enough from me.  I'd like to thank you all for your time and for the great information.  This forum is really not a place for discussion. 

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,837
  • It's all good
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2017, 21:12:35 »
I never said otherwise.  I said there were basically no new taxes.  I then gave the definition of basically for context, since the statement was obviously very controversial for some reason.

Look, I think that's enough from me.  I'd like to thank you all for your time and for the great information.  This forum is really not a place for discussion.

Please don't assume that.  I have followed your posts with interest - sadly, so have some of the usual gang of those who pile on to someone who is either new, or thinks differently.  Your voice has as much value as anyone else's on this site - and many of your posts are more reasoned than those of others.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,074
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2017, 22:33:21 »
Please don't assume that.  I have followed your posts with interest - sadly, so have some of the usual gang of those who pile on to someone who is either new, or thinks differently.  Your voice has as much value as anyone else's on this site - and many of your posts are more reasoned than those of others.

 :ditto:

I often disagree with you, jmt, but, then, I usually disagree with almost everyone on almost everything.

In fact I was going to post something to support your view that there are, essentially, "no new taxes" ~ at least not in the big scheme of things. I was going to add that there is, in fact, "no new anything," this is a timid, conservative, do nothing budget because no one in official Ottawa wants to do anything because no one knows what the global economic situation is going to be like in six days, much less in six weeks, six months or six years. Brexit, Donald Trump, the South China Seas, global terrorism, supply and demand and, and, and ... are all out of whack.

There are, generally, three major inputs to a budget: government, officials and allied experts, and the business community. In my opinion this budget is about 95% officialdom, and 2.5% each government/politics and business. The officials are, by their very nature and by the nature of their environment, very, Very, VERY conservative and this is a conservative, stand-pat, do nothing, signal nothing, wait and see budget. The verbiage is "Team Trudeau"trying to set the table for 2019 ~ they will shift away, I suspect, from the green, feminist and sunny ways agenda and towards an "innovation" agenda, but that's just a WAG ~ but the numbers, that "do nothing" are pure, cautious, timid, Canadian civil service.

Oh, and money for defence? Surely you all jest ... which amongst you can posit a coherent, sensible, comprehensible threat to Canada or its vital interests for which more military is the best answer? Overall, Journeyman has it about right.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,459
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2017, 23:29:46 »
Wasn't a round of public budget consultation conducted to great fanfare?  Presumably this budget is the outcome.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2017, 02:00:29 »
I just have to say this.

I know most of you won't believe it.  I was angry earlier.  The truth is, I really enjoy this place.  It's a place where I've learned a lot from people that have a lot of information.  I realize now that for me, what's just a discussion, is real life for many of you.  I guess I didn't understand how that would impact your perspective on some pretty forceful outside views.  That's not the way I meant to or mean to come across.  On (some) military matters, I should probably shut up most of the time (and indeed, I do most of the time, but I should shut up more often), because even if I can't verify who you are, you're most likely who you claim to be.

I'm sorry for offending people and coming across as a jerk.  If I stay, I'll probably do it again.  It's not necessarily intentional (we're all intentional jerks sometimes).

That said, I do know a fair bit about government.  I don't know as much about government as a senior bureaucrat or politician, but I've studied it as my main hobby for about 15 years.  I've always loved it.  When I said that there was basically no new taxes, I meant just that.  It wasn't meant to be a confrontational or controversial statement.  It was simply my view that all of that tax increases (none of which I will pay [okay, I'll pay the alcohol and tobacco ones, but not as an end consumer]) amounted to nothing when compared with the size of the budget and the economy.  If you disagree, that's fine - it's simply my assessment.

I'm not trolling.  I know some of you see me that way, but I'm not.  I'm sorry for that perception as well.  Have a good night and or day, whenever you read this.