XPost: can.general, can.politics, ott.general
From: Canuck57@nospam.com
On 19/06/2011 8:19 PM, John Fleming wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:41:08 -0600, while chained to a desk
> in the scriptorium Canuck57 wrote:
>> $On 16/06/2011 11:00 PM, John Fleming wrote:
>> $> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:07:12 -0600, while chained to a desk
>> $> in the scriptorium Canuck57 wrote:
>> $>> $On 15/06/2011 10:13 PM, merlin! wrote:
>> $>> $> "John Fleming" wrote in message
>> $>> $> news:hkliv6d5fam9sf90dn7gi7gp22vehhajbb@4ax.com...
>> $>> $>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:23:46 -0400, while chained to a desk
>> $>> $>> in the scriptorium "Fred Williams" wrote:
>> $>> $>>
>> $>> $>>> $One thing you didn't mention, is that now our income tax has
to be paid
>> $>> $>>> $in 4 3-monthy installments, rather the whole annually. As
seniors, our
>> $>> $>>> $income tax burden is 10% of our pensions - and the above change
>> $>> $>>> $only makes it more burdensome.
>> $>> $>
>> $>> $> yeah, most of the taxes fall on working guys who are trying to
raise a
>> $>> $> family. That's the Canadian socialist version of "fairness".
>> $>> $
>> $>> $Actually, the biggest ones screwed are single working people. Married
>> $>> $with kids has many more deductions and generally 2 work capable
people.
>> $>
>> $> These days, you pretty much need two incomes to own a home
>> $> where you can raise a family, so both parents have to work.
>> $> And I understand a lot of kids after school programs can
>> $> cost an arm and a leg too. Especially if it is something
>> $> where your kid needs a lot of extra equipment--like
>> $> participation in hockey.
>> $
>> $Depends, I did it on one but yes, the ability to do it with one income
>> $as a single is tougher than ever. Married, hell, I told my wife if she
>> $is going to work make more than $35K in a calendar year or forget it and
>> $give me the deduction.
>
> If you are going to have two incomes, the second income had
> better be high enough to make it worth your while. If,
> after the costs of things like day care, one of you is
> earning the equivalent of $0.87 per hour, forget the second
> income.
>
> Another alternative is if the second person can get a job
> where s/he can work while the other person is at home and
> vice versa. My brother and his wife managed to set up that
> arrangement. He had a full time job working five days a
> week. She got a part time job working two days a week. The
> two days she worked were the two days he was at home, so one
> of them was always at home to care for the kids. Gave them
> the extra income without the added costs of daycare.
>
>> $Between her shopping skills, ability to keep a home in ace shape,
>> $frugality, tax deduction I win big in $$ and quality of life. Real
>> $sweetie too...love her with everything.
>
> Well done.
>
>> $>> $But basically everyone not living near poverty gets screwed.
>> $>
>> $> Living in poverty has its drawbacks. That said, you
>> $> probably get a more balanced diet eating cat food than you
>> $> do eating the human equivalent.
>> $
>> $I bet some do. A lot of people are in for a rude reality check when
>> $they discover CPP isn't survivable. And disability or vets too. Except
>> $for vets and disabled, they did it to themselves, trust of big
>> $inefficient government skimming CPP, the false promises of government,
>> $living high on the hog in good years saving little....
>
> If your income is that low, there is also OAS and GIS to
> help fill the gap. But I agree with you. CPP + OAS + GIS
> isn't much better than a glorified welfare program, and you
> are much better if you have some other form of
> income--pension, RRSP/RRIF, TFSA and non registered savings
> and investments.
>
>> $Just mass stupidity a happening.
>> $
>> $>> $Best way to beat it is use TFSA type accounts. Use it or loose it as
>> $>> $someday some greedy bugger in Ottawa is going to cancel the accounts.
>> $>> $You just know it.
>> $>
>> $> Agreed. Contributing to the RRSP cuts the taxes owing quite
>> $> nicely thank you.
>> $
>> $Yes, and everyone and their dog should have one, even before RRSP. Two
>> $reasons I say this, first is if you are low/med income, your not likely
>> $at the top rate. No sense in doing RRSP at say 15% marginal tax rate,
>> $you want 40% marginal rates then RRSP is great. Seecond reason is that
>> $it is very unlikely to see tax relief from greedy governments. TFSA
>> $shelters this completely, where if greedy governemnt go rid of basic
>> $deductions, your RRSP tax on the way out could go up.
>> $
>> $People are nuts not to have a TFSA.
>> $
>> $But if you make lots in good years, do both.
>
> When I started contributing to my RRSP, the TFSA wasn't
> available. And while my income at the time was low enough I
> didn't realize a tax benefit from contributions, I figured I
> was better off with the investment income compounding tax
> free inside an RRSP than outside an RRSP.
If tax were a flat constant rate, RRSP and TFSA would be a zero sum
game. RRSP is only better if you can defer taxes AND get it out at a
lower rate than you deferred putting it in. For most, this is true and
the way it will work out. That is for say a doubling of the investment,
[TFSA] (contrib - taxes) * 2 == [RRSP} (contrib * 2) - taxes.
But, if you get 40% tax deferment in high income years going in and say
15% going out in low income years in an RRSP then your laughing. Which
is what I am doing.
But for TFSA, it is good no mater what. And why everyone should have a
TFSA, high, low or average incomes does not mater.
Know that RRSP withdrawals can affect the OAS on a clawback. And
Canada's clawback is aggressive. That is, RRSPs can get too big.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
