If you were Federal Finance Minister

[Dingo]

Since last years one was so big largely becuase I rambled on about stuff I had no clue I was thinking about starting this up again for the Janurary 27th budget. How does the federal government help ontairo and the fort Mac problem without long term conequences?

I guess that is a start to get this thing rolling. I still want to get ride of OAS for people my age. Thats just one things I will spout off some more things later on in the week.

Please stay on topic if you can. I know that is almost unheard of here not that this is a beef I have. Anyway lets start making up ARE budget here.

[Dingo]

Eliminate all the fees whne you use an ATM of a none home ATM.

In tough time you need bis solutions. Putting money back in the hands of ordanary, hard working canadians!

[adrian2]

I still want to get ride of OAS for people my age.

You haven't specified what your age is, but I suspect this won't be too popular. OAS had some societal goals in mind, why would you want to abolish it?

[adrian2]

Eliminate all the fees whne you use an ATM of a none home ATM.

Why legislate what the private sector must do? A bank is not a government agency.

In 14 years in Canada I have paid zero, nada, zilch in ATM fees.

[banker]

Eliminate all the fees whne you use an ATM of a none home ATM.

Why legislate what the private sector must do? A bank is not a government agency.

In 14 years in Canada I have paid zero, nada, zilch in ATM fees.

I agree. There is no reason anyone really needs to pay ATM fees these days with the option of using a home ATM, Visa/Mastercard or Interac for payment. I visit an ATM 1 time per week for cash, everything else is paid for by Visa or Mastercard. If its an item I cant use a credit card for cash is paid. I cant even remember the last time I used interac.

[AltaRed]

Eliminate all the fees whne you use an ATM of a none home ATM.

Why legislate what the private sector must do? A bank is not a government agency.

In 14 years in Canada I have paid zero, nada, zilch in ATM fees.

Agree and agree. I don't see what the issue is. ATMs are certainly not a matter for the finance minister in any event.

As for real ideas... well, there are many. One is the suggestion in the fiscal update to provide a temporary 25% reprieve on RRIF minimums is not enough. People should not be 'forced' to crystallize and pay tax on income not yet needed. Having said that, the gov't probably needs some way to recoup its investment (tax break) over a period of time, so some miminum is probably warranted.

[Bylo Selhi]

GST vacation would work faster than bailouts

Mr. Harper's government has been bashed for cutting the GST, and also for apparent indifference to helping the auto industry. But wouldn't it be something if, rather than simply hand money to General Motors and the forest industry and construction firms, the Tories chose instead to put the “stimulus” in the hands of the consumer: No GST for six months, maybe a year.

Could the New Democrats, after all of Jack Layton's puffed-up talk about “kitchen tables, not boardroom tables,” possibly vote against this? What about the Liberals?

If "Steve" likes putting his opponents between a rock and a hard place this would certainly qualify. Whether it would be the best way to deal with our economy right now is another matter.

[blonde]

reduce and then reduce TAX...corporate...personal...

let the people make their own spending decisions...

[AltaRed]

If "Steve" likes putting his opponents between a rock and a hard place this would certainly qualify. Whether it would be the best way to deal with our economy right now is another matter.

Yes, but I would cap the relief to zero in on the low income and middle class consumer. The person that still wants to buy that Aston Martin or that $1million vacation rental can afford the GST.

[parvus]

reduce and then reduce TAX...corporate...personal...

let the people make their own spending decisions...

Including about their level of food safety (BSE, that's just an AB thing, no worries for ROC), the training of their employees (free-rider 90%ers, natch, who put in the minimum apprenticeship dollars and take out the maximum), public health (I've got cholera, Kcuf U) &c., &c.

blonde, you seem to have gone to the sales side.

[Dingo]

My age is 23. I feel that OAS should be removed there must be a cut off. Say 1985 birthdays or something but I think this is the best thing possible. Programs that are not self sustaining should be removed.

As for the ATM comment that was a joke at the media plitz that the Cons put on it last year. Sorry if it was not so outlandous to be funny I will have to rethink my humour.

[WishingWealth]

Dingo: "I will have to rethink my humour."

Don't take a chance, some of us walk slowly, just add an emoticon.


WW

[adrian2]

I feel that OAS should be removed there must be a cut off. Say 1985 birthdays or something but I think this is the best thing possible. Programs that are not self sustaining should be removed.

OAS was never self sustaining because there is nothing specifically to sustain it from. You may be confusing it with CPP, which is self sustaining for the foreseeable future.

OTOH, I wish that you personally don't get any CPP - based on the current rules, you'll get effectively nothing if your annual income as a senior person exceeds $118,500 (indexed for inflation until your retirement age comes by).

Fair is fair.

[Peculiar_Investor]

Dingo: "I will have to rethink my humour."

Don't take a chance, some of us walk slowly, just add an emoticon.


WW

Reminds me of the line from M*A*S*H when Radar is writing his mother. He writes something like "I'm writing this slowly because I know you don't read quickly."

[iluvnascar]

I am totally against eliminating OAS. it's taxable.........the more you make, the less OAS you get to keep. And it takes all the BS about need out of the argument.

And I agree on not touching ATM fees. Like someone else....I have never paid an ATM fee in my life......or a dime of credit card interest...or even a monthly banking fee. If you're interested, there are ways to avoid those fees.

If I were Flaherty........I would ensure that any and all severance received from layoff/termination would be automatically transferred to a tax-deferred vehicle...like an RRSP. Presently, lots of severance winds up being taxed at top marginal rates because recipients don't have adequate "RRSP room" and sometimes the severance comes near the end of a year and is simply added to income for the year.

I would also equalize EI insurance eligibility requirements and benefit levels for all Provinces. I don't have the specifics but I know that Ontario workers require more weeks of work to qualify and then receive less weekly benefits than some of the "have not" Provinces. As we all know, Ontario is now a "Have Not" province....so why treat them differently? I also think EI "clawback" should be eliminated. By the time receipients find out they must pay some back, it's March or April and the money received (12-16 months earlier) has been spent! The clawback is a small overall amount to the EI Fund and not worth hassling wrokers.

I would increase the personal tax credit by $1,500 for 2009, $1,000 for 2010, and $500 for 2011. By 2012, taxpayers would be back to 2008 levels (but adjusted for inflation) but the increased tax credit would provide a modest bump in purchasing power for the next 3 years.

I would ensure that there were Government-guaranteed loans for the auto industry....with strings attached to ensure maintenance of employment levels and repayment of monies provided.

I would prohibit any further use of "No Payments Until......." sales incentives. Too many people love to get the merchandise but aren't prepared to start making payments a year or two later. If payments start immediately, they will be lower.

And I would increase the gas tax by three cents per litre....to be reduced to two cent per litre if/when crude prices hit $60/barrel; and to be reduced by another cent if/when crude prices hit $80/barrel; and to be reduced by another cent if/when cruse prices hit $100/barrel. All incremental revenues would bedistributed to cities to assist infrastructure programs.

[beenaround]

WHAT??!!!
The Federal Finance Minister eliminating ATM fees? How daft. Clearly you have a misunderstanding of the FM's role. And also, ATM fees are levied by the banks etc who are not public entities, but PRIVATE entities.

Good lord, I guess this was an NDP vote.

Sigh..I don't mean to be rude, but please, clue in.

[Dingo]

OAS was never self sustaining because there is nothing specifically to sustain it from. You may be confusing it with CPP, which is self sustaining for the foreseeable future.

Yeah as far as I know it is just check to those who make it to the age of 65. I just don't see the purpose for this. I think it needs to be phased out over time becuase people have been planning for this. With that said, I just don't see the purpose for this.

As for the EI comment below I think this is the biggest thing about EI. I am from NL so I know all about it. It is a wealth moving plan instead of a EI system. It has way to much politics. Why should someone stay in a place with no employment and can only get ten weeks of work? Because they can get 42 weeks of payments on EI. So here is what I think.

You need to make those that use it more get viewer benefits or increased payment. I like the less benfits. I think the benefits should be on a curve were if you haven't claimed in x years you start with 100% of benefits then declining so much per day on a declining balance. Determing on how long since you last claim will have a smaller decling balance. The length will not change but the decline and the benefits will be lower for those that use it higher. With that said we need to then provide training for these workers or something.

Thats probably enough for now.

[Jo Anne]

Yeah as far as I know it is just check to those who make it to the age of 65. I just don't see the purpose for this.

Well I do. It's for people over 65 who have little other income. Take that away and what are they going to live off? Please don't tell me they should have worked harder and saved up more. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Some people aren't university graduates, and don't earn high wages.

I would prohibit any further use of "No Payments Until......." sales incentives. Too many people love to get the merchandise but aren't prepared to start making payments a year or two later. If payments start immediately, they will be lower.

I kinda like those offers. Why would you cut them off for people like me?

[beluga]

Yeah as far as I know it is just check to those who make it to the age of 65. I just don't see the purpose for this.

Well I do. It's for people over 65 who have little other income. Take that away and what are they going to live off? Please don't tell me they should have worked harder and saved up more. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Some people aren't university graduates, and don't earn high wages.

I do too. Most of those people have contributed a lifetime to creating a better world and the opportunities available today, even though they didn't achieve financial independence. Can you explain why you keep welfare in the social contract but not OAS?

I knew a promising young lawyer who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's while articling. He beat it with lots of chemo and is now successful in a different career. But it doesn't always work out that way.

Rather than representing a major shift in opinion about individual or governmental responsibility, income support for retirees was promoted as a logical response to the Depression. In part, the Social Security Act arose from the realization that poverty could result from factors beyond human control (Achenbaum, 1986). Individual and family misfortune did not necessarily indicate lax morals or an inadequate work ethic and, hence, was worthy of public intervention.

http://www.generationsjournal.org/gener ... steve.html

[Clock Watcher]

Well I do. It's for people over 65 who have little other income.

If I am the finance minister, I would give everyone who is single a 50% reduction in income tax. They have to work twice as hard as married couples who have economy of scale on their side, and they have to subsidize the education of the kids of married couples, and they can't double claim on their medical expenses to get 100% effective coverage, etc, etc. And since they love their toys, all of that money will immediately make its way back into the economy.

And of course I wouldn't complain either

[patriot1]

Cutting GST would be stupid. Canada has an export-oriented economy. Since GST does not apply to exports, cutting GST would do nothing to help our export industries. On the other side of the coin, cutting GST would encourage people to buy more consumer goods, most of which are imported,. Lose-lose. The previous cut to GST was dumb and another cut would be dumber.

If the government wants to help employment and production it should increase the basic income tax exemption for everyone and make it retundable, and decrease corporate income taxes.

[Dingo]

Well I do. It's for people over 65 who have little other income. Take that away and what are they going to live off? Please don't tell me they should have worked harder and saved up more. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Some people aren't university graduates, and don't earn high wages.

This does not mean that those that need this money will be worse off. I think that it should be only for low income people. Or people that need it. This would elminate a lot of the budget for this. Something that is applied solely on age goes against my economic training. This would be phased out over 30 years so people my age would not plan for this in their old age.

Since lifespans are growing does this mean that OAS should be moved back if it is.

New ploicy

Have manatory physicals to determine your fitness level and health level for age and region, which will be personally paid for. If you are outside the norm then you will have to pay a health preium depending on what quartile you fall into. This should spread the high cost of the few onto the few. Not discrimating for genic problems but making people pay for problems they choose to have. I.E. overweight/ smoker / high consumption of acohol and the like. People should have to pay for their choices that effect their health and cause the helath care budget to go up.

[patriot1]

This does not mean that those that need this money (OAS) will be worse off. I think that it should be only for low income people

OAS has been around since 1952 and people have built their retirement plans around it. It would be completely unconscionable to cut back OAS for people - like just about everyone on this board - who have spent their working lives paying taxes to fund other people's OAS.

We already have something to aid low income seniors - it's called GIS.

Cutting OAS would also be contractionary for the economy which is exactly the opposite of what we need now

If you wanted to decrease the income level at which the OAS clawback starts (currently $64,718), that would be fairer, but I don't even support that.

[Nemo2]

Will there be loyalty tests?

[beluga]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run