Bronconnier and tax grabs vs. prosperity cheques [Archive] - Beyond.ca - Car Forums

TurboMedic

09-14-2005, 09:54 AM

Well, lets look at what the check is being drawn from....Although not everyone "owns" a house, instead renting, they still pay income tax (if they are employed), fuel tax (if they drive), and other taxes if they pay the bills on their said place of residence.....So, renting itself should not disqualify you from recieving a dividend cheque...The only thing owning a house gets you is a big fat income tax bill every year.....

I agree with some of the above, about I would rather money go to tax and such, I don't need the extra $300 or whatever it will be, but that doesn't really change the fact that regardless if what is going to happen, we are still going to be taxed more cheque or no cheque...This is just an excuse....Just the same as when the province reduced a portion of their tax, so the city upped their part equally just because they could......Bronco's a liberal through and through

Thaco

09-14-2005, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by benyl

Why should people who don't contribute get a check?

sorry, i was unaware that provincial tax dollars came solely from property taxes.

(and i rent, therefore i am paying for my landlords property taxes. therefore, contributing.)

Fivewayradio

09-14-2005, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by benyl

Why should people who don't contribute get a check?

Renters pay rent which goes to cover the property taxes paid by the landowner. Renters may not get billed for property tax but they sure as fuck pay it.

People who don't have children have to pay for schools through their taxes. People who are young and healthy have to pay for healthcare, even though they rarely use it. People who don' t ride bus or the train end up paying for the transit system through their taxes. Nearly everyone contributes somehow.

Fivewayradio

09-14-2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by TurboMedic

I agree with some of the above, about I would rather money go to tax and such, I don't need the extra $300 or whatever it will be, but that doesn't really change the fact that regardless if what is going to happen, we are still going to be taxed more cheque or no cheque...This is just an excuse....Just the same as when the province reduced a portion of their tax, so the city upped their part equally just because they could......Bronco's a liberal through and through

I'm not sure how you make Bronco into a Liberal just because the city needs money. The City needs money. It's that simple. Theoretically a city should be able to handle the costs of growth through property taxes, but Calgary can't, which means something's wrong. The obvious answer is that they're not charging enough in property taxes. Though that may not be the best or only answer.

Duerr kept capital projects to a minimum as did Bronco in his first term. Unfortunately in order to get voted in, both Duerr and Bronconnier have kept taxes unsustainably low and it's now come back to bite Bronco in the ass. Now that the province is rich the people are demanding that those projects be built. So instead of raising taxes to the level required to catch up with the infrastructure defecit, Bronco is demanding money from other levels of governemnt, rather than trying to have a sustainable civic tax system.

It's baffling to me that the city with the hottest economy in Canada, in the richest province in the country, can't make ends meet.

benyl

09-14-2005, 11:33 AM

You say this:

Originally posted by Thaco

for low income people (and renters) such as myself... i'd prefer a cheque

Which lead me to believe that lowering taxes would leave you out.

Then this

Originally posted by Thaco
sorry, i was unaware that provincial tax dollars came solely from property taxes.

(and i rent, therefore i am paying for my landlords property taxes. therefore, contributing.)

You just restated what I was getting at. Lower fuel taxes, lower this, lower that. I would rather see me not having to pay for shit first and then "maybe" get a check if Kline is so inclined.

Also, giving it back equally across the board doesn't sit well with me. I make a decent wage, and therefor pay a decent amount of tax. Low income people are generally exempt for Alberta income tax or at least get it back later. I spend a lot of money on gas, cause I drive a guzzler, I spend money on this and that because I have more to spend than lower wage earners.

So, why should I get back the same rebate check that low income earners get, when I pay more taxes (for whatever reason)? By lowering taxes, people get a proportional rebate based on how they contribute. Obviously, it isn't going to be fair, but it is more fair than a $300 check to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Originally posted by Fivewayradio

It's baffling to me that the city with the hottest economy in Canada, in the richest province in the country, can't make ends meet.

Maybe if the city planners did a better job, then we would be in this mess.

Calgary, as city, is massive. People love the green space, but you have to pay for that.

The city has grown out so much that the population density has acutally gone down in Calgary, even though there are many people moving here every day.

The growth that Calgary is experiencing is unsustainable. It is actually very poor planning on the city's part.

heavyD

09-14-2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by benyl
meh, I would rather pay less tax across the board than get a "rebate"

Pay first and then get money back? no thanks.

I am very lukewarm on Bronco.

How much money are we talking about for these rebates? Are we talking token money like $100 - $500? If so I would rather it go to city transportation as I plan on sticking around for a while and would rather the money go to transportation improvements.

Don't like Bronco? Were you a big fan of Al "Corporate Suit" Duerr? It's his reign that put our transportation in the mess it is today. He and his cronnies were too busy wasting tax money trying to change Calgary's name to "Calgary City" to bother with improving the city itself.

Khyron

09-14-2005, 11:53 AM

It's called urban sprawl and it's not the mayors fault, or anyone elses. Property value determines where you build. Why build a house on a tiny lot when you can get 5 times the space on the outskirts? Calgary is bigger than New York, with a fraction of the population, so it's not hard to see why things like sky-trains, subways, decent bus routes just don't work.

As for rebates, I'd like to see even higher fuel taxes, then give flat rebates to all taxpayers. That way, the conservers get more, the wasters lose more. It's the only decent way to promote conservation, and would get more people on the bus or driving more efficient vehicles.

Calgary needs the ring road finished, and then have the train central path in all 4 directions. Then have feeder buses that run OFTEN - like every 5-10 mins max.

Khyron

Weapon_R

09-14-2005, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by benyl
meh, I would rather pay less tax across the board than get a "rebate"

Pay first and then get money back? no thanks.

I'd rather get the check myself. Lowering user fees across the board would only benefit those who actually use them. For example, lowering the fee to use a facility would only benefit those who actually use that facility, while others would not receive anything. Personally, a rebate is an 'across the board' tax break that allows all Albertans to receive a tax break and do whatever they please.

As for Bronco asking for more money, serves Calgarians right for electing a diehard Liberal Mayor. Of course, he did not have much competition but Calgarians usually re-elect their mayors.

Weapon_R

09-14-2005, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Fivewayradio

I'm not sure how you make Bronco into a Liberal just because the city needs money.

Look at his past campaign history - he was a 'high profile' candidate for the Alberta Liberals and the Federal Liberals before running for Mayor.

Melinda

09-14-2005, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by benyl
Lower fuel taxes, lower this, lower that. I would rather see me not having to pay for shit first and then "maybe" get a check if Kline is so inclined.

Also, giving it back equally across the board doesn't sit well with me. I make a decent wage, and therefor pay a decent amount of tax. Low income people are generally exempt for Alberta income tax or at least get it back later. I spend a lot of money on gas, cause I drive a guzzler, I spend money on this and that because I have more to spend than lower wage earners.

So, why should I get back the same rebate check that low income earners get, when I pay more taxes (for whatever reason)? By lowering taxes, people get a proportional rebate based on how they contribute. Obviously, it isn't going to be fair, but it is more fair than a $300 check to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Maybe if the city planners did a better job, then we would be in this mess.

Calgary, as city, is massive. People love the green space, but you have to pay for that.

The city has grown out so much that the population density has acutally gone down in Calgary, even though there are many people moving here every day.

The growth that Calgary is experiencing is unsustainable. It is actually very poor planning on the city's part.

I 100% agree with you bernard, incredibly well thought and intelligent post.

bigboom

09-14-2005, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by benyl
You say this:

Which lead me to believe that lowering taxes would leave you out.

Then this

You just restated what I was getting at. Lower fuel taxes, lower this, lower that. I would rather see me not having to pay for shit first and then "maybe" get a check if Kline is so inclined.

Also, giving it back equally across the board doesn't sit well with me. I make a decent wage, and therefor pay a decent amount of tax. Low income people are generally exempt for Alberta income tax or at least get it back later. I spend a lot of money on gas, cause I drive a guzzler, I spend money on this and that because I have more to spend than lower wage earners.

So, why should I get back the same rebate check that low income earners get, when I pay more taxes (for whatever reason)? By lowering taxes, people get a proportional rebate based on how they contribute. Obviously, it isn't going to be fair, but it is more fair than a $300 check to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Maybe if the city planners did a better job, then we would be in this mess.

Calgary, as city, is massive. People love the green space, but you have to pay for that.

The city has grown out so much that the population density has acutally gone down in Calgary, even though there are many people moving here every day.

The growth that Calgary is experiencing is unsustainable. It is actually very poor planning on the city's part.

i completely agree with this post, also the infrastructure required to sustain this is stupid, think of all the roads, hospitals and schools required to support the space calgary takes up. if we could centralize the population more the infrastructure required would be much cheaper.

Thaco

09-14-2005, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by benyl
You say this:

Which lead me to believe that lowering taxes would leave you out.

Then this

You just restated what I was getting at. Lower fuel taxes, lower this, lower that. I would rather see me not having to pay for shit first and then "maybe" get a check if Kline is so inclined.

Also, giving it back equally across the board doesn't sit well with me. I make a decent wage, and therefor pay a decent amount of tax. Low income people are generally exempt for Alberta income tax or at least get it back later. I spend a lot of money on gas, cause I drive a guzzler, I spend money on this and that because I have more to spend than lower wage earners.

So, why should I get back the same rebate check that low income earners get, when I pay more taxes (for whatever reason)? By lowering taxes, people get a proportional rebate based on how they contribute. Obviously, it isn't going to be fair, but it is more fair than a $300 check to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Maybe if the city planners did a better job, then we would be in this mess.

Calgary, as city, is massive. People love the green space, but you have to pay for that.

The city has grown out so much that the population density has acutally gone down in Calgary, even though there are many people moving here every day.

The growth that Calgary is experiencing is unsustainable. It is actually very poor planning on the city's part.

so you expect them to take in to account every single persons, income, expenses, vehicles, etc... just so they can cut you a cheque for $300?

do you think they are going to take this in to account when they lower property taxes?

Fivewayradio

09-14-2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Weapon_R

Look at his past campaign history - he was a 'high profile' candidate for the Alberta Liberals and the Federal Liberals before running for Mayor.

That's fantastic. My point is that labelling any politician who asks for money as a Liberal is uninformed at best. The city needs money to provide a continued level of service and that has NOTHING to do with the mayor's political leanings. It's really tiring to hear that stupid and illogical rhetoric again and again.

City services cost money. If you want new roads to your house in the burbs, or a new school in your neighboorhood, or bus service, or sewers, or hospitals or whatever, you have to pay for it. If you want to live in burbs you have to pay for it. And the tax structure as such doesn't support that. Kyhron and Benyl have it right. Calgary's growth is unsustainable. A conservative might try to privatize all those services so the city is no longer accountable for them, but I have a feeling that the people would be up in arms over it. I remember that happened when they tried to sell enmax. Is it Liberal to want to keep those services under the control of the city rather than privatize them?

Dave has been completely bought by developers. He won't even admit there's a sprawl problem in Calgary. In fact he spits out rote catchphrases from the Urban Development Institute (http://www.udicalgary.com)website when he's challenged with these questions. He's watched the downtown die for two decades and watched the inner city corrode along with it, and still won't admit there's a sprawl problem. And I'm almost certain he won't admit there's a problem or that Calgary's growth is unsustainable because he'd be enraging the most wealthy and powerful landowners in the city--the developers. As long as Dave remains in their back pocket Calgary will continue to sprawl.

TurboMedic

09-14-2005, 02:07 PM

As noted above, I did not label Bronco as a liberal because of his money grab, but because he shows his true colours when it comes to getting funding for projects, the whole "give me more, you don't give enough, etc"...Everyone knew bronco was a liberal before his current gig.....Regardless, I think you may be getting a little too worked up about what we are calling who

I live in the burbs too, but because it was MORE affordable than inner city, so I don't think that is a very strong arguement...

Now, you think I don't know about city services?? I am on the city payroll, and I do know that alot of the departments are top heavy. In fact, its staggering to think about operating costs of the city day to day....But, they should not be in business, there is alot of stuff they need to get out of and trim.....Enmax is the most obvious example, should the city be in the business of being in business?? Maybe if they focussed on the core infrastructure and essential services, we could trim alot of fat....

Last Edit: I'm not sure if the rebate is a definite $300, or if its variable according to income, or how it works......I just threw $300 out there because I heard that was the ballpark figure....

Fivewayradio

09-14-2005, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by TurboMedic

I live in the burbs too, but because it was MORE affordable than inner city, so I don't think that is a very strong arguement...

Sure it is...that's my point. Living in the suburbs is more affordable than living in the inner city because the real costs of creating new infrastructure in suburban developments aren't reflected in the price of suburban homes. That's exactly why there's an infrastructure deficit. If you live in the inner city your infrastructure is already built and paid for, yet you're taxed far more than a suburban homeowner for the same type of property.

Why does the taxation system make it so much more affordable for people to live in the suburbs than in the inner city? Doesn't it make more sense to increase the density in the inner city to take advantage of the fact that there's already existing infrastructure? Or at very least, shouldn't homeowners in new areas be paying for their own infrastructure costs?

I might be a conspiracy theorist, but I'm really suspicious that the city doesn't pass those costs on to the developers or to the consumers because it'll decrease new home starts and subsequently diminish Calgary's over-inflated real estate market and the building boom. I can't see any politician wanting to take the blame for that.

benyl

09-14-2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Khyron
It's called urban sprawl and it's not the mayors fault, or anyone elses. Property value determines where you build. Why build a house on a tiny lot when you can get 5 times the space on the outskirts? Calgary is bigger than New York, with a fraction of the population, so it's not hard to see why things like sky-trains, subways, decent bus routes just don't work.

As for rebates, I'd like to see even higher fuel taxes, then give flat rebates to all taxpayers. That way, the conservers get more, the wasters lose more. It's the only decent way to promote conservation, and would get more people on the bus or driving more efficient vehicles.

Calgary needs the ring road finished, and then have the train central path in all 4 directions. Then have feeder buses that run OFTEN - like every 5-10 mins max.

Khyron

Hate to say it, you post contradicts with itself.

You say that you want people to conserve, yet you blame urban sprawl.

People cannot conserve and have no choice but to drive their cars because of the urban sprawl. You can't tell me the mayor doesn't have any infuluence over what piece of land gets annexed and what piece of land gets redeveloped. Those types of permits and decisions go before city council. He has a very strong influence over these matters.

Calgary can't build the train that you are talking about because it is too damn big. The cost benefit would be too high.

Have you ever tried taking the bus from the north end of the city or the deep south? You could conceivably spend 3 hours on it. Not only that, the bus stops and routes are usually miles away from peoples homes because of the convoluted and "single" entrance communities that are built. It is so funny that places like Tuscany, for the longest time, only had one access road. This does not promote conservation. This is poor planning that was approved by guess, city council.

Originally posted by Thaco

so you expect them to take in to account every single persons, income, expenses, vehicles, etc... just so they can cut you a cheque for $300?

do you think they are going to take this in to account when they lower property taxes?

precisely my point, by lowering taxes, it affects the immediate users of the service, product etc. Let say this rebate was restricted only to people who use transit. I personally would not expect to get a rebate, because I don't use it, and have not contributed to it.

But let say that they do transit and fuel tax. Then I would expect to get back the portion I have used. What would be fair? If I drive a school bus, I would expect to get more back because it takes more gas. If I drive a hyrbid, I would expect to get less back for using less. One could argue that this would encourage "conservation", but the reality is, the guy who drive the hybrid is happy that he got more than he put in, and the guy who drives the bus gets pissed off at that guy.

By reducing taxes, you keep everyone happy.

benyl

09-14-2005, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by TurboMedic

I live in the burbs too, but because it was MORE affordable than inner city, so I don't think that is a very strong arguement...

More affordable for you.

The cost of digging the pipes for your sewers way out to tibuktoo is paid for and subsidized by the inner city property tax payers. You can't tell me that because I live in the inner city, that my 70 year old sewer pipes, that have long since been paid for, are the same price as what it costs to put pipe to your house in the burbs.

Yet, when tax time rolls around, you pay less for the same services (overall), you use more roads to commute into the city center, etc...

People fail to account for their time. All the time that you spend in your car travelling to and from work costs you money too.

Thaco

09-14-2005, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by benyl

Hate to say it, you post contradicts with itself.

You say that you want people to conserve, yet you blame urban sprawl.

People cannot conserve and have no choice but to drive their cars because of the urban sprawl. You can't tell me the mayor doesn't have any infuluence over what piece of land gets annexed and what piece of land gets redeveloped. Those types of permits and decisions go before city council. He has a very strong influence over these matters.

Calgary can't build the train that you are talking about because it is too damn big. The cost benefit would be too high.

Have you ever tried taking the bus from the north end of the city or the deep south? You could conceivably spend 3 hours on it. Not only that, the bus stops and routes are usually miles away from peoples homes because of the convoluted and "single" entrance communities that are built. It is so funny that places like Tuscany, for the longest time, only had one access road. This does not promote conservation. This is poor planning that was approved by guess, city council.

precisely my point, by lowering taxes, it affects the immediate users of the service, product etc. Let say this rebate was restricted only to people who use transit. I personally would not expect to get a rebate, because I don't use it, and have not contributed to it.

But let say that they do transit and fuel tax. Then I would expect to get back the portion I have used. What would be fair? If I drive a school bus, I would expect to get more back because it takes more gas. If I drive a hyrbid, I would expect to get less back for using less. One could argue that this would encourage "conservation", but the reality is, the guy who drive the hybrid is happy that he got more than he put in, and the guy who drives the bus gets pissed off at that guy.

By reducing taxes, you keep everyone happy. and what least you to beleive that this surplus is 100% due to property taxes? (which you obviously believe because thats where you think the tax break should be given)

benyl

09-14-2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Thaco
and what least you to beleive that this surplus is 100% due to property taxes? (which you obviously believe because thats where you think the tax break should be given)

Did you read anything I wrote?

I acutally don't recall ever saying property taxes should reduced. Property taxes was someone elses argument.

I said that taxes should be reduced more specifically, personal income tax and gasoline tax.

Maybe you should reread the thread. You brought up renters, not me.

TurboMedic

09-14-2005, 03:44 PM

Ahh, I hadn't read the argument that way, good point....but lots are worth alot of money now, and you can't tell me what lot values cover doesn't exceed the cost to provide that lot with services though.....My time, regardless in terms of travel time are going to be different regardless of where I work...thats the nature of the job, I'm stationed anywhere in the city....But, now back to the main topic on hand, cheque or taxes?

Thaco

09-14-2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by benyl

Did you read anything I wrote?

I acutally don't recall ever saying property taxes should reduced. Property taxes was someone elses argument.

I said that taxes should be reduced more specifically, personal income tax and gasoline tax.

Maybe you should reread the thread. You brought up renters, not me.

i mentioned renters and property taxes and you had an argument for every single thing i said, so i assumed you had read MY post.

finboy

09-14-2005, 05:34 PM

all i can say is we need our shitty roads fixed, i would give up a $200 rebate if i was able to drive on our roads without wrecking my car on every pothole on 16th ave

Khyron

09-14-2005, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by benyl

Hate to say it, you post contradicts with itself.

You say that you want people to conserve, yet you blame urban sprawl.

No, I say that we have urban sprawl. That's a fact. It's never going away unless we have an ocean pop up beside us. It's the economics of every open area city.

However, it can be lived with if we promote conservation. But right now there's no reason for Bubba not to drive his truck from Tuscany because there's no alternative. Laying track is not expensive. Doing it through previously developed areas is.

The cost of digging the pipes for your sewers way out to tibuktoo is paid for and subsidized by the inner city property tax payers. You can't tell me that because I live in the inner city, that my 70 year old sewer pipes, that have long since been paid for, are the same price as what it costs to put pipe to your house in the burbs.

Bah - the cost of ALL the sewer pipes, roads, utilities etc is included in the lot price. If anything I'd say it's more expensive because it reflects todays costs and budgeting, plus it's NEW. Your 70 year old water mains and sewer lines blow a lot more often than the 2 year old lines in Cougar Ridge.

One could argue that this would encourage "conservation", but the reality is, the guy who drive the hybrid is happy that he got more than he put in, and the guy who drives the bus gets pissed off at that guy. By reducing taxes, you keep everyone happy.

That is exactly my point - you don't want everyone happy. The guy who is commuting with the Smart car is taking far less space and creating far less emissions and causing less wear to the roadways than the Expedition driver. Sure it's not enough to make Expedition guy ditch his vehicle, but the next time he's looking for a car, he'll really consider if he needs it. This is why so many states allow hybrids on the HOV lanes - they WANT to encourage smaller, efficient cars. Hell, several cities are looking at cutting many parking stalls in half because 2 smarts can fit in 1 spot. They can double gas taxes as far as I'm concerned and cut a rebate for it across the board. A car is a neccessity for many people in Calgary. A 10mpg guzzler is not.

Khyron

benyl

09-14-2005, 08:13 PM

:werd:

If gas prices hit a $1.50, you can bet I will be at the Automall picking up a Smart for two. I will chip it though... hahaha

sexualbanana

09-15-2005, 12:18 AM

Personally I'd rather see the money go to the city than to me or anyone else. I mean chances are when we get the money it's going to something stupid (car part, stereo, liquor, random toy etc). Assuming it is $300, all it is is $300 to spend.

At least if it goes to the city it has a decent chance of going into something a little more long term and beneficial like roads, infrastructure, schools, city programs.

That's just my $.02

benyl

09-15-2005, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by sexualbanana
Personally I'd rather see the money go to the city than to me or anyone else. I mean chances are when we get the money it's going to something stupid (car part, stereo, liquor, random toy etc). Assuming it is $300, all it is is $300 to spend.

At least if it goes to the city it has a decent chance of going into something a little more long term and beneficial like roads, infrastructure, schools, city programs.

That's just my $.02

Or unionized city workers where 3 guys "supervise" one guy working...

TurboMedic

09-15-2005, 06:48 AM

Yes, there are a few (too many) city departments like that, but not all unionized city workers are that way....I'm a union city worker too, but trust me, its me and my partner and we're doing alot of work....so please don't generalize like that....

Vagabond142

09-15-2005, 11:47 AM

In my opinion, I would honestly prefer the money to go to infrastructure and transportation, two areas that Calgary is starting to suffer on hardcore. $200 x 956,000 = a lot. Take that money, fix our roads, resolidify our infrastructure, and THEN, next year when the oil revenues become astronomical, THEN give out "rebates."

01RedDX

09-15-2005, 07:48 PM

Rockski

09-15-2005, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Fivewayradio
Bronconnier is a fucking tool. I don't give a shit about roads, schools or infrastructure in the burbs. I don't use it. Cut me a cheque please, or spend the money on something I actually care about.

heres a thought, PUT IT INTO THE PESION SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE 20 NOW WILL GET MONEY WHEN THEYRE OLDER... as opposed to the seniors now that do get cheques... people (such as yourself) would wrather blow it on shnae or booze now then "actualy care about" something when your older...

Fuck the cheques now, give them to me when im old, decrepid, bitching about money and cant work for it

and there is no specific word on the exact ammount, its ball parked at 300, doesnt mean it could be more.... or (god forbid)less

Vypros

09-15-2005, 08:06 PM

So when does the $350 check come? I need some new wheels for my car.

AllGoNoShow

09-15-2005, 08:13 PM

OK now I got a question.... I pay tax on through my cheques and such, plus fuel and gst blah blah blah. Even though I am udner 18 do I get a cheque too? What about house and such, does that matter?

Vypros

09-15-2005, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by AllGoNoShow
OK now I got a question.... I pay tax on through my cheques and such, plus fuel and gst blah blah blah. Even though I am udner 18 do I get a cheque too? What about house and such, does that matter? If you file taxes every year, you get a check. If you've never filed taxes, don't expect a check.

Khyron

09-15-2005, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Rockski
heres a thought, PUT IT INTO THE PESION SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE 20 NOW WILL GET MONEY WHEN THEYRE OLDER... as opposed to the seniors now that do get cheques... people (such as yourself) would wrather blow it on shnae or booze now then "actualy care about" something when your older...

Anyone who's relying on the gov to pay ANYTHING when you're retired is living in a dream world. Plan your finances now cause no one else will.

Khyron

Rockski

09-15-2005, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Khyron

Anyone who's relying on the gov to pay ANYTHING when you're retired is living in a dream world. Plan your finances now cause no one else will.

Khyron

i am planning, but i think its kind of sad how theres some cash now to go for seniors, and that gets taken from our taxes, which im fine for, the sad part is, at the rate its going, there isnt going to be any left for the people who are around 20 now, then even the kids who are 10 and the kids to come, they all deserve a little bit, why not throw some of our "surplus" cash into that fund so that my kids can even get a shot at some "your old now" money?

sputnik

09-18-2005, 12:17 PM

The whole word "prosperity BONUSES" demands that the surplus should be used in a way that benefits the contributers to the economy.

If the money can be invested in a way to drop personal provincial income tax from 10% to 9%. In the end the payout will be much more beneficial for anyone that is currently employed. A single percent decrease will mean paying $300 less in taxes per year to someone making $30k ($15/hr) and more for those making (contributing) more.

At work we dont get bonuses for working there. We get bonuses for our level of contribution. The provincial government should think along the same lines.