Fraser

This is the only part of your entire post that made much sense. You claim to know a lot about this area, and yet whenever you talk about it, you sound like a Marine biologist who doesn't understand why fish can breathe under-water. You can continue to insult me all you want, I don't care, but honestly, there are good reasons why stock options are taxed at 50%, even if you can't understand why that is. Instead of telling other people to visit the real world, perhaps you could re-visit the tax side of your apparent training, as right now you get an "F".As for constantly bleating about Harper and his deficits, I agree, he shouldn't have been running deficits in the past few years, and I think you would agree that at least part of that reason was the cut in the GST. I think that the Conservatives have made some bonehead decisions, for sure. However, look at who else ran in 2011. One guy lied about the fact that he was dying (Layton should have made full disclosure on that, and it was dishonest but typical NDP to deceive the voters) and the other guy was just visiting. But that's all past history. The big question is, and yet I still am not getting much of an answer, are the other two guys any better? At least Trudeau was honest, while Mulcair chose to lie, on the question of deficits. I think that the next few weeks, the NDP are heading back to oblivion where they belong, and Trudeau only gets stronger. As it should be. Post something that shows stock options are a common form of renumeration for Canadians. You cant. Because they aren't. Divide what we've saved on gst by his accumulated deficits. Its a drop in the bucket.

and blowing your wad in the good times and tightening your belt in bad times work better? They plan is far from identical to what happened in Ontario.

Are you kidding, he ran 5 of them in years of economic growth. 2008 isn't an excuse you can used in 2014.

Are you really arguing that most governments don't run deficits during a recession? Are you familiar with counter-cyclical budgetary policy or are you pretending its's something that just doesn't exist.? Is the UK still in its recession from the 1970's because it "didn't work"? The focus of the deficit is on infrastructure and I've already explained why that the best thing to spend on in a recession. Can you show me an example of a recession that got better due to restrictive fiscal policy? Does Harper have any plan? He doesn't want to admit were in a recession, so he's promise more of the same. (which is running deficits btw) Do you really think the best display of financial management is to run 7 straight deficits, be on pace for your 8th and then promise to balance the books next year in a recession? Recessions aren't fun, economics isn't perfect, spending extra money doesn't magically fix everything but Harper has done little to inspire anyone that he's a strong fiscal manager unless you are someone who bleeds blue regardless of the track record of its performance

Not quite

I think that deficit spending in a recession isn't the best idea. I can see why it happens though, and the economic benefits of doing so. I think that the issue is much simpler though. Add back the two points that were shaved off the GST, and boom, deficit is erased. End of story. I am not sure why you wasted your time typing the rest. Why focus on me at all? Focus on the actual question. Bashing me is just stupid. Otherwise, thanks for making the effort, well worth the read. I knew I wouldn't get much of a response form you because your opinions are partisan and you can't back them up with any facts. You don't like deficit spending but you are voting for a guy who has ran 7 straight deficits? That's very logical. In fact the only year he posted a decent surplus he inherited it from Paul Martin I answered the question. Justin Trudeau has a better financial plan for the country then Harper. Harper hasn't even delineated a plan, just more of the same "strong financial management" he supposedly has been already doing. He's ran close to 150 billion in deficits in the past 7 years. Even your blue calculator can't pretend that that is just 2 points of the GST. He's a bad financial manager and you can't prove otherwise.

Yawn. Another wasted effort. Stick to what you know. I also suggest that you go out in the real world a bit more. Stating that stock options are just given out to executives just shows an ignorance that the NDP likes to exploit to create unfair tax policy. I apparently know a lot more about this: http://www.mnp.ca/en/media-centre/blog/2013/6/19/stock-options-an-incentive-tool-for-private-corporations-in-canada Does that say "attract and retain key employees?" or does it say give them to every employee as part of a basic compensation package? http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveparrish/2013/02/20/stock-options-top-5-reasons-not-to-use-them-as-an-employee-incentive/ Does that say key employees and executives? Or doesn't it say give them to everyone? http://mikevolker.com/shares-vs-stock-options/ hmmm key employees again, also references they are widely used in executive compensation http://www.cba.org/CBA/PracticeLink/05-11-BC/stock_options.aspx oh ****, key employees again. It sure sounds like they hand these out to everyone, Maybe every employee is a key employee? what does key even mean anyways? Oh but you have anecdotal evidence form working in tech that everyone get stock options. Is tech representative of most industries? https://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/industry/ICE/Documents/6059-Tech-Compensation-Survey-FY14-v7-WEB.pdf No it isn't, more companies in tech are self funded, hence the options offerings. Is tech a large part of the Canadian economy? http://www.psdglobal.com/canada-market-entry/ Well it doesn't get its own heading so probably ******* not right? Stock options are generally reserved for executive in most industries and are only prevalent in tech. The average Canadian isn't paid in stock options, which was my whole argument. The more I think about it, one of those articles say that executives receive the majority of their income in stock options. Now I'm just trying to think critically here, but would a secretary at a tech company be mostly paid in stock options. Probably not, I can't see low level employees committing to half their income or more vaporizing in a bad year at the company. So I'm sure its just a small supplement to their regular income. So we've got stock options, that make up the majority of the income of executives, and are a small supplementary source of income for regular employees in one industry that makes up a very small portion of GDP (so small it isn't even its own heading). Sounds to me like taxing stock options in a heavier fashion would close a loop hole for very rich people with a very small and immaterial amount of collateral damage. But I guess that opinion just came from the NDP exploiting my ignorance. I'd say that even though I'm much younger than you, its you that needs to get some life experience since you clearly have nothing but sheltered backwards opinions based on anecdotal evidence. You can't cant compose a coherent argument supported with facts to save your life. It's time for you to get off the internet and go out and feed the ducks or shake your fist at clouds like most people in your age demo.

Rogers

I feel that anything that promotes savings is a good thing because as a society we simply don't save enough. With the tax free aspect of earnings on them as well it should promote some investment which is good for the economy as a whole right? I don't think you can worry about possible lost revenue (god I hate that term) in the future. It's good for the people so to me it's a good thing. I tend to agree that it's a good idea as a whole. I 100% agree with Fraser that you should be keeping long term investments in them. Yeah top mine up every year with the goal of keeping it in there until I retire in 30+ years or whatever it winds up being. There's enough now to really see the interest making a difference and it just might be the best thing the conservatives have done. Some people though like to call it a bad thing because they don't have enough to top it up every year, but you don't need to fill it every year, depending on what your own personal situation is it's a great savings tool if you use it. You shouldn't have anything interest bearing in it. I'm not sure if you are actually getting interest or just using interest when you mean return.

My portfolio is exclusively synthetic long positions in stocks via derivativesI don't actually have a tsfa because you can't use margin in them and my investment strategy depends on it. I'm happy to give up the tax advantage for better returns though and I don't expect or would recommend most people to do what I do.

I don't actually do that anymore I work in commercial finance but my take is this. It's an excellent tool. Especially for younger people. Most people don't use it correctly and use it for low risk short term savings. When they should use it for higher risk long term savings. Promoting savings is a good thing.

It might not be but when you run 5 for 5 its hard argue its a statistical anomaly or give a reason why every year you specifically had to run that deficit in the past but how it will be differnt going forward. I agree they need to run one now. I do not agree that they have needed to run one for 5 years. Add in 2 years of a recession (if he gets reelected) and that will be 9 years of straight deficits over a business cycle and a half. Not really set up for a Nobel prize in economic management.

If I was going to post an a actual KBF style post this is how it would go. We have this guy at our office that is a big time conservative. He spilled almond milk all over our work fridge and didn't clean it up. There is only about 10 people that use this fridge and he's the only person that uses almond milk so we all know its him. Don't vote conservative because they are the kinds of people who think they can spill almond milk in their work fridge and someone else will clean it up after them. They must get this view from all their conservative propaganda that's left them all entitled and thinking that someone is going to clean their almond milk up for them.

I asked a simple question - what are the other two guys doing that is better than this Harper guy - and all I got was another barf-back of the same tired propaganda that I've seen on a dozen other sites. I don't care about all the bad stuff Harper has supposedly done, I want to know that the other two guys aren't going to be even worse. So it may be counter to what I believe to just continue to post the same nonsense over and over again rather than post positive stuff about the other two guys when asked for positive stuff about the other two guys, but so what. That's my opinion, take it or leave it. Ok I'll take a stab at it. What is Justin Trudeau doing that's better than Harper. The recommendation to run a deficit budget in a recession with the money being spent on infrastructure is a good idea. A lot of people like to rag on Justin for saying that budgets balance themselves. I think a better question is, does Harper have an idea of what balances budgets? and if he does, why hasn't he balanced a budget in the last 5 years? Notice I didn't say the last 7 years (even though he's ran deficits for 7 years) because I understand that running deficits in a recession is an important use of fiscal policy, Notice I didn't say monetary policy because I understand the difference in fiscal and monetary policy. Now I'm too lazy to look up a paper to source this but I remember reading in an economics textbook (of one of the two graduate level finance programs that I've participated in) that the very nature of a deficit does little to stimulate an economy in a recession, only increasing it does. That means you have to go from a surplus or a balanced budget into a deficit, or from a deficit to a larger deficit to stimulate the economy. I'll look this up if someone really ******* about it but its true, maintaining a deficit doesn't stimulate the economy, only increasing it does. I can't remember why we have a deficit right now, we weren't in a recession for the last 5 years (we likely are now in my opinion but only time will tell) and Harper is supposedly a good financial steward so I'm not really sure.... but I'll take a stab at it later. So first, we need to be scared of Trudeau and Mulclaire because they are going to run a deficit, but the guy we have right now is running a deficit. Oh that's right, he's just about to stop running them. 2 problems with that though: 1) Saying that Harper is going to stop running a deficit soon is like saying that the girlfriend that cheated on you for 5 years is years is going to stop if you sign her up for another 4 years. (again notice I said 5 and not 7 because deficits are a tool to stimulate the economy in a recession so 2 of them are understandable) 2) why the **** would you run a deficit when you are experiencing economic growth and then stop as you enter a recession. Sometimes people make good decision made on the available information they had and it goes against them. This isn't that, its just bad economic policy. Really bad economic policy. Ass backward economic policy. So why do I like deficits spent on infrastructure in a recession. 1) moving into a deficit (or larger deficit) stimulates the economy in recession. 2) If you are saddling future generations with debt, a least you building an asset that will be useful for them. They are kind of getting what they paid for. 3) Infrastructure spending is one of the only ways a government can create jobs. People can blab on about how lowering business taxes creates jobs etc but that's pretty unproven and even if it does its pretty slow to act. Spending on infrastructure creates instant jobs because someone has to build it and they kind of have to be in Canada cause you can't really build a bridge/freeway in India and China and then move it here. 4) Good infrastructure is an important item necessary for future economic growth Key points 1 - I don't like deficits. I think they should only be used in recessions. 2 - Justin Trudeau can't build a time machine and undo the last 5 years of unbalanced budgets, if he does get elected he has to work with what he has and that would requiring running an even bigger deficit if we are about to enter a recession. 3 - Would he balance the budget after? I don't know, he did say that budgets balance themselves, its a stupid comment. But is Harper more likely to given his dismal (Ya running 5 straight years of deficits in a period of economic growth is dismal) economic record? I wouldn't bet on that. So what is one of the reasons we are running another deficit at the moment? One thing that appears to be contributing to it is the tax break for 1 income (or 2 income with 1 of the 2 being much larger) upper middle class families (notice I said upper middle class, I don't want to say wealthy and have to make 17 to 85 correct me) Why I don't like this: (spoiler alert, its not because I'm in a lower income 2 income household that is jealous of people getting more than me) 1) I don't like running deficits outside of a recession (this should be pretty clear by now but I wrote it down anyways) and when this was started we weren't in one. 2) If were gonna go into debt it should be for items that help future generations. (you might try to argue that this helps future generations cause the parents that save that money on taxes are going to put it into their kids college fund, but I'd say that's a stretch and I'd be right) 3) It reeks of vote buying and that's got to be the worst ******* reason to run a deficit that I can think of Why I don't expect much of a response from you. 1) you seem kinda biased 2) you don't seem very objective (that's kind of the same thing as 1 just in a different way) 3) you seem very set in your ways What I expect as a response from you 1 "NDP/Unions are the devil, they like steal and cheat" 2 Something you don't like about Trudeau's platform completely unrelated to what I've said 3 Some kind of excuse for why we've had 5 years of deficits during a period of economic growth (Something I'm not going to buy) or on the flip side telling me the liberals or NDP would have ran even bigger deficits, which is kind of hard to prove given the liberals past success in balancing the budget Final thoughts I lied about looking up the thing about how maintaining an existing level of deficit won't stimulate an economy in a recession. If someone doesn't know that they shouldn't be arguing economics with me. The tone of this post is pretty condescending. My intention was was to show you how your posts come off (tone wise of course, I feel this post's content has a lot more coherent arguments and a lot less rhetoric, mud slinging and wild accusations than most things you post)

It sounds like you've spent too much time being lectured to by unions and leftist teachers/professors, who haven't actually ever been in the real world, or have a vested interest in lying to you to make you think that all corporations and management are evil and greedy. "Most places just give them to executives". No, that's just plain not true. At all. Have you ever worked for a public company? I spent 15 years in high tech, and every high tech company I worked for, public and private, made sure that all employees, from the secretary to the top, received a chance to share in the big prize if the stock price went up, via stock options. I know that the NDP like to peddle the fallacy that only "fat-cat" CEO's get stock options, but this is just plain a giant load of bullshit. Almost as big as saying that the Conservatives have cut $36 billion from health care spending. And stock options are taxed as income, but only 50% of the gain is taxable. There are valid reasons for this, but of course, if you believe the NDP garbage that "only the rich benefit" from stock options, it makes it an easier sell to the jealous and naive that they should be taxed at 100%. This is unnecessarily punishing hundreds of thousands of people, for no reason. This is one of the many reasons why I think the NDP is a giant smoking pile of hot garbage. All they do is lie. Constantly. No I am a CFA charterholder and am almost done an MBA and worked as a financial planner for years. I've worked for several public companies. What I think is that you don't know the difference between stock options and a share purchase plans or you seem to think the tech industry is representative of most companies. Tech companies have different compensation schemes from most industries so I don't know why you'd suggest that what goes in tech applies to everyone.

Stock options and share purchase are entirely different things

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. This sums it up well for me. I get into arguments with a Dipper I know who is adamant that income from stock options be taxed at 100%, all because one guy she knows made a bunch of money on stock options, and she hates that guy. I point out to her that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have stock options, including even low income people I know who work for public companies, and policy aimed at going after a few rich guys that benefit ends up just punishing thousands of others who aren't rich, all out of pure spite and jealousy, with no real understanding of the taxation concepts behind why stock options are currently taxed at 50%. It is always to no avail. She is so blinded by hatred and jealousy she can't see the forest for the trees, which is a common trait among Dippers, I find. are you talking about capital gains? becuase I don't see how an employee of a public copmany would get stock options. No I am talking about when you exercise stock options. The difference between what you pay for the stock and what it is trading for on the stock exchange is taxed as income, but 50% of it is non-taxable, to give those who don't want to exercise and sell, but just exercise and hold, a break. It makes perfect sense. And I'm not sure what you mean by no employees of public companies get stock options. I've been an employee of several public companies, and I always have gotten stock options. A friend of mine has a big public company in Calgary and he makes sure everyone in his company, from the guys at top all way down to the guys that work on the shop floor, so they can participate in the growth of the company and feel like they have a sense of ownership. It's a great policy, and a great way to retain good employees. Punishing them all with horrible tax policy just because you hate a rich guy who also received options is just so ass-backward, but that's the NDP way. Ok you you know one place that gives is janitors stock options? Most places just give them to executives. Unless you are talking about a share ownership plan then I agree. Stock options aren't even taxed preferentially unless they are out of the money and if they are in the money they should be taxed as income cause thats what they are. Not really sure what you arw getting at.

If you were glad I asked, then why didn't you answer the question? Why are the other two guys better options? Instead of just cutting and pasting rhetoric prepared for you by union-sponsored NDP propaganda arms, why not give me positive reasons why the other guys are better? Starting off your entire post with more blarney about Harper being the worst prime minister ever just guarantees I am going to tune out whatever you have to say, as it is going to just be more biased left-wing crap. When Harper goes on a train trip across Canada with his family, and is greeted at every whistle stop with people throwing eggs and yelling **** YOU!! at the train, like people did in 1982 with Pierre Trudeau, then I'd agree, Harper is in the same area code as Trudeau was in terms of being the worst. Right now, he's not even in the same solar system as the suckage experienced by Canada under Trudeau. And anyone who says otherwise is just wearing partisan blinders. Geez man, it seems sometimes, not always, that anytime a person posts something that runs counter to what you believe, you respond with these type statements. The hypocrisy is dripping here. I think some of of us take more of an eclectic approach to politics and sensitive issues by not branding our ideologies as left, center or right. We take it issue by issue using the best facts available to form our perspectives. We sometimes don't get it right but always try to take an evidence-informed approach, identifying any bias's we may have a long the way. We can't brand ourselves with only one political strip but we can always aspire to be a sound critical thinker hopefully adding value to the discussion. Well said. I also find KBF's notion that the NDP is the most intolerant political party laughable. Mostly because none of the full on granola eating, folk fest going, hemp clothing wearing, CBC radio listening hippies that I’ve met have said anything half as intolerant of the conservative party as the stuff he spews about the NDP constantly.

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. This sums it up well for me. I get into arguments with a Dipper I know who is adamant that income from stock options be taxed at 100%, all because one guy she knows made a bunch of money on stock options, and she hates that guy. I point out to her that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have stock options, including even low income people I know who work for public companies, and policy aimed at going after a few rich guys that benefit ends up just punishing thousands of others who aren't rich, all out of pure spite and jealousy, with no real understanding of the taxation concepts behind why stock options are currently taxed at 50%. It is always to no avail. She is so blinded by hatred and jealousy she can't see the forest for the trees, which is a common trait among Dippers, I find. are you talking about capital gains? becuase I don't see how an employee of a public copmany would get stock options.

It's something that boggles my mind too. My brother and his wife are pretty much the poster family for income splitting and they certainly aren't wealthy. Yes he makes a good salary, but his wife doesn't and with 3 kids they don't have anything close to wealth. The people against income splitting are the low earners who think they should as a household with 2 low earners pay less tax than a household with the same income but the majority of that income coming from one person. The left is very petty when it comes to people having more than them. They won't like being called greedy but they are greedy. They want more than they have and want people with more to have less. or people who are single and have a good income and are tired of paying way more than their share/to raise everyone elses kids.

Awards mean nothing. What you did last week means everything.

Look. I love the cfl and everything but its a semi pro league. Most of the players have off season jobs. The payroll for the team is one jet's salary. Why should I pay 300 for one game and 9 dollars for a beer and 10 dollars for a hot dog? Part of the appeal of the cfl should be that it's affordable. I don't care if you're a fan of F1 or pro golf or NBA or Nascar or the NFL or NHL or MLB or whatever but those things are the class of their respective fields and the cfl just isn't in that level. It shouldn't try to be something it isn't and price it's fans away while doing so. That being said I bought the cheapeat gc tickets I could get at the start of the season on the outside chance the bombers make the cup.

I'm making my pick as the kicker is running towards the football for the first time in the game I'm picking in.

You're totally right Can you find specific examples of things that were glossed over? I would say on aggregate its easier to find a controversial thing said by conservative party memeber as their social values don't mirror most Canadians. Last election ctv ran a story about how many times mulclair has remortgaged his home to suggest bad financial management. Not exactly ndp friendly.

Dogs are safe in Winnipeg again