Election 2015

[sweep the leg]

 

It's certainly good news for investors. It remains to be seen how it will affect government revenue in the future though. There are good points on both sides and I don't know which is right.

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.

[17to85]

 

 

It's certainly good news for investors. It remains to be seen how it will affect government revenue in the future though. There are good points on both sides and I don't know which is right.

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. 

[Atomic]

I generally don't use savings accounts as I believe the interest isn't a good enough return. I prefer to go with a bit of a higher risk, higher reward method.

Options trading is where its at if you've got the mind for it.

[Fraser]

I generally don't use savings accounts as I believe the interest isn't a good enough return. I prefer to go with a bit of a higher risk, higher reward method.

Options trading is where its at if you've got the mind for it.

My portfolio is exclusively synthetic long positions in stocks via derivatives

I 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.

[Fraser]

It's certainly good news for investors. It remains to be seen how it will affect government revenue in the future though. There are good points on both sides and I don't know which is right.

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.

[The Unknown Poster]

http://m.torontosun.com/2015/08/28/ndps-hidden-immigration-pledge-a-concern

NDP immigration pledge a concern.

[Mark F]

Alberta

 

"“In talking to industry we did listen,” said (NDP) energy minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd. “In order to provide some stability while we’re doing this important work we thought it was important to set a deadline where we won’t make changes and that there’ll be some status quo in the meantime.”

She said her department heard loud and clear from oil and gas company executives.

“It was in response. I listened, and met with over 1,000 energy leaders and there is a lot of concern, it’s tough times right now and we’re hoping this will give them some ability to plan and make some decisions while this important work is being done.”

McCuaig-Boyd added that if there are any changes starting in 2017, the extra royalty revenue would go into the Heritage Fund, not day-to-day government operations,"

 

 

 

Poor Alberta. having to put up with a government that's so unreasonable and dictatorial. And saving money for the future. what kind of idea is that now?

[17to85]

 

 

 

 

It's certainly good news for investors. It remains to be seen how it will affect government revenue in the future though. There are good points on both sides and I don't know which is right.

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.

 

I'm not a finance guy, yeah talking about return. 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[kelownabomberfan]

If I was going to post an a actual KBF style post this is how it would go.

 

 

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.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

I don't  care about all the bad stuff Harper has supposedly done, ......

You can't be serious...

 

 

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 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.

[Mr Dee]

I don't  care about all the bad stuff Harper has supposedly done, ......

You can't be serious...

 

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 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.

It's not what I believe KBF. It's what has been shown to be true. These are not fabrications. These points made about Harper are supported by fact.

My last statement is a comment on what you said about not caring what he has done.

I still say sheesh.

[HardCoreBlue]

 

 

I don't  care about all the bad stuff Harper has supposedly done, ......

You can't be serious...

 

 

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 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.

 

Ummm you might want to come up with your own stuff but if you can't please apply it correctly.

[Fraser]

 

If I was going to post an a actual KBF style post this is how it would go.

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.

[Fraser]

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[rebusrankin]

Does Justin really have a better plan? Heavy borrowing and a focus on Green energy is what the Liberals did in Ontario, which results in extremely high levels of debt, several spending scandals (Gas plants, Ornge, E-health), high energy costs for both businesses and citizens and businesses leaving or refusing to expand.

 

I don't think you can spend your way out of recession which seems to be his goal. It didn't work in the UK in the 1970s, France in the 1980s and Japan in the 1990s to name 3, why will it work here?

[Fraser]

Does Justin really have a better plan? Heavy borrowing and a focus on Green energy is what the Liberals did in Ontario, which results in extremely high levels of debt, several spending scandals (Gas plants, Ornge, E-health), high energy costs for both businesses and citizens and businesses leaving or refusing to expand.

 

I don't think you can spend your way out of recession which seems to be his goal. It didn't work in the UK in the 1970s, France in the 1980s and Japan in the 1990s to name 3, why will it work here?

 

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

[rebusrankin]

_{Did I say most governments don't run deficits in recessions? Nope. I am aware of counter-cyclical budgetary policy. All I said was I don't think spending your way out of a recession works.}

 

_{Trudeau is following the exact plan the Liberals have followed in Ontario and that has lead to the highest sub sovereign debt in North America, higher energy costs and the economic engine of Canada becoming a have not province. They've also added 130 billion in debt to Ontario's totals.Can you explain why it will work better at the national level?}

 

_{For the record, I can see the value in spending more on roads, bridges etc.  Trudeau isn't just counting that as infrastructure though, he's also counting green infrastructure and social infrastructure in his plan. I don't agree with that.}

[The Unknown Poster]

Do you think Harper would have run a deficit without the recession?

[Fraser]

Do you think Harper would have run a deficit without the recession?

 

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

[Fraser]

_{Did I say most governments don't run deficits in recessions? Nope. I am aware of counter-cyclical budgetary policy. All I said was I don't think spending your way out of a recession works.}

 

_{Trudeau is following the exact plan the Liberals have followed in Ontario and that has lead to the highest sub sovereign debt in North America, higher energy costs and the economic engine of Canada becoming a have not province. They've also added 130 billion in debt to Ontario's totals.Can you explain why it will work better at the national level?}

 

_{For the record, I can see the value in spending more on roads, bridges etc.  Trudeau isn't just counting that as infrastructure though, he's also counting green infrastructure and social infrastructure in his plan. I don't agree with that.}

 

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.

[rebusrankin]

 

_{Did I say most governments don't run deficits in recessions? Nope. I am aware of counter-cyclical budgetary policy. All I said was I don't think spending your way out of a recession works.}

 

_{Trudeau is following the exact plan the Liberals have followed in Ontario and that has lead to the highest sub sovereign debt in North America, higher energy costs and the economic engine of Canada becoming a have not province. They've also added 130 billion in debt to Ontario's totals.Can you explain why it will work better at the national level?}

 

_{For the record, I can see the value in spending more on roads, bridges etc.  Trudeau isn't just counting that as infrastructure though, he's also counting green infrastructure and social infrastructure in his plan. I don't agree with that.}

 

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.

 

To answer the first question, no it is not.

 

On the second, his plans borrow heavily from Ontario, right down to the same advisers.

[The Unknown Poster]

A bit simplistic.

But if you're saying don't vote for Harper because he ran deficits, why on earth is that a reason to vote for anyone else?

[The Unknown Poster]

@charlesadler: Despite fondest hopes of Oppo Parties, Cdn Economy is not comatose. http://t.co/3ThIZpmP1W@financialpost #elxn42 http://t.co/kBs6ehsr8U

[The Unknown Poster]

Our latest national voting intention numbers reveal a tightening race as the NDP has lost a little ground.

If the election were tomorrow, 31% say they would vote NDP (down from 35% two weeks ago), 30% would vote CPC, and 28% would vote Liberal. -

See more at: http://abacusdata.ca/race-narrows-as-ndp-support-dips/#sthash.rBeO8BEW.dpuf