Mediaboss Marketing

If you are a visitor of this website:

Please try again in a few minutes.

There is an issue between Cloudflare's cache and your origin web server. Cloudflare monitors for these errors and automatically investigates the cause. To help support the investigation, you can pull the corresponding error log from your web server and submit it our support team. Please include the Ray ID (which is at the bottom of this error page). Additional troubleshooting resources.

Go here to read the rest:
How a former Edmonton cop became the hand behind the Liberals' proposed hate-crime law - The Logic

Tags:

Tories dismiss fishing harbour repairs by federal Liberals as 'electioneering'  CBC.ca

See the rest here:
Tories dismiss fishing harbour repairs by federal Liberals as 'electioneering' - CBC.ca

Tags:

Open this photo in gallery:

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland deliveres the federal budget in the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 16.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

In her budget speech this month, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland pointed to 1980s-era tax changes by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney as a precedent for boosting the tax take on capital gains.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney raised the capital-gains inclusion rate to 75 per cent higher than the rate were establishing today, she said.

If one were to leave it at that, the Liberals come off quite well, having decided to boost the inclusion rate for capital gains the amount subject to tax to two-thirds, well below that of the latter years of the Mulroney government.

But Ms. Freeland was only telling half the story. The Mulroney government did raise the capital-gains inclusion rate, in two steps, to 75 per cent from 50 per cent. But that action was just one element of a broad tax reform that also included cuts to the corporate tax rate and top personal income tax rates, and a generous exemption for capital gains.

The Liberals have headed in the opposite direction, starting in 2016 with an increase in the marginal tax rate for individuals with a taxable income of $200,000 or more. The Trudeau government hasnt increased the broad corporate tax rate, but it has targeted sectors with so-called windfall taxes. So this months changes to the inclusion rate for capital gains feeds into a higher tax rate for higher earning individuals an increase on top of an increase.

The result is a bigger tax bite on capital gains: $19.4-billion over five years for the federal government, with a $6.9-billion spike this fiscal year. On top of that, Ottawa estimates that the provinces and territories will reap as much as 60 per cent of its own total, up to an additional $11.6-billion. All told, individuals and corporations could be handing over as much as an extra $31-billion in the coming half-decade.

Without the $6.9-billion windfall, Ms. Freeland would have had to rein in $17.2-billion in program-spending increases in fiscal 2024-25. The Liberals arent trying to improve the tax system; they are plugging a hole in the budget.

It is true that the changes proposed by the Liberals do equalize the tax treatment of dividends and capital gains. Thats an important principle of tax policy the idea of a buck is a buck, and that tax considerations should not distort investment decisions, notes University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe. On that narrow basis, increasing the capital-gains inclusion rate makes some sense.

But levelling the playing field does not mean it has to be levelled up. As was the case in the 1980s, the Liberals could have boosted the inclusion rate for capital gains but then cut the tax rates applied to those gains for individuals and corporations. Prof. Tombe notes that, had the Liberals taken a revenue-neutral approach, they would have been able to cut the top personal income tax rate by four percentage points rolling back their 2016 hikes.

The Liberals have gone to great pains to portray the capital-gains changes as a tax paid by the ultrawealthy, saying just 40,000 Canadians with an average gross income of $1.4-million would be affected. In other words: not your problem, middle-class Canada.

That assertion glosses over a couple of important facts, however. First, the intimation that the bigger capital-gains tax bite is linked to a seven-digit income is largely a red herring. The underlying income of anyone with capital gains doesnt affect their exposure to the higher inclusion rate. A person selling a family cottage where the individual capital gains exceeded $250,000 will pay more in taxes, even if they have a middle-class income.

More broadly felt will be the second-hand effect from higher capital-gains taxes on corporations. Shareholders (both individuals and pension plan funds) will feel that pinch, indirectly.

There is another basic principle of taxation policy: Whatever you tax, contracts. Higher tobacco taxes mean fewer cigarettes will be bought, for instance a point Ms. Freelands budget makes in hiking excise taxes.

Whats true for smokes is true for investment: increased capital-gains taxes will be a disincentive. Given Canadas deepening productivity woes, it is precisely the wrong policy.

There is a thoughtful plan that would create a level playing field for investment capital, iron out distortions and galvanize private-sector growth as the Mulroney Tories did in the 1980s. The Liberal tax hike, designed to pay for a spending spree, instead punishes prosperity.

Continued here:
Globe editorial: The Liberals' capital-gains tax hike punishes prosperity - The Globe and Mail

Tags:

Justin Trudeau was hoping his housing budget would reverse the governments slide in popularity. Instead, things have gotten worse.

For the good of the Liberal Party he leads, the Prime Minister needs to think about his future.

The government gambled everything on this budget. Younger voters are unhappy. Economic uncertainty and high interest rates have worsened housing shortages, making ownership impossible and rent exorbitant for many. Their support has shifted emphatically from the Liberals to the Conservatives.

The budgets answer: billions of dollars to support new housing starts, housing infrastructure and apartment construction, along with measures to make it easier to secure a first mortgage.

Party strategists hoped the housing-focused budget would narrow the huge gap in support between the two parties over the next few months by winning back younger voters. So far, its not working.

A Nanos postbudget poll showed Conservative support increasing to 42 per cent, with the Liberals down to 23 per cent. Ipsos has only 17 per cent of Canadians giving the budget two thumbs up, while 40 per cent give it two thumbs down. Similarly, Leger has half of all Canadians rejecting the budget and only 20 per cent welcoming it.

A capital-gains tax increase included in the budget may be part of the problem. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland insisted only the very rich would be forced to pay. But it turns out the very rich include family doctors, other small business owners and people hoping to sell the cottage one day.

It also didnt help that everyone from former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge to Bill Morneau the previous Liberal finance minister, for crying out loud attacked the budget for increasing taxes in a time of weak productivity and little or no growth.

Mr. Trudeau is now ratcheting up his attacks on Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who recently consorted with some anti-Trudeau protesters once again, and who has earned the dubious distinction of being endorsed by lunatic-fringe commentator Alex Jones in the United States.

But this isnt likely to matter much to people whose mortgages are up for renewal.

The most important legislative item, outside the budget itself, is the pharmacare bill. Once it passes, the legislative record of this government will largely be complete.

The supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP is supposed to last until October, 2025. But its more likely the government will fall over the next budget in spring of next year, if not before. Once pharmacare is law, what possible reason would New Democrat Leader Jagmeet Singh have to keep this tired government alive?

Mr. Trudeau has pretty much run out of opportunities to change the narrative. Interest rates have not gone down as hoped. Housing starts will be down again this year, and will remain weak over the following two years, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whatever the budget might promise. The economy crawls forward on its stomach.

The government has reached the point where it must both raise taxes and increase debt to fund programs that most of us dont care about or dont support. People have crossed their arms. They are simply waiting for the day when they can vote Mr. Trudeau out of office.

The Prime Minister has a choice. He can step down this spring or early summer, and let the party select a new leader. Or he can stay on and meet his fate.

Mr. Trudeau may believe that he and only he can prevent the ruination of Canada as he sees it at the hands of Mr. Poilievre. But how can that be true? Given the Liberals current electoral prospects, wouldnt someone else anyone else likely fare better?

Stories have surfaced that Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc might be interested. Mark Carney, former governor of the Canadian and English central banks, is giving speeches. Others are testing the waters.

A new leader doesnt guarantee a Liberal victory in the next election far from it. But more might be saved than in an election with the current leader.

The Liberal Party was in the ditch when Justin Trudeau came to its rescue in 2013. He needs to ask himself in what state it will be if he stays.

Visit link:
Opinion: For the good of the Liberal party, Trudeau needs to think about his future - The Globe and Mail

Tags:

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland on Tuesday pushed against criticism the Liberals were siding with the insurance industry on the new disability benefit as the NDP presses for stronger assurances the new payments will not be clawed back in exchange for supporting the 2024 budget.

Freeland told reporters that talks are ongoing with the NDP on the budget but dismissed suggestions the Liberals were backtracking on earlier claims that they couldnt expressly bar insurers from clawing back the payments because it was a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

When asked by iPolitics if the Liberals were only considering changes to the benefit because of NDP pressure, she emphatically said certainly not.

Read the original:
Freeland pushes back against suggestion Liberals are bending to NDP on disability benefit - iPolitics.ca

Tags: