[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

Now we'll see how many votes she loses from everyone not expecting to benefit.

Even for yourself, might want to do some math on what dates your kids will be in the free window, because even IF Wynne is re-elected and IF she has a majority or strong enough coalition and IF she keeps her promise, I'd expect implementation within a year or so of the NEXT election.

In the meantime, she has to deal with voters unhappy with deficits, childless voters already seeing a lot of tax rates go to kids (while parents gets boutique credits no less), parents with older kids still paying for the daycare Wynne didn't subsidize in her first term, etc

Exactly the type of election year rabbit out of the hat that makes me want to dump Wynne in the first place.



But then we come back to the same problem. The Conservatives picked a leader I cannot under any circumstances support, and the NDP remain the NDP.

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 28 March 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

Now we'll see how many votes she loses from everyone not expecting to benefit.

Even for yourself, might want to do some math on what dates your kids will be in the free window, because even IF Wynne is re-elected and IF she has a majority or strong enough coalition and IF she keeps her promise, I'd expect implementation within a year or so of the NEXT election.

In the meantime, she has to deal with voters unhappy with deficits, childless voters already seeing a lot of tax rates go to kids (while parents gets boutique credits no less), parents with older kids still paying for the daycare Wynne didn't subsidize in her first term, etc

Exactly the type of election year rabbit out of the hat that makes me want to dump Wynne in the first place.



But then we come back to the same problem. The Conservatives picked a leader I cannot under any circumstances support, and the NDP remain the NDP.

See, but EVERYONE benefits in the long run from better child care. A lot of people who don't have kids and don't want kids are aware of how they benefit because of how this helps our deficit, our economy, our public social structures, ect. This is not just "raising your taxes because"...this helps everyone in the province.

And I've done the math...and I'm not just thinking about my current kid, but a future kid, and everyone else kids too. This isn't just about me, it's about our whole province and how it benefits from a system that refuses to punish those who are upping the birth rates, and staying in the workforce. Yeah, it means I keep paying after my kids are beyond it...but that's good for everyone else. Acting and thinking "I don't have kids, so I don't want to/shouldn't have to pay" is pretty selfish and narrow-minded in the broad scope of the province. Do we think that over a decade ago when the Quebec gov't instituted their standardized subsidized daycare across the province that everyone was uniformly happy to be paying more taxes? No, but the system paid for itself (and everyone pays $160/month) and they've just balanced their budget yet again. They are obviously doing something right that the rest of the provinces could learn from.

And WTF is a boutique credit? You mean the child tax credit? Yeah it's bloody MASSIVE /sarcasm.
Did I mention the part where daycare is $2000/month? That tax credit is a fractional drop in the bucket.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 28 March 2018 - 06:07 PM

[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 06:05 PM, said:

See, but EVERYONE benefits in the long run from better child care. A lot of people who don't have kids and don't want kids are aware of how they benefit because of how this helps our deficit, our economy, our public social structures, ect. This is not just "raising your taxes because"...this helps everyone in the province.

Grabs popcorn for the explanation of how spending billions to pay childcare helps the deficit.

Quote

And WTF is a boutique credit?

They were the favourite pander of the Harper tories. Children's fitness tax credit. Children's Arts tax credit.

Pay for your kid to do ____. get ____ off you taxes. They were not big. Hence boutique.

But the net effect was a childless person making 100k was paying more of their salary towards budget measures for children than actual parents were.

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 28 March 2018 - 06:25 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 06:05 PM, said:

See, but EVERYONE benefits in the long run from better child care. A lot of people who don't have kids and don't want kids are aware of how they benefit because of how this helps our deficit, our economy, our public social structures, ect. This is not just "raising your taxes because"...this helps everyone in the province.

Grabs popcorn for the explanation of how spending billions to pay childcare helps the deficit.

*insert quizzical face*

Because it allows more people in the work force, paying more taxes, it alleviates the stress on the public infrastructure that currently supports those that CAN'T afford child care, it allows young families to have more than 1 or 2 kids which ups the overall birthrates (which have been falling in the "echo" of boom, bust, echo) which in turn brings even more bodies into the system and paying taxes, it buffs up the job industry of child care in general which helps people find work and de-stresses the welfare/care aspect of the provincial system. I'm sure there's more. It's not some magic bullet that automatically resolves deficits and balances budgets on the fly, but it sets into place a system that can very much help....in the long run. The gamble is that the Liberals hope that RIGHT now...it won't bother voters to be in a deficit...if the long term gains are sufficient and ca help that deficit in the future.

Quote

They were the favourite pander of the Harper tories. Children's fitness tax credit. Children's Arts tax credit.

Pay for your kid to do ____. get ____ off you taxes. They were not big. Hence boutique.

But the net effect was a childless person making 100k was paying more of their salary towards budget measures for children than actual parents were.

You know how this ^^ reads to me? It reads "I don't have kids, but damned if people having them should get any kind of help for doing so and I sure as heck don't want to pay for other peoples kids"...which is...I dunno man. You live in this country. These things help people who choose to undertake the task of having families and putting bodies into our industry, economy, and everything else. You BENEFIT from others having kids and fuelling who we are as a country and a global economy.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 28 March 2018 - 07:16 PM

[D'rek]

Playing devil's advocate here (since I have not actually read all the relevant statistics in any particular depth)... with the automation revolution already begun and only going to get more and more intense, is anything that incentivizes having more children really a good idea? Isn't adding more people to the work force a bad idea when the number of useful human jobs is likely to plummet massively in the very near future?

[QuickTidal]

D, on 28 March 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

Playing devil's advocate here (since I have not actually read all the relevant statistics in any particular depth)... with the automation revolution already begun and only going to get more and more intense, is anything that incentivizes having more children really a good idea? Isn't adding more people to the work force a bad idea when the number of useful human jobs is likely to plummet massively in the very near future?

It's a good point, but you have to weigh it against a major factor like the Boomers retiring/dying off, and freeing up jobs in the next 10-15 years....they are all hanging on for dear life right now....but they are all reaching retirement age regardless.

But yes, our birthrate falling is bad, and fuelling it is good for future economic growth/stability.

EDIT: The "less humans in jobs" quotient is largely unknowable...and we also don't know the flip side...what new jobs are created from automation, taking older ones.

I'm still firmly in the camp of "we need to try "base" income"....but I get a lot of pushback on that from people.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 28 March 2018 - 07:26 PM

[Abyss]

I think any number of areas can/will expand or be created to replace those jobs 'replaced by automation, and creation and maintenance of automation is itself an industry.

At least, until Skynet.

[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

*insert quizzical face*

Because it allows more people in the work force, paying more taxes, it alleviates the stress on the public infrastructure that currently supports those that CAN'T afford child care, it allows young families to have more than 1 or 2 kids which ups the overall birthrates (which have been falling in the "echo" of boom, bust, echo) which in turn brings even more bodies into the system and paying taxes, it buffs up the job industry of child care in general which helps people find work and de-stresses the welfare/care aspect of the provincial system. I'm sure there's more. It's not some magic bullet that automatically resolves deficits and balances budgets on the fly, but it sets into place a system that can very much help....in the long run. The gamble is that the Liberals hope that RIGHT now...it won't bother voters to be in a deficit...if the long term gains are sufficient and ca help that deficit in the future.

It is going to allow more people into the work force who will pay more in provincial taxes than their childcare would have cost? Not remotely.

The degree to which it will incentivize other children is wildly undetermined (being that the more expensive years are still not covered and this is a 2.5 year window of expense). Even if it did, you are talking a 20 year lag where they are drains upon the system before they would ever have a productive impact on the deficit or economy.

As for buffing up a job industry of childcare, why doesn't the province just hire us all? Again, less than zero sum.

Quote

You know how this ^^ reads to me? It reads "I don't have kids, but damned if people having them should get any kind of help for doing so and I sure as shit don't want to pay for other peoples kids"...which is...I dunno man. You live in this country. These things help people who choose to undertake the task of having families and putting bodies into our industry, economy, and everything else. You BENEFIT from others having kids and fuelling who we are as a country and a global economy.

It is funny it reads to you that way, because what I in fact says is "I am already giving 'any kind of help', but that doesn't mean that myself or people like me are going to be wild about the prospect of giving more"

Also, spare me the martyrdom of parents who are producing widgets for the economy for the sake of us all. "Undertake the task of having families"? Complete bullshit. I have never seen a family planning discussion that included the phrase "we have to do our part for the GDP of 2045". People have children because they want children. Not future workers.

The absolute hilarious part about your reaction is that I don't even in principle oppose funding childcare, even though it will cost me more, and I will derive proportionally WAY less benefit than many others within my own economic class.

I oppose dangling it in desperation as a carrot months before an election, and the shaky information on financing, timeline, and how it would be implemented that results. And I am telling you it is a tougher sell than you think. Don't believe me? Ask Paul Martin. He's the last liberal to dangle this at the end of a long, semi-corrupt run of liberal governments to float this as an election issue to try and get him over.

Child-care is a huge (and difficult to both fund and implement) risk that should involve due consideration, expert review and costing, and carefully planned timelines. Ontarians should know what they are signing on for. Especially those who will not be 5 figure beneficiaries. If you want to promise to fix potholes to buy a few votes, lovely. Temporary tax break? Fine. But promising a major, permanent entitlement in this way is absurd and disgusting.

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 07:24 PM, said:

D, on 28 March 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

Playing devil's advocate here (since I have not actually read all the relevant statistics in any particular depth)... with the automation revolution already begun and only going to get more and more intense, is anything that incentivizes having more children really a good idea? Isn't adding more people to the work force a bad idea when the number of useful human jobs is likely to plummet massively in the very near future?

It's a good point, but you have to weigh it against a major factor like the Boomers retiring/dying off, and freeing up jobs in the next 10-15 years....they are all hanging on for dear life right now....but they are all reaching retirement age regardless.

But yes, our birthrate falling is bad, and fuelling it is good for future economic growth/stability.

Why is reversing the birthrate decline automatically good for economic growth/stability?

There are at least half a million people working in the Canadian transportation industry (going by the StatsCan numbers and dropping them a bit to account for management) who will be laid off in the next decade in favour of cars, trucks, trains, and forklifts that drive themselves (and cost far less in electricity and insurance than paying a human).

We'll already have to deal with those half a million people being out of work (through no fault of their own), should we really incentivize them to have more children more easily? Those jobs aren't coming back, so the situation won't be any different when their kids become adults. How does them having incentivize to have more kids who ultimately can't acquire jobs (still through no fault of their own) promote growth or stability?

And that's just one industry.

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 07:24 PM, said:

EDIT: The "less humans in jobs" quotient is largely unknowable...and we also don't know the flip side...what new jobs are created from automation, taking older ones.

Abyss, on 28 March 2018 - 07:50 PM, said:

I think any number of areas can/will expand or be created to replace those jobs 'replaced by automation, and creation and maintenance of automation is itself an industry.

At least, until Skynet.

Automation of physical labour didn't result in any new jobs for all the out-of-work horses who's jobs were taken by machines. What makes you think automating mental labour will result in a slew of new jobs for the out-of-work humans it replaces?

Imagine if we had kept breeding all the out-of-work horses at the same rate post-Industrial Revolutiion, and today's economy still had to support millions of Canadian horses (pre-Industrial Revolution the horse population was about 1 for every 11 humans, today it is more like 1:108), the vast majority of them contributing nothing back. It's not the horses' fault - there's only so many RCMP, hobby and carriage jobs.

Good thing we control the horse population, right?

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 28 March 2018 - 07:54 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

*insert quizzical face*

Because it allows more people in the work force, paying more taxes, it alleviates the stress on the public infrastructure that currently supports those that CAN'T afford child care, it allows young families to have more than 1 or 2 kids which ups the overall birthrates (which have been falling in the "echo" of boom, bust, echo) which in turn brings even more bodies into the system and paying taxes, it buffs up the job industry of child care in general which helps people find work and de-stresses the welfare/care aspect of the provincial system. I'm sure there's more. It's not some magic bullet that automatically resolves deficits and balances budgets on the fly, but it sets into place a system that can very much help....in the long run. The gamble is that the Liberals hope that RIGHT now...it won't bother voters to be in a deficit...if the long term gains are sufficient and ca help that deficit in the future.

It is going to allow more people into the work force who will pay more in provincial taxes than their childcare would have cost? Not remotely.

The degree to which it will incentivize other children is wildly undetermined (being that the more expensive years are still not covered and this is a 2.5 year window of expense). Even if it did, you are talking a 20 year lag where they are drains upon the system before they would ever have a productive impact on the deficit or economy.

As for buffing up a job industry of childcare, why doesn't the province just hire us all? Again, less than zero sum.

Quote

You know how this ^^ reads to me? It reads "I don't have kids, but damned if people having them should get any kind of help for doing so and I sure as shit don't want to pay for other peoples kids"...which is...I dunno man. You live in this country. These things help people who choose to undertake the task of having families and putting bodies into our industry, economy, and everything else. You BENEFIT from others having kids and fuelling who we are as a country and a global economy.

It is funny it reads to you that way, because what I in fact says is "I am already giving 'any kind of help', but that doesn't mean that myself or people like me are going to be wild about the prospect of giving more"

Also, spare me the martyrdom of parents who are producing widgets for the economy for the sake of us all. "Undertake the task of having families"? Complete bullshit. I have never seen a family planning discussion that included the phrase "we have to do our part for the GDP of 2045". People have children because they want children. Not future workers.

The absolute hilarious part about your reaction is that I don't even in principle oppose funding childcare, even though it will cost me more, and I will derive proportionally WAY less benefit than many others within my own economic class.

I oppose dangling it in desperation as a carrot months before an election, and the shaky information on financing, timeline, and how it would be implemented that results. And I am telling you it is a tougher sell than you think. Don't believe me? Ask Paul Martin. He's the last liberal to dangle this at the end of a long, semi-corrupt run of liberal governments to float this as an election issue to try and get him over.

Child-care is a huge (and difficult to both fund and implement) risk that should involve due consideration, expert review and costing, and carefully planned timelines. Ontarians should know what they are signing on for. Especially those who will not be 5 figure beneficiaries. If you want to promise to fix potholes to buy a few votes, lovely. Temporary tax break? Fine. But promising a major, permanent entitlement in this way is absurd and disgusting.

Okay man, enjoy your overtly ideological stances. We will not agree clearly. I’m obviously laughable, and full of shit and my opinion on the subject is uninformed, I guess.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 28 March 2018 - 09:52 PM

[Nevyn]

All i told you was that this move that locked in your vote could lose others, and then clarified what a boutique tax credit was. and you then accused me of not wanting to do anything at all to support children in the country, while climbing on a cross over your selfless childrearing for the betterment of us all.

Not sure what reaction you expected.

Apparently not one so “overtly ideological” as saying the concept has merit but shouldnt be a thrown together desperation election pander, but rather a thought out and publicly debated policy.

Seriously sitting here trying to figure out which ideology i am being so overt about.

[Mentalist]

I have a number of co-workers who are wrestling with ridiculous daycare costs. Also, some clients who are in the same position. I emphasize.

That being said, there's a lot of reasons why the costs of daycare (and everything else) are rising. I mean, the goddamn housing market, which is something I'm affected by since I became a homeowner last year, on the very crest of the wave, simply because if I didn't, there was a chance I would never be able to.

I want people we elect to be thinking about long-term, systemic solutions to overall problems, not single aspects, no matter how painful and immediate they may be.

and frankly, dangling out ANY major promise right before an election reeks of desperation.... and promises made out of desperation are pretty worthless, imho.

Then again, I'm just one person, eternally jaded by decades of Eastern European political farces.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Nevyn, on 28 March 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

All i told you was that this move that locked in your vote could lose others, and then clarified what a boutique tax credit was. and you then accused me of not wanting to do anything at all to support children in the country, while climbing on a cross over your selfless childrearing for the betterment of us all.

Not sure what reaction you expected.

Apparently not one so “overtly ideological” as saying the concept has merit but shouldnt be a thrown together desperation election pander, but rather a thought out and publicly debated policy.

Seriously sitting here trying to figure out which ideology i am being so overt about.

Im actually coming in on Nevyn Side here QT. As a tax nerd i can tell you tax credits are absolutely worthless (which is why i support the federal libs removing many of them, such as removing the transit credit effective july 1rst 2017 and later in 2017 announcing a subsidy to the TTC that will help fund the cost of going from the GO to the ttc. Now don't get me wrong, TTC is a giant clusterfuck, but it's a starting point

Lets take the childrens art credit. 500$ for eligible expenditures (special note dance lessons count as both sports and arts so you could combine the two, though any parent will tell you dance lesson are expensive...).
However this credit is applied at the specified rate (15% federally 5.05% provincially), so the 500$ you spent for your kids art (knowing that in reality you likely spent twice that amount), you get 20% back so 100$.

Except you do not get 100$ Back. What you get, is if you are employed, you get an additional 100$ in the following year in a tax refund. What is a tax refund? Money witheld from you at source by the goverment, interest free. Meaning you would be better off financially with that money in your pocket in the year and able to invest it. (this is why tax refunds are BAD). If you're self employed, its $100 less you owe the GVT. Similar issue to the above.

So the entire credit fails to help parents because those parents
A)spent way more than the credit amount
The financial aid comes the better part of a year after the parent made the purchase. In other words, they already had enough money in their pockets that the decision of affording the arts program or not was not an existential cash problem.

Want to know what would help? Raising a tax or levy to create subsidies for these programs to be provided at lower cost. Through the wonders of cost allocation a 50$ increase in your taxes could lower childcare expenses for the individual by several magnitudes!

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 29 March 2018 - 02:00 AM

[QuickTidal]

None of this remotely changes my vote choice or the issue that is most important to me with regards to platform.

Daycare. Offer me the best daycare fix attempts...and I’m in.

[Mentalist]

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 March 2018 - 01:58 AM, said:

Nevyn, on 28 March 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

All i told you was that this move that locked in your vote could lose others, and then clarified what a boutique tax credit was. and you then accused me of not wanting to do anything at all to support children in the country, while climbing on a cross over your selfless childrearing for the betterment of us all.

Not sure what reaction you expected.

Apparently not one so “overtly ideological” as saying the concept has merit but shouldnt be a thrown together desperation election pander, but rather a thought out and publicly debated policy.

Seriously sitting here trying to figure out which ideology i am being so overt about.

Im actually coming in on Nevyn Side here QT. As a tax nerd i can tell you tax credits are absolutely worthless (which is why i support the federal libs removing many of them, such as removing the transit credit effective july 1rst 2017 and later in 2017 announcing a subsidy to the TTC that will help fund the cost of going from the GO to the ttc. Now don't get me wrong, TTC is a giant clusterfuck, but it's a starting point

Lets take the childrens art credit. 500$ for eligible expenditures (special note dance lessons count as both sports and arts so you could combine the two, though any parent will tell you dance lesson are expensive...).
However this credit is applied at the specified rate (15% federally 5.05% provincially), so the 500$ you spent for your kids art (knowing that in reality you likely spent twice that amount), you get 20% back so 100$.

Except you do not get 100$ Back. What you get, is if you are employed, you get an additional 100$ in the following year in a tax refund. What is a tax refund? Money witheld from you at source by the goverment, interest free. Meaning you would be better off financially with that money in your pocket in the year and able to invest it. (this is why tax refunds are BAD). If you're self employed, its $100 less you owe the GVT. Similar issue to the above.

So the entire credit fails to help parents because those parents
A)spent way more than the credit amount
The financial aid comes the better part of a year after the parent made the purchase. In other words, they already had enough money in their pockets that the decision of affording the arts program or not was not an existential cash problem.

Want to know what would help? Raising a tax or levy to create subsidies for these programs to be provided at lower cost. Through the wonders of cost allocation a 50$ increase in your taxes could lower childcare expenses for the individual by several magnitudes!

I actually benefited quite a lot from the transit credits. I buy GTA passes almost every week at $63/week, and that's a few thousand that I get to deduct from my taxable income.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Mentalist, on 29 March 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 March 2018 - 01:58 AM, said:

Nevyn, on 28 March 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

All i told you was that this move that locked in your vote could lose others, and then clarified what a boutique tax credit was. and you then accused me of not wanting to do anything at all to support children in the country, while climbing on a cross over your selfless childrearing for the betterment of us all.

Not sure what reaction you expected.

Apparently not one so “overtly ideological” as saying the concept has merit but shouldnt be a thrown together desperation election pander, but rather a thought out and publicly debated policy.

Seriously sitting here trying to figure out which ideology i am being so overt about.

Im actually coming in on Nevyn Side here QT. As a tax nerd i can tell you tax credits are absolutely worthless (which is why i support the federal libs removing many of them, such as removing the transit credit effective july 1rst 2017 and later in 2017 announcing a subsidy to the TTC that will help fund the cost of going from the GO to the ttc. Now don't get me wrong, TTC is a giant clusterfuck, but it's a starting point

Lets take the childrens art credit. 500$ for eligible expenditures (special note dance lessons count as both sports and arts so you could combine the two, though any parent will tell you dance lesson are expensive...).
However this credit is applied at the specified rate (15% federally 5.05% provincially), so the 500$ you spent for your kids art (knowing that in reality you likely spent twice that amount), you get 20% back so 100$.

Except you do not get 100$ Back. What you get, is if you are employed, you get an additional 100$ in the following year in a tax refund. What is a tax refund? Money witheld from you at source by the goverment, interest free. Meaning you would be better off financially with that money in your pocket in the year and able to invest it. (this is why tax refunds are BAD). If you're self employed, its $100 less you owe the GVT. Similar issue to the above.

So the entire credit fails to help parents because those parents
A)spent way more than the credit amount
The financial aid comes the better part of a year after the parent made the purchase. In other words, they already had enough money in their pockets that the decision of affording the arts program or not was not an existential cash problem.

Want to know what would help? Raising a tax or levy to create subsidies for these programs to be provided at lower cost. Through the wonders of cost allocation a 50$ increase in your taxes could lower childcare expenses for the individual by several magnitudes!

I actually benefited quite a lot from the transit credits. I buy GTA passes almost every week at $63/week, and that's a few thousand that I get to deduct from my taxable income.

You're looking at the wrong line. Income is taxed at a progressive rate (plus ontario has a surtax on income) whereas credits are taxed at a constant rate. So to understand the impact you need to look at the impact on taxes payable, not taxable income (also technically credits do not lower taxable income, taxable income stays the same regardless of total credit base). Since you said most weeks i assumed 48. So end of the day is $600 in your pocket.

Attached File(s)

•  Capture.PNG (2.1K)
  Number of downloads: 0

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 29 March 2018 - 11:15 AM

[Gintokian]

I haven't looked into it too much but Andrea Horwath's plan for the NDP seems pretty interesting and could get her a lot of votes as well.
She's promising free dental healthcare for everyone, getting rid of student loans for education, and turning current outstanding loans into grants so they don't have to be repaid. As someone who is still paying off my student loans this is attractive.
Although where they're going to get the money from to do this is beyond me, and if they somehow made it in this would be concerning.

This could get her a lot of votes from the young people in school or with student loans, as well as people with teeth.

[Nevyn]

Its back to the NDP's roots, certainly.

Whether or not that's a good thing ....

Seems like an comparatively high spending promise election cycle in general. Not wild about that. Provincial coffers have been helped by the decline of the loonie and a decent economy, but there is still a massive Trump cloud hovering over the Ontario economy's outlook, so I'm assuming half the big spending promises won't happen, will be cut short, or will result in far higher than projected deficits.

And the getting rid of student loans thing I close to outright oppose. North America has made an industry out of selling kids post secondary education. Now one of the many things that makes that a societal negative is the debt they take on from loans, particularly at the time in their life they are least aware of personal finance implications. But I'm not sure underwriting it with tax dollars is the answer, as there will still be loans, but we are in effect further incentivizing it.

Its like solving the problem of a person taking out a loan and setting the cash on fire, by saying "we'll make the half the money a gift".

[Mentalist]

To be fair, OSOG was already a thing in 2000s. Which is why after 4 years of undergrad with average loan + grants of about 10-12 k a year, I ended up with about 30k of student loan debt. Roughly a quarter of my debt was basically written off as grants.

[QuickTidal]

Norway public educations institutions don't charge tuition fees. We should do that here.

I would be very happy to pay higher taxes (to pay the staff and teachers at said institutions) if we could all basically get whatever education we wanted up to and including University degrees without requiring massive loans and debt.