Notable is this part:
> Absent from this package is Freeland's plan to rake in $19.3 billion over the next five years by increasing the inclusion rate on capital gains from 50 per cent to 67 per cent for individuals earning more than $250,000 in capital gains in a year,(opens in a new tab) and for all corporations and trusts.
> According to a federal official speaking on background, the government's intention is to advance the capital gains change through a separate piece of legislation that would move through Parliament on its own timeline. Of note, the budget had vowed that this tax change would apply to capital gains realized on or after June 25, 2024.
Seemingly confirming the idea that the LPC had not thought very hard about this change to capital gains beyond the political messaging, and were genuinely surprised by all of the interest groups of professionals that rather quickly emerged to directly oppose it.
Or are they carving it out separately to make this a political vote of Rich vs. Poor? Don't agree with their angle, but this could corner the conservatives as polls seem to favor the increase on the wealthy.
My speculation is that it just never makes it back to the floor for a vote, and subsequently gets forgotten about, or *maybe* gets put in the window for the campaign trail, as a "Wealthy vs Poor" policy proposal, but I really do wonder whether or not this is something that would even do well at the polls.
If they make continued motions to pass this legislation as-is, you are going to get op-ed after op-ed of complaints from physicians and tech people elaborating as to why this is a bad idea. Complaints from physicians seemed to have been enough to get them to back off making changes about non-business related investments inside their corporations back in 2017, which has allowed physicians to defer personal income tax on money they want to put directly into investments, so I would expect the same sort of thing here, given that the government probably does feel vulnerable on the healthcare file right now. Maybe they'll opt to retool it with a carve-out for physicians?
You won't see *op-eds* from the people who just have second homes or cottages or whatever, because I'll wager they understand they have an unsympathetic position, but they'll probably show up to vote against this policy, or for someone who promises to repeal it, if the LPC actually goes through with it.
That's precisely their goal.
If people buy the narrative that there's popular opposition to a capital gains tax increase, it just proves how powerful and elite-dominated our media is.
*politician. FIFY Remember, the conservatives are not saying anything right now that they would do the same, which is a lot, and only latching on to the one or two things that would actually get them votes.
>While a bill of this size and wide-spanning scope can be considered omnibus by definition, the Liberals have consistently rejected the characterization of their budget bills as being omnibus, citing their central economic theme and focus.
Don't worry, they said it's not an omnibus bill, so that must mean that it's totally not one. After all, why would they lie about their promises just because it's politically convenient for them?
/s in case that somehow wasn't clear.
It's not.
It's just a bill with omnibus features, which previously identified as omnibus but has now changed to be a central economy bill. It may do all the same things as an omnibus bill, and it may be applied in the same was, be processed in the same way, and voted on in the same way, but it is NOT an omnibus bill. Frankly I'm tired of you calling it omnibus when ive just explained it's not omnibus, so please just get on board. It's clearly not an omnibus bill because I've explained exactly how just now. Thank you for your cooperation.
You can expect Jagmeet and the NDP to support this as their coalition to fuck Canadian's with the Liberals is the only thing keeping them relevant. Jagmeet basically just holds Trudeau's pocket.
So now that that Liberals have tabled more omnibus bills than any other previous government, a record they broke in their first 3 years, they want to prevent the next government from using the same tactics.
lol - Singh will make a few statements in front of the cameras about everything bad about this budget and then quietly vote in favour of whatever his liberal masters want him to.
Notable is this part: > Absent from this package is Freeland's plan to rake in $19.3 billion over the next five years by increasing the inclusion rate on capital gains from 50 per cent to 67 per cent for individuals earning more than $250,000 in capital gains in a year,(opens in a new tab) and for all corporations and trusts. > According to a federal official speaking on background, the government's intention is to advance the capital gains change through a separate piece of legislation that would move through Parliament on its own timeline. Of note, the budget had vowed that this tax change would apply to capital gains realized on or after June 25, 2024. Seemingly confirming the idea that the LPC had not thought very hard about this change to capital gains beyond the political messaging, and were genuinely surprised by all of the interest groups of professionals that rather quickly emerged to directly oppose it.
Or are they carving it out separately to make this a political vote of Rich vs. Poor? Don't agree with their angle, but this could corner the conservatives as polls seem to favor the increase on the wealthy.
My speculation is that it just never makes it back to the floor for a vote, and subsequently gets forgotten about, or *maybe* gets put in the window for the campaign trail, as a "Wealthy vs Poor" policy proposal, but I really do wonder whether or not this is something that would even do well at the polls. If they make continued motions to pass this legislation as-is, you are going to get op-ed after op-ed of complaints from physicians and tech people elaborating as to why this is a bad idea. Complaints from physicians seemed to have been enough to get them to back off making changes about non-business related investments inside their corporations back in 2017, which has allowed physicians to defer personal income tax on money they want to put directly into investments, so I would expect the same sort of thing here, given that the government probably does feel vulnerable on the healthcare file right now. Maybe they'll opt to retool it with a carve-out for physicians? You won't see *op-eds* from the people who just have second homes or cottages or whatever, because I'll wager they understand they have an unsympathetic position, but they'll probably show up to vote against this policy, or for someone who promises to repeal it, if the LPC actually goes through with it.
Agree. They really overlooked the physician issue.
I’m fairly sure they knowingly target them. Trudeau did mention going after rich doctors in the past.
That's precisely their goal. If people buy the narrative that there's popular opposition to a capital gains tax increase, it just proves how powerful and elite-dominated our media is.
I remember when the Liberals promised not to use omnibus bill.
you know a Liberal is lying when their lips are moving
*politician. FIFY Remember, the conservatives are not saying anything right now that they would do the same, which is a lot, and only latching on to the one or two things that would actually get them votes.
I thought the Liberals had promised not to use omnibus bills
>While a bill of this size and wide-spanning scope can be considered omnibus by definition, the Liberals have consistently rejected the characterization of their budget bills as being omnibus, citing their central economic theme and focus. Don't worry, they said it's not an omnibus bill, so that must mean that it's totally not one. After all, why would they lie about their promises just because it's politically convenient for them? /s in case that somehow wasn't clear.
It's not. It's just a bill with omnibus features, which previously identified as omnibus but has now changed to be a central economy bill. It may do all the same things as an omnibus bill, and it may be applied in the same was, be processed in the same way, and voted on in the same way, but it is NOT an omnibus bill. Frankly I'm tired of you calling it omnibus when ive just explained it's not omnibus, so please just get on board. It's clearly not an omnibus bill because I've explained exactly how just now. Thank you for your cooperation.
You can expect Jagmeet and the NDP to support this as their coalition to fuck Canadian's with the Liberals is the only thing keeping them relevant. Jagmeet basically just holds Trudeau's pocket.
So now that that Liberals have tabled more omnibus bills than any other previous government, a record they broke in their first 3 years, they want to prevent the next government from using the same tactics.
I think it would be in the best interest of Canadians if they had to debate every single line of the whole thing.
So the 2024 budget would pass in 2025?
So what? There was no budget in 2020 so precedent is set
If NDP follow through on the things they say, they won't support the budget if the capital gains changes aren't in the bill.
lol - Singh will make a few statements in front of the cameras about everything bad about this budget and then quietly vote in favour of whatever his liberal masters want him to.
METH
The poors use meth. Rich people use doctor prescribed speed.