What’s Not in the Budget

Noticeably absent from yesterday’s unveiling of the 2011 budget are many of the measures called for by wealthy old people. I think the government made the right choice on these issues.

Many have called for big increases in RRSP and TFSA limits as well as making TFSA contribution room retroactive to age 18. None of this would do much for the average Canadian who can’t make use of all available room now, but a sudden large increase in RRSP room and particularly TFSA room would allow the wealthy to earn investment income tax-free.

One could imagine an extreme situation where a couple derives an income of $100,000 per year tax-free from a very large sum invested in TFSAs, but collect the GST rebate because their declared income is negligible.

If we keep creating tax measures to shelter more and more investment income from taxes, only income derived from actual work will be taxed. I don’t think we want a world where only working people are punished with taxes. RRSP and TFSA room should be at levels to encourage average people to save rather than allowing the wealthy to avoid taxes.

Comments

  1. Michael JamesMarch 23, 2011 at 11:43 AM

    @CC: I agree with you on the RRIF withdrawal schedules. Just because you have to withdraw the money doesn't mean you have to spend it (beyond paying taxes). The whole idea is that the RRIF will get withdrawn over the course of retirement. The argument that the withdrawal percentage shouldn't exceed the year's investment returns makes little sense tome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael JamesNovember 1, 2020 at 6:26 PM

      The comment above is a reply to Canadian Capitalist's comment:

      Yes, there is little sense in increasing RRSP and TFSA limits when most people have trouble maxing out their contributions as it is. IMO, I'm glad that they didn't decide to tweak RRIF withdrawal schedules. It may be a legitimate issue but unless we are sure it is, we don't want to fix something that may not be broken.

      Thanks for the mention.

      Delete
  2. geneMarch 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM

    I agree with you. It's a taxpayers right to pay as little taxes as possible, so taxes have to be structured fairly. This is so your scenario of extremely wealthy people getting GST cheques doesn't play out too often.

    Those Canadians calling for a retroactive increase of the TFSA to age 18 have problems that are different than the majority of Canadians.

    Maybe one of the advantages of the TFSA is that the vast majority of Canadians can't afford to take full advantage of it, so the cost of the program is somewhat reduced while lots of people like the program, giving the government good will.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PatrickMarch 24, 2011 at 7:13 AM

    Right on target Michael. My only beef with the RRSP limit is the percentage limit. I don't see why someone who earns twice as much should be allowed twice as much RRSP room. Make it a fixed dollar amount like the TFSA.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael JamesMarch 24, 2011 at 8:59 AM

    @Gene: Another advantage (for the government) of the TFSA is that tax reductions are in the future and become the problem of future governments.

    @Patrick: For high-income Canadians, the RRSP limit does look like a dollar limit rather than a percentage. In this sense we have a hybrid system.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jerry PMarch 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

    Excellent points. As we see more Baby Boomers becoming the retried Wealthy, we will see more vocal pressure to provide tax free investments. I hope that whatever government is in place realizes in that catering to one generation will put a heavy tax load onto others. Everything has to be paid for somehow, and if the retired wealthy don't pay for it, someone else has to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michael JamesMarch 25, 2011 at 12:05 PM

    @Jerry: Well said. I aspire to be retired and wealthy, but I prefer not to throw young people under the bus.

    ReplyDelete
  7. NathanMarch 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM

    Is this Michael James on Money or Michael James on Socialism? The wealthy already pay more in taxes, give us a break.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Michael JamesMarch 25, 2011 at 4:53 PM

    @Nathan: If we go overboard on allowing people to shelter investment income from taxes, many wealthy people would stop having to pay any tax. I'm advocating balance. Suddenly giving everyone hundreds of thousands of dollars in TFSA room would allow the wealthy to shelter tens of thousands of dollars of income every year from taxes. This income wouldn't even reduce access to other benefits such as GST rebates, OAS, or GIS. The wealthy already get a break in the form of existing RRSP and TFSA rules. Radically expanding them would be a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BasilTheSecondMarch 26, 2011 at 1:44 AM

    I don't see increase in contribution limit as a tax shalter. I see that as an incentive to save more. In this country average household debt is large and is on the increase. Part of that is that people are incouraged to spend now and live off goverment help when they retire. That doesn't make sense. I think it's more fair to tax consumption.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michael JamesMarch 26, 2011 at 9:01 AM

    @Basil: Higher contribution limits for RRSPs and TFSAs are both tax shelters and incentives to save. But if limits were raised dramatically, the incentive to save wouldn't change much. The limits would just be beyond the amount most people would be able to save. The only real change would be the added tax shelter for the wealthy.

    I should add that much higher limits would benefit me greatly. If I could put unlimited amounts in a TFSA, I could probably retire today and pay almost no tax for the rest of my life. So, I'm actually arguing against my personal interest.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tara CMarch 28, 2011 at 4:11 PM

    The only change I would really like to see is the rules on RRSP contributions, making it a fixed dollar amount for everyone. I think that would be more fair.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Short Takes: InvestorLine’s HISAs, 24-Hour Trading, and more

I recently moved some cash into BMO InvestorLine’s high-interest savings accounts (HISAs) that are structured as mutual funds.  Their designations are BMT104, BMT109, and BMT114, and they purportedly pay 4.35% annual interest (which they can change whenever they like).  However, the way they report the monthly interest payments is so baffling that I wasn’t able to sort it out in my first 15 minutes of trying.  A further complication is the following text in the HISA description: “The Bank may pay, monthly or quarterly, compensation to your Dealer at an annual rate of up to 0.25% of the daily closing balance in the BMO HISA.”  I couldn’t find any evidence of such a charge, but I haven’t been invested for a full quarter, and I can’t yet say that such a charge isn’t buried somehow in the confusing reporting.  I have more digging to do before I can recommend these HISAs. Here are some short takes and some weekend reading: Preet Banerjee explains the dangers of Robi...
Read more

My Asset Allocation

I’ve resisted discussing my asset allocation for some time, but now is finally the time to describe it and the reasons behind it. I’m not holding it out as a model portfolio; I believe it’s suitable for me and not necessarily anyone else. With that warning, enjoy the discussion and feel free to ask questions or take some pot-shots. The main reason why I haven’t discussed my asset allocation in detail before now is that I don’t want readers to treat it like a model portfolio and follow it blindly. Everyone’s situation is different. The need for variation in asset allocation from one investor to the next usually isn’t huge, but there is no one-size-fits-all portfolio. A secondary reason for keeping my asset allocation to myself is that I can’t be sure I’ll never change it. For example, I recently made the minor change of switching from an ETF of small-cap stocks to an ETF of small-cap value stocks . I don’t have any plans to change my current allocation, but I may think differe...
Read more

Updated Currency Exchange Method at BMO InvestorLine

There is now a more recent update of the method I use for exchanging currency at BMO OnvestorLine . I recently changed the procedure I use to convert large sums between Canadian and U.S. dollars at BMO InvestorLine. The method I use saves a lot of money compared to using the InvestorLine foreign exchange system. The latest change I made eliminated an annoying interest charge that I had to ask to be reversed. Most people don’t realize how expensive it can be to exchange currency. The extra charge banks and brokerages add gets hidden in the exchange rate. To see this extra charge, start by taking a sum in Canadian dollars, say C$10,000, and finding out how many U.S. dollars you can get. Then see what this U.S. amount would get going back to Canadian dollars. Many people might guess they’d get their original C$10,000 back, but they’d be wrong. In a recent test I did at BMO InvestorLine, I’d get back C$9754, for a loss of C$246 in two currency exchanges. That’s $123 per excha...
Read more

Archive

Show more