[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Dino.

The purpose of RRSP contributions being tax free and the RESP being supplemented by gov't money is to encourage investment by making it worthwile.

Making RESP contributions tax free makes sense. It means that they can invest 5000 and have it only actually cost them (5000 - the tax saved). In essence they save up front.

It encourages people to invest more money earlier.

Yes I realize that but I still don't see how they will support both programs. If they make it like an RRSP it will only be a matter of time before they take away the 20% government contribution. If you could have both then great but there isn't a ghosts chance in hell of that happening, it is simply not a sustainable plan and to do it when we are faced with a recession is completely irresponsible. If they take away the 20% contribution people in lower income brackets will actually be the losers.

The way it is set up now it does encourage people to invest so why would you have to change it?

Its not quite 20%. You have to apply for different grants from both the province and federal gov'ts and they are usually based on the parents financial assets.

The tax free status helps everybody equally.

[dino_bobba_renno]

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Dino.

The purpose of RRSP contributions being tax free and the RESP being supplemented by gov't money is to encourage investment by making it worthwile.

Making RESP contributions tax free makes sense. It means that they can invest 5000 and have it only actually cost them (5000 - the tax saved). In essence they save up front.

It encourages people to invest more money earlier.

Yes I realize that but I still don't see how they will support both programs. If they make it like an RRSP it will only be a matter of time before they take away the 20% government contribution. If you could have both then great but there isn't a ghosts chance in hell of that happening, it is simply not a sustainable plan and to do it when we are faced with a recession is completely irresponsible. If they take away the 20% contribution people in lower income brackets will actually be the losers.

The way it is set up now it does encourage people to invest so why would you have to change it?

Its not quite 20%. You have to apply for different grants from both the province and federal gov'ts and they are usually based on the parents financial assets.

The tax free status helps everybody equally.

I just finished putting 10 grand into a RESP for my kids a month ago and there were no forms to fill out for the 20%.

A lower income earner who pays a tax rate of 16% does not benifit as much as a high income earner who pays upwards of 33% or more.

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Dino.

The purpose of RRSP contributions being tax free and the RESP being supplemented by gov't money is to encourage investment by making it worthwile.

Making RESP contributions tax free makes sense. It means that they can invest 5000 and have it only actually cost them (5000 - the tax saved). In essence they save up front.

It encourages people to invest more money earlier.

Yes I realize that but I still don't see how they will support both programs. If they make it like an RRSP it will only be a matter of time before they take away the 20% government contribution. If you could have both then great but there isn't a ghosts chance in hell of that happening, it is simply not a sustainable plan and to do it when we are faced with a recession is completely irresponsible. If they take away the 20% contribution people in lower income brackets will actually be the losers.

The way it is set up now it does encourage people to invest so why would you have to change it?

Its not quite 20%. You have to apply for different grants from both the province and federal gov'ts and they are usually based on the parents financial assets.

The tax free status helps everybody equally.

I just finished putting 10 grand into a RESP for my kids a month ago and there were no forms to fill out for the 20%.

A lower income earner who pays a tax rate of 16% does not benifit as much as a high income earner who pays upwards of 33% or more.

Any income earner benefits from a tax-free RESP contribution, well any income earner that pays tax that is.

If this program is in replacement to the gov't top-up then you may have a point. If its in addition too then it only makes it better,

[dino_bobba_renno]

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Dino.

The purpose of RRSP contributions being tax free and the RESP being supplemented by gov't money is to encourage investment by making it worthwile.

Making RESP contributions tax free makes sense. It means that they can invest 5000 and have it only actually cost them (5000 - the tax saved). In essence they save up front.

It encourages people to invest more money earlier.

Yes I realize that but I still don't see how they will support both programs. If they make it like an RRSP it will only be a matter of time before they take away the 20% government contribution. If you could have both then great but there isn't a ghosts chance in hell of that happening, it is simply not a sustainable plan and to do it when we are faced with a recession is completely irresponsible. If they take away the 20% contribution people in lower income brackets will actually be the losers.

The way it is set up now it does encourage people to invest so why would you have to change it?

Its not quite 20%. You have to apply for different grants from both the province and federal gov'ts and they are usually based on the parents financial assets.

The tax free status helps everybody equally.

I just finished putting 10 grand into a RESP for my kids a month ago and there were no forms to fill out for the 20%.

A lower income earner who pays a tax rate of 16% does not benifit as much as a high income earner who pays upwards of 33% or more.

Any income earner benefits from a tax-free RESP contribution, well any income earner that pays tax that is.

If this program is in replacement to the gov't top-up then you may have a point. If its in addition too then it only makes it better,

I would have to agree with you on that but that brings me to my other point, considering Canada is facing what could be a global recession is it really the right time to be bringing in programs like this?

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

I would have to agree with you on that but that brings me to my other point, considering Canada is facing what could be a global recession is it really the right time to be bringing in programs like this?

Interesting question. Thats what the NDP is asying about the tax cuts.

We could use that line of reasoning to question just about every gov't spending initiative.

To be honest it depends on everybodies personal point of view. Those with kids who will benefit will like it. Those who lose out a tax cut and have no kids won't.

I have no kids but I think its great. You have kids but think its bad.

I guess we are the exceptions that prove the rule.

[westmanguy]

Hmm, I agree with bill and the tax shelter.

But its an expensive item that takes $900 million out of the public treasury, that could result in a deficit next year, which is not a fiscally accountable thing to do.

But, if it were to have been proposed by the Liberals as a budget amendment, and configured in, then I would have supported it.

[DerbyX]

westmanguy westmanguy:

Hmm, I agree with bill and the tax shelter.

But its an expensive item that takes $900 million out of the public treasury, that could result in a deficit next year, which is not a fiscally accountable thing to do.

But, if it were to have been proposed by the Liberals as a budget amendment, and configured in, then I would have supported it.

What difference does it make?

If it were the CPC in opposition who chose this way to get good legislation through would you care?

[dino_bobba_renno]

westmanguy westmanguy:

Hmm, I agree with bill and the tax shelter.

But its an expensive item that takes $900 million out of the public treasury, that could result in a deficit next year, which is not a fiscally accountable thing to do.

But, if it were to have been proposed by the Liberals as a budget amendment, and configured in, then I would have supported it.

Very good point. It isn't the proposal it self that should be questioned but how it was passed. If every tom, dick, and hairy passed a private members bill that had a price tag like this how on earth would any government be able to balance the books and control spending.

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

westmanguy westmanguy:

Hmm, I agree with bill and the tax shelter.

But its an expensive item that takes $900 million out of the public treasury, that could result in a deficit next year, which is not a fiscally accountable thing to do.

But, if it were to have been proposed by the Liberals as a budget amendment, and configured in, then I would have supported it.

Very good point. It isn't the proposal it self that should be questioned but how it was passed. If every tom, dick, and hairy passed a private members bill that had a price tag like this how on earth would any government be able to balance the books and control spending.

They still need support to get it passed. Its not as if every MP gets a free bill to pass.

[hurley_108]

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

I would have to agree with you on that but that brings me to my other point, considering Canada is facing what could be a global recession is it really the right time to be bringing in programs like this?

Interesting question. Thats what the NDP is asying about the tax cuts.

We could use that line of reasoning to question just about every gov't spending initiative.

To be honest it depends on everybodies personal point of view. Those with kids who will benefit will like it. Those who lose out a tax cut and have no kids won't.

I have no kids but I think its great. You have kids but think its bad.

I guess we are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I have a kid. I would save for my daughter's education even if it was just shoving cash in a sock. My last dollar earned is taxed at almost 40%, so I look at this as a way of putting away $140 for every $100 I would otherwise save, as I get that $40 back on my income tax refund. And if the other programs stay, then it's all the better.

I hope to hell this gets implemented. My parents saved for my and my brother's educations, and we came out of university debt free for it. I feel it's my obligation to do the same for my kid(s), and if the Liberals want to help me, I'm thankful to them for that.

[DerbyX]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

I would have to agree with you on that but that brings me to my other point, considering Canada is facing what could be a global recession is it really the right time to be bringing in programs like this?

Interesting question. Thats what the NDP is asying about the tax cuts.

We could use that line of reasoning to question just about every gov't spending initiative.

To be honest it depends on everybodies personal point of view. Those with kids who will benefit will like it. Those who lose out a tax cut and have no kids won't.

I have no kids but I think its great. You have kids but think its bad.

I guess we are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I have a kid. I would save for my daughter's education even if it was just shoving cash in a sock. My last dollar earned is taxed at almost 40%, so I look at this as a way of putting away $140 for every $100 I would otherwise save, as I get that $40 back on my income tax refund. And if the other programs stay, then it's all the better.

I hope to hell this gets implemented. My parents saved for my and my brother's educations, and we came out of university debt free for it. I feel it's my obligation to do the same for my kid(s), and if the Liberals want to help me, I'm thankful to them for that.

WTF is Geocaching?

[dino_bobba_renno]

lily lily:

$1:

To be honest it depends on everybodies personal point of view. Those with kids who will benefit will like it. Those who lose out a tax cut and have no kids won't.

I have no kids but I think its great. You have kids but think its bad.

I guess we are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I have kids, don't contribute to an RESP and I think it's a good idea.

You should, it's free money. Even if you can only stick a couple hundred a year in it's worth it. Like I mentioned the government matches your contribution up to 20% and you also will benifit from the growth. I'm with CIBC (yes i know theres better but it's a long story how I ended up having my RESP's there). I put in $2000 last year around September and that one investment is ready worth over $2200.

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

lily lily:

$1:

To be honest it depends on everybodies personal point of view. Those with kids who will benefit will like it. Those who lose out a tax cut and have no kids won't.

I have no kids but I think its great. You have kids but think its bad.

I guess we are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I have kids, don't contribute to an RESP and I think it's a good idea.

You should, it's free money. Even if you can only stick a couple hundred a year in it's worth it. Like I mentioned the government matches your contribution up to 20% and you also will benifit from the growth.

What about the tax payers who say that tuition costs for post-secondary education should be paid entirely by those who attend the schools?

Its a fair point right?

[dino_bobba_renno]

lily lily:

I looked into it, but I'd need SIN cards for the kids first, and in the meantime I talked to a broker and went that route instead. I'm hoping it starts them on a lifelong road that will take them beyond their university years.

CIBC has a nice plan if you have two kids. You can start up a plan for each kid but say for example one decides not to go for their higher education the other can draw from that account. I think most banks and brokers have the same deal but you have to ask for it.

(Oh look <---- I hit 500 posts )

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

lily lily:

I looked into it, but I'd need SIN cards for the kids first, and in the meantime I talked to a broker and went that route instead. I'm hoping it starts them on a lifelong road that will take them beyond their university years.

CIBC has a nice plan if you have two kids. You can start up a plan for each kid but say for example one decides not to go for their higher education the other can drawn from that account. I think most banks and brokers have the same deal but you have to ask for it.

(Oh look <---- I hit 500 posts )

When you hit 500 you have to buy the forum a round of beer. Make mine a moosehead please.