If you don’t mind me asking- you’ve said before that you got in before PCP was a thing. What sort of formal clinical/medical training did you get, both on joining and later? Were you ever brought up to speed with what a college trained PCP at the time would have had?
Constraining Canadian Federal Budget during Post COVID Downturn
- Thread starter McG
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,332
- Points
- 1,260
When I joined in 1972, off the street, basic was four-weeks at the Academy downtown. Followed by two-weeks orientation.
Later, we were sent to Humber College. In addition to regular in-service education.
In 1980, I tested for and was accepted into the Emergency Support / Multi-Patient Unit.
I retired in 2009 as a PCP.
Scope of Practice.
Scope of Practice
Find out more about Ontario Scope of Practice for Primary Care Paramedics, Advanced Care Paramedics and Critical Care Paramedics.
www.ontarioparamedic.ca
Thanks for that. Did you ever go back to ambulance/primary care after going to multi-patient? Or was it one of those ‘don’t give up a good thing’ gigs? Did you have to do any more academics outside of routine in-service stuff to attain/retain PCP, or was that a grandfathered status by that point for you?When I joined in 1972, off the street, basic was four-weeks at the Academy downtown. Followed by two-weeks orientation.
Later, we were sent to Humber College. In addition to regular in-service education.
In 1980, I tested for and was accepted into the Emergency Support / Multi-Patient Unit.
I retired in 2009 as a PCP.
Scope of Practice.
Scope of Practice
Find out more about Ontario Scope of Practice for Primary Care Paramedics, Advanced Care Paramedics and Critical Care Paramedics.
Two of my cousins are/were medics (one now a doc, the other ACP), but they went through much more recently of course.
- Reaction score
- 1,332
- Points
- 1,260
I preferred the bus. It paid the same as the cars ( PCP ).
PCP was not grand-fathered. We had to keep it up.
AEMCA was grand-fathered for those of us hired prior to 1 Aug., 1975.
We kept our PCP pay rate without having to do AEMCA.
I retired as a PCP.
Attachments
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 991
- Points
- 990
After the comments in this thread I got looking into the status of UBI in Canada. It's proponents make a compelling case but given the National debt I don't think now is the time, nor do I want to sidetrack the thread into that discussion.
What did strike me as relevant to this discussion was the net cost estimate (51B) and more importantly the policy suite to fund it. With the 40B deficit and finding a path to balance at issue, it seemed worth a read.
Who Pays for Basic Income? Probably not you. — How to Pay for Basic Income in Canada
Funding Options for Basic Income (UBI Works)
The premise of this thread was reducing expenditures by reducing the amount of entitlements to those that don't need it- and at it's core impact of a dollar of entitlement given and a dollar of tax foregone via subsidy is the same. The first two categories don't really fit - new taxes, corporate tax changes, etc), so I'll leave them out- but the 3rd category has three measures that are very much in the same vein as increasing the clawbacks/tightening means testing of OAS and CCB.
A- ($8.3B) removing 50% capital gains exemption on everything except for corporate shares (primary residences maintain fully exempt)
B-($8.7B) replacing RRSP taxable deduction with a refundable tax credit at 15% of contribution
C-($1.4B) claw back of basic personal amount (taxed at 20.5%) beginning at 4th highest bracket (~150k)
I would stand to be impacted by all three over the next 10 years.
C seems eminently reasonable, barely material on an individual level, and philosophically no different than the tweaks to CCB/OAS. A program that makes sense at lower income levels, but is currently wasteful- just via subsidy rather than disbursement
B I had a visceral reaction to. The bullish zealousness and righteousness with which its progressive merits were presented annoyed me, and the personal implications had me circling wagons. The problem is I had trouble countering their reasoning. The RRSP program is disproportionately advantageous to the well off. The core idea is fundamentally sound, but there's a good argument to be made that the current structure in the current economic climate is serving more a tax shelter for the wealthy than a retirement vehicle for the average Canadian. Where they err in my opinion is that their proposal ratchets too far the other way and is punitive to the middle class. A 15% tax credit is considerably less attractive for even someone making "just" 60k per year, returning at half of the marginal tax rate for an Ontarian in that income bracket. RRSP deduction reform is a smart austerity/budget balancing avenue that I hadn't considered, but for a proposal with the primary guiding criteria of "not materially impact households earning less than $100,000/year (91% of tax filers), and in many cases not even $150K/year (97% of filers)" the specifics of this are a big big miss.
A. This is a tricky one. The year to year implications to the majority of Canadians are nil, and in a vacuum it seems ok. But for a subset of the middle class it has absolutely massive, life changing consequences when it comes to generational wealth transfer, succession planning etc. But then again- for the hardcore progressives proposing it that's a feature not a bug.
What did strike me as relevant to this discussion was the net cost estimate (51B) and more importantly the policy suite to fund it. With the 40B deficit and finding a path to balance at issue, it seemed worth a read.
Who Pays for Basic Income? Probably not you. — How to Pay for Basic Income in Canada
Funding Options for Basic Income (UBI Works)
The premise of this thread was reducing expenditures by reducing the amount of entitlements to those that don't need it- and at it's core impact of a dollar of entitlement given and a dollar of tax foregone via subsidy is the same. The first two categories don't really fit - new taxes, corporate tax changes, etc), so I'll leave them out- but the 3rd category has three measures that are very much in the same vein as increasing the clawbacks/tightening means testing of OAS and CCB.
A- ($8.3B) removing 50% capital gains exemption on everything except for corporate shares (primary residences maintain fully exempt)
B-($8.7B) replacing RRSP taxable deduction with a refundable tax credit at 15% of contribution
C-($1.4B) claw back of basic personal amount (taxed at 20.5%) beginning at 4th highest bracket (~150k)
I would stand to be impacted by all three over the next 10 years.
C seems eminently reasonable, barely material on an individual level, and philosophically no different than the tweaks to CCB/OAS. A program that makes sense at lower income levels, but is currently wasteful- just via subsidy rather than disbursement
B I had a visceral reaction to. The bullish zealousness and righteousness with which its progressive merits were presented annoyed me, and the personal implications had me circling wagons. The problem is I had trouble countering their reasoning. The RRSP program is disproportionately advantageous to the well off. The core idea is fundamentally sound, but there's a good argument to be made that the current structure in the current economic climate is serving more a tax shelter for the wealthy than a retirement vehicle for the average Canadian. Where they err in my opinion is that their proposal ratchets too far the other way and is punitive to the middle class. A 15% tax credit is considerably less attractive for even someone making "just" 60k per year, returning at half of the marginal tax rate for an Ontarian in that income bracket. RRSP deduction reform is a smart austerity/budget balancing avenue that I hadn't considered, but for a proposal with the primary guiding criteria of "not materially impact households earning less than $100,000/year (91% of tax filers), and in many cases not even $150K/year (97% of filers)" the specifics of this are a big big miss.
A. This is a tricky one. The year to year implications to the majority of Canadians are nil, and in a vacuum it seems ok. But for a subset of the middle class it has absolutely massive, life changing consequences when it comes to generational wealth transfer, succession planning etc. But then again- for the hardcore progressives proposing it that's a feature not a bug.
Regarding RRSP- removing the current bottom line net income deduction for RRSP contributions would be a massive fundamental change in how RRSP monies are treated taxationally. Doing that would mean any monies being contributed to an RRSP would now be post-tax. But you can bet your ass there’d be no preferential tax treatment for gains within an RRSP. So essentially the RRSP gets reduced to, effectively, a non-registered investment account with a minor tax credit in exchange for a bunch of limitations and restrictions on how we can use our money. This nearly kills the comparative advantage of RRSP as a retirement savings vehicle.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,978
- Points
- 1,040
There is a consequence that renders somewhat useless all assumptions based on numbers - millions of people and thousands of corporations will adjust their behaviour in ways that cannot be predicted by handfuls of mandarins. And some of those numbers are just very rough guesses (eg. the "cost of poverty"). And the assumption that filers under $100K don't have some kind of financial interests that will be materially affected is laughable.
A and B would have huge effects on how people save for retirement and invest, which would have huge effects on everyone trying to raise capital. It would militate directly against the claim of "encourages economic growth".
UBI would have really huge effects on incentives to work.
And those figures are for a UBI that doesn't even match OAS/GIS.
And then of course the wishful thinking that the other programs that are supposed to go away, will in fact go away and not be reborn.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 991
- Points
- 990
In the proposal they specifically describe leaving the preferential treatment for gains in place.
But I agree, its a massive change that goes outside the bounds of their own restrictions/objectives and kills a good thing.
The "counter-proposal" I thought of to accomplish their stated objectives without going nuclear was to leave the mechanics of the program unchanged, but add in a contribution cap. Leave it at 18% of prior year income, but with a maximum income of the CPP max or slightly lower. Something in the the 10-12k range rather than 30
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 22,079
- Points
- 1,090
The capital gains exemption for principal residences is perhaps the worst current tax policy in Canada, and one that would be political suicide to change, unfortunately.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,978
- Points
- 1,040
.
The point of a tax-sheltered savings scheme is to average out lifetime income over a lifetime, and part of that is averaging out taxes on income. If a person works from 18 to 58, how much does he need to save to live from 58 to 85 at 70% of his best 3 income years, assuming 4% net of fees and inflation RoI? Solve for that number, and use it to determine the contribution cap.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,978
- Points
- 1,040
It only looks that way because of the distortion in housing prices. Best to fix the problem at the source, and not treat the symptom (always a bad way to set policy).
You have the privilege of absolute certainty that you can stay geographically rooted for the remainder of your professional life. Many people do not. Taxing primary residence capital gains would be a brutal blow to a lot of labour mobility, including within CAF. Let’s say I buy a house for $800k. A few years later I need to move for work. In that time my house has gone up $150k. Very reasonable and realistic example. I get taxed on 50% of those capital gains, so $75k. Any sort of ‘windfall’ like that pretty much guarantees that a working professional will be paying that added tax in one of the higher tax brackets, so now, on top of the top-line costs I’ve seen a ten to sell my residence, I’m also eating a significant five figure hit off my bottom line sales proceeds. Thing is, I still need to buy a place when I get to the other end, and now another significant chunk of my purchasing power has been eroded.
The principle residence exception is rooted in the very well founded presumption that, if I sell my current house, I need a new one to move in to. Yes, some people land a windfall when they downsize, but on the flip side, people who struggle to get into the market at all (say, a starter condo) are going to need every cent of that equity increase if they start a family and need a bigger residence, or if circumstances compel them to relocate for better opportunities.
Our principal residence is the one largest and most tangible asset most of us will ever have. We work hard to get it, and to chip away each month at lying it off. The value of that asset underlies our retirement plans, our plans to help our kids, and our estate planning. Any political party that went after this would deserve their subsequent electoral destruction.
- Reaction score
- 22,079
- Points
- 1,090
Changing the principal residence exemption would not necessarily mean taxing all gains at 100%, or 50%, or any other inclusion rate. It does not mean that there cannot be exemptions. It would not mean that there cannot be means to amortize gains over the period of time a property was owned. Or shared between owners. Or other, reasonable measures which might mitigate some of the impact.
Changing the current practice would require re-examining underlying assumptions; it would probably result in some "interesting" discoveries of ongoing money laundering through Canadian real estate.
The primary beneficiaries of the policy in place are upper income earners; CAF and other federal employees relocated with any frequency generally fall into that category. They are also beneficiaries of significant supports for their relocation - which could be negotiated should tax policy change. They also frequently have, as their largest asset, a defined benefit pension (which most tend to forget about).
As I noted, it's a political non starter. But it is a tax policy choice which primarily benefits those with above average incomes. Complex systems like taxation require understanding and acknowledgement of the choices we make, and who benefits from them.
Changing the current practice would require re-examining underlying assumptions; it would probably result in some "interesting" discoveries of ongoing money laundering through Canadian real estate.
The primary beneficiaries of the policy in place are upper income earners; CAF and other federal employees relocated with any frequency generally fall into that category. They are also beneficiaries of significant supports for their relocation - which could be negotiated should tax policy change. They also frequently have, as their largest asset, a defined benefit pension (which most tend to forget about).
As I noted, it's a political non starter. But it is a tax policy choice which primarily benefits those with above average incomes. Complex systems like taxation require understanding and acknowledgement of the choices we make, and who benefits from them.
Yes, it’s a political non-starter. “Stay the fuck away from my principal residence” is probably about as non-partisan a common position as you’ll find across our political spectrum. Any party that even looks like it’s going to will get punished; of course this is why we also have to watch for propaganda where one party tries to suggest the other is going to do this, when they aren’t.
Yes, some employees get relocation benefits, but a benefit that covered the tax hit of principal residence capital gains would potentially multiply relocation expenses. I stand by what I said that this could mean a massive hit to the willingness of people to work jobs where relocation is required. It would also have a stifling effect on efforts to attract labour who move of their own volition to different markets for economic opportunity. Who’s going to chase a reasonably significant wage increase if the move incurs a massive tax hit?
Other ancillary issues you mention, like real estate money laundering, can be tackled through other more precisely crafted policy approaches. Any potential incidental benefits there don’t make up for a policy that would punish - and mostly serve to just piss off - a massive cohort of Canadians. Home ownership rates are falling, but two thirds of all of us live in a principal residence that we own, and nearly all of us will never have a more substantial asset. Government can keep scrolling and look for other options.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 991
- Points
- 990
Re - principal residence exemption, not to mention the complete accounting hassle in forcing everyone to treat homeownership like a small business. Outside of a period of extreme and rapid price run up a large proportion of the apparent capital gain in principal residences is a mirage created the lack of need to account for expenses on it. By the time you tabulate interest, closing cost, maintenance, and renovation expenses there's not much left to tax.
Last edited:
Guidance counsellors have a lot to answer for in pushing credentialism. My high school years were ‘80-85 in Ontario. Those five years were designed to produce a university entrant. If you had designs on a community college, you might get a look-in. If you were thinking vocational or trades school, forget it. If you mentioned the CAF, you were throwing your life away.
I doubt that attitude has changed much.
- Reaction score
- 889
- Points
- 1,060
I was 79-83, at a vocational high school in the north. It was all about trades, and if you had university aspirations you were a person subject to much awe and admiration. Probably "smart" too. The CAF rolled into our grade 12 assembly with a band, and then showed a movie about seeing the world, and they left with probably 30-40 of us taking home YTEP applications for our parents to sign. And most parents did sign in 1983 as Northern Ontario was in the midst of a horrendous recession so bad that laid off nickel miners were applying for jobs to pack groceries in the small town Red and White grocers, or offering to skin your deer or moose. Every time I read these days write about how good Gen X had it, I wonder what they would do for 2.15/hour and your only life plan is to get the hell out of the place where you were born and raised.
- Reaction score
- 22,079
- Points
- 1,090
Debt level compariosn:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,978
- Points
- 1,040
If anyone wants to tilt at people earning "windfalls", go after commissioned realtors. There's not much reason for their incomes to ramp up with home prices.
Maxman1
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,057
- Points
- 960
Better yet, legislate a flat fee for realtors.
