RRiF withdrawals tax free to compensate for inflation and corporate welfare | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

This is just bad policy. It violates the principle of tax deferral and will benefit only folks with lots of untaxed wealth. And it's unfair in many other ways.

Seniors haven't been "ripped off by inflation" for the last 2-1/2 years - only the past year, more or less. Inflation was negligible for the first half of the pandemic. And most corporations (other than on-line and delivery scammers) lost money for a good while, too.

And exactly how would this affect "corporate welfare"? The excess-profits tax might be a better option - but higher progressive corporate income tax rates are a long-term solution. And it wouldn't cut into government revenue required to support benefits for the poor and elderly.

NOTHING that is a one-time or stepped decrease of cost (like fuel-tax reduction) can fight inflation; it just slows it for a brief instant. Inflation must be tamed by controlling its drivers. A landlord who gives you a $5 present or a phone company offering a couple of months at a discount don't make up for the fact that the rates will rise (or in the case of internet and phone companies usually double) after the pause.

For phone and internet, of course, you can switch companies. But everyone I know who has tried to move to a cheaper home has ended up paying more for a poorer accomodation.
RetirEd

How did inflation get hidden in real estate when housing costs are such a big part of the price indices?

Lots of individuals took benefits even if they could survive without them, too. We even heard several admitting, on television, that they spent their benefits (including rent aid) on other things than rent because of the eviction ban.

I think the eviction ban was a good thing, though it may have outlived its time a while. But the feds admitted they had to get the money out first and then do the qualification checks later, to sustain the economy. That is not an unworthy plan.
RetirEd

HermanH:

The moratorium transferred welfare subsidies from the government onto the backs of private individuals.

Anyone who doesn't pay their debts is screwing someone, corporate or individual. I don't see how the moratorium transferred subsidies from the government onto the backs of those victims, though. It just protected the deadbeats from eviction for a long time. I certainly think the government should include lessor restoration in its clean-up of the benefit programs, much as they are reclaiming excess benefits to a variety of other unqualified beneficiaries, save those who complained they misunderstood the programs and spent money they should have known they had to repay.
RetirEd

The welfare subsidies did not affect who paid their rent with them. Lessors have always had to deal with deadbeats - for which they get tax relief to partially offset their losses.
RetirEd

So if it's a game, and a rigged one, then why wouldn't you buy the investments that allow you to participate in the profits for the winners (e.g. as you say, big banks) of this game? Win-win, you'd get rich plus be happy

It wasn't an argument, it was a question to you. You're in the know, you claim, so why are you not using that info to profit?

You're not clear, whatever. In any event, if you really know the score you can make big, big money, either in long or short positions, either way.