this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
16 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10675 readers
429 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Tuesday's federal budget offers a glimpse into how dozens of government departments plan to rein in spending following this summer's comprehensive expenditure review.

The review aimed to find "ambitious savings" of up to 15 per cent over three years. The results were included with the budget, which still needs to pass a confidence vote.

(Full department listing in the article.)

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

CRA: $4.1B

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is closing down some programs including the Digital Services Tax, Federal Fuel Charge and Canada Carbon Rebate.

The budget also proposes to eliminate "the inefficient Underused Housing Tax" and luxury tax on aircraft and vessels, which CRA says will help save administration costs.

Seems that rich people are the winners here. 🙄

[–] tycoontwist@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If the income from a luxury tax isn't covering the administration costs, then it sounds like the tax should be increased to cover costs, not cut.

[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Eh... Even better to tax wealth or increase income taxes at higher tax brackets.

It's a shame that the Liberals backed off increasing capital gains inclusion above $10K (iirc?) to ⅔ instead of ½. That would have made a big difference on its own, and the cost to implement that change would be very low, presumably—people are already responsible for calculating their capital gains; this would just make it a 3-step calculation instead of a 2-step calculation.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I like how much of it is "save on office space." In other words, let's embrace cost savings inherent in remote work and let the office space get used by a company or for housing or anything that's not sitting and taking zoom meetings.

Pretty easy win, despite Ford's complaints.