Canadian Federal Elections, eh

Kaodi said:

I am not sure there is any topic so likely to lead directly to me being suspended as the Canadian election.

Have you noticed we already have one poster who will not vote for Trudeau because of his last name and another poster who complains that he only got the job because of his last name? I mean, Jesus Christ. I was a Liberal and quit the party during that leadership race but as far as I am concerned nepotism applies to behaviour both for and against and both are equally intellectually bankrupt. If you cannot even be bothered to come up with a reason not to vote for Trudeau that does not centre on his name being Trudeau do us all a favour and quit watching politics now and leave the adults to make the decisions.

Click to expand...

I know a fair number of people in your neck of the woods who feel exactly that way. Mention Justin and all they see is his father. Won't even listen to him speak to know if he bought a vowel, or is out to lunch.

I supported the Conservatives in taking down the Liberals and ending their streak, because it was time for a change. But the Harper government has really done some pretty head shakingly bad things over the past... wow, 9 years. I don't think they'll stay in power. If they don't get booted, it'll be a minority government.

I wouldn't mind a Liberal or NDP minority government. Neither party seems solid enough to work without a balance and needs to really see if they're up for the role of leading the nation. That's certainly a strength of our system: there can be a join NDP/liberal force ruling the nation with parties having to work together and find compromises to stay in power.

Jester Canuck said:

I supported the Conservatives in taking down the Liberals and ending their streak, because it was time for a change. But the Harper government has really done some pretty head shakingly bad things over the past... wow, 9 years. I don't think they'll stay in power. If they don't get booted, it'll be a minority government.

I wouldn't mind a Liberal or NDP minority government. Neither party seems solid enough to work without a balance and needs to really see if they're up for the role of leading the nation. That's certainly a strength of our system: there can be a join NDP/liberal force ruling the nation with parties having to work together and find compromises to stay in power.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned previously I voted for Harper's government the first time around, but knew that I'd made a mistake after the first month.

I thought the same about Ontario's Liberal Party, with all the things that they've screwed up, but they won a majority last term. Burn a billion dollars here and there, break election laws, outright lie.... That's coming up on 12 years now, with three more to go.

I once thought that a minority government was the best form. After all, there would be two other parties to rein in the more loony moves of the governing party. Then I saw a minority Conservative Government with the audacity to act like it had a majority, face off against opposition parties that didn't have the stones to call them on it.

Ryujin said:

To the Cons, Middle Class seems to mean anyone making $150K to $250K. At least that seems to be who they are aiming their benefits for the Middle Class towards. That's not me.

Click to expand...

In Canada, you are in the top 1% is you make 200k or more a year. Of course, it means different things depending where you live, but it is a lot of money none the less. With the girlfriend we aren't far from it. We aren't in need and we could afford to pay more income taxes.

I can't disagree with the idea of greater capital gains taxes. There's a lot of money that people have just sitting around, earning more money, the proceeds of which don't seem to be adequately taxed. The tax breaks that the Cons have given to big business, when we already seem to have some of the lowest corporate taxes going, aren't exactly helping things either. The principals of large corporations are pocketing the difference rather than putting it back into the economy. Trickle-Down Economics is a thoroughly debunked concept.

Click to expand...

Yup, yet there are still lots of people praising its merites. Ideology, I say!

A lot of the money that they've been "swimming in" was borrowed against the future. It's time that we started paying down the debt, so that we aren't mortgaging our children's futures. You don't plan a vacation if you can't afford the rent and groceries.

Click to expand...

At the federal level the debt has been going down pretty steadily since the mid 90s to 2008. Than we got the financial crisis and the impact of the Torie's lowering of taxes. With a GDP around 1.8 trillion dollars and a debt of 628 billion dollars*, the debt represent about 30% of the GDP. We are far from Greece's 120%, the US federal debt at 70% or Japan at 180%. There is no urgency.

Thing is, repaying debt isn't a good priority. Growth can be a solution to debt. If the debt stays the same and the GDP keeps growing, it means the size of the debt in relations to the economy is shrinking. The money given to foreign banks to repay the debt most likely will not be reinvested in the economy. It is just something the rich want cause it benefits them since they have equity in banks. If the money that was supposed to go to a bank is invested in the economy instead, it will bring growth to the economy. Not to mention that one dollar given as salary is worth more than one dollar. That dollar is first given to the laborer, but then given to the waitress that served him at the restaurent. She then uses that dollar to pay for her tampons and so on. So that dollar might be worth 1.5 dollars. Credit Swiss will probably just invest that dollar in China and that will be that.

So repaying the debt shouldn't be a priority. Not right now when the economy is in the crapper at least.

*About the same as it was in the 90s. So the debt is the same after going down, but the GDP almost doubled. Not too shabby.

I disagree. When properly applied such taxes impact those with disposable income, far more than those who are just getting by.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. If you look at the raw number, you might think they spend more, but it represents a smaller percentage of their gross income. That is if you make 50k a year, you'll spend a higher percentage of that income on taxed goods and services than a person that makes 500k a year even if that person did buy a more expensive car. The rest of that money is put away. The richer a person is, the more it saves and invests. They can buy more expensive house and even if the value only grows 5% like cheaper houses, 5% of one million dollars is more than 5% of 300k. Capital gain on a house you own and live in ain't taxable. They put more money in RRSPs, and those reduce their income taxes. They have more equity and we both agree capital gain taxes are very low. The system is gamed for the rich. Sales taxes are just a tranfer of the income taxes the rich should pay to the middles class and the poor.

Right now wealthy people are paying income tax at a significantly lower rate than even the great robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century did. The disparity between wealthy and regular folk is an ever widening gulf.

Click to expand...

I agree and it is with income and capital gain taxes that we reduce the gap. Not sales taxes.

The point is that everyone has a study and statistics can be spun pretty much any way that you want to.

Click to expand...

Well, it is a serious study, not making stats say what I want. Can it be debunked? Maybe, but we do not have the resources for that.

Yes, child care, etc., etc.... I would really like for people to start looking at their own finances and stop picking my pocket, to decide how they're going to create their family.

Click to expand...

The plan should finance itself with the surplus Ottawa was going to make before oil prices went down. Launching the program is the kind of spending that helps relaunch the economy.

Don't create a family that you can't afford.

Click to expand...

Reality is much different. We have to live with people who make kids when they shouldn't. So it is an issue we have to deal with, and buying guns doesn't work. We see that in the US.

That's a matter of opinion. Think "transfer payments."

Click to expand...

It is one tool, among others, inscribed in the Constitution. Ontario gets those too I believe.

I didn't say that it was. I have mentioned rationalization of spending, for example. It's just that the default government position seems to be going back to the trough, rather than checking to see if the current funds are being spent appropriately. I've been poor. Dirt poor. As in only had one pair of pants and couldn't leave the house on laundry day poor. I'm doing OK now. That gave me the perception that you don't spend money that you don't have, on things that you can't afford, until you can cover your current costs. Again; rationalize spending.

Click to expand...

Thing is, a government isn't an individual or household. For one thing it can print money, something we can't. It can also raise its income rather easily, something we have more trouble doing. It also have differently responsabilities and a different mission than us. I find comparing a government to us a rather faulty analogy.

Jester Canuck said:

I wouldn't mind a Liberal or NDP minority government. Neither party seems solid enough to work without a balance and needs to really see if they're up for the role of leading the nation. That's certainly a strength of our system: there can be a join NDP/liberal force ruling the nation with parties having to work together and find compromises to stay in power.

Click to expand...

I'm all for a element of proportional representation, so that would lead to more coalition government.

I just think we should avoid 100% proportional representation, like in Israel. The system has too many problems.

Germany seems to be a good middle grown. If I am not mistaken, two thirds of representatives are elected locally and a third from a proportional element.

Dion's proposal for proportional representation seemed almost perfect to me. No list seats at all.

goldomark said:

In Canada, you are in the top 1% is you make 200k or more a year. Of course, it means different things depending where you live, but it is a lot of money none the less. With the girlfriend we aren't far from it. We aren't in need and we could afford to pay more income taxes.

Yup, yet there are still lots of people praising its merites. Ideology, I say!

At the federal level the debt has been going down pretty steadily since the mid 90s to 2008. Than we got the financial crisis and the impact of the Torie's lowering of taxes. With a GDP around 1.8 trillion dollars and a debt of 628 billion dollars*, the debt represent about 50% of the GDP. We are far from Greece's 120%, the US federal debt at 70% or Japan at 180%. There is no urgency.

Thing is, repaying debt isn't a good priority. Growth can be a solution to debt. If the debt stays the same and the GDP keeps growing, it means the size of the debt in relations to the economy is shrinking. The money given to foreign banks to repay the debt most likely will not be reinvested in the economy. It is just something the rich want cause it benefits them since they have equity in banks. If the money that was supposed to go to a bank is invested in the economy instead, it will bring growth to the economy. Not to mention that one dollar given as salary is worth more than one dollar. That dollar is first given to the laborer, but then given to the waitress that served him at the restaurent. She then uses that dollar to pay for her tampons and so on. So that dollar might be worth 1.5 dollars. Credit Swiss will probably just invest that dollar in China and that will be that.

So repaying the debt shouldn't be a priority. Not right now when the economy is in the crapper at least.

*About the same as it was in the 90s. So the debt is the same after going down, but the GDP almost doubled. Not too shabby.

Not exactly. If you look at the raw number, you might think they spend more, but it represents a smaller percentage of their gross income. That is if you make 50k a year, you'll spend a higher percentage of that income on taxed goods and services than a person that makes 500k a year even if that person did buy a more expensive car. The rest of that money is put away. The richer a person is, the more it saves and invests. They can buy more expensive house and even if the value only grows 5% like cheaper houses, 5% of one million dollars is more than 5% of 300k. Capital gain on a house you own and live in ain't taxable. They put more money in RRSPs, and those reduce their income taxes. They have more equity and we both agree capital gain taxes are very low. The system is gamed for the rich. Sales taxes are just a tranfer of the income taxes the rich should pay to the middles class and the poor.

I agree and it is with income and capital gain taxes that we reduce the gap. Not sales taxes.

Well, it is a serious study, not making stats say what I want. Can it be debunked? Maybe, but we do not have the resources for that.

The plan should finance itself with the surplus Ottawa was going to make before oil prices went down. Launching the program is the kind of spending that helps relaunch the economy.

Reality is much different. We have to live with people who make kids when they shouldn't. So it is an issue we have to deal with, and buying guns doesn't work. We see that in the US.

It is one tool, among others, inscribed in the Constitution. Ontario gets those too I believe.

Thing is, a government isn't an individual or household. For one thing it can print money, something we can't. It can also raise its income rather easily, something we have more trouble doing. It also have differently responsabilities and a different mission than us. I find comparing a government to us a rather faulty analogy.

Click to expand...

Simplifying a bit since we're getting somewhat strung out, have issues we agree on, and some that we'll never agree on.

Given the current rates this is when you renegotiate the loans and, when you've cut the amount of money that you're paying out on debt maintenance, you then look at what that reduction could be spent to fund. That's rationalizing spending.

You left out my statement "Especially so when you also tax things like capital gains and set your income tax rates appropriately.", with respect to GST/HST

When it comes to Federal transfer payments, in 2014-2015 (from Statistics Canada):

Quebec: $19,614B, or roughly $2,390 per capita

Ontario: $19,187B, or roughly $1,404 per capita

Just sayin'

A household can't print money, but it can certainly run up credit. In context it's pretty much the same thing, because the bill always comes due.

Ryujin said:

Simplifying a bit since we're getting somewhat strung out, have issues we agree on, and some that we'll never agree on.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Given the current rates this is when you renegotiate the loans and, when you've cut the amount of money that you're paying out on debt maintenance, you then look at what that reduction could be spent to fund. That's rationalizing spending.

Click to expand...

Canada gets great interest rates. It is one of the seven triple A nations in the world. That is the best credit rating there is and with the debt at 30% of the GDP, that ain't gonna change soon. Thing is, if you grow your economy and the debt stays the same, the government's budget also grows, so in percentage the amount that goes to pay interests on loans shrinks in relation to the rest of the budget.

You left out my statement "Especially so when you also tax things like capital gains and set your income tax rates appropriately.", with respect to GST/HST

Click to expand...

Sale taxes are still regressive. Boooo! Boooo, I say!

When it comes to Federal transfer payments, in 2014-2015 (from Statistics Canada):

Quebec: $19,614B, or roughly $2,390 per capita

Ontario: $19,187B, or roughly $1,404 per capita

Just sayin'

Click to expand...

Yeah, we're poorer thanks to historical factors.

A household can't print money, but it can certainly run up credit. In context it's pretty much the same thing, because the bill always comes due.

Click to expand...

Except that a country can print money to pay the bills that are due. This is why there were talks of Greece leaving the EU and the Euro behind. This way it could print money and pay its bills.

goldomark said:

I disagree.

Click to expand...

Typical

Canada gets great interest rates. It is one of the seven triple A nations in the world. That is the best credit rating there is and with the debt at 30% of the GDP, that ain't gonna change soon. Thing is, if you grow your economy and the debt stays the same, the government's budget also grows, so in percentage the amount that goes to pay interests on loans shrinks in relation to the rest of the budget.

Click to expand...

We got great interest rates when rates were high. Renegotiate those loans and the cost of debt maintenance drops significantly. In fact in the 2012-2013 fiscal year a whopping $0.11 of every tax dollar went to debt maintenance. That's roughly what all of the healthcare transfer costs were for the same year. It's more than our entire national defence spending for the same year.

Now is the time to be renegotiating those loan rates. If we were going to borrow money now would be the time but since we already owe so much, we're better off paying the debt down and reducing our costs. In the long run it's a bigger pay-off.

Sale taxes are still regressive. Boooo! Boooo, I say!

Click to expand...

There's that disagreement thing I mentioned

Yeah, we're poorer thanks to historical factors.

Click to expand...

I hear that a lot, from a lot of disparate groups. One of those "historical factors" has been a constant threat to secede, driving away both national and international business. How long do we pay for that, giving Quebec things that the rest of the country can't afford? Bad decisions have consequences.

Except that a country can print money to pay the bills that are due. This is why there were talks of Greece leaving the EU and the Euro behind. This way it could print money and pay its bills.

Click to expand...

Except that a country devalues its currency when it does that, because it doesn't have the GDP to support the value of the currency at par with its neighbours. Anyone want a loaf of bread? It's only one wheelbarrow full of Drachma, on special today.

I am not sure there is much point to paying off loans that you can carry. We always talk about making sacrifices for the future but I think it is actually philosophically weak to presuppose that the future deserves better than the present. Especially since those people in the future are determined by what we do in the present. If we could hold steady on the debt for now on and just let in shrink relatively to the economy we would be acting responsibly enough I think.