Canadian Politics Thread

[MightyCPC]

11 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

Hi,

I see you're still in the thread.

 

Can you answer to this?

JT has lost support, that is no doubt. But I see these statements and it seems a little like ' nobody likes him, all the cool kids think he is lame' in an effort to maybe pressure an individual into mob mentailty? I dunno, you might be right about some leaders in Europe...if you could answer...

I want change in leadership but at the same time I keep seeing reports that, vs the rest of the world, we are doing pretty good. Still one of the most desirable countries to move to, top of the G7 type stuff etc..

Why wouldn't I be...lol. Body language of other leaders at conferences. Clips of him being shunned. That's all. What else could there be?

[MightyCPC]

6 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

What are the marginal tax rates right now?

 

 

When someone say "get rid of the write offs" I generally agree with them.  But then I realize I'm not sure what "write offs" we're talking about.  What write offs are we talking about?

 

I don't agree that a flat tax is fair.  When looking at the fairness of any tax system we have to look, not only at the percentage each taxpayer is paying, but also at the impact that tax rate is having on the taxpayer's life.  A low income tax payer is going to be much more affected by a 20% tax rate (or a 10% rate or a 40% rate or whatever) than someone who is making an uber income.

No we don't have to look. Everyone should pay the same percentage of their earnings, that's fair. Our present system is charitable.That's fine, but not fair. Maybe no taxes on the first 20,000 or so is fair and would help your charitable wishes.

[UnkNuk]

2 minutes ago, MightyCPC said:

No we don't have to look. Everyone should pay the same percentage of their earnings, that's fair. Our present system is charitable.That's fine, but not fair. Maybe no taxes on the first 20,000 or so is fair and would help your charitable wishes.

 

Yes, we should look.  

 

Granted, if everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings, it seems fair on a mathematical level.

 

But it is just as important to take into account the impact which paying taxes has on each person.

 

Let's say one person is making  $30,000 a year and another is making $200,000.  And the flat tax is 20%.  So the first person pays $6,000 and the second person pays $40,000.   Again, on a mathematical level this seems fair.  They're both paying 20% of income.  But the impact of that payment is going to be much greater on the person making $30,000 than it will be on the person making $200,000.  For the latter, it may mean he or she will have to wait for a year before buying a new car.  For the former person, it may mean he or she has to decide between buying food or medicine.   Again, the impact on the first person is much greater.  And that's not fair.

 

Thus I support a graduated income tax system.  Preferably as simplified as possible.

[Spur1]

There should be no income taxes on any person until they are over the poverty line. 

[Miss Korea]

You can always count on one hardliner to suggest a purely regressive tax.  That'll definitely fix the income inequality in this country!

[Boudrias]

10 hours ago, MightyCPC said:

No we don't have to look. Everyone should pay the same percentage of their earnings, that's fair. Our present system is charitable.That's fine, but not fair. Maybe no taxes on the first 20,000 or so is fair and would help your charitable wishes.

Combined government debt of federal, provincial and municipal totals $3 trillion in Canada. There is no political party that truly addresses this including the CPC. Progressives during the Trudeau years have more than doubled their share of this debt. During their tenure GDP per capita, an indicator of productivity, has declined. Affordability of housing and healthcare have declined. Investment capital is leaving Canada to the tune of + $100 billion per year. To be fair this started during the Harper years but continues and is accelerating. At what point does Canadians realize that the interest on debt will inevitably start to degrade their social system and threaten our sovereignty. 

 

Politicians of all persuasion find it easier and more politically expedient to not deal with the issue of debt. Most Canadians are not financially literate and seem to take comfort in that. I used to think that when the sh*t hit the fan that the Canadian people would galvanize around a voice of reason. Galvanize around a force that would truly discuss the Canadian reality. I don't believe that anymore. I now accept that the country we know will splinter apart with much finger pointing.    

[bishopshodan]

11 hours ago, MightyCPC said:

Why wouldn't I be...lol. Body language of other leaders at conferences. Clips of him being shunned. That's all. What else could there be?

 

I dunno , that's why i asked. You seemed like you knew something..but you have nothing really at all. Like I said I hear it from people...'we're a laughing stock'  then i see how well Canada is doing vs a lot of other countries and I wonder what they are babbling about.

 

thanks for finally responding. 

 

 

[5forFighting]

11 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Yes, we should look.  

 

Granted, if everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings, it seems fair on a mathematical level.

 

But it is just as important to take into account the impact which paying taxes has on each person.

 

Let's say one person is making  $30,000 a year and another is making $200,000.  And the flat tax is 20%.  So the first person pays $6,000 and the second person pays $40,000.   Again, on a mathematical level this seems fair.  They're both paying 20% of income.  But the impact of that payment is going to be much greater on the person making $30,000 than it will be on the person making $200,000.  For the latter, it may mean he or she will have to wait for a year before buying a new car.  For the former person, it may mean he or she has to decide between buying food or medicine.   Again, the impact on the first person is much greater.  And that's not fair.

 

Thus I support a graduated income tax system.  Preferably as simplified as possible.

The end % is the problem. Graduate the scale to a max 10%. No deductions. 

 

2% to 50k, 4% 50k to 100k,

6% 100k to 150k, 8% 150k to 200k and 10% above that

[aGENT]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:14 PM, UnkNuk said:

 

What is the best or right thing for Canadians that politicians should be doing but aren't?

 

Building way more public housing.

 

On 10/27/2023 at 7:56 AM, Bob Long said:

 

nothing says Canada is ruined like driving a $120,000 truck with a flag on it. 

 

It infuriates me to no end that our shared symbol of national pride has been co opted by a bunch of free-dumb douche nozzles.

 

On 10/27/2023 at 10:10 AM, MightyCPC said:

Jeez, you don't think we pay enough taxes? I guess there may be more anthills and moss that needs relocating, but c'mon! lol   Sorry about the constant anthill references but I'm not going to get over that anytime soon.

 

I'd happily pay more taxes with a corresponding bump in pay for all Canadians, and smart use of those tax dollars to improve infrastructure, housing, social safety nets, education, debt pay down etc etc...

 

Taxes aren't the problem. How they're spent is.

[Bob Long]

34 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Building way more public housing.

 

 

It infuriates me to no end that our shared symbol of national pride has been co opted by a bunch of free-dumb douche nozzles.

 

 

I'd happily pay more taxes with a corresponding bump in pay for all Canadians, and smart use of those tax dollars to improve infrastructure, housing, social safety nets, education, debt pay down etc etc...

 

Taxes aren't the problem. How they're spent is.

 

"Douche nozzles" 

[RupertKBD]

12 hours ago, Spur1 said:

There should be no income taxes on any person until they are over the poverty line. 

 

I'm not sure where the poverty line is, (or if there even officially is such a thing) but if one makes little enough, they don't pay income tax.

 

@UnkNuk is correct. The Graduated system that we use is the fairest system for all. Everyone thinks they've got a better idea, but government after government, both Conservative and Liberal, have left the system as is. There's a reason for that....

 

Does this mean that the current tax system couldn't use some tweaking? Of course not. There are plenty of positive ways to fine tune such a complicated system. Most years, the government does just that....with varying degrees of efficacy. (Don't get me started on the HST. Anyone who was around CDC at the time knows my feelings on that debacle)

[RupertKBD]

11 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

You can always count on one hardliner to suggest a purely regressive tax.  That'll definitely fix the income inequality in this country!

 

Seems like the hardliners aren't all that concerned about income inequality....

 

....they just want "what's theirs".....

[King Heffy]

3 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Seems like the hardliners aren't all that concerned about income inequality....

 

....they just want "what's theirs".....

It's much better for the economy for those in lower tax brackets to get a break.  They're the ones putting money back in through purchases rather than taking it out through offshore investments.

Edited October 29, 2023 by King Heffy

[UnkNuk]

6 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Combined government debt of federal, provincial and municipal totals $3 trillion in Canada. There is no political party that truly addresses this including the CPC. Progressives during the Trudeau years have more than doubled their share of this debt. During their tenure GDP per capita, an indicator of productivity, has declined. Affordability of housing and healthcare have declined. Investment capital is leaving Canada to the tune of + $100 billion per year. To be fair this started during the Harper years but continues and is accelerating. At what point does Canadians realize that the interest on debt will inevitably start to degrade their social system and threaten our sovereignty. 

 

Politicians of all persuasion find it easier and more politically expedient to not deal with the issue of debt. Most Canadians are not financially literate and seem to take comfort in that. I used to think that when the sh*t hit the fan that the Canadian people would galvanize around a voice of reason. Galvanize around a force that would truly discuss the Canadian reality. I don't believe that anymore. I now accept that the country we know will splinter apart with much finger pointing.    

 

I'm not sure how feasible it is but  The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has an article about a wealth tax.  

 

The author estimates it could generate $32 billion (!) in the first year alone.

 

 

Full article at:

 

https://www.policynote.ca/wealth-tax-2/

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

 

I'm not sure how feasible it is but  The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has an article about a wealth tax.  

 

The author estimates it could generate $32 billion (!) in the first year alone.

 

 

Full article at:

 

https://www.policynote.ca/wealth-tax-2/

 

I really wish this was a bigger election issue. (This and public housing). We need a mechanism for wealth redistribution. Income disparity is just getting silly. And no, corporate taxes aren't the answer IMO. They just get borne by the consumer anyway, either that or companies just take their ball and go "home" (somewhere with better corporate taxes).

 

Either that or we ALL need to unionize/ demand better pay and benefits.

[MightyCPC]

18 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Yes, we should look.  

 

Granted, if everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings, it seems fair on a mathematical level.

 

But it is just as important to take into account the impact which paying taxes has on each person.

 

Let's say one person is making  $30,000 a year and another is making $200,000.  And the flat tax is 20%.  So the first person pays $6,000 and the second person pays $40,000.   Again, on a mathematical level this seems fair.  They're both paying 20% of income.  But the impact of that payment is going to be much greater on the person making $30,000 than it will be on the person making $200,000.  For the latter, it may mean he or she will have to wait for a year before buying a new car.  For the former person, it may mean he or she has to decide between buying food or medicine.   Again, the impact on the first person is much greater.  And that's not fair.

 

Thus I support a graduated income tax system.  Preferably as simplified as possible.

So tell me then, what arbitrary percentage are you going to pick that makes things fair? Why not take all their money so everyone makes the same. That makes sense at least. Our present system is neither fair or makes sense, but it is arbitrary nonsense catering to the whinging majority. I'm in that poorer majority too, but I don't feel the need to penalize wealthy people make me feel better. It doesn't help lure hockey talent that's for sure. The States tax regime must not be much better than ours now as I haven't heard much about taxes being an issue lately for signings.

16 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

You can always count on one hardliner to suggest a purely regressive tax.  That'll definitely fix the income inequality in this country!

Uh, who thinks there should be income equality? lol

[MightyCPC]

4 hours ago, King Heffy said:

It's much better for the economy for those in lower tax brackets to get a break.  They're the ones putting money back in through purchases rather than taking it out through offshore investments.

Well, there's a point but I'm not sure it's fair. Equal taxation could  keep high earners home (doctors?)

[UnkNuk]

42 minutes ago, MightyCPC said:

So tell me then, what arbitrary percentage are you going to pick that makes things fair?

 

That's a very good question.  And I haven't got an immediate answer.  I can say that I'm in favour of graduated income tax rather than a flat tax.  But as far as what the percentages should be for different levels of income and what the cutoffs should be to distinguish those different levels of income, I'm not sure.  That is a question that can only be answered by the many different parties involved in this question, which is all Canadians.

 

47 minutes ago, MightyCPC said:

Our present system is neither fair or makes sense, but it is arbitrary nonsense catering to the whinging majority

 

Given that, for the past forty years or so, the highest marginal tax rates for the very wealthy have come down considerably, it might be more accurate to say that our present system has been catering to the whinging rich minority.

[the destroyer of worlds]

2 hours ago, MightyCPC said:

So tell me then, what arbitrary percentage are you going to pick that makes things fair? Why not take all their money so everyone makes the same. That makes sense at least. Our present system is neither fair or makes sense, but it is arbitrary nonsense catering to the whinging majority. I'm in that poorer majority too, but I don't feel the need to penalize wealthy people make me feel better. It doesn't help lure hockey talent that's for sure. The States tax regime must not be much better than ours now as I haven't heard much about taxes being an issue lately for signings.

Uh, who thinks there should be income equality? lol

 

How about picking from some of the US marginal tax rates for the to bracket.  For a good chunk of that time, they built the interstate highway system, went to the Moon, and fought a couple wars.  They also developed some pretty crazy aerospace tech in that time as well.  Good reason for income inequality was that slashing of these tax rates once trickle down bs took hold.  As well as rampant raises for senior executives while the average Joe got peanuts with peanuts in tax cuts, if any.

 

 

For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981.

[Warhippy]

17 hours ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

 

How about picking from some of the US marginal tax rates for the to bracket.  For a good chunk of that time, they built the interstate highway system, went to the Moon, and fought a couple wars.  They also developed some pretty crazy aerospace tech in that time as well.  Good reason for income inequality was that slashing of these tax rates once trickle down bs took hold.  As well as rampant raises for senior executives while the average Joe got peanuts with peanuts in tax cuts, if any.

 

 

For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981.

I posted this exact same thing and a corresponding one for Canada from the same timeline from 1937 through the early 80s where the longest unbroken periods of growth for our nations was over that 50 year period where tax rates average above 80%

[Bob Long]

23 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I posted this exact same thing and a corresponding one for Canada from the same timeline from 1937 through the early 80s where the longest unbroken periods of growth for our nations was over that 50 year period where tax rates average above 80%

 

its an interesting point. I wonder if maybe our tax money was also much more efficiently used then as well? think of all the infrastructure we take for granted created during this time, and compare it to the ridiculously expensive and long time frames for basic things now. 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Bob Long

[Warhippy]

22 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

its an interesting point. I wonder if maybe our tax money was also much more efficiently used then as well? think of all the infrastructure we take for granted created during this time, and compare it to the ridiculously expensive and long time frames for basic things now. 

 

 

No centralized services.  More actual crown corporations.  Less bloat and waste or corporate subsidization.  If a bridge needed to be replaced it was replaced.  There was no endless consulting.  Politicians either did the job or left office.

 

While not altogether true, the idea of office as a public service vs a golden ticket was a more majority mindset and people knew that their money was being spent wisely.  Before anyone suggests this was before medical services became universal, this actually really started being repealed shortly after the US did post Glass/Steagall and went downhill on a rocket during the Reaganomics-Mulroney years.  

 

The race to lower taxes for the wealthiest and to cater to corporate interests directly coincides with the massive increases in centralization, debt and wasted money as well as the advent of the loss of the middle class.

[MightyCPC]

On 10/29/2023 at 12:41 PM, RupertKBD said:

 

I'm not sure where the poverty line is, (or if there even officially is such a thing) but if one makes little enough, they don't pay income tax.

 

@UnkNuk is correct. The Graduated system that we use is the fairest system for all. Everyone thinks they've got a better idea, but government after government, both Conservative and Liberal, have left the system as is. There's a reason for that....

 

Does this mean that the current tax system couldn't use some tweaking? Of course not. There are plenty of positive ways to fine tune such a complicated system. Most years, the government does just that....with varying degrees of efficacy. (Don't get me started on the HST. Anyone who was around CDC at the time knows my feelings on that debacle)

Oh, UnkNuk is correct. I'm so glad to hear that. Now that I think about it,  everyone who makes a buck more then me should give it all to the government, 100%. Why not? Sounds fair to me. The idea of fairness you all promote is just a concoction to appease for votes, it has nothing to do with fair. This will never change of course. 

 

My new proposal has a better chance.

Edited October 31, 2023 by MightyCPC

[RupertKBD]

3 minutes ago, MightyCPC said:

Oh, UnkNuk is correct. I'm so glad to hear that. Now that I think about it,  everyone who makes a buck more then me should give it all to the government, 100%. Why not? Sounds fair to me. The idea of fairness you all promote is just a concoction to appease for votes, it has nothing to do with fair. This will never change of course. 

 

My new proposal has a better chance.

 

Your new proposal "has a better chance" than what's already in place? Do tell...

 

BTW, when you resort to ridiculous hyperbole like "100% tax" nobody is going to take you seriously.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Your new proposal "has a better chance" than what's already in place? Do tell...

 

BTW, when you resort to ridiculous hyperbole like "100% tax" nobody is going to take you seriously.

@Canuckle you're up buddy