Canadian Politics Thread

[Bure_Pavel]

2 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

And if that immigration leads to bringing in qualified professionals whose barriers to practicing in their field of expertise are addressed, as well as bringing in labourers who are able to help build the necessary housing to accommodate the influx of people in addition to those in need of cost-appropriate housing?

 

The aging population thing is going to be a thing across the world; it won't be specific to Canada.  Asia will probably feel the most severe consequences of it, due to a system-driven low birth rate in the prc and unrelated reasons for low birth rate in Japan, but North America and Europe will commiserate with them (Canada being the most severe of the western world).

The immigration system needs to be reassessed then, because that has not been the case. Affordable housing and family doctors are very scarce at the moment and expected to get much much much in the next 10 years worse. 

[Bure_Pavel]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

 

Could we hope that some of those immigrants are in the medical world? bring in the talents we need?

 

I know at my job we are hiring a lot of folks new to the country, people that have just got their PR.

 

Out of our new recruits about 20 people, I can count 7 that are from India alone. We are struggling to find anyone to go into law enforcement. I am hearing stories of forced OT in the RCMP. Some prisons having to go to premature lock-up on certain days due to low staff levels. 

 

In my field we need immigrants, right now. Not many Canadain born people are applying. The pay isn't great to start but it goes up pretty fast. We have some of the best benifits and pentions out there. Still, its a grind to find help. 

 

Even the ones with medical degrees, they usually don't transfer to Canadian standards and lots end up doing other jobs or becoming alternatives like vets after additional schooling for example when they come over. Unemployment rate is very much on the rise a the moment, currently sitting at 6.4% so their shouldn't be a huge shortage in labour. 

[Bob Long]

23 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Because unstainable levels of immigration leads to unstable housing markets and major strain on what will be an already very strained medical system due to an aging population. 

 

Sure but once housing stabilizes in the medium term we will be happy to have all those new folks. You can't think short term on immigration policy imo.

[Bob Long]

52 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

I think more tax for the rich in general. 

 

What if that doesn't cover it?

 

Not trying to hound you, but I don't see how it all adds up.

 

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Even the ones with medical degrees, they usually don't transfer to Canadian standards and lots end up doing other jobs or becoming alternatives like vets after additional schooling for example when they come over. Unemployment rate is very much on the rise a the moment, currently sitting at 6.4% so their shouldn't be a huge shortage in labour. 

 

I think a lot of our issues could be solved if we start cutting some red tape. (That goes for development and nimby municipalities for the housing issues.) 

Lots of professionals would be fine working in our country if they could just get the certification transferred.

 

If there is no shortage of labour then that is not transferring to law enforcement in BC right now.

Maybe less home group folks have the stones for that kind of work anymore...

 

BTW, few of the Immigrant people at work, that I consider friends now, comprise of an ex-cop ( high level, political security), stock trader, ex-military, and a university track star. I think they all speak 3 or 4 languages. 

Really good candidates for many jobs, we're lucky to have them, it was quite a task to get through our Canadian vetting.

[bishopshodan]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

What if that doesn't cover it?

 

Not trying to hound you, but I don't see how it all adds up.

 

 

I think it is just good in general.

 

Not just corporate tax....all the rich.

That Finland link I posted pointed out that low income inequality (diff between low and highest paid) is a big key to happiness. 

Higher tax for the higher earners to keep us all a little closer, and happier?

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

 

I think it is just good in general.

 

Not just corporate tax....all the rich.

That Finland link I posted pointed out that low income inequality (diff between low and highest paid) is a big key to happiness. 

Higher tax for the higher earners to keep us all a little closer, and happier?

 

Finland is a really interesting target for sure, but they had a huge oil boon to make that happen.

 

Now maybe we could follow suit with more of a mixed economic effort...

 

I do align with the aspirations, but I need a real plan to go with it.

 

Imo a guy like Nenshi could finally be the leader that imo the NDP needs to put aspirations and plans together. I'd vote for him.

 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

I think a lot of our issues could be solved if we start cutting some red tape. (That goes for development and nimby municipalities for the housing issues.) 

Lots of professionals would be fine working in our country if they could just get the certification transferred.

 

I also believe that it's not so much that we have exceedingly stellar standards - if anything, I would say it's more of a "localist protectionism" effect of the licensing organizations such as APEG, College of Nurses, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Law Society, etc.  They make the requirements so difficult and so unnecessarily onerous as to prevent newly-arrived professionals who other otherwise qualified from getting into the field of their training.

 

And then specific to medicine, there's also the issue of medical residents - the local institutions set limits on how many they will allow, including those coming from abroad.  I remember a situation where Saudi Arabia (before we got on their bad books) were paying the government to allow their medical residents to have spots in our medical system, on the expectation that they would return to Saudi Arabia afterwards.  So we hold spots for them that could otherwise go to other qualified individuals, only to say bye to them after they're done their training - all for a few assorted coins.  We could have instead set aside our own funding and had more trained practitioners instead of temporary workers that don't provide long-term service to our communities.

[Bure_Pavel]

12 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Sure but once housing stabilizes in the medium term we will be happy to have all those new folks. You can't think short term on immigration policy imo.

It seems like something that can easily be adjusted year over year based on the supply of housing and max utilization rate of medical facilities. Being more selective would still allow entry of the most valuable candidates. 

[bishopshodan]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

Finland is a really interesting target for sure, but they had a huge oil boon to make that happen.

 

Now maybe we could follow suit with more of a mixed economic effort...

 

I do align with the aspirations, but I need a real plan to go with it.

 

Imo a guy like Nenshi could finally be the leader that imo the NDP needs to put aspirations and plans together. I'd vote for him.

 

 

One thing I read was that Finland allow some privatization in their health care, along with the public system.

 

Some smart dude on here was going on about that in the last little while...

[bishopshodan]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

a guy like Nenshi

 

I'm not a huge Jag fan. 

 

The coolest thing about him, to me, is that he is a BJJ blackbelt. That's a very hard level to achieve. The other leaders are lucky its not a fight for the top jorb. 

 

 

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

It seems like something that can easily be adjusted year over year based on the supply of housing and max utilization rate of medical facilities. Being more selective would still allow entry of the most valuable candidates. 

 

I think that they are quite selective. It really seems like it's the diploma mills that have put the extra strain on things. Make those colleges house their own students.

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

One thing I read was that Finland allow some privatization in their health care, along with the public system.

 

Some smart dude on here was going on about that in the last little while...

 

I'm all about the value. Do what gets us the most for our $ and helps the most people.

[Bure_Pavel]

12 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

I think a lot of our issues could be solved if we start cutting some red tape. (That goes for development and nimby municipalities for the housing issues.) 

Lots of professionals would be fine working in our country if they could just get the certification transferred.

 

If there is no shortage of labour then that is not transferring to law enforcement in BC right now.

Maybe less home group folks have the stones for that kind of work anymore...

 

BTW, few of the Immigrant people at work, that I consider friends now, comprise of an ex-cop ( high level, political security), stock trader, ex-military, and a university track star. I think they all speak 3 or 4 languages. 

Really good candidates for many jobs, we're lucky to have them, it was quite a task to get through our Canadian vetting.

Yeah I think the current system is broken, Ive heard lots of terrible tings about the vetting process. A lot of good candidates are turned away in favour of less favorable candidates due to their inability to manipulate the system in place. The medical standards thing is a tough one as having extremely high medical standards can be a really good thing, but there will have to be some wiggle room out of necessity in the future. More and more people are using nurse practitioners instead of doctors for their families for example.          

[Warhippy]

4 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said:

The Pharmacare and dental stuff would be nice but will cost a pretty penny. Tax the rich is a good very short term solution but will likely slow economic growth. Their answer would likely be increased immigration which is again a short term solution with negative long term effects. Who ever gets elected needs to find a path to long term economic growth and increased productivity without taking shortcuts. As we are already facing a world of hurt in the future due to our aging population. AI might come in and save the day but we have all seen terminator as well.   

Tired of this bullshit narrative people keep saying 

 

The era between 1944 and 1978 was the single longest unbroken period of growth that the US and Canada ever had.

 

The average tax rate across the board during that time was as high or higher than 80% and never dipped lower than I believe 60%

 

Saying taxing the rich would slow economic growth when we had literally 4 decades of proof that it doesn't just jars on me

[The Arrogant Worms]

LILLEY: Trudeau deserves to spend time with his kids without being accosted

https://canoe.com/opinion/columnists/in-defence-of-trudeaus-vacation-with-his-kids/wcm/0f005aab-3b20-4051-90df-6fe3d2a31e49

[the destroyer of worlds]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Tired of this bullshit narrative people keep saying 

 

The era between 1944 and 1978 was the single longest unbroken period of growth that the US and Canada ever had.

 

The average tax rate across the board during that time was as high or higher than 80% and never dipped lower than I believe 60%

 

Saying taxing the rich would slow economic growth when we had literally 4 decades of proof that it doesn't just jars on me

You said what I was.  I'll add.

 

America put men on the Moon and fought a war and invested in infrastructure with those high taxes on the rich. 

 

The ratio between CEO and average worker pay was a lot smaller than today.

 

Oh, and the middle class could actually live.  Do you think a shoe salesman could afford a house, stay at home wife, 2 kids and a dog.  That dream died when the fever dreams of Regean, Mulroney, and Thatcher took over CON brains.

[I.Am.Ironman]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Tired of this bullshit narrative people keep saying 

 

The era between 1944 and 1978 was the single longest unbroken period of growth that the US and Canada ever had.

 

The average tax rate across the board during that time was as high or higher than 80% and never dipped lower than I believe 60%

 

Saying taxing the rich would slow economic growth when we had literally 4 decades of proof that it doesn't just jars on me

This is true but was also happening at that time? Significant population growth..... and war for the USA. I agree with the sentiment but it is more nuanced than what you've represented.

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Tired of this bullshit narrative people keep saying 

 

The era between 1944 and 1978 was the single longest unbroken period of growth that the US and Canada ever had.

 

The average tax rate across the board during that time was as high or higher than 80% and never dipped lower than I believe 60%

 

Saying taxing the rich would slow economic growth when we had literally 4 decades of proof that it doesn't just jars on me

I’m also tired of your bullshit that taxing the rich at 90% would actually increase economic growth in today’s economy. 
 

First off, can you explain how many people actually qualified to pay 90% in taxes back in the 1940’s - 1960’s?  You do understand how marginal tax rates work right?  
 

Let me help you since you probably don’t know the answer to this question. Approximately 10,000 households in the USA in 1954 qualified to pay 91% in income taxes. That’s because you needed to make over $200,000 in 1954 to hit that marginal tax rate. That’s roughly $2 million income per year in today’s dollars. You think taxing people at 91% marginal tax rate who are making over $2 million in today’s economy is going to help economic growth?  You think someone actually making $2 million in today’s economy is dumb enough not to have their income flowing through corporations that are taxed at a significantly lower rate?  Not to mention all the tax loopholes that the IRS and CRA have for rich people. 
 

The average tax rate back in 1960 wasn’t actually 91%. It was closer to 31% after deductions and loopholes that were available back in the day. That’s basically the same as what people are paying today. 
 

You also forgot to mention that the reason why there was so much economic growth after 1944 was because every country in the world was rebuilding after world war 2. Economic growth of 5-6% yearly that was happening in the 1950’s and 1960’s is obviously not gonna happen in today’s economy regardless of how high the marginal tax rate is. 
 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/income-taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

 

The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket—fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal.

 

Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.

 

Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. Many studies show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the wealthy.

Edited July 31 by Elias Pettersson

[Warhippy]

6 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I’m also tired of your bullshit that taxing the rich at 90% would actually increase economic growth in today’s economy. 
 

First off, can you explain how many people actually qualified to pay 90% in taxes back in the 1940’s - 1960’s?  You do understand how marginal tax rates work right?  
 

Let me help you since you probably don’t know the answer to this question. Approximately 10,000 households in the USA in 1954 qualified to pay 91% in income taxes. That’s because you needed to make over $200,000 in 1954 to hit that marginal tax rate. That’s roughly $2 million income per year in today’s dollars. You think taxing people at 91% marginal tax rate who are making over $2 million in today’s economy is going to help economic growth?  You think someone actually making $2 million in today’s economy is dumb enough not to have their income flowing through corporations that are taxed at a significantly lower rate?  Not to mention all the tax loopholes that the IRS and CRA have for rich people. 
 

The average tax rate back in 1960 wasn’t actually 91%. It was closer to 31% after deductions and loopholes that were available back in the day. That’s basically the same as what people are paying today. 
 

You also forgot to mention that the reason why there was so much economic growth after 1944 was because every country in the world was rebuilding after world war 2. Economic growth of 5-6% yearly that was happening in the 1950’s and 1960’s is obviously not gonna happen in today’s economy regardless of how high the marginal tax rate is. 
 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/income-taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

 

The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket—fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal.

 

Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.

 

Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. Many studies show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the wealthy.

Let's see.  50 years of high taxes across the board and a far more equitable economy.  

 

Vs

 

40 years of trickle down that you claim works while saying taxing the rich is bad, yet all we see is the divide growing.  But hey, those long lines at food banks and housing being unaffordable that's all just trudeau. 

 

Simple math.  The top 0.02% hold more total wealth than 80% of the nation combined.  40 years....

 

Over the last fourty years, middle class incomes have stagnated in Canada while top 1% incomes have grown strongly. There is no clear reason why one would expect equalization of income growth rates i.e. either top income growth slowing significantly and/or middle class income growth accelerating dramatically—to happen anytime soon. Continuation of unbalanced rates of income growth will imply an ever-widening gap in real incomes and an ever-greater concentration of “ability to pay” at the top of the income distribution which will only exacerbate an already deepening gulf in the amount of income inequality in canada

 

In essence, I make more so I can afford to pay less, vs the stagnating and shrinking middle class.

 

While you sit and suggest that it wasn't so cut and dried as taxes were higher, that nobody is as smart as you and they don't understand marginal tax rates or progressive tax rate increases or that people will just hide their money, the fundamental truth is that they were higher.  Period.  Taxes were higher.  People could afford a house on a singe income.  Feeding their kids or putting them in sports wasn't a dream.  Taxes were higher, and people paid them.  Wealth inequality of this magnitude didn't exist.  But, one can look at when those tax rates dropped, when the laws changed to allow for it and then at the growing inequality of wealth and the subsidization of the wealthy on the backs of the middle class and draw a line.  

 

From point A to B on that chart, the line is fucking horizontal.

 

So sir, you can moan about whatever you'd like and you can make your smug and arrogant jabs and shove them because we've seen it done your way since the 80s and everyone can see the forest from the trees.  Tax billionaires and multi quarter profit recording corporations accordingly.  No?  Why not?  Trickle down economics say that even if they give it all away they will just make it back because that's how trickle down economics work no?  

[Elias Pettersson]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Let's see.  50 years of high taxes across the board and a far more equitable economy.  

 

Vs

 

40 years of trickle down that you claim works while saying taxing the rich is bad, yet all we see is the divide growing.  But hey, those long lines at food banks and housing being unaffordable that's all just trudeau. 

 

Simple math.  The top 0.02% hold more total wealth than 80% of the nation combined.  40 years....

 

Over the last fourty years, middle class incomes have stagnated in Canada while top 1% incomes have grown strongly. There is no clear reason why one would expect equalization of income growth rates i.e. either top income growth slowing significantly and/or middle class income growth accelerating dramatically—to happen anytime soon. Continuation of unbalanced rates of income growth will imply an ever-widening gap in real incomes and an ever-greater concentration of “ability to pay” at the top of the income distribution which will only exacerbate an already deepening gulf in the amount of income inequality in canada

 

In essence, I make more so I can afford to pay less, vs the stagnating and shrinking middle class.

 

While you sit and suggest that it wasn't so cut and dried as taxes were higher, that nobody is as smart as you and they don't understand marginal tax rates or progressive tax rate increases or that people will just hide their money, the fundamental truth is that they were higher.  Period.  Taxes were higher.  People could afford a house on a singe income.  Feeding their kids or putting them in sports wasn't a dream.  Taxes were higher, and people paid them.  Wealth inequality of this magnitude didn't exist.  But, one can look at when those tax rates dropped, when the laws changed to allow for it and then at the growing inequality of wealth and the subsidization of the wealthy on the backs of the middle class and draw a line.  

 

From point A to B on that chart, the line is fucking horizontal.

 

So sir, you can moan about whatever you'd like and you can make your smug and arrogant jabs and shove them because we've seen it done your way since the 80s and everyone can see the forest from the trees.  Tax billionaires and multi quarter profit recording corporations accordingly.  No?  Why not?  Trickle down economics say that even if they give it all away they will just make it back because that's how trickle down economics work no?  

Wealth redistribution doesn’t work unless you live in a communist country. Is this what you want for Canada?  
 

Instead of taking from the rich to give to the poor, maybe we should all start holding our politicians accountable for the billions in wasteful spending that they seem to enjoy doing every year. 
 

I’m old enough to remember posters in this thread bringing up on numerous occasions this current government’s wasteful spending, and your comeback every single time was a whataboutism on how Pierre Poilievre did something back in 2013 that is completely irrelevant to today’s situation. 

We have a $45 billion interest payment to pay every year and your solution to the problem is to tax the rich. Maybe all the rich people should simply pitch in and pay off that debt themselves?  We could call Aquilini and Pattison to cover at least a few billion of that interest payment. Right?  
 

Taxes were higher period. So basically you don’t understand how marginal tax rates work then. Even when I explained to you that almost nobody back in 1954 actually paid 91% in income taxes and that the average tax rate back then was 31%, which is pretty much the same as it is now, you still gonna tell me taxes were higher in 1954?

 

You could buy a house back in 1960 on a single income. Guess what. You could buy a house even in 2004 on a single income. So what’s your point?  What happened over the last 15-20 years to make housing completely unaffordable even for people with a six figure income?  Did rich people create the problem or was it the government?  Who are you holding responsible for this current housing crisis?
 

You are correct about one thing though. Multi millionaires and billionaires will always be able to get their tax money back. Because that is why they are rich in the first place. 
 

Also, here is a lesson on wealth redistribution that I learned from a very smart person many years ago. If you took all the money in the world and redistributed it equally to every person, within 5 years or less all those former rich people would be rich again and all of those former poor people would be poor again. So my question to you is how often would this redistribution of wealth have to happen?  Every 5 years?  

[Ilunga]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Let's see.  50 years of high taxes across the board and a far more equitable economy.  

 

Vs

 

40 years of trickle down that you claim works while saying taxing the rich is bad, yet all we see is the divide growing.  But hey, those long lines at food banks and housing being unaffordable that's all just trudeau. 

 

Simple math.  The top 0.02% hold more total wealth than 80% of the nation combined.  40 years....

 

Over the last fourty years, middle class incomes have stagnated in Canada while top 1% incomes have grown strongly. There is no clear reason why one would expect equalization of income growth rates i.e. either top income growth slowing significantly and/or middle class income growth accelerating dramatically—to happen anytime soon. Continuation of unbalanced rates of income growth will imply an ever-widening gap in real incomes and an ever-greater concentration of “ability to pay” at the top of the income distribution which will only exacerbate an already deepening gulf in the amount of income inequality in canada

 

In essence, I make more so I can afford to pay less, vs the stagnating and shrinking middle class.

 

While you sit and suggest that it wasn't so cut and dried as taxes were higher, that nobody is as smart as you and they don't understand marginal tax rates or progressive tax rate increases or that people will just hide their money, the fundamental truth is that they were higher.  Period.  Taxes were higher.  People could afford a house on a singe income.  Feeding their kids or putting them in sports wasn't a dream.  Taxes were higher, and people paid them.  Wealth inequality of this magnitude didn't exist.  But, one can look at when those tax rates dropped, when the laws changed to allow for it and then at the growing inequality of wealth and the subsidization of the wealthy on the backs of the middle class and draw a line.  

 

From point A to B on that chart, the line is fucking horizontal.

 

So sir, you can moan about whatever you'd like and you can make your smug and arrogant jabs and shove them because we've seen it done your way since the 80s and everyone can see the forest from the trees.  Tax billionaires and multi quarter profit recording corporations accordingly.  No?  Why not?  Trickle down economics say that even if they give it all away they will just make it back because that's how trickle down economics work no?  

 

I don't know if you have heard of the Yard sale model.

 

This article gives some detail on it.

It contains these fun simulations that illustrate why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 

 

 

https://pudding.cool/2022/12/yard-sale/

 

" Why do super rich people exist in a society ?

Many of us assume that's because some people make better financial decisions than others.

But what if this isn't true ? 

What if the economy-our economy- is designed to create a few super rich people ?

That's what mathematicians argue in something called the yard scale model " 

Run the simulations.

 

About that website

 

https://pudding.cool//

 

 

[Boudrias]

6 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Wealth redistribution doesn’t work unless you live in a communist country. Is this what you want for Canada?  
 

Instead of taking from the rich to give to the poor, maybe we should all start holding our politicians accountable for the billions in wasteful spending that they seem to enjoy doing every year. 
 

I’m old enough to remember posters in this thread bringing up on numerous occasions this current government’s wasteful spending, and your comeback every single time was a whataboutism on how Pierre Poilievre did something back in 2013 that is completely irrelevant to today’s situation. 

We have a $45 billion interest payment to pay every year and your solution to the problem is to tax the rich. Maybe all the rich people should simply pitch in and pay off that debt themselves?  We could call Aquilini and Pattison to cover at least a few billion of that interest payment. Right?  
 

Taxes were higher period. So basically you don’t understand how marginal tax rates work then. Even when I explained to you that almost nobody back in 1954 actually paid 91% in income taxes and that the average tax rate back then was 31%, which is pretty much the same as it is now, you still gonna tell me taxes were higher in 1954?

 

You could buy a house back in 1960 on a single income. Guess what. You could buy a house even in 2004 on a single income. So what’s your point?  What happened over the last 15-20 years to make housing completely unaffordable even for people with a six figure income?  Did rich people create the problem or was it the government?  Who are you holding responsible for this current housing crisis?
 

You are correct about one thing though. Multi millionaires and billionaires will always be able to get their tax money back. Because that is why they are rich in the first place. 
 

Also, here is a lesson on wealth redistribution that I learned from a very smart person many years ago. If you took all the money in the world and redistributed it equally to every person, within 5 years or less all those former rich people would be rich again and all of those former poor people would be poor again. So my question to you is how often would this redistribution of wealth have to happen?  Every 5 years?  

The Liberal government have consistently increased their share of Canada's GDP since 2015. The Laurier Institute now says the number is 64%. What have we got from that? Almost zero GDP growth and Investment actively leaving the country. Left wingers call for more taxation because they either want full blown communism or want to destroy what remains of this country. You don't have to look very far for examples of what this does to once viable economies. 

[Bob Long]

8 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The Liberal government have consistently increased their share of Canada's GDP since 2015. The Laurier Institute now says the number is 64%. What have we got from that? Almost zero GDP growth and Investment actively leaving the country. Left wingers call for more taxation because they either want full blown communism or want to destroy what remains of this country. You don't have to look very far for examples of what this does to once viable economies. 

 

Where are you getting the "zero" gdp growth from?

 

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CAN/canada/gdp-gross-domestic-product

[Bob Long]

13 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Tired of this bullshit narrative people keep saying 

 

The era between 1944 and 1978 was the single longest unbroken period of growth that the US and Canada ever had.

 

The average tax rate across the board during that time was as high or higher than 80% and never dipped lower than I believe 60%

 

Saying taxing the rich would slow economic growth when we had literally 4 decades of proof that it doesn't just jars on me

 

But you know that's never going to happen again, nor is it enough to cover everything the NDP wants to do, and it wouldn't be sustainable.

 

It's a convenient statement to make when the left is out of ideas.

 

Show me the NDP ideas on creating new industries.