Will Justin Trudeau Be One-Term Prime Minister?

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
SocialJustice101

Lots of baseless assumptions there, Martin N.   In fact, I work at one of Canada's largest corporations, and I've seen corporate corruption first hand.   You stop being such a blind believer in the free market, once you know how it works on the inside.

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. If you could wave a magic wand and make someone PM who would it be?

Andrew Scheer leading a Conservative Government or Jagmeet Singh leading an NDP Government.

Only choose one of the two listed above.

If I could wave a magic wand, it would not be at you dictating my choices. My choice is John Horgan leading a coalition government composed of progressive conservatives and NDP sans the loony left. Peace, order and good government.

 

John Horgan leading a federal NDP/Progressive Conservative coalition government would require one extremely powerful magic wand!

If I could have a magic wand my choice would be a federal NDP/Natural Law coalition government led by a rotating leadership committee consisting of Doug Henning, Audrey McLaughlan, Tommy Douglas, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Aldous Huxley, John Maynerd Keynes, Einstein, FDR, Rosa Luxemburg, Otto Von Bismark, Karl Marx, Groucho Marx, Muhammad Ali, Muhammad, Jesus, Mother Mary, Mary Magdeline, Marie Antoinette, Queen Mary, the Budha, Lord Krishna, Charles Darwin, and Christopher Hitchens.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So, Audrey McLaughlin it is.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
My choice is John Horgan leading a coalition government composed of progressive conservatives and NDP sans the loony left. Peace, order and good government.

Your use of the term "looney left" reveals your character. 

Mobo2000

JKR:   Nice that you put Christopher Hitchens in there.   I just finished his biography.   Shame he lost his mind around the Iraq war II, so let's get the before-2000 version in your utopian government.

greatwhite

He deserves to be a one term Prime Minister for breaking his promises on electoral reform.

What we don't need is another Conservative government. Both the cons and libs are following the same neoliberal agenda so either way working Canadians lose. Both are funded and in the service of corporations which get their way regardless of which of those parties are in power. The surveilance state continues unabated.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Your use of the term "looney left" reveals your character.

If you think that only the right can go so far to the pointy part of the bell curve as to be ridiculous, that reveals your naivete.  Of course the left can also be so pure as to be stupid.

JKR

Mobo2000 wrote:

JKR:   Nice that you put Christopher Hitchens in there.   I just finished his biography.   Shame he lost his mind around the Iraq war II, so let's get the before-2000 version in your utopian government.

I agree that except for the Iraqi War II he was very intelligent about most issues. I think his deep hatred of religious fundamentalism coupled with 911 drove him round the bend.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

greatwhite wrote:

He deserves to be a one term Prime Minister for breaking his promises on electoral reform.

What we don't need is another Conservative government. Both the cons and libs are following the same neoliberal agenda so either way working Canadians lose. Both are funded and in the service of corporations which get their way regardless of which of those parties are in power. The surveilance state continues unabated.

 

What you mean is "what we don't need is another Conservative or Liberal government"? The choice, as always, is between a fascist and a crook.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Your use of the term "looney left" reveals your character.

If you think that only the right can go so far to the pointy part of the bell curve as to be ridiculous, that reveals your naivete.  Of course the left can also be so pure as to be stupid.

I also lose respect for anyone's argument, left or right, when they resort to that sort of thing. It means their mind is 100% closed. They are just interested in sprouting propaganda and putting down their enemies rather than attempting to understand. 

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
My choice is John Horgan leading a coalition government composed of progressive conservatives and NDP sans the loony left. Peace, order and good government.

Your use of the term "looney left" reveals your character. 

Oh My! You can determine my character from such thin gruel? I have principles. But, if I am under threat of loss of respect from you, I can rummage in my tickle trunk for something more agreeable to you. 

Mocking the loony left - pardon moi, the extremist hysterical ideologue end of the leftist spectrum is necessary to allow for serious analysis of the sane end of the spectrum's policies. Ditto for the gun nuts, misogynists and assorted god lovin weirdos of the right. If we don't, the terrorists win!

How can we possibly mock Doug Ford for statements he did not make if those mockers are held as of better character than your humble servant?

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Your use of the term "looney left" reveals your character.

If you think that only the right can go so far to the pointy part of the bell curve as to be ridiculous, that reveals your naivete.  Of course the left can also be so pure as to be stupid.

I also lose respect for anyone's argument, left or right, when they resort to that sort of thing. It means their mind is 100% closed. They are just interested in sprouting propaganda and putting down their enemies rather than attempting to understand. 

I object. I have always had a 100% open mind although admittedly filled with the casual castoffs of uncertain passersby including some small suspicion of Trotskyist leavings. You, on the other hand are humourless and judgemental to a degree that will make even a Presbyterian cringe.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They are just interested in sprouting propaganda and putting down their enemies rather than attempting to understand.

Propaganda sprouts are a great source of vitamin J12.

More to the point though, don't you dismiss huge swaths of people as nothing more than "oligarchs"?  Like, all the damn time?

Is anyone so obviously dismissable as to be dismissable?  Tell us.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
My choice is John Horgan leading a coalition government composed of progressive conservatives and NDP sans the loony left. Peace, order and good government.

Your use of the term "looney left" reveals your character. 

Oh My! You can determine my character from such thin gruel? I have principles. But, if I am under threat of loss of respect from you, I can rummage in my tickle trunk for something more agreeable to you. 

Mocking the loony left - pardon moi, the extremist hysterical ideologue end of the leftist spectrum is necessary to allow for serious analysis of the sane end of the spectrum's policies. Ditto for the gun nuts, misogynists and assorted god lovin weirdos of the right. If we don't, the terrorists win!

How can we possibly mock Doug Ford for statements he did not make if those mockers are held as of better character than your humble servant?

I don't mock people, at least I try not to. Not even misogynists. I don't consider it "humour". People on the left may be extreme and ideologues but I don't think they are particularly hysterical. The terms you use suggest mental illness, also unfunny. If people really are "looney" they don't deserve to be mocked. 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
They are just interested in sprouting propaganda and putting down their enemies rather than attempting to understand.

Propaganda sprouts are a great source of vitamin J12.

More to the point though, don't you dismiss huge swaths of people as nothing more than "oligarchs"?  Like, all the damn time?

Is anyone so obviously dismissable as to be dismissable?  Tell us.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to command')[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobilitywealthfamily tieseducation or corporatereligious or military control. Such states are often controlled by families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.

Referring to oligarchs is referring to a specific segment of the population, like "politicians" or "farmers".  I am certainly not dismissive of oligarchs. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Referring to oligarchs is referring to a specific segment of the population, like "politicians" or "farmers".

Except that you could probably name politicians, and maybe even farmers.

"Oligarchs" are just the left wing version of "the deep state" unless you can point to actual, real humans.

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
My choice is John Horgan leading a coalition government composed of progressive conservatives and NDP sans the loony left. Peace, order and good government.

Your use of the term "looney left" reveals your character. 

Oh My! You can determine my character from such thin gruel? I have principles. But, if I am under threat of loss of respect from you, I can rummage in my tickle trunk for something more agreeable to you. 

Mocking the loony left - pardon moi, the extremist hysterical ideologue end of the leftist spectrum is necessary to allow for serious analysis of the sane end of the spectrum's policies. Ditto for the gun nuts, misogynists and assorted god lovin weirdos of the right. If we don't, the terrorists win!

How can we possibly mock Doug Ford for statements he did not make if those mockers are held as of better character than your humble servant?

I don't mock people, at least I try not to. Not even misogynists. I don't consider it "humour". People on the left may be extreme and ideologues but I don't think they are particularly hysterical. The terms you use suggest mental illness, also unfunny. If people really are "looney" they don't deserve to be mocked. 

I am rendered speechless by such intellectual dirigisme. Trudopia achieved - an intellect a mile wide and an inch deep effortlessly (by one known for husbanding effort) coalescing progressive thought. I find myself too distraught to mock even a Presbyterian, never mind such a colossus as D. Ford.

Pondering

lol

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

"Oligarchs" are just the left wing version of "the deep state" unless you can point to actual, real humans.

I can think of five individuals/families off the top of my head. And I'm not confusing "oligarchs" with any random billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, I'm talking actual (generally) intergenerational oligarchs that are well-known to wield massive political influence with major western political parties/groups/etc. Actual puppetmasters. You can't?

Cody87

Okay Google. "Who owns New Brunswick?"

Martin N.

Cody87 wrote:

Okay Google. "Who owns New Brunswick?"

The frozen freedom fries guy? The same guys who own the defence budget? The cast of Deliverance?

Badriya

Martin N. wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Okay Google. "Who owns New Brunswick?"

The frozen freedom fries guy? The same guys who own the defence budget? The cast of Deliverance?

I was curious, Cody 87, so googled your question.  Surprise! Surprise!  This came up third.  I think your question was rhetorical, but it was great to have it confirmed.

http://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/family-owns-new-brunswick/

 

Pondering
WWWTT

What thread am I in again?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Not the one you hoped for?

WWWTT

I wasn’t hoping for anything. I just assumed that posters were discussing what the thread titles suggested. If readers have to go on hope when clicking on a thread title, babble is in some trouble!

Pondering

Readers have had to go on hope for some time. 

It happens mostly in threads when the initial topic has been exhausted

SocialJustice101

More on the topic at hand, here's today's Nanos Data Tracker update:

Lib 39.14%

Con 33.67%

NDP 16.45%

Grn 6.52%

BQ 2.43%

http://www.nanosresearch.com/data

JKR

To improve their chanced of winning the federal election in 2019, I think many federal Liberals are secretly praying that the PC's under Doug Ford win the upcoming Ontario election. I think they would love to see the end of Wynne's very unpopular government. I think many of them are also secretly hoping CAQ wins the upcoming Quebec election this fall. They may also be secretly hoping to see a UCP government led by Jason Kenney in Alberta next spring.

Martin N.

JKR wrote:
To improve their chanced of winning the federal election in 2019, I think many federal Liberals are secretly praying that the PC's under Doug Ford win the upcoming Ontario election. I think they would love to see the end of Wynne's very unpopular government. I think many of them are also secretly hoping CAQ wins the upcoming Quebec election this fall. They may also be secretly hoping to see a UCP government led by Jason Kenney in Alberta next spring.

Only federal Liberals?

SocialJustice101

JKR,  Chantal Hebert described it as Justin Trudeau's nightmare scenario.   He does need Lib/NDP provincial governments to go-along with his environmental agenda and other issues.

Cody87

Badriya wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Okay Google. "Who owns New Brunswick?"

The frozen freedom fries guy? The same guys who own the defence budget? The cast of Deliverance?

I was curious, Cody 87, so googled your question.  Surprise! Surprise!  This came up third.  I think your question was rhetorical, but it was great to have it confirmed.

http://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/family-owns-new-brunswick/

Well, when I said I could think of 5 oligarch families off the top of my head, it was the Rockfellers, the Rothschilds, the Koch brothers, an individual I won't speak of here, plus "what was the name of those guys in New Brunswick again?" So to remember their names I literally put "who owns New Brunswick" into Google (as if you can "own" a province), but 'strangely' Google knew exactly what I was talking about (first hit for me), just as if you actually 'could' own a province...

In the context of the thread, can you imagine the political upheaval if a political party decided to work on actually addressing THAT sort of concentrated power instead of a percent or two changes to the corporate or personal income tax rates?

Thomas Mulcair: "We should raise corporate taxes by 2%!"

Justin Trudeau: "No, we should cut the middle income bracket by 1.5%"

Real Canadians: "Um, it's gonna take more than a minor tax tweak to fix the fact that just two guys figuratively own an entire province...and that's just what we know about"

It's April. The NDP should raise a stink about the Canadians listed in the Panama Papers and other similar leaks that Trudeau is protecting. If young families with two working parents and modest incomes have to pay 25% of that income in income tax (to say nothing of GST, property taxes, etc...and even renters pay property tax because the landlords price that tax into the rent), then the super rich families should as well.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

This whining about taxes is more right-wing bullshit. Why am I reading it here?

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

This whining about taxes is more right-wing bullshit. Why am I reading it here?

This is not just a complaint about taxes. The left must talk about the value of taxing fairly and not cede that to the right as a right wing issue. To give the right the field is to allow a right wing vision of taxes to prevail -- And guess what? That is exactly what the NDP has often done.

Taxes really are a share in a common enterprise. The Social Credit were not wrong about that. The left has to present its vision of what that share is, what you get for that share, and what the enterprise looks like. As it is now the share you get for your taxes is more based on what you pay rather than indiviual worth as a human -- you see this in campaign finance and across society. The share is also resented becuase there is no concept of the value of what it is we are paying for or perception that the proportion is fair. There is not even a clear concept of a shared enterprise, public good. The left also has to talk about how you get that share and the value of labour and remuneration. It also has to address the value of human being and what that is worth. To define what the share is for and to define the equality of individuals with those who are asked to pay a greater share, because they have more, is essential. We have to defend the idea that each person's share has the same value even if that share costs a different amount ot each person -- but that cost is their fair payment for their fair share.

In terms of human evolution into a more civilized society we are just starting a conversation about the value of labour and remuneration at a time of cultural, political, technological change that is leading to greater inequality.

Giving the right exclusivity over the conversation about government finance, the investment we make into it, what it must do, and where we get that investment from is fundamental. Giving up on it is an admission of failure.

Let's do some whining about taxes because they are not designed to create a better society and let's commit to never giving the converation to the current winners of that debate.

And this conversation is part of why I am here. This is what I want to engage in. So please do not dismiss a subject area that is fundamental to what many are here to discuss.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

This whining about taxes is more right-wing bullshit. Why am I reading it here?

This is not just a complaint about taxes. The left must talk about the value of taxing fairly and not cede that to the right as a right wing issue. To give the right the field is to allow a right wing vision of taxes to prevail -- And guess what? That is exactly what the NDP has often done.

Taxes really are a share in a common enterprise. The Social Credit were not wrong about that. The left has to present its vision of what that share is, what you get for that share, and what the enterprise looks like. As it is now the share you get for your taxes is more based on what you pay rather than indiviual worth as a human -- you see this in campaign finance and across society. The share is also resented becuase there is no concept of the value of what it is we are paying for or perception that the proportion is fair. There is not even a clear concept of a shared enterprise, public good. The left also has to talk about how you get that share and the value of labour and remuneration. It also has to address the value of human being and what that is worth. To define what the share is for and to define the equality of individuals with those who are asked to pay a greater share, because they have more, is essential. We have to defend the idea that each person's share has the same value even if that share costs a different amount ot each person -- but that cost is their fair payment for their fair share.

In terms of human evolution into a more civilized society we are just starting a conversation about the value of labour and remuneration at a time of cultural, political, technological change that is leading to greater inequality.

Giving the right exclusivity over the conversation about government finance, the investment we make into it, what it must do, and where we get that investment from is fundamental. Giving up on it is an admission of failure.

Let's do some whining about taxes because they are not designed to create a better society and let's commit to never giving the converation to the current winners of that debate.

And this conversation is part of why I am here. This is what I want to engage in. So please do not dismiss a subject area that is fundamental to what many are here to discuss.

Thank you, Sean, although I should clarify that my complaint wasn't that the tax rate is unfair for those of modest means. My complaint is that it's unfair that the extremely wealthy can evade their fair share - or any share, really - of the tax burden by offshoring their accounts or other accounting tricks, and the current government (as well as the previous conservative one) is not only tolerant of such but likely directly complicit. They can make a big show of giving a small cut to the lower end and raising the top bracket, but it doesn't matter what the top bracket is if those who are in it aren't paying anyway.

@progressive17: I was unaware that the rich evading taxes was a right wing talking point. My bad.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So to remember their names I literally put "who owns New Brunswick" into Google (as if you can "own" a province), but 'strangely' Google knew exactly what I was talking about (first hit for me), just as if you actually 'could' own a province...

The reason Google "knew exactly what you were talking about" is because someone who believes as you do said "XXXXX owns New Brunswick".

It's not some advance AI algorithm.

Quote:
My complaint is that it's unfair that the extremely wealthy can evade their fair share - or any share, really - of the tax burden

Well, if we want to drill down a little deeper (and be honest about it) your complaint is that you believe that the share "the rich" pay isn't "fair".

People like to use the term "fair share" as though it's as objective as "the circumference of a circle of radius 1 unit").

I don't think you'd find an activist -- nor, to be fair, a government -- ready to express that "fair share" using the digits 0-9 and a % and then stick with it, since that's the definition of "fair share".  If you'd like to take a stab at it, we can discuss.  And while you're concretizing into actual numbers, now and forever, maybe tell us who's "the rich", also using numbers.

Martin N.

The entire taxation issue boils down to one's payment of a 'fair share' of taxes or 'other peoples money' being less than one's return in services or social benefits. The issue is impossible to reach a consensus on because it has devolved from a fiscal to a moral issue.

The politician's job scope entirely consists of conjuring up illusions that this is the case. Even if the tale of Jesus and his fish and loaves were reality today, he would be villified for not meeting demand.

Martin N.

If a citizen has a legal and moral responsibility to pay their 'fair share', does the state not also have a legal and moral responsibility to return a 'fair share' to the citizen?

In the case of Canada's defence budget as a more glaring example, friends of government, ( carefully not mentioning certain province-owning private enterprise) manage to consume considerable amounts of public funds (other people's money) while not providing the services requires - hence requiring more funding.

Should the premise of 'fair share' not be equally focused on return as well as payment of taxes?

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Lots of baseless assumptions there, Martin N.   In fact, I work at one of Canada's largest corporations, and I've seen corporate corruption first hand.   You stop being such a blind believer in the free market, once you know how it works on the inside.

They are not baseless assumptions, they are baseless slander. I'm not a blind believer in anything, especially corporate corruption because making more than chump change at it requires the enabling efforts of government corruption.

Which brings us back to 'fair share'. If one can wave a magic wand and plug the leaks in the public purse caused by misadventure, how much better will the taxpayers' lot improve?

SocialJustice101

Martin N.,  corporate corruption is caused by lack of government enforcement of existing regulations which are supposed to protect consumers, employees, investors and the stability of the economy overall.  An underfunded government cannot do its job effectively.    You don't expect crime rate to go down if you cut funding to the police.    Both corporations and governments are stacked with 1 percenters, but at least governments are accountable to voters.   Corporate CEOs and execs get away with robbing their companies blind and then leaving their employees and investors in the dust.

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, if we want to drill down a little deeper (and be honest about it) your complaint is that you believe that the share "the rich" pay isn't "fair".

People like to use the term "fair share" as though it's as objective as "the circumference of a circle of radius 1 unit").

I don't think you'd find an activist -- nor, to be fair, a government -- ready to express that "fair share" using the digits 0-9 and a % and then stick with it, since that's the definition of "fair share".  If you'd like to take a stab at it, we can discuss.  And while you're concretizing into actual numbers, now and forever, maybe tell us who's "the rich", also using numbers.

Well, I'm not disagreeing that it's unclear what a "fair share" is when it comes to taxing high income earners. But I think many people, including some of the super wealthy such as Warren Buffet, would agree that whatever the "fair share" is, it's "at least as much, as a percentage, as what ordinary people pay."

I don't particularly care if you tax the extremely wealthy at 8% or 15% or 50%. What I do care about is that whatever amount they actually pay is not less, as a percentage of their total income, than what I and other ordinary earners like me pay.

And as far as who "the rich" are, this is in the context of offshore accounts, so if you weren't trying to be obtuse you could infer "anyone who has the means and wealth to make offshore accounts worthwhile." But realistically, you could just state my position as "people who make less shouldn't pay a greater share of their income in taxes than people who make more." Whether someone is "rich" by whatever arbitrary definition is irrelevant. By many metrics, we're almost all rich in Canada.

Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Martin N.,  corporate corruption is caused by lack of government enforcement of existing regulations which are supposed to protect consumers, employees, investors and the stability of the economy overall.  An underfunded government cannot do its job effectively.    You don't expect crime rate to go down if you cut funding to the police.    Both corporations and governments are stacked with 1 percenters, but at least governments are accountable to voters.   Corporate CEOs and execs get away with robbing their companies blind and then leaving their employees and investors in the dust.

Pretty much what I said above except the 'underfunding' part. This is my point: is government underfunded or, is government more concerned with their own entitlements and enabling corruption than they are with returning value to the citizenry.

Governments are accountable to the voters? How's that working out? Trudashian basically flipped Parliament the bird when questioned about his India costume party.

Every protection is hollowed out from food inspections to fisheries enforcement, from police services to prosecutions to prisons but bureaucrat expenses and travel, Trudashian's vacations and gadfly foreign adventures have no end. Friends of government fill their pockets while the little folks have their pockets picked.

SocialJustice101

Trudeau's India trip was not as wasteful as Harper's.   You don't expect the PM to sit at home to save money.   They are supposed to be making connections around the world.

Anything the government spends is still pocket change compared to bonuses received by CEOs and execs of bankrupted companies.   

 

Sean in Ottawa

This discussion of fair share seems to leave out the concept that it is reasonable to consider ability to pay as a part of determining fair. This is not an unusual concept. It is also a fact that wealthier people benefit significantly from government spending -- many studies on this -- more than the small transfers to impoverished people. They have access to and use more of what the government subsidizes. This includes security (they have more to protect and the police are more responsive to greater losses), they use roads more on average and airports -- just to start. Consider the difference betweeen subsidies to improve energy use for home owners and the lack of requirements that landlords do this -- and if they do, they get to raise the rent. Many government services are provided at cost to everyone but to the greater benefit of those with more money, yet people think only of social assistence.

In any case I did not invent this so you can certainly look up the studies. The issue is wealthier people ahve greater ability to pay and derive significantly more than people who earn less. the idea that rich people think everyone should pay the same amount or percentage is their propaganda or misunderstanding but it is not the only determination of what is fair. The fact that the left too often shies away from the conversation to focus on entitlements is a significant part of the reason we have a culture of assumptions supporting wealthy people's definitions of fair.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

It would seem that the concept of fairness is not a human invention, but is shared by at least many other primates. In my opinion, this means that any theory of fairness that humans come up with will not only have to be logical, but also pass the subconscious "gut feeling test" or it will fail to convince people.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Someone here said that "middle class people" pay 25% of their income in taxes, which threw me into a rage. I make $29,139 per year as a robot, with no dependents. I am therefore subject to the highest tax rate. My Canadian tax is $1,780, and my Quebec tax is $1,945. Thus my total tax is $3,725, which is a combined income tax rate of 12.78%. Not fucking 25%. I don't know how much you would have to make to pay 25%, but it would be a lot more than I made. So quit your fucking whining about taxes. Instead, like a good left-wing person, fight for social housing, to take demand away from landlords, and keep rents down for people such as I. As a left-wing person, fight for infrastructure jobs so that someone like I might have the privilege of paying 25% in tax, and might drive wages up at the place I am working now. Fight for 8 weeks paid holidays so we robots can go for downtime and servicing. Fight for $15 an hour to start, and then $22. Fight for higher pension payments, going to full pay. The taxes will take care of themselves.
 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They have access to and use more of what the government subsidizes. This includes security (they have more to protect and the police are more responsive to greater losses), they use roads more on average and airports -- just to start.

This seems a bit illogical.  I don't think that the rich use more medical care than the poor (in fact, I thought it was the other way around).  I've never heard anyone suggest that they use more Fire services.  If, in fact, they use more Police services that's because more people understandably want to rob them.

As far as road use, I would expect that's primarily a function of how far you live from the places you need to go.  Surely, the rich have better opportunity to jump in a car and drive for the heck of it, but do they?

On the flip side, are the rich MORE likely to use public transit?  Legal Aid?  Meaningfully more garbage pick-up, sewer services, and water?  Are they more likely to use libraries?  Do they benefit more from the military?  Do their kids cost more to educate?

Quote:
In any case I did not invent this so you can certainly look up the studies.

I probably won't spend my evening looking up studies to prove you right and me wrong.  I'll just say that I don't really think the things the government provides as a public good are gobbled up by the rich who then don't pay at least what they actually cost for them.  And really, as soon as we start talking about those things in a commodity sense (e.g. the actual price of water or the actual cost of a library) then it's not unreasonable to wonder why the rich should pay more than anyone else for them.  If the price of a bag of chips is a dollar for the poor, it really makes no sense to say the same bag of chips should cost $36 if you're rich.  Not when the cost of producing those chips is about $0.28, and the convenience store gets their same $0.30 profit regardless.

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

The taxes will take care of themselves.
 

Wow on the rest.

On this -- respectfully, no. That strategy is not working. Taxes are how we pay for these things. You cannot have the public money unless you are prepared to defend it.

I am nto getting into an argument of what the middle class is -- I have talked about the fact that it is a meaningless term. Median income is somewhere between 40k and 50k.

The importance of tax fairness is on the one hand it funds all the things we want. On the other hand, most of the money paid in tax comes from the earners in the 35-75k range. It is not that they pay more but that there are so many more of them. If you want to elect a government willing to do anything other than cut taxes you have to have that bulk of the population feeling like they are getting a fair deal. You also do have to try to engage the group earnign a little more than them. The reason is political: we have elections and if people do not think their investment is fair they want to withdraw their investment -- no money -- no programs. This is why lower income people end up voting for right wingers who screw them more -- becuase so many in this critical income range think they are being screwed. The argument of what is fair and where the money is coming from being left to the right has led us to a situation where an NDP leader in the last election did not have the guts to say he woudl raise taxes or run a deficit to do any of the things that needed to be done. No, the tax argument does not take care of itself -- the right wing win it. When the left loses this argument, government is too poor to do anything and any concept of public good vanishes and you get working people voting against their interests.

So great that you understand but there are political realities and too many people in your income range vote conservative becuase they think they are being screwed over taxes. You have to engage the government finances both on where the money comes from and where it is going -- and why it is fair that people pay according to means.

To answer your question -- the answer depends on if you are talking about all taxes or not. When it comes to tax burden that is a reasonable figure. So most people pay Federal income tax, Provincial income tax, HST, Property taxes and other duties. Depending on who you ask the amount is much higher than 25% in total.

Most people actually do not even know how much they pay --for example the average renter pays thousands in property taxes that are included in their rent.

My guess is that you pay more than 25% in taxes if you add the property tax in your rent and the sales taxes to your income taxes. Many sales taxes are hidden. For example food is zero-rated but not exempt meaning that every time the goods change hands from supplier to supplier tax is applied and it is in the final price but that price have it on the final number. So most do not know they are paying tax when they buy food. (Exempt means that the tax is claimed back an removed from each transaction -- very few items are exempt.) These invisible taxes are also regressive so that while you pay 12% in income taxes you probably pay almost as much in property taxes while a higher income person would pay much less in property taxes as a share of income. One more thing: apartment buildings have a commercial higher millrate than residential buildings, meaning that the percentage of property tax included in an apartment rent is a higher proportion of the value of the property than a residential homeowner would pay.

Now once you realize how much tax you are paying, as some do, it is  relevant to what you can do for yourself, it is relevant what others pay and it is a political election issue. Ignoring this is defeatist. Winning the tax argument is very important to addressing any needed spending. Losing it is how in Ontario is part of how we could get Ford as premier.

NorthReport

Wow, I mean just wow!

Gary is one of the few mainstream press reporters who often seems to have his finger on the pulse of the nation. 

Why a pipeline could cost Justin Trudeau the next election

 

Perhaps Mr. Trudeau was hoping Mr. Horgan and Ms. Notley would solve their feud like two adults. But that was a risky strategy. Regardless, beyond repeating his mantra – “the pipeline will get built” – Mr. Trudeau did nothing, and looked incredibly lame in the process. Only when Kinder Morgan threatened to walk away from the project – and the story became big news in central Canada, too – did it prompt an emergency cabinet meeting and talk of some type of sanctions against B.C.

But that will not be so easy.

Mr. Trudeau has painted himself into a corner. By allowing this matter to escalate to the point it has, anything Ottawa does now will look like a desperate overreaction. And many of those possible paths are fraught with peril. Economic sanctions, for instance, would hurt all British Columbians, most of whom are innocent bystanders in this war. That would do the Liberals no good. They would go from possibly maintaining a few seats in the next election to being wiped out entirely.

The government could join B.C. in its planned court action, in the hopes of getting it expedited. But that would lend credence to a process Ottawa maintains is without merit. Finance Minister Bill Morneau seems to have ruled it out anyway. Or, maybe the government joins Alberta in taking a financial stake in the pipeline, sending the signal that this project is not going away any time soon. That may be the most practical route for Mr. Trudeau at this point.

But he’s really in a no-win situation.

If he does succeed in pushing the pipeline through, he’ll anger people in Metro Vancouver where most of the opposition to the venture is based. But he would also get little credit in Alberta, or the neighbouring jurisdictions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where there is a common view he made a hash out of this issue unnecessarily.

The cruel truth is this pipeline has made Mr. Trudeau more vulnerable politically than at any point in his mandate. And the fallout could have dire political consequences for him.

 

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-a-pipeline-could-cos...

Sean in Ottawa

This article is very odd in a number of ways. First it does not acknowledge that the issue is not one of non-adults when it comes to AB and BC but fundamental differences in the mandates and positions of the people of the two provinces.

Secondly. it is not Trudeau's decision that leaves him vulnerable but the fact that he got a coalition of people by promising an impossible solution to both sides. While many here will hate the decision, politically, Trudeua is likely takeing the least bad position he could take.

The ultimate victory for Trudeau is to deliver a solution to the impasse -- some way of satisfying all sides. Recognizing that this is likely impossible, if you look at politics alone, the calculations are obvious.

Failing to build the pipeline: This puts in the view of the government the economy of Canada at risk. It also will put at risk seats everywhere the Conservatives are close to the Liberals so they would lose seats in Alberta and Ontario. The seats lost in alberta would be lost for a generation given the "Trudeau" history.

Building the pipeline: This loses seats to the NDP in a number of places but likely not to the Conservatives. Unless he loses a lot more to the NDP this alone may not lose him government even if it loses a majority.

It also favours the NDP government he is more in line with -- that of Notley who is tasked with holding back Jason Kenney over Horgan who is holding back the BC Liberal party. Building the piepline might be seen as reconciliation with Alberta for the NEP of a generation ago.

Inasmuch as you may not like what Trudeau is doing, it seems clear he is looking to the side his bread is buttered on. The advice given him by the G&M might be to do the opposite and favour the party the G&M prefers -- or is that too cynical?

The Conservatives have no advantage in Trudeau building the pipeline. The NDP do but are they strong enough to make that an existential threat to the LPC government? 

Despite protestations from some here that the NDP has to take votes from the Conservatives rather than the Liberals, the propostion of stopping the Conservatives usually lies with a presumtion that the Liberals hold their right flank. If the NDP eats enough of their left then the NDP can govern while if the Conservatives eat enough of the right then they can govern. Where the Liberals hold just enough of both then they govern. The Liberal stategy may be to hold back the NDP and buy enough support form other progressive or progressive sounding moves while delivering enough of the core ask of the right of centre. This pipeline is central to that strategy.

For this reason I do not think that Trudeau consider going against the pipeline and after exhausting any option to please everyone he will double down. I also do not think this will cost him the election unless he losesa lot more on a lot more issues and the risk of loses to the Conservatives, remains greater than to the NDP, especially when the Liberals will make enough inroads by faking left.

Trudeau may also be assuming that the Indigenous vote that came out to help him will fade away and not vote. Even if it did go NDP, it might not be that costly. It seems his words of reconciliation were only in the context of there not being a price for that.

Pages