Your suggestions for Jagmeet Singh

68 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture
Your suggestions for Jagmeet Singh

As in "here are some things you might want to think about doing as leader", rather than "I'm now going to tell you where you can go".

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Is he related to Jagmeet?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Shit!  I can't believe I did that.  Fixed now.  Thanks.

Caissa

Make your leadership opponents deputy leaders.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

I'd like for Jagmeet's proposal for a wealth transfer tax on anything over $1 million to include an exemption for primary residences, the way that Niki's did.

My parents own a house in Burnaby (which is immediately next to Vancouver and thus affected by Vancouver's sky high property values), and if Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax were implemented without an exemption for primary residences, there's a chance myself and my brother would have to pay this tax on some of the money we receive from our parent's house when we inherit it.

mark_alfred

Keep spreading the NDP message of fixing inequality, Indigenous reconciliation, climate change, and proportional representation.  Increasing the amount of people who are open to hearing the NDP's message will lead to success and government for the NDP in 2019.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Make your leadership opponents deputy leaders.

+1

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And the titles should be "deputy leader", not "lieutenant"-especially not "Quebec lieutenant", which implies some some sort of military-style structure in which Quebec and its "lieutenant" are there to take orders from a federal leaders who acts as the commander.

 

pietro_bcc

At some point the Liberals and Conservatives will tar him with some overarching critical narrative that they hope will define Singh. One that I'm currently predicting is that they'll say he's lazy, inexperienced and is more content to spend his time partying rather than doing his work in parliament (perhaps showing clips of Singh dancing like he did in Brampton and whatever parties he attends in the future.)

The key is Singh cannot allow such character assaults change how he acts. They accuse him of being a lazy partyer, go to a party the next day and dance even more, in the face of such criticism he cannot change who he is and suddenly become "serious", that projects fakeness and weakness.

This was one of the primary reason Mulcair is not currently the NDP leader and leading a significantly bigger caucus. The opposition accused him of being "Angry Tom", he internalized it and put on that "Smiling Tom" routine that exuded fakeness and weakness.

3 things matter in politics: name recognition, strength and likeability.

You back down and change who you are in the face of criticism, you're weak and fake. Hurting 2 of the key traits a politician needs.

Also call in all the consultants who worked on Mulcair campaign, fire them all and bring in Singh's own people, Mulcair didn't come up with that smiling Tom crap, some consultant told him he had to fight against the angry tom perception, when he should've embraced it and gotten angrier.

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

And the titles should be "deputy leader", not "lieutenant"-especially not "Quebec lieutenant", which implies some some sort of military-style structure in which Quebec and its "lieutenant" are there to take orders from a federal leaders who acts as the commander.

 

Agreed!

Get rid of the military war pig references.

WWWTT

Jagmeet if you are reading this brother, here's my two cents on where I feel the NDP needs to consider some focus on.

And thats vocaly supporting socialists on the international stage (and socialist movements) and speaking out against any and ALL military actions by Canada for whatever reason imagineable! This would also include domestic military style police force.

josh

Singh names Caron NDP leader in the house.

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/10/04/singh-names-caron-as-ndp-leader-in-commons/

An encouraging move since I thought he might name Cullen.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It sounds like the guy is off to a good start.

pietro_bcc

I wasn't expecting that, excellent choice. Will definitely help the NDP in Quebec to have question period being led by a Quebecker.

cco

My suggestion: Follow through with giving the rest of his rivals high-profile shadow cabinet positions. Seeing Niki Ashton as Finance critic, for example, would go a long way towards assuaging my fears. (Not that I think it's likely.)

Mighty Middle
cco

Is she suggesting he follow the Elizabeth May strategy of running in every by-election across all of Canada, losing repeatedly, becoming a bigger laughingstock all the while, until he wins somewhere, then adopting that location as his new home?

Don't get me wrong, I think he should have a seat too. It doesn't even need to be the riding he lives in, though hopefully it'd be somewhere nearby. I just think it should be somewhere he has actual interest in representing, not a community of convenience to get him into the House. Not to mention the NDP isn't exactly replete with "safe" seats these days.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Left Turn wrote:

I'd like for Jagmeet's proposal for a wealth transfer tax on anything over $1 million to include an exemption for primary residences, the way that Niki's did.

My parents own a house in Burnaby (which is immediately next to Vancouver and thus affected by Vancouver's sky high property values), and if Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax were implemented without an exemption for primary residences, there's a chance myself and my brother would have to pay this tax on some of the money we receive from our parent's house when we inherit it.

So taxes are OK unless you have to pay them? Sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

Mighty Middle

cco wrote:

Is she suggesting he follow the Elizabeth May strategy of running in every by-election across all of Canada, losing repeatedly, becoming a bigger laughingstock all the while, until he wins somewhere, then adopting that location as his new home?

Elizabeth May only ran in one by-elxn. When she and Greens realized that wasn't going to work, they concentrated all their resources in preparations for the riding that had the most Green support. The one she currently represents.

cco

I remember her running in London, Cape Breton, and then Saanich, though I suppose you're right that only one of those was a by-election, whereas the other two were general elections.

josh

Left Turn wrote:

I'd like for Jagmeet's proposal for a wealth transfer tax on anything over $1 million to include an exemption for primary residences, the way that Niki's did.

My parents own a house in Burnaby (which is immediately next to Vancouver and thus affected by Vancouver's sky high property values), and if Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax were implemented without an exemption for primary residences, there's a chance myself and my brother would have to pay this tax on some of the money we receive from our parent's house when we inherit it.

So?  Are you saying you should be able to inherit the house and not pay any inheritance tax on the proceeds if you sell it?

Mighty Middle

From Macleans

Why the NDP’s campaign failed to connect with voters. “More than anything, people respond to a message, a campaign, that evokes emotion [and] really speaks to the hearts of people,” he says. “That’s something that I do.”

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-on-his-path-to-the-...

Debater

Singh is right that emotion is a key part of winning campaigns.

American political scientist Drew Westen explores the scientific research behind emotion in his book, "The Political Brain".  It shows how it is usually the politicians who resonate with people emotionally (FDR, Reagan, Bill Clinton) who win elections.

And Singh is right that Trudeau did a much better job of resonating with voters emotionally in 2015 than Mulcair did.  Mulcair was lacking that emotional connection.  Singh probably has a better understanding of it.

Rev Pesky

From progressive17:

So taxes are OK unless you have to pay them? Sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

The money that bought the house was after tax money. The money that made the payments on the house for however many years was after tax money. Why would anyone want to tax that money again?

​The situation with real estate is different than the USA, where mortgage payments are tax deductible. In that case it is tax free (within the boundaries of the law) money that buys the house.

​In any case, it would  be almost impossible to enforce such an estate tax. Families would just gift the money to the children. Now, try telling people they can't gift money to their children and see how well that flies during an election.

josh

Why not tax it "again."  Because you didn't pay the prior taxes.  You're getting a house for free.

 

 

josh

Debater wrote:

Singh is right that emotion is a key part of winning campaigns.

American political scientist Drew Westen explores the scientific research behind emotion in his book, "The Political Brain".  It shows how it is usually the politicians who resonate with people emotionally (FDR, Reagan, Bill Clinton) who win elections.

And Singh is right that Trudeau did a much better job of resonating with voters emotionally in 2015 than Mulcair did.  Mulcair was lacking that emotional connection.  Singh probably has a better understanding of it.

Yes, the emotionally connection Stephen Harper made with people simply melted them and let him win 3 elections.

WWWTT

josh wrote:

Debater wrote:

Singh is right that emotion is a key part of winning campaigns.

American political scientist Drew Westen explores the scientific research behind emotion in his book, "The Political Brain".  It shows how it is usually the politicians who resonate with people emotionally (FDR, Reagan, Bill Clinton) who win elections.

And Singh is right that Trudeau did a much better job of resonating with voters emotionally in 2015 than Mulcair did.  Mulcair was lacking that emotional connection.  Singh probably has a better understanding of it.

Yes, the emotionally connection Stephen Harper made with people simply melted them and let him win 3 elections.

Sure Harper made the "emotional connection" with probably some or many people who voted conservative! Gun registry was a perfect example! Actually one of the best examples of emotionaly motivated political voting! Espesially when you consider the fact that once the gun registry was gone for good, the conservatives lost in the first following election! There's a phrase for it, "wedge issues".

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Debater wrote:

Singh is right that emotion is a key part of winning campaigns.

American political scientist Drew Westen explores the scientific research behind emotion in his book, "The Political Brain".  It shows how it is usually the politicians who resonate with people emotionally (FDR, Reagan, Bill Clinton) who win elections.

And Singh is right that Trudeau did a much better job of resonating with voters emotionally in 2015 than Mulcair did.  Mulcair was lacking that emotional connection.  Singh probably has a better understanding of it.

Yes, the emotionally connection Stephen Harper made with people simply melted them and let him win 3 elections.

Harper did not have an emotional connection with the population. He one in pite of not having one based on an anger against the Liberals in particular and the size of government in general and a desire by the well-off not to share the benefits of their wealth with the rest of the country. Greed and anger against another party are not emotional connections although they are certainly potent.

The left needs this kind of emotiuonal connection whereas the right can play on prejudice, anger and greed. We need to stop pretending that the strategies available to one party are necessarily available to them all which is also why Mulcair was dismal in the election -- he tried to imitate what parties that have different available voters and different histories and capacities do. The Liberals do have the advantage that they can walk across the road more than any other party on this -- but then they will be correctly be attacked for hypocrisy, inconsistency and broken promises.

The NDP needs that connection and we will see if Singh can make it. Trudeau, for his part, is on the other side of the hill and is starting to lose it as the reality of being everything for everyone and promising everything to everyone - and underdelivering -- is starting to wear thin. Trudeau m,ay have another win in 2019 but I don't think he has a three term capacity in part becuase the seeds of his failure were very much the seeds to his initial success. That stuff will catch up.

What history will show is whetehr the Conservatives are the beneficiary when Trudeau falters or whether the NDP can break that cycle and get in.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

josh wrote:

Debater wrote:

Singh is right that emotion is a key part of winning campaigns.

American political scientist Drew Westen explores the scientific research behind emotion in his book, "The Political Brain".  It shows how it is usually the politicians who resonate with people emotionally (FDR, Reagan, Bill Clinton) who win elections.

And Singh is right that Trudeau did a much better job of resonating with voters emotionally in 2015 than Mulcair did.  Mulcair was lacking that emotional connection.  Singh probably has a better understanding of it.

Yes, the emotionally connection Stephen Harper made with people simply melted them and let him win 3 elections.

What Harper had was an example of a negative emotional connection.  He connected with resentment, with bitterness, with hatred and fear of modern life and of the reality that Canada isn't now and never really was exclusively a land of aggressively "Christian" Anglo-European settlers.  It wasn't charisma, but it wasn't cold and dispassionate, either.

WWWTT

I should also add that I doubt Jagmeet is going to write off traditional conservative voters like the fake NDPers-actual liberals want him to do. I’m sure Jagmeet knows better than to try and demonize conservatives like the liberals want him to do. He’s already demonstrated this with the now famous right wing heckler that was confused with the differences of Islam and Sikh. 

Sean in Ottawa

Now for advice for Jagmeet Singh--

So far he is doing well. The decision to name Caron in the House was perfect.

What he has to do is deal with his greatest challenges:

1) The reponsiveness to members: The finances of the NDP are directly tied to resolving the feeling that members are only there to donate and not be heard. Singh has a large amount of support in a segment of the party. It is broader than some acknowledge but he has to grow and consolidate and provide mechanisms for the membership to be heard. This also means finding a way to get consensus behind policies the membership want to see as there are conflicts.

2) Singh has to resolve the accusation that he is too vague. This is a problem the party has had for some time. He has to be specific and defend positions. To start her has to establish positions in areas where he has been unclear. This has to produce guided by the reforms to give members a voice, policies that are life-changing, realistic. He has to deliver substance as he will not succeed generalities. There is a time for everything and running on a Obama hope platform is doomed to failure. Now hope will come from specifics only.

3) Singh will be tempted by the political world to engage in petty squables. He has to be very disciplined. I have said through three leaders here that the NDP loses momentum when it tries to gain from puffed up partisan crap. The NDP lodges many low-quality attacks with dubious benefit. If you learn to not speak when you have nothing important to say then people will listen. When you are a political party struggling to be heard, this is more important. If you speak about what is important and what is unimportant -- it is the unimportant things, and your mistakes that will be covered. If you have nothing important to say then you have to fix that and work harder rather than filling the air with garbage. This is especially true about scandals. Let the other parties and the media manage those unless you have a solution or unique point of view. The NDP has diminished itself often (as have other parties at times but the NDP cannot afford this) by getting into criticisms of other parties and leaders that were already being made and would have benefitted from the independent voices that were making them rather than having them policized by the NDP. Knowing when to shut up and let another dig their own grave is something politicians rarely know how to do. This is especially acute for the NDP if the NDP is only going to get one message out that week let it be somethign particular to them rather than a criticism that would benefit a third party and do nothing for the NDP. The NDP has to recognize that having benefits flow between Liberals and Conservatives does not help the NDP. They can do this becuase when they knock something off the other they usually benefit but when the NDP does it is one of the larger parties that benefits. So speak with passion, make connection and do it on your stuff and you will get heard and you will get the benefit. When you go on the attack choose only things where your attack will be devastating and where your position would not be represented by either the media or another party. So a scanadal that speaks to NDP priorities is worth going all out for. Turning dow the volume on the stuff any opposition party or even the media would say is needed.

4) You have to address Quebec well as they care little about you and do not know you and yet their support is needed for any chance at government or even official opposition. Quebec does not want to be kissed on the posterior . They want their issues heard, and acknowledged as priorities, they appreciate courage and will reward it. Double talking will really blow up there, in my opinion, since I think they are especially sensitive to it.

5) Target your appeals for support to those who would consider voting NDP. Don't worry about the opinions of those that would never consider voting NDP. For example a minority of Canadians would never vote for a a Sikh. But how many are the same poeple who would never consider voting NDP either? there is no sense trying to win over on one issue those who would not consider voting for you on another. this means really make sure you ahve the research available on what the voters are thinking -- not just statistically but the subset of potential voters who could be open to you and the collections of opinions held by the same people. In other words looking at the segmentation of opinions of those who matter rather than broad numbers that include the roughly 1/3 of Canadians are opposed to you

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

I'd like for Jagmeet's proposal for a wealth transfer tax on anything over $1 million to include an exemption for primary residences, the way that Niki's did.

My parents own a house in Burnaby (which is immediately next to Vancouver and thus affected by Vancouver's sky high property values), and if Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax were implemented without an exemption for primary residences, there's a chance myself and my brother would have to pay this tax on some of the money we receive from our parent's house when we inherit it.

So taxes are OK unless you have to pay them? Sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

josh wrote:
So?  Are you saying you should be able to inherit the house and not pay any inheritance tax on the proceeds if you sell it?

FYI, I'm on disability, anyone who's serious about fighting inequality would not want me to have to pay any tax on this portion of my inheritance.

My parents also own waterfront property on the Sunshine Coast, and I'd be ok with paying walth transfer surtax on this, just not on their primary residence.

The way that Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax proposal is currently worded, virtually everybody who inherits property in Vancouver (and Vancouver's inner suburbs like Burnaby) will have to pay an inheritance tax. Given that inheriting property is the only way that the vast majority of Vancouverites who do not currently own property will have any chance of getting into the property market, do you really think that placing a wealth transfer tax on primary residences is really fair?

Sean in Ottawa

Left Turn wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

I'd like for Jagmeet's proposal for a wealth transfer tax on anything over $1 million to include an exemption for primary residences, the way that Niki's did.

My parents own a house in Burnaby (which is immediately next to Vancouver and thus affected by Vancouver's sky high property values), and if Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax were implemented without an exemption for primary residences, there's a chance myself and my brother would have to pay this tax on some of the money we receive from our parent's house when we inherit it.

So taxes are OK unless you have to pay them? Sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

josh wrote:
So?  Are you saying you should be able to inherit the house and not pay any inheritance tax on the proceeds if you sell it?

FYI, I'm on disability, anyone who's serious about fighting inequality would not want me to have to pay any tax on this portion of my inheritance.

My parents also own waterfront property on the Sunshine Coast, and I'd be ok with paying walth transfer surtax on this, just not on their primary residence.

The way that Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax proposal is currently worded, virtually everybody who inherits property in Vancouver (and Vancouver's inner suburbs like Burnaby) will have to pay an inheritance tax. Given that inheriting property is the only way that the vast majority of Vancouverites who do not currently own property will have any chance of getting into the property market, do you really think that placing a wealth transfer tax on primary residences is really fair?

 

Actually I do. Sorry. The mechnism of having an exemption amount satisfies this perfectly. The reaons is that you can have a principal residence of $300k and one of $6 million within a kilometre. The argument you present does not convince me of having an exception for a principal residence. It does however, make the case that the amount cannot be national or arbitrary. I would be comfortable with a formula that taxes any part of a principal residence over the median value of a principal residence for the municipality. Given how property taxes are established, this is not hard to do. So if as of today the median average of a principal residenc ein Vancouver is 1.3 million, then the tax should start there. In Ottawa the figure is closer to $400k so the tax should start there for Ottawa. Any market that rises or falls would be preserved there. It is possible that some people in above-median value properties might not be able to finance and have to sell and buy a closer to median value house but this should not happen to an entire city based on a national average.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect to transfer wealth (including value over the median for a home in a given area) on the the next generation without paying tax. That tax also supports people who have no relatives leaving them anything. And we are not talking about an expropriation or huge amount of tax and we are not talking about a tax on mortgaged equity. If the tax was say 5% and the median house in Vancouver was $1.3 million and the property in questions was $2 million clear of encumberance I would not have a problem with a tax bill needing refinancing of 5% of $700,000 or $35,000 for a person getting an inheritance of $2 million. Yes, I think it is fair. In fact overdue.

Let me put this a different way: consider the implications of an excemption on principal home. Think about it. It would encourage the unnecessary indulgence of more and more monster homes designed to avoid estate taxes. There has to be a limit otherwise people will sell say a rental property in their portfolio in order to buy an incredibly wasteful principal home to avoid estate taxes. Some might evean want to build modern-day castles. We need an effective estate tax and it needs to have a basic exemption -- both in terms of non realestate holdings and realestate holdings over the median amount in each city. That would be fair.

Now I think that we could also add an increase to the basic real estate exemption as follows: additional amounts that are in a property that are needed due to disability if any (like a disabled person should be able to have a higher deductable for a bungalow if that is what they need).

Also it could be possible to consider a reduced hit if an inheritance is going to a lower income person (they have low income and their inheritance is mostly such a property). One way would be to allow a person 5 years of annual exemptions (retroactive) for amounts earned below a floor limit. So if a person inherited a house and was making say $20,000 per year that they get a higher deduction than a person earning $100,000 k a year for the period. It is not difficult to create such a mechanism for people with below meidan incomes and an inheritance of an above median value house.

In any case these are fornulas possible to make things fair. A blank check on principal residence will never be fair. Consider the person with a $10 million principal residence paying nothing and a person with two $300,000 houses paying ful on the second. Recognizing the differences in values from one city to another is essential of course.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Given that inheriting property is the only way that the vast majority of Vancouverites who do not currently own property will have any chance of getting into the property market, do you really think that placing a wealth transfer tax on primary residences is really fair?

Is it profoundly more unfair than your own assertion that the only way to ever own your own home in Vancouver is if your parents bought one and willed it to you?  Is there a bigger problem there??

NDPP

Palestine Was The Issue At Labour Party Conference

https://t.co/93pKIKyxl2

'Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn received his largest and loudest standing ovation at his party's conference when he called for an 'end to the oppression of the Palestinian people', and Israel's '50 year occupation and illegal settlement expansion.'

Jagmeet Singh: Are you up to doing the right thing?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Good question.

Mighty Middle

Canada already has one leader who’s known for his hair, Jagmeet Singh said, without naming any names. But his crown isn’t safe anymore. 

“I have more hair, and it’s longer, and it’s nicer,” he said. 

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-throws-down-the-gaun...

My suggestion is that Jagmeet needs to stop making direct comparisons between himself and Trudeau, and focus on  himself and what he can deliver. In short he shouldn't try to be the next Justin Trudeau, but the first Jagmeet Singh.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

I'd like for Jagmeet's proposal for a wealth transfer tax on anything over $1 million to include an exemption for primary residences, the way that Niki's did.

My parents own a house in Burnaby (which is immediately next to Vancouver and thus affected by Vancouver's sky high property values), and if Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax were implemented without an exemption for primary residences, there's a chance myself and my brother would have to pay this tax on some of the money we receive from our parent's house when we inherit it.

So taxes are OK unless you have to pay them? Sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

josh wrote:
So?  Are you saying you should be able to inherit the house and not pay any inheritance tax on the proceeds if you sell it?

FYI, I'm on disability, anyone who's serious about fighting inequality would not want me to have to pay any tax on this portion of my inheritance.

My parents also own waterfront property on the Sunshine Coast, and I'd be ok with paying walth transfer surtax on this, just not on their primary residence.

The way that Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax proposal is currently worded, virtually everybody who inherits property in Vancouver (and Vancouver's inner suburbs like Burnaby) will have to pay an inheritance tax. Given that inheriting property is the only way that the vast majority of Vancouverites who do not currently own property will have any chance of getting into the property market, do you really think that placing a wealth transfer tax on primary residences is really fair?

 

Actually I do. Sorry. The mechnism of having an exemption amount satisfies this perfectly. The reaons is that you can have a principal residence of $300k and one of $6 million within a kilometre. The argument you present does not convince me of having an exception for a principal residence. It does however, make the case that the amount cannot be national or arbitrary. I would be comfortable with a formula that taxes any part of a principal residence over the median value of a principal residence for the municipality. Given how property taxes are established, this is not hard to do. So if as of today the median average of a principal residenc ein Vancouver is 1.3 million, then the tax should start there. In Ottawa the figure is closer to $400k so the tax should start there for Ottawa. Any market that rises or falls would be preserved there. It is possible that some people in above-median value properties might not be able to finance and have to sell and buy a closer to median value house but this should not happen to an entire city based on a national average.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect to transfer wealth (including value over the median for a home in a given area) on the the next generation without paying tax. That tax also supports people who have no relatives leaving them anything. And we are not talking about an expropriation or huge amount of tax and we are not talking about a tax on mortgaged equity. If the tax was say 5% and the median house in Vancouver was $1.3 million and the property in questions was $2 million clear of encumberance I would not have a problem with a tax bill needing refinancing of 5% of $700,000 or $35,000 for a person getting an inheritance of $2 million. Yes, I think it is fair. In fact overdue.

Let me put this a different way: consider the implications of an excemption on principal home. Think about it. It would encourage the unnecessary indulgence of more and more monster homes designed to avoid estate taxes. There has to be a limit otherwise people will sell say a rental property in their portfolio in order to buy an incredibly wasteful principal home to avoid estate taxes. Some might evean want to build modern-day castles. We need an effective estate tax and it needs to have a basic exemption -- both in terms of non realestate holdings and realestate holdings over the median amount in each city. That would be fair.

Now I think that we could also add an increase to the basic real estate exemption as follows: additional amounts that are in a property that are needed due to disability if any (like a disabled person should be able to have a higher deductable for a bungalow if that is what they need).

Also it could be possible to consider a reduced hit if an inheritance is going to a lower income person (they have low income and their inheritance is mostly such a property). One way would be to allow a person 5 years of annual exemptions (retroactive) for amounts earned below a floor limit. So if a person inherited a house and was making say $20,000 per year that they get a higher deduction than a person earning $100,000 k a year for the period. It is not difficult to create such a mechanism for people with below meidan incomes and an inheritance of an above median value house.

In any case these are fornulas possible to make things fair. A blank check on principal residence will never be fair. Consider the person with a $10 million principal residence paying nothing and a person with two $300,000 houses paying ful on the second. Recognizing the differences in values from one city to another is essential of course.

Sean, your suggestions, while fair, are far too complicated to explain to voters in the few second soundbites that most voters are exposed to during an election. As such, your policy proposal would probably be a flop with voters.

Exempting primary residences, as Nikki Ashton's wealth transfer tax proposal did (and as the existing inheritance tax does), would be easy to convey in a soundbite.

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Given that inheriting property is the only way that the vast majority of Vancouverites who do not currently own property will have any chance of getting into the property market, do you really think that placing a wealth transfer tax on primary residences is really fair?

Is it profoundly more unfair than your own assertion that the only way to ever own your own home in Vancouver is if your parents bought one and willed it to you?  Is there a bigger problem there??

Yes it's unfair, which is why we need to look at non-market solutions to the housing crisis (read: housing co-ops).

I should add that the average one bedroom apartment rent in Vancouver is now over $2,000, and predictions are we will hit an average of $4,000 for a one-bedroom apartment in the next few years if nothing is done to contain rents.

The for-profit housing market has utterly failed to meet the needs of regular Vancouverites.

scott16

I wonder if he were to go on Tout le monde en parle if that would solve his QC problems.

Pondering

scott16 wrote:

I wonder if he were to go on Tout le monde en parle if that would solve his QC problems.

I'm sure he will and it would help. His support for Catalan separatists would certainly be noted. That would not hand him a win in Quebec but it would certainly get people to sit up and take notice. Even federalists such as myself believe that Quebec has a right to self-determination and are appalled at Spain's efforts to prevent the vote.

Mighty Middle

In an effort to appeal to Quebecers, Jagmeet Singh anounced today the NDP will be reversing their opposition to a Netflix tax. Starting today official NDP policy will be to implement a Netflix tax (which is popular in Quebec) if they form government in 2019.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

OK...why is taxing Netflix a popular thing in Quebec?  

Mighty Middle

n/a

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Why should that platform get a $500 million of taxpayers money without producing a single hour of french programming?

So taxpayers are cutting a half-billion dollar cheque for Netflix?  Can you tell us more?

Mighty Middle

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Why should that platform get a $500 million of taxpayers money without producing a single hour of french programming?

So taxpayers are cutting a half-billion dollar cheque for Netflix?  Can you tell us more?

Oops sorry got confused. Netflix is the one investing $500 million in the economy, not the government.

BUT

The $500 million is spread over five years, and that represents a relatively small fraction of Netflixs profits

France and Australia have imposed a "Netflix tax," and used that money to inject development funds into their film industries. Because Netflix has not committed to any french content, Quebec wants to do the same. As they worry Canadian TV/Film will suffer as a result of Netflix getting more popular. So the tax would help "prop up" the Canadian TV/Film industry. As Netflix is not subject to the same Canadian Content rules as other Canadian outlets.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The $500 million is spread over five years, and that represents a relatively small fraction of Netflixs profits

OK.  So?

Quote:
As they worry Canadian TV/Film will suffer as a result of Netflix getting more popular.

Another answer would be to compete by making things that are even more popular.

I've already seen (elsewhere) reference to the idea that Canadian producers suffer a grave disadvantage because they're limited by "Canadian content" rules.  But doesn't that pretty much say that Canadian viewers aren't that interested in "Canadian" content?  Or otherwise, why would they be disadvantaged by "having to" produce it?  I'm sure that Netflix mostly produces "American" content, but that doesn't seem to be holding them back.  And yes, a Civil War drama would be "American" content and a Plains of Abraham drama would be "Canadian" content, but a cop show?  A drama about paramedics?  A hospital comedy?  Couldn't anyone produce those and it's basically going to be the same thing?

 

Mighty Middle

But then why should some platforms like Crave TV have to have 30% Canadian Content, and Netflx doesn't?

In addition it is seen as an insult to Quebeckers that Netflix is spending all this money, but no commitment to French programming

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But then why should some platforms like Crave TV have to have 30% Canadian Content, and Netflx doesn't?

Are they located in Canada?  Is it because our government says they must?

I'm not saying that's even a good enough reason, but if they are located in Canada then that's probably the reason.

It's also why a company that's located in Quebec must have French-language signage and copy on their website, but a company located outside of Canada need not.

Quote:
In addition it is seen as an insult to Quebeckers that Netflix is spending all this money, but no commitment to French programming

But why should they commit to that?  Surely Netflix isn't solely available in the U.S., and Canada (including Quebec)?  Shouldn't they also have to make Bulgarian programming and Hindi programming and Hebrew programming because the internet reaches everywhere now?

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Thanks for the info, everybody.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But then why should some platforms like Crave TV have to have 30% Canadian Content, and Netflx doesn't?

Are they located in Canada?  Is it because our government says they must?

I'm not saying that's even a good enough reason, but if they are located in Canada then that's probably the reason.

It's also why a company that's located in Quebec must have French-language signage and copy on their website, but a company located outside of Canada need not.

Quote:
In addition it is seen as an insult to Quebeckers that Netflix is spending all this money, but no commitment to French programming

But why should they commit to that?  Surely Netflix isn't solely available in the U.S., and Canada (including Quebec)?  Shouldn't they also have to make Bulgarian programming and Hindi programming and Hebrew programming because the internet reaches everywhere now?

Netflix has separate per country content. This is why many people try to get American rather than Canadian Netflix.

The larger the audience the more cost effective the production. In places like Quebec local producers need help to produce Quebec content. Quebec values its culture so acts collectively to ensure it flourishes.

Pages