Trudeau campaign 2015 part 2

615 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

More top down direction in the LPC, I guess the kid is a-chip-off-the-old-block, afterall, that is, Trudeaus's think they know what is best for everybody else but them:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/30/weber-steps-aside-in-scarborough-sout...

Pondering

Then the NDP supporters here should be feeling very confident and denouncing any hint of a coalition.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Then the NDP supporters here should be feeling very confident and denouncing any hint of a coalition.

What does your reply above have to do with anything Pondering?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Then the NDP supporters here should be feeling very confident and denouncing any hint of a coalition.

What does your reply above have to do with anything Pondering?

 

As far as I can tell both Mulcair and Trudeau do fine on the charisma scale. Harper not so much but he keeps winning elections anyway.

Attacking Trudeau based on his physical appearance is on the tacky side so suggests desperation or worse. Trying to corner Trudeau into agreeing to a coalition is more clever but the ploy of a losing party.

This thread is supposed to be about Trudeau's campaign but is frequently used to take random potshots at him which is fine but don't expect responses to be limited either.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Trudeau is not charismatic -- he does however, represent some kind of retro glory for the Liberal party. Many poeple seem to project on him whatever they want. That can work for a while.

ygtbk

Anyway, the big policy reveal is Real Soon Now:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-set-to-reveal-policy-agenda-focused-on-middle-class/article24229281/

Intentionally or not, the article makes it sound like JT's advisors are picking policies based on maximum differentiation vs. the Conservatives. This may be a good short term strategy but does not guarantee good policies.

My guess is carbon tax, legalized marijuana, and cut back TFSA's. But who knows - maybe there will be a surprise.

 

Pondering

Take note that Trudeau is not trying to present himself as a typical middle class Canadian family.

“Canadians who have done well have always been willing to help out in meaningful ways,” Trudeau said, explaining the tax on the rich. He added it is unfair for well-off families such as his and Harper’s to be receiving thousands of dollars in family tax breaks and child benefits. “We’re reinvesting in the people who actually need it,” Trudeau told reporters.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/04/trudeau-hike-taxes-on-rich...

This is only the beginning:

Trudeau said in the weeks ahead his party will also bring out policies to address the problems of “the working poor,” seniors’ issues and child care.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-delivers-speech-on-party-...

The details have been months in the works, tapping the expertise of a dozens of economists, and are a tightly held secret.

As I thought his team has actually been working on a plan.

 

Jacob Two-Two

Because they say so. Liberals wouldn't lie, would they?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, so far his "plan", is tax someone else, give people back money, and still no explanation where he is going to get the money for the rest of his promises. A child take break, big deal! What about all the other things that need to be done? Trudeau still hasn't said how's he going to pay for things. Its still a zero sum game. He's being too cute by hald. Of course you'd call this a plan. You have too.

ETA: Why won't you explain to us why it is good that the Liberal are attacking unions and that somehow this is going to be good for the Liberals? I know you think you can ignore issue, but NO ONE, who claims progressive credentials can in good concencience argue there is something wrong with a contract negotiated by a Union on behalf of its members which enjoys such widespread support among Canada's Union Leadership. Could you please explaing why this is bad?

pookie

It is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.

Glenl

pookie wrote:

It is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.

I agree

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Glenl wrote:
pookie wrote:

It is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.

I agree

You know Pookie, Tom Mulcair and the NDP had already proposed this. Stop acting like Trudeau is the first one that thought of it. This has been NDP policy in and out of Parliment for decades. And I KNOW, you know that. Tom already proposed this, and of course, the Libs are trying to steal it, because there's an election coming on. Seriously, spare me.

Glenl

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Glenl wrote:
pookie wrote:

It is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.

I agree

You know Pookie, Tom Mulcair and the NDP had already proposed this. Stop acting like Trudeau is the first one that thought of it. This has been NDP policy in and out of Parliment for decades. And I KNOW, you know that. Tom already proposed this, and of course, the Libs are trying to steal it, because there's an election coming on. Seriously, spare me.

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf

mark_alfred

pookie wrote:

It is refreshing and long overdue that a federal politican in this country is willing to increase the personal income tax.

Agreed.  But it's not for greater program spending.  Rather, it is so that a tax cut for middle income people can be implemented.  IE, it's being sold as "revenue neutral".  Thus, it's still promoting the concept of tax cuts.

Sean in Ottawa

The Liberal plan does not seem to tax more -- it takes from one group and gives to another. Certainly it looks like it will tax fairer. But the question is how can implementing a tax increase on a small population of higher earners to transfer to a larger population of middle income earners help fund any restoration of the capacity of government that the Conservatives have cut?

If this policy had come before the last few rounds of cuts, it may have helped rebalance tax rates but at this point a revenue neutral change in tax policy does not answer the questions about the fiscal room the government will be left with to carry out its mandate.

It may well be that the Liberals will choose not to answer these questions before the election.

 

mark_alfred

I'm not sure Mulcair did propose it.  Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did.  Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.

Glenl

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Liberal plan does not seem to tax more -- it takes from one group and gives to another. Certainly it looks like it will tax fairer. But the question is how can implementing a tax increase on a small population of higher earners to transfer to a larger population of middle income earners help fund any restoration of the capacity of government that the Conservatives have cut?

If this policy had come before the last few rounds of cuts, it may have helped rebalance tax rates but at this point a revenue neutral change in tax policy does not answer the questions about the fiscal room the government will be left with to carry out its mandate.

It may well be that the Liberals will choose not to answer these questions before the election.

 

I think it's at least a start to address a small part of income inequality. It doesn't fix much but it may start a dialogue in the right direction.

Glenl

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm not sure Mulcair did propose it.  Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did.  Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.

I can't find it in their policy book.
http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf

mark_alfred

Glenl wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

I'm not sure Mulcair did propose it.  Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did.  Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.

I can't find it in their policy book.
">http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf

It's there, actually (see below).  But it's not something Mulcair has really focussed on.

NDP Policy Book wrote:

1.7 Progressive and fair taxation

New Democrats believe in:

a.) A progressive tax system.

b.) Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages.

c.) Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.

d.) Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.

e.) Combatting tax shelters and money laundering

"a.)" and "d.)" are basically similar to what Trudeau announced.

Glenl

mark_alfred wrote:

Glenl wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

I'm not sure Mulcair did propose it.  Topp did, but I don't think Mulcair did.  Corporate tax increase yes, but not an increase in anyone's personal taxes, if I remember correctly.

I can't find it in their policy book.
">http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/policybook/2013-04-17-PolicyBook_E.pdf

It's there, actually (see below).  But it's not something Mulcair has really focussed on.

NDP Policy Book wrote:

1.7 Progressive and fair taxation

New Democrats believe in:

a.) A progressive tax system.

b.) Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages.

c.) Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.

d.) Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.

e.) Combatting tax shelters and money laundering

"a.)" and "d.)" are basically similar to what Trudeau announced.

No offence but that's a fair bit of interpretive reading.