Home » Babble » current events » canadian politics
babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

NDP Leadership #96

107 replies [Last post]

Comments

Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
February 15, 2012 - 5:50pm
#91
1springgarden wrote:

If Mulcair wins the NDP leadership, progressives may find the Liberal party is able to campaign to the left of the NDP. Embracing "Third Way" politics - Is this what the leadership selection comes down to?

1springgarden, my fellow Haligonian... that's just nonsense on so many levels. If you actually cut through the crap that's out there, Tom is a progressive Canadian that Jack recruited to the NDP. Ask yourself this... who would run for the social democratic NDP in Quebec when it was in single digits and had only ever elected one MP, in a 1990 byelection? And in a riding that was Liberal for the last 80 years except for a brief period under Mulroney. It's also telling that some of our more left MPs, Philip Toone, Mathieu Ravignat, Dan Harris and others on the left like MLA Claire Trevena are supporting Tom. It seems to me he's attracting a pretty diverse group of New Democrats... yet you single out Dominic Cardy who I believe plays just an organizational role in the campaign. All the candidates in this race are good New Democrats. It's sad to see recently even attacks on Nathan Cullen for being a "sell out" and not a real New Democrat. They all have pretty much the same vision for a social democratic Canada. They differ on how to get there and in ability to attract voters to our party. Let's not have a witchhunt on who is a "real" New Democrat.

Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
February 15, 2012 - 5:53pm
#92
Termagant wrote:
Romeo Saganash specifically criticized Topp's tax plan during the Halifax debate, saying raising taxes is a toxic issue for the NDP. And on his website he said "I don’t think an income tax increase is the right way to go for Canada.
Shhh! That's ok though because it's someone we love :) Just like it wasn't a huge deal for Peggy's healthcare slip up (which for the record I think silly for anyone to question Peggy's committment to healthcare if they did). If Tom had made that slip, all hell would have broken loose lol

Termagant
Offline
Joined: Feb 12 2012
February 15, 2012 - 5:53pm
#93

Lord Palmerston wrote:

And he was wrong, in my opinion.  

And absolutely right that it's electoral death for the NDP, in my opinion! 


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004
February 15, 2012 - 5:54pm
#94

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

He's talking about a specific personal income tax bracket. There is more in the tax code than that. And I don't think we're going to get a massive amount of revenue from the top 0.7%... who take home 10% of the wealth and pay 20% of the tax bill.

Do you have a reference for this?


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004
February 15, 2012 - 5:59pm
#95

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

If you actually cut through the crap that's out there, Tom is a progressive Canadian that Jack recruited to the NDP.

Ask yourself this... who would run for the social democratic NDP in Quebec when it was in single digits and had only ever elected one MP, in a 1990 byelection? And in a riding that was Liberal for the last 80 years except for a brief period under Mulroney.

It's also telling that some of our more left MPs, Philip Toone, Mathieu Ravignat, Dan Harris and others on the left like MLA Claire Trevena are supporting Tom. It seems to me he's attracting a pretty diverse group of New Democrats... yet you single out Dominic Cardy who I believe plays just an organizational role in the campaign.

All the candidates in this race are good New Democrats. It's sad to see recently even attacks on Nathan Cullen for being a "sell out" and not a real New Democrat. They all have pretty much the same vision for a social democratic Canada. They differ on how to get there and in ability to attract voters to our party. Let's not have a witchhunt on who is a "real" New Democrat.

I know all this.  I agree with you.

How come nobody is able to tell me Mulcair's plan to deal with economic injustice?


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004
February 15, 2012 - 5:59pm
#96

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

1springgarden wrote:

If Mulcair wins the NDP leadership, progressives may find the Liberal party is able to campaign to the left of the NDP.

Interesting thought. It would be helpful if Mulcair would stop deferring his feelings on tax policy. He only seems capable of saying it is impossible to say until we "see the books". I think we all realize that tax and service cuts have been going on for some time, so this idea of social democracy in the closet (aka "move the centre to the left") as a winning strategy is bunk.
He's talking about a specific personal income tax bracket. There is more in the tax code than that. And I don't think we're going to get a massive amount of revenue from the top 0.7%... who take home 10% of the wealth and pay 20% of the tax bill. BTW... I don't recall Ashton or Cullen or Nash or Dewar say they support Brian's three point tax plan.

To my knowledge Mulcair hasn't yet committed to even increasing corporate income taxes (there's nothing on his site about it). I'm pretty sure the others have. He's only made vague statements of saying it's impossible to say until we "see the books". The over 250G tax would net nearly 3 billion, while the corporate tax would net near to 11 billion. These are tax breaks that over the past 20 yrs been given to the wealthy (and everyone knows this -- no need to "see the books") that can be redirected toward stuff like healthcare, education, green jobs, etc. It would be helpful if Mulcair would come out with his tax policy instead of preaching that social democracy should be in the closet ("move the centre to the left") and hiding behind this "must see the books first" nonsense.

Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:01pm
#97
wage zombie wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

He's talking about a specific personal income tax bracket. There is more in the tax code than that. And I don't think we're going to get a massive amount of revenue from the top 0.7%... who take home 10% of the wealth and pay 20% of the tax bill.

Do you have a reference for this?

You're making me look for it again? *sigh* Ok... I'll look... but just for you, wage :) It was on the CBC site.

Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:05pm
#98
Here it is, wage...
Quote:
For example, Canadians earning more than $250,000, or roughly the top 0.7 per cent of income earners, received nearly 10 per cent of all dollars but paid almost 20 per cent of all income taxes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/12/09/canadian-millionaires-t... ETA: I just realized the numbers are from the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. Doesn't mean the numbers are incorrect but could use further verification :)

Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:17pm
#99
mark_alfred wrote:
To my knowledge Mulcair hasn't yet committed to even increasing corporate income taxes (there's nothing on his site about it). I'm pretty sure the others have. He's only made vague statements of saying it's impossible to say until we "see the books". The over 250G tax would net nearly 3 billion, while the corporate tax would net near to 11 billion. These are tax breaks that over the past 20 yrs been given to the wealthy (and everyone knows this -- no need to "see the books") that can be redirected toward stuff like healthcare, education, green jobs, etc. It would be helpful if Mulcair would come out with his tax policy instead of preaching that social democracy should be in the closet ("move the centre to the left") and hiding behind this "must see the books first" nonsense.
I'll say again, mark... there are 5 weeks to go in this campaign. It's a LONG time. He has said he's releasing a tax plan. He knows there's need to increase revenues. And he has spoken out against corporate income tax cuts. He just differs with Topp on only focusing on one personal income tax bracket much like Saganash did. That's what that debate was about. In Nova Scotia for example, the ones who make over $250,000 in personal income pay half their income in taxes... if they pay what's on the books. Actually, it's those who make over $150,000 if I'm not mistaken. I do agree though that many may not due to loopholes, etc. Those do need to be looked at.

josh
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2002
February 15, 2012 - 6:18pm
#100
Unfortunately that is a typical bogus argument advanced by the right. What matters is what percentage of a taxpayer's income they pay in taxes. Not what percentage of the overall tax burden is paid. In any event, the richest paying 20% of the overall burden is low compared to the U.S.

Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:27pm
#101

I think it's wrong to suggest that we can find the revenue for a redistributionist social democratic agenda by finding "inefficiencies" and "closing loopholes" and not raise any taxes.  Not saying these things shouldn't be done (at least the latter), but let's not pretend its anywhere close to enough.  

Again, taxation as a % of GDP in Canada is low by OECD standards.   


Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:29pm
#102

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I think it's wrong to suggest that we can find the revenue for a redistributionist social democratic agenda by finding "inefficiencies" and "closing loopholes" and not raise any taxes.  

Again, taxation as a % of GDP in Canada is low by OECD standards.   

There are lots of other ways to increase revenue.

Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:31pm
#103

Really?  So you're saying we can have as extensive a welfare state and public programs as they do in the Scandinavian countries, but with about the same level of taxation as now?  


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:33pm
#104

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Here it is, wage...
Quote:
For example, Canadians earning more than $250,000, or roughly the top 0.7 per cent of income earners, received nearly 10 per cent of all dollars but paid almost 20 per cent of all income taxes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/12/09/canadian-millionaires-t... ETA: I just realized the numbers are from the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. Doesn't mean the numbers are incorrect but could use further verification :)

From the same article:

Quote:

But Armine Yalnizyan, a senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says wealthier Canadians should be taxed more, noting that according to data, Canadian millionaires are paying tax rates equivalent to those in the 1920s.

I trust the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives more than the Canadian Taxpayer Federation.  However, if some Mulcair fans prefer the latter, that's their prerogative, I suppose.

 

 


Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:37pm
#105
Lord Palmerston wrote:

Really?  So you're saying we can have as extensive a welfare state and public programs as they do in the Scandinavian countries, but with about the same level of taxation as now?  

Not at all. I strongly support increasing corporate income taxes and closing corporate loopholes.

Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
February 15, 2012 - 6:38pm
#106
-

Rebecca West
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001
February 15, 2012 - 6:40pm
#107

CFL


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments