A Liberal with a moustache?

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b] I've never understood the (populist) idea that a death tax is bad. Personally, I want my taxes lowered when I'm [i]living[/i]. [/b]

Sven, that's good. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Wow, this thread drifted into a discussion about childcare. But back to the discussion about the direction of the federal NDP.

You cannot have this discussion without examining what took place in the 3 provinces where the NDP is most successful electorally: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. With the federal party looking to improve its standings, it's no accident that the federal NDP looked that way and took notes. Unfortunately, the NDP in those 3 provinces moved rightward to become successful, and became one of the 2 parties. But this is the crucial difference that should be pointed out to the federal party. Unlike the federal scene, there are no viable 3rd parties in any province that can make an impact on local politics, the way Reform, the Bloc, and the NDP have been able to impact Parliament federally.

Something else that hasn't been discussed, but I think may have something to do with this, is that the federal NDP did not have a convention before the last election, unlike the other parties. So perhaps in a sense, the party didn't really know what it thought of anything, and had to rely more on polling and marketing than it otherwise should. (Does this idea make sense or not?)

BTW pink:

quote:

Originally posted by pink:
[b] The NDP get's it both for wanting and not wanting an inheritance tax. The posts from 'unionist' are tiresome and boring. Rest assured that anything the NDP does (tax or not tax - perfect example) will come under attack. Much better to support the Liberals - why let 12 years of ignoring the child care issue get in the way?

Taking a postion against the NDP is not trolling, taking EVERY position against the NDP is.[/b]


I agree, and I've [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005555&p=... him as much[/url] elsewhere.

Unionist

quote:


pink: Much better to support the Liberals - why let 12 years of ignoring the child care issue get in the way?

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]

I agree, and I've [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005555&p=... him as much[/url] elsewhere.[/b]


Aristotleded24, you vacillate between serious comments and temper tantrums when the NDP is challenged -- or, more properly, when you feel someone is accusing you of being a blind NDP supporter (which in the same thread you quote, I specifically disclaimed). But to agree with pink that I am a Liberal supporter? Isn't that taking your tantrum to the infantile stage? I despise the Liberal Party and everything they've done especially over the past decade. Can you actually point to a single post where I've said otherwise? Or can you retract a mistake when you've made one?

Aristotleded24

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b] Aristotleded24, you vacillate between serious comments and temper tantrums when the NDP is challenged -- or, more properly, when you feel someone is accusing you of being a blind NDP supporter (which in the same thread you quote, I specifically disclaimed). But to agree with pink that I am a Liberal supporter? Isn't that taking your tantrum to the infantile stage? I despise the Liberal Party and everything they've done especially over the past decade. Can you actually point to a single post where I've said otherwise? Or can you retract a mistake when you've made one? [/b]

Unionist, people love it when their positions are misrepresented, you should do that more often. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

I didn't intend to suggest that you are a Liberal supporter, I was merely seconding pink's other points about your general contributions to this board.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]
I didn't intend to suggest that you are a Liberal supporter, I was merely seconding pink's other points about your general contributions to this board.[/b]

Thanks for that correction. But scroll up. When pink said: [i]What's 'unbelievable' is that anyone takes 'unionist' seriously, when she/he continually trolls this board[/i], I replied:

"I guess your emotionally-charged witchhunt type of comment also applies to my views on support for the Palestinian people's struggle and my views that Canada should get out of Afghanistan now?"

No one has any business dehumanizing anyone else or dismissing their seriously presented views by using words like "troll", unless of course you sincerely believe that my mission here is disruption of serious discussion. If you do, then I apologize for wasting both of our time. Otherwise, I ask you to reconsider expressions like "troll" or "get lost" (another of yours). I keep saying I don't think you really mean these things, but I stand to be corrected.

Vansterdam Kid

Well...it seems like all your comments vis a vis the NDP are negative, so the assumption that people are going to make is that every comment you make vis a vis the NDP are specifically designed to "troll" negative reactions from them.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I can certainly understand how uncritical, craven apologists for the NDP could find it disconcerting to see that some people actually criticize their party from the left, as well as from the right.

I can also certainly understand why they would be motivated to try to shut down such criticism by making collateral attacks on the critics' imagined motives, in order to avoid having to actually deal with the criticism.

What I don't understand is why people think that it's acceptable to smear other people as trolls because they don't toe the NDP party line.

Aristotleded24

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b] I can certainly understand how uncritical, craven apologists for the NDP could find it disconcerting to see that some people actually criticize their party from the left, as well as from the right.

I can also certainly understand why they would be motivated to try to shut down such criticism by making collateral attacks on the critics' imagined motives, in order to avoid having to actually deal with the criticism.

What I don't understand is why people think that it's acceptable to smear other people as trolls because they don't toe the NDP party line. [/b]


And you have proof that I'm an "uncritical, craven, apologist for the NDP?"

I have no issue with people who aren't NDP supporters. What bothers me is when certain posters use any discussion about the NDP as an excuse to merely snipe at the party and its supporters and derail the conversation completely as opposed to actually contribute to it. As if this isn't annoying enough, many of these people object to the NDP not tolerating prominent Liberal supporters who use their NDP cards and CAW credentials in an attempt to derail the party and by extension any possibility of introducing even the slightest of leftist politics in Parliament.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]And you have proof that I'm an "uncritical, craven, apologist for the NDP?"[/b]

I never said you were.

quote:

[b]As if this isn't annoying enough, many of these people object to the NDP not tolerating prominent Liberal supporters who use their NDP cards and CAW credentials in an attempt to derail the party and by extension any possibility of introducing even the slightest of leftist politics in Parliament.[/b]

If this is aimed at me, I will simply point out, firstly, the hypocrisy of those who have no problem tolerating NDP members who advocate "strategic voting" so long as they aren't prominent trade union leaders, and secondly, that by far the greatest number of people expelled from the party in its 45-year history have been leftists, not Liberals, and as such we leftists have every right to take a principled stand against the periodic political purges that the right wing of the party indulges in. Once I accept the party's right to expel members, I have to accept that I could be the next to go.

Enough with the thread drift.

Critical Mass2

Above, I wrote:

quote:

Layton is from municipal politics. In city politics, partisan lines are not hard or set in cement and people fight over one issue, cooperate over the next, then split gain over the third issue. Perhaps the House is not the chambers of Toronto city council where Layton gained his political experience, but his actions may appear familiar to people who like watching city hall shenanigans

Toronto Star:

"Layton prides himself on getting things done. That's what he did on Toronto City Council where he and Chow, his even more practical wife, wheeled and dealt constantly with both ideological friends and foes.

They might not move matters dramatically. But they'd get something done — a windmill here, a sidewalk barrier there.

With its loose party discipline, its backroom deals and its log-rolling, Toronto City Council in those years resembled the U.S. Congress more than the Commons. It might not always accommodate grand visions. But it was a place where a canny councillor could trade a four-way stop sign in his ward for a speed bump in someone else's. etc."

[url=http://tinyurl.com/r6rsa]I hope this tinyurl thingy works[/url]

Maybe this doesn't work on the national scale, but it is familiar process to people who follow municipal politics, where there is room for innovation more than we often think.

[ 22 April 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

Aristotleded24

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b] If this is aimed at me, I will simply point out, firstly, the hypocrisy of those who have no problem tolerating NDP members who advocate "strategic voting" so long as they aren't prominent trade union leaders, and secondly, that by far the greatest number of people expelled from the party in its 45-year history have been leftists, not Liberals, and as such we leftists have every right to take a principled stand against the periodic political purges that the right wing of the party indulges in. Once I accept the party's right to expel members, I have to accept that I could be the next to go. [/b]

Besides Hargrove, who else has been expelled from the NDP? Which lefties are you talking about? And Hargrove's a leftie? What about his enthusiastic endorsements of the most right-wing finance minister this country ever knew, along with accusations that he went back on his union's "no concessions" policy?

the grey

Several people who ran / campaigned against the party in 1995, including Barry Weisleder, were expelled from the party. Unfortunately, somebody let him back in.

Aristotleded24

What was the context? Were these union activists who were unhappy with the performance of the Rae government? Did they merely withdraw their support for the NDP? If a union or other group wishes to withdraw support from the NDP (the party should be accountable to its members, after all) I have no problem with that. My issue is actively campaigning for and supporting other political parties as a member of the NDP.

Vansterdam Kid

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
I never said you were.

Cue the Charlie Brown *Wohmp wohmp*.

West Coast Lefty

quote:


Toronto Star:

"Layton prides himself on getting things done. That's what he did on Toronto City Council where he and Chow, his even more practical wife, wheeled and dealt constantly with both ideological friends and foes.

They might not move matters dramatically. But they'd get something done — a windmill here, a sidewalk barrier there.


Walkom is bang on with his description of Layton (and Olivia's) approach to politics. I still find it very refreshing compared to the traditional NDP "scream the latest Globe and Mail headline in Question Period" approch to politics, and it DID get results in the last Parliament, not just with the NDP budget but with the workers pension protection bill, the veterans charter, etc.

I'm disappointed in Walkom's portrayal of the NDP's child care position though, which is totally incorrect as was Unionist's - why is it so hard to understand that [b]Jack Layton wants national child care program AND direct payments to parents![/b] Contrary to the Star article, there's nothing about the payment to parents that "precludes" the new spaces being created.

To remove any doubt, simply go to [url=http://www.ndp.ca/]the main NDP home page[/url] and you'll find the NDP's 3-point child care plan - 1) multi-year funding to create new child care spaces; 2) money for parents; 3) national child care legislation.
1-2-3, ABC, NDP! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Hopefully, this will put an end to all of the "Jack playing footsie with Harper on child care" nonsense.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:
[b]
To remove any doubt, simply go to [url=http://www.ndp.ca/]the main NDP home page[/url] and you'll find the NDP's 3-point child care plan - 1) multi-year funding to create new child care spaces; 2) money for parents; 3) national child care legislation.
1-2-3, ABC, NDP! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Hopefully, this will put an end to all of the "Jack playing footsie with Harper on child care" nonsense.[/b]


Well... no.

From the very start (2004), the NDP website has been full of good statements about the need for federal money for non-profit child care space creation -- with [b][i]not a single word about giving money to parents[/i][/b]. Check for yourself:

[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/999]here[/url] and [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/1013]here[/url] and [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/1111]here[/url] and [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/1245]here[/url] and [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/1416]here[/url] and [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/1642]here[/url].

Then the election was called (by Jack Layton), the Conservatives announced their phony $1200 bribe, and Layton was confused. He was still saying partly [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/2326]the right stuff[/url]:

quote:

This issue has been framed as a choice between Mr. Harper’s approach and Mr. Martin’s. There’s nothing to choose between the two.

[b]Mr. Harper’s plan is simply a tax cut.[/b]

Mr. Martin’s plan is simply giving no-strings-attached cheques to the provinces to do whatever they want to.


But then, out of the blue, he started talking about the need to increase the "child tax credit":

quote:

We’ll phase in a significant increase in the federal child tax credit.

This credit will be increased in steps over four years – increasing by $250 a year until it reaches an extra $1,000.


The beginning of the end. The polls told him Harper's $1200 was getting good play. Layton needed to hedge his bets.

Today, every time he or Chow mention child care, the $1200 comes first (but "tax-free"!!!), with the national plan as a vague add-on to be implemented "later". You can bet it won't stop a "yes" vote on a Harper budget which does nothing for publicly-funded and publicly-delivered child care.

Read the old statements. Some of them are really good. And (for now), they're still on the website.

arborman

Increasing the child tax credit is a good policy, I don't care who does it.

Creating a national child care system is a good policy.

Layton has 19 seats - he has to get what he can in terms of good policies out of the other parties. In a democratic system, that means some conciliation and negotiation.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by arborman:
[b]Increasing the child tax credit is a good policy, I don't care who does it. [/b]

What's good about it -- compared to subsidizing necessities for the poor (schoolbooks, clothing, food, daycare)? A child tax credit does absolutely nothing for child care, and to mention it in the same breath is to abandon what the NDP has talked about in all the releases I quoted. This is not about "getting what you can", it's about "getting what they will give you".

Aristotleded24

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b] What's good about it -- compared to subsidizing necessities for the poor (schoolbooks, clothing, food, daycare)? A child tax credit does absolutely nothing for child care, and to mention it in the same breath is to abandon what the NDP has talked about in all the releases I quoted. This is not about "getting what you can", it's about "getting what they will give you". [/b]

Harper promised direct payments of cash to parents. That's something people like, so the NDP has to take that into consideration and compromise on a few points to achieve the major goals (i.e. national child care plan). You want to campaign against the government giving people money directly? The Liberals tried that in the last federal election. Why don't you ask them what the results were?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]

Harper promised direct payments of cash to parents. That's something people like, so the NDP has to take that into consideration and compromise on a few points to achieve the major goals (i.e. national child care plan). You want to campaign against the government giving people money directly? The Liberals tried that in the last federal election. Why don't you ask them what the results were?[/b]


First, there's no election on, so no need to campaign.

More important - do you believe that this "compromise" will achieve the major goal of a national child care plan?

Aristotleded24

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b] First, there's no election on, so no need to campaign.

More important - do you believe that this "compromise" will achieve the major goal of a national child care plan? [/b]


There's a minority government, which means we can be in full election mode at any time. And if the government is defeated over the $1200, the Conservatives can turn around and accuse the opposition of not wanting to give Canadians their money back, and Canadians will punish the opposition big time, which means that under those circumstances, there will be no child care.

As for the compromise resulting in a national child care plan? This compromise may get a national child care plan, maybe not. I honestly don't know at this point, I'll just have to watch and see how this plays itself out.

With regards to child care, I like what other people have said about lobbying provincial governments to implement child care plans and change the political culture locally so people can see the program's benefits, and when people like the program, lobbying the feds to chip in will become easier.

ceti ceti's picture

quote:


Well, my friend, given that I spent the better part of four years with you on the NDP Media Committee -- during which time you argued pursuasively that media concentration and media bias was a major barrier to progressive change -- I have to say that I'm a little surprised to see you dismissing the role of the media in affecting the public discourse so flippantly.

And that's why the Conservatives are heading for a majority, and that's why the NDP's strategy for the 2006 election played as the B-Team for the Conservatives. Once they got their foot in the door, they will work to expand their powers that neither the DOA Liberals nor the NDP can do anything about. Witness the dawn of a new dark age for this country, worse still as we head into a very hot summer of global conflict.

Polunatic2

quote:


Layton has 19 seats

Actually, they're up to 29 now. There was an election in January. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

arborman

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

What's good about it -- compared to subsidizing necessities for the poor (schoolbooks, clothing, food, daycare)? A child tax credit does absolutely nothing for child care, and to mention it in the same breath is to abandon what the NDP has talked about in all the releases I quoted. This is not about "getting what you can", it's about "getting what they will give you".[/b]


What's good about it is that it will help lift more families out of poverty. Here in BC one in four kids lives below the poverty line - income supports for them are a welcome addition.

I just don't think it should be an 'either-or' debate. We need increased child tax credits, really badly. We also need a comprehensive child care system, really badly.

The conservatives have very effectively managed to frame it as a 'one or the other' discussion, when it really should be 'how much of both'.

I suggest we could pay for it by reducing the ~$6 billion in subsidies we are giving to the massively profitable oil industry.

Brian Topp Brian Topp's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
[b]It was weird, a friend of mine mentioned a mutual acquaintance 2 weeks ago we think might be in the "war room" (is that what they call the inner sanctum, the holy of holies, the braintrust, the place with the big cookie jar?).

A fellow called Garcia. Used to be with Actra, the performance union.

Does that mean I'm closer than I think to the secret room where the bad men pull the strings? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 21 April 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ][/b]


Pretty close.

I do believe you are referring to Raymond Guardia, who managed the NDP "war room" (aka research and communications unit) during the 2005-2006 campaign. That war room played an instrumental role in the campaign. Formerly Assistant Federal secretary at federal office, Mr. Guardia is still very much working for ACTRA as eastern regional director. ACTRA is definitely a "performance union". It also represents performers, in film, television and new media.

Here are a few other people involved in our campaign:

* Sue Milling was deputy campaign director (she's from the United Steelworkers national office).

* Eric Hebert is federal secretary.

* David Mackenzie was lead political on tour.

* Bob Gallagher was our platform anchor and candidate contact coordinator among many other duties (He is Jack Layton's chief of staff).

* Labour economist Hugh Mackenzie worked on much of the platform detail.

* Laura Nichols managed the tour unit (she was recently hired as BC provincial secretary -- was previously Alberta provincial secretary).

* Diane O'Reggio and then Sandra Clifford did God's work as tour wagonmasters. (Ms. O'Reggio is Ontario provincial secretary. Ms. Clifford is an officer of the OFL and is President of the Ontario NDP).

* Brad Lavigne is communications director (currently re-assigned to the leaders' office in the same role).

* Jamey Health was campaign spokesperson (currently in New Zealand on a well-earned break).

* Russ Neeley is director of organization.

* Ann McGrath was on-tour research director. (She's a former assistant to the national president at CUPE, and is a senior advisor in the leader's office).

* Ron Johnson and Paul Dagenstein from Now Communications oversaw advertising, debate prep and many other tasks.

* Ginny Devine and Leslie Burnbull from Viewpoints Research oversaw polling and focus groups.

* Our regional campaigns were ably led by senior campaign directors in provincial offices across the country, including Gerry Scott in BC, Ed Tchorzewski in Saskatchewan, Wayne Copeland and Manitoba and Dennis Young in Ontario.

(I was the national campaign director).

Many many other excellent folks worked on the campaign within our election planning committee and at every level of the campaign.

This is the fifth federal campaign I've been involved in. In my view we had a real "dream team" -- one of the best the federal party has had in two decades. Our team combined the bright, energetic new people brought into the party by Jack Layton with some of our party's best and most seasoned campaign professionals -- people regularly involved in electing and re-electing NDP governments.

Feel free to disagree (after all, we're New Democrats). Knowing their names is a good place to start!

Critical Mass2

Hello Brian Topp.

Guardia, that seems right. Dark hair, good looking guy, medium height, ACTRA. That's the one.

Critical Mass2

You should get that guy from Toronto Mayor David Miller to run for you. I`ve been on the TTC subway in Toronto in the same car when Miller got on and the public mobbed him like a rock star.

Sexy looking too according to my wife and her female friends. Doesn't hurt in politics.

[ 24 April 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]

Doug

David Miller has this thing about wanting to win a second term this November and so is sadly unavailable.

S1m0n

You know, I just can't see anyone with "Mayor of Toronto" on their CV going over in the Toronto-hating parts of the Universe.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

^
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Fear-ah

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

[My emphasis -- intended to highlight how a politician talks.]

Is this muddy syntax, or just a plain old-fashioned cop-out? How can we implement Harper's tax cut in lieu of child care first, and "THEN" (meaning afterward) go for something which is "EVEN MORE URGENT"? Doesn't "EVEN MORE URGENT" come first, and "THEN" everything else??

[/b]


Oh even worst than that...

quote:

[b]PM sought 2-year NDP pact[/b]
OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper personally appealed to the New Democrats to support his minority government for two years, the Star has learned.

In return, the Prime Minister offered to make good on all the spending contained in the NDP's budget deal with the Liberals a year ago — almost $4 billion worth of new cash that was at risk of expiring.

Harper made the dramatic offer in late February, as his government was in its early days and feeling out the opposition. The deal was rejected by the NDP.

Details of the prospective deal-making — confirmed by several Parliament Hill sources — offer a window on how Harper intends to work with this minority government.

[b]"He intends to take everything on a case-by-case basis," one source said.[/b]

[url=http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A...


Now Unionist--you sound like some old guy who probably was a crad-carrying NDPer back in the 80s You might belonged to a constituency executive, you did the YND thing, you worked as a union official, etc and probably during those heady Broadbent days had numerous conservations with fellow NDP supporters whose 'wet dream' was a federal minority government.

"Wait Comrade...when that day comes, the NDP will flex it's mighty policy hand and trianglulate it's positions and basically run the government!"

Well comrade...that day is coming--soon, just around the corner, almost there, history has yet to turn it's tide,...

BUT if it doesn't then it is people like YOU critizing the NDP!! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Vansterdam Kid

So the fact that the Bloc are now going to support the Budget, including the lack of a child care policy, on top of a litany of other issues means that Duceppe is now a Conservative with a French accent right?

[ 03 May 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

S1m0n

quote:


Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
[b]So the fact that the Bloc are now going to support the Budget, including the lack of a child care policy, on top of a litany of other issues means that Duceppe is now a Conservative with a French accent right?
[/b]

No. It means that Quebec public opinion, as always, leans toward the party or policy which can bring home the most 'booty' (to use Robert Bourassa's term) for Quebec.

Quebec already has publicly-financed child care, ergo, they do not need to see this program duplicated elsewhere in Canada, and need no federal participation. SO, supporting Harper, they get the provincial program PLUS Harper's illusary 1200 clams. Good deal, huh?

Vansterdam Kid

No, I don't think its a great deal for them, I understand why they're doing it though. Since the Conservatives are surging in Quebec, they're probably thinking its just a honeymoon and thus best to not defeat them [i]right now[/i].

One of the general themes on this site, by some, has been that the NDP were just aweful for daring to attempt talks with the Conservatives. I just thought that the original question, essentially saying they sold out because they gave the appearnce of co-operation, was just as perposterous so I thought it best to answer with yet another perposterous question. Some people have praised the Bloc for being more progressive the NDP, with their previous logic the concrete fact that the Bloc are going to support the budget means that according to their logic the Bloc isn't very progressive anymore.

Martha (but not...

quote:


Originally posted by Sanityatlast:
[b]So what is taxed? I would sell our business, buy a farm and leave it to our kids. Or should I buy a million dollar house and leave that to avoid taxes? All that does is skew where wealthy people and not-so-wealthy people with assets will park their wealth. Drive up the price of farms and houses.[/b]

This seems like a perfectly reasonable remark, to which nobody has yet responded. Certainly, if a multimillionaire were getting older and wanted to leave her/his whole estate to her/his children, then s/he could either,

(1) start giving it away to them before s/he died (King Lear notwithstanding), or

(2) invest all of her/his money in a multimillion dollar house.

The way I see it, if we are going to tax a person's inheritance, then we should tax the whole inheritance including the house and the farm. A farm is just as much a business as an insurance company, and if we are going to put an inheritance tax on the latter then we should put an inheritance tax on the former. Similarly, a house is just as much of an asset as a collection of vintage automobiles.

In order to deal with the possibility of older folks simply giving their stuff to their heirs before they die, we could also institute a gift tax. There is no gift tax in Canada, but there is a gift tax in some states of the US, e.g. Connecticut.

martha

Lord Palmerston

Somehow I recall from the 2004 election that the day Layton came out with the inheritance tax proposal, the media was already denouncing it and saying how "unpopular" it was - before even the public knew what was going on. It didn't seem to affect the NDP polling numbers either.

arborman

I have noticed that Harper, in a great many of his public statements of late, has gone out of his way to single out the NDP as particularly worthy of scorn.

This is encouraging, because it means he sees the NDP as a real threat. Though annoying, it's an improvement from the traditional approach of both the Liberals and the Conservatives, which was to pretend that the NDP did not exist.

In the last couple of months he has repeatedly created and attacked an NDP straw man on a range of policies. I hope Layton has a way to counter this - Harper is playing for blood.

S1m0n

quote:


Originally posted by arborman:
[b]
In the last couple of months he has repeatedly created and attacked an NDP straw man on a range of policies. I hope Layton has a way to counter this - Harper is playing for blood.[/b]

It's the republican big lie strategy, and the NDP had better be nimble about refuting it, and responding in kind, because this strategy works.

Fidel

Martha (but not Stewart) wrote:

quote:


Originally posted by Sanityatlast:
So what is taxed? I would sell our business, buy a farm and leave it to our kids. Or should I buy a million dollar house and leave that to avoid taxes? All that does is skew where wealthy people and not-so-wealthy people with assets will park their wealth. Drive up the price of farms and houses.


This seems like a perfectly reasonable remark, to which nobody has yet responded. Certainly, if a multimillionaire were getting older and wanted to leave her/his whole estate to her/his children, then s/he could either,

(1) start giving it away to them before s/he died (King Lear notwithstanding), or

(2) invest all of her/his money in a multimillion dollar house.

The way I see it, if we are going to tax a person's inheritance, then we should tax the whole inheritance including the house and the farm. A farm is just as much a business as an insurance company, and if we are going to put an inheritance tax on the latter then we should put an inheritance tax on the former. Similarly, a house is just as much of an asset as a collection of vintage automobiles.

In order to deal with the possibility of older folks simply giving their stuff to their heirs before they die, we could also institute a gift tax. There is no gift tax in Canada, but there is a gift tax in some states of the US, e.g. Connecticut.

martha

bump

Polunatic2

Why? Is it topical again? 

Pages