NDP Leadership #90

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Mulcair says he needs to look at the books before raising taxes. Same people say he's a neoliberal trojan horse, the next Chretien, Bob Rae, etc.

I'm not saying that...believe me I WANT to like Mulcair...but I feel like yelling "where's the beef?". The biggest issue of our time is the incredibly concentration of wealth that is accruing to the top 1% of the population through the world - and canada is no better than anyone else. If Mulcair is averse to making people who can afford to pay more contribute one red cent to the social and economic deficit in Canada then fine - maybe he has some other strategy for attacking the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us. I am sitting on hot coals waiting to see it!

Stockholm wrote:

When a politician tells me he or she will NEVER raise taxes on the filthy rich - the first thing that goes through my mind is - I guess I will be the one paying more. The government is going to need more money one way or the other and they arewilling to get it from the filthy rich - they will find ways to get it from the average Joe by increasing iuser fees and making me pay out of pocket for more things i currently get for free and maybe even by raising regressive taxes like sales taxes etc...

Mulcar said "NEVER"? Really?

I didn't call them "ordinary". And you think that's Mulcair's vision? He said he wants to make the income tax system more progressive (said on the campaign trail). Let's see what he has in mind. We have more income brackets than the the one where people make over $250,000. Let's not make assumptions like some who consider themselves the intelligentsia.

Let's take a step back as well... he didn't say no to income tax hikes on the "wealthy"... those who make up 0.7%, take home 10% of income earned, and pay 20% of the total personal income tax bill. All he said was you need to look at the books before any decision is made on that. What "I" said... was I doubt it will do much to address income inequality or solve our problems... especially with the corporate rich being a major part of any imbalance.

Actually, I wish Dexter had said that here instead of saying no new taxes at all... then breaking his promise.

As Mitt Romney so eloquently shows, the problem with income inequality is not limited to income taxes. The wealthy are really good at getting out of paying taxes.

What Mitt does (and most CEOs these days) is take his compensation in stock options and stock sales. Stock options are not taxed. Stocks are only taxed when they are sold or pay dividends. These taxes are called capital gains.

Now here's the stunt the wealthy play: if you sell stocks and make a gain, you pay the capital gains tax; if you sell stocks and make a loss, then you get to deduct that loss from your income. So what the rich do is sell enough stocks to have $20 million in income, then sell enough stocks to have $20 million in losses. So their net income is $0 and the pay no income tax (but they still pay capital gains on the $20 million).

Then to complete the stunt, they buy back the stocks they sold for a $20 million loss, using the proceeds from the sale (e.g. I buy $120 million worth of stocks, the value falls to $100 million, I sell the stocks for $100 million recording a $20 million loss on my income returns, then I take the $100 million I got from the sale and buy back the stocks, so at the end of the day I have still have all my wealth in stocks [whose value changes] and the only money I lost was on paper; what's more, most investment portfolios are designed to have some stocks that will lose money when others gain, this is to balance risk, so the net effect of this stunt is to rebalance your portfolio aka kill two birds with one stone; first bird: pay no income tax but pay the lower capital gains tax rate [for Romney this is 15%], second bird: rebalance your portfolio after a year of changes in stock values)

And that is just the capital gains stunt. The wealthy are also experts at claiming every exemption, loophole, and route through tax havens conceivable to man. They also know which tax cheats are most likely to get them audited or sued. Why? They can afford to hire the best accountants (and, if necessary, lawyers) in the country. If they lose or don't have a leg in court, they can hire the best lobbyists to try and prevent the government from enforcing the law. I am always amazed at how many big companies/wealthy people owe back taxes but provincial and municipal governments don't collect because they are afraid a major employer will go out of business.

So the take-home point is, taxing the rich (or fixing income inequality) is not so simple. You need to figure out every angle. You need to understand every loophole, exemption, and shelter. These people are not rich for nothing. They've found every shortcut.

Howard wrote:

So the take-home point is, taxing the rich (or fixing income inequality) is not so simple. You need to figure out every angle. You need to understand every loophole, exemption, and shelter. These people are not rich for nothing. They've found every shortcut.

As Tom says, more than just a slogan in a campaign :)

Interesting to note that if I recall correctly, Jack dropped the "tax the rich" line as well under his leadership. Income inequality today isn't so radically different than it was a few years ago. I wonder who was advising him on that one... :)

KenS wrote:

KenS wrote:

You bet the numbers dont add up. I'll get into it more later.

The article confirms my suspicion that Mulcair isnt going to realease this promised tax policy paper. Because the numbers would have to ass up, unlike toss-off comments in a debate, or an interview.

And its not unrepresentative Stock, its the same exact things he said in Halifax. A policy paper could still come, and could perform the magic of how it all adds up.... but don't hold your breath.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

You said he wouldn't release anything... and he did. I'm sure this will be another occassion that you're off the mark :)

Let's be clear here. I did not previously say he would release nothing. It was said by you and others after the Halifax debate that Mulcair would release his tax policy later. Based on past performance, I was skeptical, but I kept that to myself.

And even my private skepticism, I never thought that he would never say another word about tax policy

Now he says the same things again in an interview, without possibility of qualification this time [as there was in the debate], but still no policy paper. So after that I say, explicitly, are we ever going to see this policy paper?

Are you telling us what he said in an interview with a reporter counts as "releasing his policy?"

I'm perfectly willing to treat it as such, and you appear to be saying this is it.

Correct or not?

 

I'm saying there is still about 6 weeks to go until convention. I didn't put a date on it. Tom said in the Halifax debate he would release it shortly. I'm assuming it will be released the same as his foreign affairs one a couple days ago.

So why say it won't come?

Stockholm wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Saganash says he's not going to raise taxes on the wealthy. Everyone says "very interesting, not sure I agree, but I'd like to see those numbers".

Mulcair says he needs to look at the books before raising taxes. Same people say he's a neoliberal trojan horse, the next Chretien, Bob Rae, etc.

This is really dumb to me, and I'm not even pro-mulcair. Just pro-evidence.

You noticed the double standard as well? :)

I actually don't think its a double standard...no one cared when Saganash said he wasn't sure it was a good idea to raise taxes on the wealthy because everyone knew he had zero chance of winning. That being said, Paul Dewar's comments on tax policy are not much better than Mulcair's and I think his positions deserve more scrutiny as well!

I cared and I thought Saganash was on the right track, for the reasons I've listed in post #57, and for the reasons given in this Ottawa Citizen article about Topp's tax plan that were pooh-poohed so long ago. The simple, sad, and cynical fact is that the wealthy are amazingly good at avoiding taxes. They have figured out how to avoid higher income taxes like true champs, just ask Mitt Romney. So the question becomes, how do you level the playing field (so that the game is not so rigged) before you determine/ask the rich to pay their fair share of the tax, and I think Saganash, as a lawyer with experience working cooperatively with/for/and running private sector companies got this. Or at least may have. I'll let babblers judge for themselves.

Policywonk wrote:

Howard wrote:

Mulcair realises that Québec would never put up with having the federal government telling it how to run a childcare system that it already has in place. I think Layton was getting around to this idea too and talking about having a childcare system for Canada but providing compensation to Québec for the childcare system they already had in place. Now where would Layton get an idea for something like that?....oh yeah, perhaps the much maligned Sherbrooke Declaration, which gives Québec the opportunity to opt out of things like a national childcare plan with full compensation.

Why do you think it's the Sherbrooke Declaration, or just the Sherbrook Declaration that gives Quebec the opportunity to opt out. Isn't there a QPP? Although I think that applying the idea of compensation to the QPP may not be valid. And opting out with compensation is an idea that predates the Sherbrook Declaration by a couple of decades.

I don't think it's just the Sherbrooke Declaration. I was throwing that in there for a few reasons: 1) The Sherbrooke Declaration commits the NDP to giving Québec an opt-out 2) This opt-out has real implications for social policy, and creating a national childcare program is an excellent example of one of them 3) Had Layton not talked about given Québec compensation as opposed to forcing them to join a national program, he would have been contradicting his own policy document on Québec. So the NDP has set the rules by adopting the Sherbrooke Declaration and now it has to play by them or risk looking like fools (by contradicting their own policy) and really pissing off Québec (by trying to force a central mandate on them).

And the QPP is a perfect example of an opt-out. Québec wanted to run their own plan, so they sought an arrangement where they would be forwarded deductions separately from the CPP process.

Want another example? Québec taxes. All other provinces give the federal government authority for tax collection and then the federal government transfers this money back to the provinces through the Ministry of Finance's accounts. Not Québec though. Québec wants to collect all of its own taxes with its own collection authority, and that is just the way it goes...welcome to the world of autonomist Québec politics.

I now think I'll vote for whoever promises to tax the sh*t out of the rich.

Howard wrote:

Lots of unanswered questions. My view on the whole childcare thing is that the NDP's previously proposed law for a national childcare plan was a bit of a sham. It said nothing about how one would pay for a national childcare plan or even how it would be set up really. It just insisted that childcare be public and not-for-profit. Translation: it needs to be run by unionised employees.

I thought Bill C-303 was quite good, actually.  It is very similar to the Canada Health Act in its structure.  The accountability clause in it also seemed fine to me.  The exemption given to Quebec had nothing to do with the Sherbrooke Declaration.  It simply was put in there because Quebec already has a childcare program running.

This is how the NDP should approach childcare -- have it enshrined in law.  The NDP should stick to its last platform on this one, I feel.  Topp committing to this approach in writing in his policy pronouncements is a good thing.  Mulcair's vague language on it is worrisome.  However, as someone suggested, I'll email the Mulcair campaign for clarification.

dacckon wrote:

I don't think its that.

 

Some Mulcair supporters and some other supporters have bashed Ed Broadbent for his choice, but if Ed supported Mulcair right off the bat I can easily imagine these posters praising him. To defend a candidate is one thing, to spin for him is another.

I don't recall people bashing Ed. I recall people being quite confused at his choice... and some comments he made at the press conference.

mark_alfred wrote:

I thought Bill C-303 was quite good, actually.  It is very similar to the Canada Health Act in its structure.  The accountability clause in it also seemed fine to me.  The exemption given to Quebec had nothing to do with the Sherbrooke Declaration.  It simply was put in there because Quebec already has a childcare program running.

This is how the NDP should approach childcare -- have it enshrined in law.  The NDP should stick to its last platform on this one, I feel.  Topp committing to this approach in writing in his policy pronouncements is a good thing.  Mulcair's vague language on it is worrisome.  However, as someone suggested, I'll email the Mulcair campaign for clarification.

FWIW, this is part of my problem with the NDP's national transit policy. Lots of nice calls for the federal government to give out gobs of money for transit, no answers as to where that money would come from or what the accountability measures would be. Everyone knows how the Manitoba NDP government gave "the cities" heaps of money to expand public transit (in extension of a campaign promise) and the Winnipeg municipal government turned around and gave everyone a tax cut. The same thing happened in Québec on the eve of a provincial election with Jean Charest and money from the federal government to fix "le déséquilibre fiscale" every cent of which went to a tax cut. In this case it was even more grotesque, because "le déséquilibre fiscale", is a fairy tale problem that was invented by Québec sovereigntists. Oh yeah, and Harper...he of Reform party no special bribes for Québec fame, he of Alberta gets robbed on equalisation transfers to "dependency" syndrome provinces...went for it.

i'll freely admit that i'll spin for mulcair.  let's face it, of the people who frequent this forum, it's likely that at least a third of us are actively involved in the ndp.  for me, natural instinct is to promote - in every possible way - the candidate who i believe would be best for our party.  sometimes i get annoyed with people on here when they hint that they might not vote for the ndp if mulcair were leader, and then i realize that this isn't an ndp forum!  so you'll have to forgive some of us if we're overly discursive, especially those of us from quebec who are tasting this feeling of effectiveness and relevance for the first time.

dacckon wrote:

I don't think its that.

 

Some Mulcair supporters and some other supporters have bashed Ed Broadbent for his choice, but if Ed supported Mulcair right off the bat I can easily imagine these posters praising him. To defend a candidate is one thing, to spin for him is another.

Who bashed Ed Broadbent?

I recall people saying that his endorsement would have as much juice today as it did 9 years ago. I remember people saying his endorsement would carry as much weight since this time he was endorsing a friend rather than endorsement someone he had no personal relationship without who was running against his personal friend. I remember people saying it was odd that he endorsed so soon and that given that the biggest concern with Topp's candidacy was the fact he's never run for office--much less been an elected official--his endorsement didn't carry any substance since he hadn't even had a chance to evaluate Topp on the issue of greatest concern surrounding his candidacy.

But I don't remember anyone bashing Ed Broadbent and if there were such people they were certainly a small minority.

The larger point that I believe to be true is that it sounds like many on this board are "spinning" for Mulcair mainly because they often have to go to great lengths to explain his comments, but I think that's only necessary because his opponents seem intent on twisting everything he says into something it is not. Is Mulcair perfect? Certainly not. Want to debate what he actually said about tax policy? Have at it. But I have never seen a New Democrat MP treated with such suspicion.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

What's Mulcair's view on Public Private Partenerships? What are his views on foriegn investment? What are his views on foreign policy?

I will hold my support for him based on his position on these and many other matters.

Did you ask the other candidates the same questions?

btw laine lowe, Mulcair released a foreign affairs paper just a few days ago. It's on his site if you care to read it. Focuses on rape as a weapon of war.

Why the accusatory question?   Here is a link.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

But I have never seen a New Democrat MP treated with such suspicion.

To many, he's still not "one of us". I've said it before that the NDP is the most closed party. We're quite cliquey. If Mulcair had stayed an NDP member from when he first joined in the 1970's and decided not to enter Quebec politics, I doubt we'd be seeing this to the same degree.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

But I have never seen a New Democrat MP treated with such suspicion.

To many, he's still not "one of us". I've said it before that the NDP is the most closed party. We're quite cliquey. If Mulcair had stayed an NDP member from when he first joined in the 1970's and decided not to enter Quebec politics, I doubt we'd be seeing this to the same degree.

Yeah, but if Mulcair hadn't entered provincial politics and become such an incredibly popular political figure in Quebec this would all be a moot point: we'd have never won Outremont, there would have never been an Orange Wave and no one would have ever heard of Thomas Mulcair.

(Just for the record, I'm not saying Mulcair deserves all the credit for the Orange Wave, but we would never have won a seat in Quebec without him and without that seat--and someone from the NDP articulating our positions Quebec-centric terms for four year--we would have never had the kind of result we had on May 2nd. Besides that, even if you give the lion's share of the credit to Jack Layton, he is no longer with us, but we are fortunate to have another incredibly popoular Quebec politician who is.)

The topic of the 2008 Coalition "Plot" came up a few threads ago, and I just happened to find this video of Mulcair speaking at a pro-coaltion rally from back then. It's partly in french mind you, so I can't understand everything, but the crowd seemed to enjoy it. Quite alot actually. = P

I'm not exactly sure what Mulcair means when he repeats Bob Rae's standard attack line that the "the NDP is the only social democratic party in the world not to have renewed itself". I'm sorry but i was under the impression that the last 9 years under Layton was one big long process of total renewal that featured major gains in four straight elections, culminating in the breakthrough of lst May.

Perhaps Mulcair can give us a little bibliography of political history books from around the world telling us the story of how EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY social democratic party "renewed itself" in a way that the NDP did not. Tell us about the renewal of the Spanish Socialists or the French Socialists or maybe the Irish Labour Party, or maybe the Australian Labour Party...

I just feel that in this interview, Mulcair attacking a straw dog that doesn't exist. Its as if he is expressing an opinion about the NDP that is based on some sort of relic from the 1990s...I probably would have agreed with a lot of what Mulcair is saying in this article if he had said in - oh say 2001. But I just don't see how it applies to the NDP in 2012. I don't see ANYONE who wants to use "1950s style rhetoric" anymore. That debate is over.

I also with he would spend more time attacking the Conservative and Liberal parties and less time making derisive comments about the "grassroots" of the party he wants to lead. I agree that there are some nutbars in the NDP (as there are in every party), but I don't see what it accomplishes to start attacking people within the party head on - over nothing. I'm sure Stephen Harper privately thinks that a lot of the Tory grassroots are a bunch of knuckledragging narrow-minded bigots who he feels embarrassed by etc... but you never see him say anything disparaging about his own base. Instead of confronting them, he just smiles and walks around them. Mulcair shoudl never say "No, the grassroots don't like to hear that". The grassroots of the NDP is made up of tens of thousands of people with a wide variety of views. I'm sure a great many of them agree with Mulcair's point of view. In fact, if he becomes our new leader it will be because a majority of the "grassroots" he seems to disparage, decided to vote for him!!!

Personally I prefer a carbon tax to cap and trade, the latter will benefit bank accounts more than the environment.

I don't see any evidence that a carbon tax benefits the environment one iota unless the tax is about ten times higher than anyone has ever contemplated in any any jurisdiction...they brought in a carbon tax under Gordon Campbell in BC with a big fanfare. Did it actually reduce GHG emissions by even the teeniest amount? NOoooooo.

I don't disagree that it hasn't worked, yet. Is there an example where cap and trade has done better for real. Mathematically not destroying some number of rainforest acres counts as a benefit, but it wasn't destroyed when they began the accounting. Should I receive a credit for not buying a ford F350, even though I wasn't going to do it in any case?

mark_alfred wrote:

Well, "Thomas Tony Blair Mulcair" has a good ring to it.

Tony Blair had the excuse of taking over the leadership of a totally demoralized party that had lost four elections in a row and was going through a crisis of confidence and was looking to move in some sort of a new direction. I don't necessarily agree with what Blair did - but his overall message that Labour needed to make big changes made a lot of sense at the time.

The NDP on the other hand has been GAINING a ton of ground in the last four federal elections, as well as at the provincial election. Seems to me that we are doing something right and maybe we need to keep doing what we are doing. If the NDP had done really badly in the last election and had been reduced to 25 seats and the conventional wisdom was that populist appeals to "ordinary Canadians" had been a total failue - theneverything Mulcair is saying would be worth at least thinking about...in the same article he complains that the NDP message keeps us stuck at 17% - well HELLOOOO we just had an elecion where we won 31% of the vote and 103 seats!!! Again, its like the arguments he is making are out of date - its as if he was running to succeed Alexa MacDonough!

The full Star article was less startling than the excerpt before, but still...waiting on Mulcair's economy/taxation platform.

mark_alfred wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I like this.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129700--ndp-lea...

Fascinating.  Apparently the NDP historically was a mere sloganeer incapable of "developing a tight, cogent, well-argued analysis".  And he feels Jack Layton was restricting the NDP by trying to appeal to regular working class people.  So, Mulcair is not only critical of the NDP's history, but is also even critical of Jack Layton.

Well, "Thomas Tony Blair Mulcair" has a good ring to it.

I think you just proved Mulcair's point about "cogent, well-argued analysis"

ETA: Sweeping and inaccurate generalisations plus some name-calling, does not equal good politics.