Support NeoGAF

Tiktaalik · Oct 2, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
The first few I agree with, though I imagine that it's always a challenge to get more money for everything. And I'm sure that CRA, who have already been looking for ways to go after tax avoiders and cheats, will start looking at housing the more stories like that pop up.

I honestly barely understand capital gains taxes, but from what little I know, I can't imagine real estate owners -- particularly smaller landlords -- would be too happy about 100% taxes. It'd certainly lower the cost of housing, but I can't see there being any political will for a 100% tax.

The only thing I'm opposed to is taking CMHC out of mortgage insurance. I feel like keeping the government involves make it easier to dictate the terms of rules surrounding who gets mortgages. If it's off-loaded to the banks, they might be more strict...or they might be even more lenient, since we've seen south of the border what happens when you loosen mortgage rules. Different country, different banking regulations, but still -- I can see the argument for keeping it public, rather than not.

Without a doubt an increase on capital gains is political poison. I've never seen a politician propose the idea! It's a good idea from a policy wonk point of view, but an opposing politician would criticize the idea as a massive tax increase (even though it'd only really affect the top 10-5% of income earners). Maybe if the housing bull run collapses there would be a narrow period of time where this could be seriously considered. I think however this is the sort of thing where a left of centre party should be advocating for it. Even if it's not seriously considered, it's dragging the Overton window over and entering the idea into conversation.

There could be some benefits to keeping CMHC in mortgage insurance in terms of increased control on banks. I don't know. I do know that the status quo system is designed to keep interest rates low, but this in effect increases demand, which results in high house prices. The big banks take out portfolio insurance with the CMHC, and since risk is borne by the government, the bank's risk is significantly decreased and they're free to lend out more and with lower rates. If the CMHC was not handing out portfolio insurance, then the banks would have all the risk, and you'd see significantly higher interest rates, less homebuyers, and lower prices. The other problem here is that in a situation where many people are defaulting the government (and renter taxpayers) is the one holding the bag, not the banks.

If the government keeps the CMHC in mortgage insurance, then the best path forward would be to continue to tighten the rules on bank lending further. The Liberal government already has done this once, which I've said before is one of the best things this new government has done to date.

Unfortunately it looks like the CMHC is exploring ways of loosening the rules for immigrants and entrepreneurs that currently can have some trouble getting mortgages. This sounds like a good and fair idea, but once again it's tax payers that are being asked to take on more risk to support this, and it raises the question as to why tax payers, many of whom will never be able to afford a downpayment, are seeing their money go toward subsidizing a richer person to buy housing.

This example is quite interesting because it shows what a mortgage market could look like without the CMHC. Currently persons with zero credit history such as new immigrants that are rejected by the banks have to get private mortgages from Mortgage Investment Companies. These companies charge double digit interest rates because of the high risk. Obviously that's pretty unaffordable, so the amount of people that would be interested in that is low. If the CMHC and the government started to backstopping this risk, then interest rates would be lower, there would be more demand for these cheaper mortgages, and there'd be more people in the market bidding up house prices.

Mr.Mike · Oct 2, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
I honestly barely understand capital gains taxes, but from what little I know, I can't imagine real estate owners -- particularly smaller landlords -- would be too happy about 100% taxes. It'd certainly lower the cost of housing, but I can't see there being any political will for a 100% tax.

To be clear when people say they want 100% capital gains tax they probably mean that capital gains should be included in taxable income in full, not that capital gains should be taxed at 100% (unless they're hardcore communists). As is you essentially take half your capital gains and add that to the income you pay tax on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#Canada

For example, if your capital gains (profit) is $100, you are taxed on $50 at your marginal tax rate. That is, if you were in the top tax bracket, you would be taxed at approximately 43%, in Ontario. A formula for this example using the top tax bracket would be as follows:

(Capital gain x 50.00%) x marginal tax rate = capital gain tax

($100 x 50.00%) x 43% = $50 x 43% = $21.50

In this example your capital gains tax on $100 is $21.50, leaving you with $78.50.

I feel like a 100% inclusion rate on capital gains from real estate is probably politically feasible.

Tiktaalik · Oct 2, 2017

Thx for that clarification Mr.Mike.

I just had a glance at Ashton's policy page and she did advocate dropping the 50% inclusion and going all the way to 100%.

Singh proposed a policy of raising the inclusion from 50% to 75%.

Personally I'd like to see some differentiation between capital gains from equities and gains from real estate. I don't see much of an argument for why real estate shouldn't be at 100%.

SRG01 · Oct 2, 2017

The biggest problem with increasing it to 100% is that it essentially kills any incentive for investment, whether it be real estate or the stock market. The market would go into deflation as no one would invest or buy property.

The better solution, in my opinion, is for means-tested taxation on property, to prevent flipping and/or overheated markets.

edit: Or even better, progressive capital gains exemptions.

Terrell · Oct 2, 2017

Here's an interesting take by Chantal Hébert, suggesting that the election of Singh to the NDP leadership marks the beginning of the end for baby boomer control of Canadian politics, sighting that none of the leaders of the 3 main parties are part of that generation and that the millennial / Gen X voting bloc will outnumber the baby boomers by the time of the 2019 election.

Combined with the knowledge that their participation in the 2015 election made a difference for (seemingly) the first time ever, I have to wonder if this increase in voter turnout is here to stay, or if Liberal broken promises will discourage them from voting next time and give the advantage back to baby boomers.

Mr.Mike · Oct 2, 2017

SRG01 said:
The biggest problem with increasing it to 100% is that it essentially kills any incentive for investment, whether it be real estate or the stock market. The market would go into deflation as no one would invest or buy property.

The better solution, in my opinion, is for means-tested taxation on property, to prevent flipping and/or overheated markets.

edit: Or even better, progressive capital gains exemptions.

Increasing the inclusion rate would decrease the incentive to invest but it's not actually a 100% tax rate. And the capital gains tax is progressive, in that some portion of capital gains flow into taxable income which is taxed progressively.

I might also make the point that corporate taxes aren't technically progressive. Yes the rich own a lot more equity but everyone pays the same corporate tax rate on their share of the profits, akin to flat income tax where everyone pays the same rate per dollar earned. Eliminating corporate taxes and letting that money flow into people's personal income would make for a more progressive tax system. And in this scenario you would certainly fully include capital gains in taxable income. But corporate taxes are very rhetorically powerful.

SRG01 · Oct 2, 2017

Mr.Mike said:
Increasing the inclusion rate would decrease the incentive to invest but it's not actually a 100% tax rate. And the capital gains tax is progressive, in that some portion of capital gains flow into taxable income which is taxed progressively.

I might also make the point that corporate taxes aren't technically progressive. Yes the rich own a lot more equity but everyone pays the same corporate tax rate on their share of the profits, akin to flat income tax where everyone pays the same rate per dollar earned. Eliminating corporate taxes and letting that money flow into people's personal income would make for a more progressive tax system. And in this scenario you would certainly fully include capital gains in taxable income. But corporate taxes are very rhetorically powerful.

I guess I should've clarified that the inclusion rate should be progressive.

CazTGG · Oct 2, 2017

Terrell said:
Here's an interesting take by Chantal Hébert, suggesting that the election of Singh to the NDP leadership marks the beginning of the end for baby boomer control of Canadian politics, sighting that none of the leaders of the 3 main parties are part of that generation and that the millennial / Gen X voting bloc will outnumber the baby boomers by the time of the 2019 election.

Combined with the knowledge that their participation in the 2015 election made a difference for (seemingly) the first time ever, I have to wonder if this increase in voter turnout is here to stay, or if Liberal broken promises will discourage them from voting next time and give the advantage back to baby boomers.

One could argue that the last election was signalling the end of the boomer's control given both the high turnout among young voters but which party those voters flocked to (if I recall, the split was 45-35-20 for the LPC/NDP/CPC respectively), to say nothing of who Gen X voters went for. The real concern for 2019's election, aside from Russian interference/disinformation like they attempted with Freeland earlier this year will be, with the NDP and LPC becoming closer in terms of them both being progressive center-left parties is that voters will split between the two of them and, with FPTP being what it is, allow the CPC to win a given seat despite the majority of voters not wanting them in power.

Mr.Mike · Oct 2, 2017

A few episodes ago Vox's The Weeds did an episode on the Canadian immigration system, and I though it was interesting.

https://soundcloud.com/vox-the-weeds/weeds-live-canadian#t=16:43

Sean C · Oct 3, 2017

Terrell said:
Here's an interesting take by Chantal Hébert, suggesting that the election of Singh to the NDP leadership marks the beginning of the end for baby boomer control of Canadian politics, sighting that none of the leaders of the 3 main parties are part of that generation and that the millennial / Gen X voting bloc will outnumber the baby boomers by the time of the 2019 election.

The irony is that the Baby Boomers were never very dominant in Canadian politics, as far as the top job goes. There were only two Boomer PMs: Kim Campbell and Stephen Harper, whose cumulative time in office was less than ten years. In comparison, the USA will have had at least 28 years of Boomer presidents by the end of the current term.

Tiktaalik · Oct 3, 2017

SRG01 said:
The biggest problem with increasing it to 100% is that it essentially kills any incentive for investment, whether it be real estate or the stock market. The market would go into deflation as no one would invest or buy property.

The better solution, in my opinion, is for means-tested taxation on property, to prevent flipping and/or overheated markets.

edit: Or even better, progressive capital gains exemptions.

Well no there is plenty of incentive to invest because at the moment interest rates are near zero and any sort of investment is going to yield better returns than leaving your money in the bank doing nothing, whether that investment's capital gain is taxed at your full marginal tax rate or 75% of it or 50% of it (what we currently have).

The question I've been posing is why are the tax dollars of renters, many of whom will never be able to afford to buy a home, going toward tax expenditures to incentivize people to invest in housing? Presumably the traditional answer to this has been that the government sees value in incentivizing people to buy homes, (the whole damn economy of BC is real estate at this point) and that's why they subsidize it in order to increase demand. At the moment however, there is a staggering property bubble in Vancouver and Toronto and housing has become extraordinarily unaffordable to regular people there, so I feel it is time to reevaluate whether the government should really continue with policies that pump demand up.

The current sent of policies of the last decade and more have lead to the financialization of housing in Canada. What we really need is to take steps toward ending this and ensuring that the housing being created is being used to house people.

Terrell · Oct 3, 2017

CazTGG said:
One could argue that the last election was signalling the end of the boomer's control given both the high turnout among young voters but which party those voters flocked to (if I recall, the split was 45-35-20 for the LPC/NDP/CPC respectively), to say nothing of who Gen X voters went for. The real concern for 2019's election, aside from Russian interference/disinformation like they attempted with Freeland earlier this year will be, with the NDP and LPC becoming closer in terms of them both being progressive center-left parties is that voters will split between the two of them and, with FPTP being what it is, allow the CPC to win a given seat despite the majority of voters not wanting them in power.

Without knowing how big the gap in voter population is, it's a little premature to say that. If it's a substantial gap, it could strangle the CPC substantially and see them shrink even further, as millennials reject the social conservative politics of their parents and grandparents.

Sean C said:
The irony is that the Baby Boomers were never very dominant in Canadian politics, as far as the top job goes. There were only two Boomer PMs: Kim Campbell and Stephen Harper, whose cumulative time in office was less than ten years. In comparison, the USA will have had at least 28 years of Boomer presidents by the end of the current term.

But we are in agreement that despite that, they dictated to course of politics with their immense voting population since the last major turning point in voter demographics, which was the election of JFK in the US, the first exertion of young baby boomers in political outcomes.

Gen X was such a small demographic due to a sinking birth rate that, despite best efforts, they were simply not enough of them to overtake the baby boomers combined with the "greatest generation" that were still alive and actively voting.

The latest crop of millennials, who are a result of a birth rate uptick, are finally all of age to vote and the baby boomers are either at the age where they begin passing away or stepping away from being politically active.

What that means for the fate of the conservative vote will largely depend on country, but here in Canada, it's approaching its final years of being 1st or 2nd choice unless they're willing to change with the times.

Sean C · Oct 3, 2017

Terrell said:
But we are in agreement that despite that, they dictated to course of politics with their immense voting population since the last major turning point in voter demographics, which was the election of JFK in the US, the first exertion of young baby boomers in political outcomes.

The election of JFK had nothing to do with the Boomers. The oldest Boomers would have been about 15 in 1960. Even if you stretch the definition to include children born from 1942 onward (the war babies, in the US), they couldnt vote. 1964 and 1968 were the first presidential elections with Boomer voters.

Terrell · Oct 3, 2017

Sean C said:
The election of JFK had nothing to do with the Boomers. The oldest Boomers would have been about 15 in 1960. Even if you stretch the definition to include children born from 1942 onward (the war babies, in the US), they couldn't vote. 1964 and 1968 were the first presidential elections with Boomer voters.

Sorry, you're right, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were due to baby boomers' first political influence, especially Nixon due to boomers' dissatisfaction with the state of the Vietnam War. JFK was merely a result of a changed political sentiment following WWII. My mistake.

Terrell · Oct 3, 2017

Abacus Data confirms what Hebert was talking about, that Gen X and millennials outnumber the baby boomers among the electorate immensely, with the youngest generation being the highest percent of the electorate for the first time in a very long time:

And it's a good thing that millennials outweigh boomers, as Gen X sadly inherited a cynicism that has them trend more toward conservative candidates than anyone (especially them) is comfortable admitting to, some would say even moreso than baby boomers at the same stage of life.
They also had some of the lowest voter turnout for decades until they reached their 40s, at which point it was a 50-50 left/right wing split and more prone to being a swing vote or joke/protest vote, as several disillusioned Gen Xers viewed all politicians as the same but in different colours but conceded that it was their responsibility to cast a ballot at the very least, even if they considered it meaningless.

Part of that could be due to being completely disenfranchised at a young age by being outvoted by their parents at every turn both politically and societally and thus having little to no control over their environment (see: the cultural dumpster fire of the crassly commercial 80s and 90s and all the youth counter-culture of nihilism and rejection that those decades spawned).

Sidenote: This is coincidentally why millennials are "ruining" everything, because they're the first true challenge to the boomer regime which chafes Gen X out of jealousy and boomers out of a refusal to relinquish their societal power.

Meanwhile, millennials predominantly vote left-wing, and that trend increases the younger they are of the generation.

The writer of this piece for Abacus Data concludes with something I've been saying for the past little while in this thread:

For me, the Conservatives and the partys next leader has two choices.

It can put all its effort into winning a larger share of Boomers and Gen Xers and hope Millennials stay home (both are risky propositions).
It can recognize that social conservatism, anti-climate change positions, and perceived intolerance for diversity are alienating the largest groups of voters in the electorate and make a concerted effort to appeal to my generation.
Without changing and adapting to the shifting market its competing in, 2019 will feel a lot like 2015 and the road back to power will be bumpy. Its basic market orientation. Something the Harper Conservatives in 2006 recognized. Its time to recognize it again.

matthewwhatever · Oct 3, 2017

Sign of a potential CAQ victory in Quebec next year?

If nothing else, I think we'll see the LPQ start getting into a few more fights with the federal government, and it probably signals the end of the Couillard-Wynne alliance.

Tiktaalik said:
Well no there is plenty of incentive to invest because at the moment interest rates are near zero and any sort of investment is going to yield better returns than leaving your money in the bank doing nothing, whether that investment's capital gain is taxed at your full marginal tax rate or 75% of it or 50% of it (what we currently have).

The question I've been posing is why are the tax dollars of renters, many of whom will never be able to afford to buy a home, going toward tax expenditures to incentivize people to invest in housing? Presumably the traditional answer to this has been that the government sees value in incentivizing people to buy homes, (the whole damn economy of BC is real estate at this point) and that's why they subsidize it in order to increase demand. At the moment however, there is a staggering property bubble in Vancouver and Toronto and housing has become extraordinarily unaffordable to regular people there, so I feel it is time to reevaluate whether the government should really continue with policies that pump demand up.

The current sent of policies of the last decade and more have lead to the financialization of housing in Canada. What we really need is to take steps toward ending this and ensuring that the housing being created is being used to house people.

I think the second bolded answers the first. I'm going to admit that I'm way, waaaaay out of my depth when talking about economics and economic theory, but I feel like it's a self-sustaining cycle. Property is seen as a stable investment, so people buy it up, so it becomes more valuable, so it becomes even more of a stable investment. It's like the capital gains tax fix you suggested -- it may make sense in some ways, but no politician is going to stand up and tell people relying on property investments that they're going to hurt their investments. The challenge is also cooling the market, while at the same time not cooling the rest of our economic growth. From what I understand -- which, again, is quite limited, so I defer to those of you here who know better -- the measures the BC Liberals enacted last summer (?) helped a little in terms of lowering the average housing price, it's going to be tough to diversify the economy when the benefits of investing in real estate now seem so much more obvious than investing elsewhere.

Terrell said:
Sorry, you're right, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were due to baby boomers' first political influence, especially Nixon due to boomers' dissatisfaction with the state of the Vietnam War. JFK was merely a result of a changed political sentiment following WWII. My mistake.

I'm *shocked* to learn that your understanding of US politics is as shallow as your understanding of Canadian politics.

Baby boomers didn't vote for Nixon. Nixon won because he appealed to older Americans as the law-and-order candidate, fighting off the hippies who'd caused the Democratic National Convention to descend into chaos. He even gave a speech about it the year after winning, where he called his voters the "Silent Majority."

And suggesting that just because millenial voters are more left-leaning *now* means they'll continue to be left-leaning a decade from now ignores history. Those left-wing hippie baby boomers got older, and within ten years they were voting for Reagan, Thatcher, and -- though he wasn't as right-wing as either of those people -- Mulroney. They supported Chretien's austerity measures in the '90s, and they voted for the Common Sense Revolution in Ontario and Ralph Klein in Alberta. Young voters today will probably remain fairly socially progressive, but saying a leftward drift of the electorate is guaranteed is being wildly overconfident.

Now off to the Ignore List with you.

AuthenticM · Oct 3, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
Sign of a potential CAQ victory in Quebec next year?

don't scare me

Terrell · Oct 3, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
I'm *shocked* to learn that your understanding of US politics is as shallow as your understanding of Canadian politics.

Consider me not shocked that you're taking a potshot at a mistake that I readily admit to making.

matthewwhatever said:
Baby boomers didn't vote for Nixon. Nixon won because he appealed to older Americans as the law-and-order candidate, fighting off the hippies who'd caused the Democratic National Convention to descend into chaos. He even gave a speech about it the year after winning, where he called his voters the "Silent Majority."

Historians actually disagree with you. Nixon's "silent majority" was made up of WWII survivors in the older populations and Vietnam veterans and those in their families who supported them, and Vietnam War conscription was restricted to no older than 25 and Vietnam soldiers statistically averaged at 22-23, which makes them baby boomers. The war also caused a rift in the Democratic party that Nixon exploited to his advantage.

Want to make condescending remarks about other people's grasp of politics some more? Or can you be done with that now?

matthewwhatever said:
And suggesting that just because millenial voters are more left-leaning *now* means they'll continue to be left-leaning a decade from now ignores history.

I have no doubt that you believe that.

matthewwhatever said:
Those left-wing hippie baby boomers got older, and within ten years they were voting for Reagan, Thatcher, and -- though he wasn't as right-wing as either of those people -- Mulroney. They supported Chretien's austerity measures in the '90s, and they voted for the Common Sense Revolution in Ontario and Ralph Klein in Alberta. Young voters today will probably remain fairly socially progressive, but saying a leftward drift of the electorate is guaranteed is being wildly overconfident.

Those left-wing hippie baby boomers got extremely wealthy under right-wing politics and wanted to keep it that way. This was especially true in America, but in Canada, there was always a firm divide of opinion for a great many years. Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker nipped at each other's heels for most of the 60s, Canada flirted with Liberal majorities again with Pierre Trudeau until Canadians seemed to agree that he was too divisive a public figure to continue on and elected Joe Clark, who lost steam as soon as he arrived. Mulroney was where the conservative breakout happened and this was around the time that baby boomers in the country started making serious cash, along with getting social conservative traction. Chretien austerity was a necessity to Canadians due to the introduction of the GST. If you're seeing a theme, it's because there is one.

There is also the matter of "peak social justice", where every generation hits a turning point or milestone (Suffrage, civil rights, women's lib, etc.) and believes the work is done, with anything past it that they haven't conceived of being a bridge too far. In Canada, it's not so much a desire of social conservative views (except in the prairies) but turning a blind eye to them when there's something they want more on the line. Millennials will surely hit their peak some day, but until we see the results of how they vote past their 40s, it's too soon to say they'll meet the same fate as the generations before them. That trend you speak of is dependent on similar factors being applicable to them, chief among them being wealth distribution and the stability of the left during their younger voting years.

And millennials, by and large, are going to spend a lot more time being in the lowest percentage of wealth distribution, so with a lot less wealth to lose, the drift to the right will happen a lot more gradually.

matthewwhatever said:
Now off to the Ignore List with you.

Uh-huh, that sure seems like someone who's open to outside opinions that conflict with his world view, surely.

Tiktaalik · Oct 3, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
I think the second bolded answers the first. I'm going to admit that I'm way, waaaaay out of my depth when talking about economics and economic theory, but I feel like it's a self-sustaining cycle. Property is seen as a stable investment, so people buy it up, so it becomes more valuable, so it becomes even more of a stable investment. It's like the capital gains tax fix you suggested -- it may make sense in some ways, but no politician is going to stand up and tell people relying on property investments that they're going to hurt their investments. The challenge is also cooling the market, while at the same time not cooling the rest of our economic growth. From what I understand -- which, again, is quite limited, so I defer to those of you here who know better -- the measures the BC Liberals enacted last summer (?) helped a little in terms of lowering the average housing price, it's going to be tough to diversify the economy when the benefits of investing in real estate now seem so much more obvious than investing elsewhere.

Absolutely right. In the current political environment, no politician is going to do anything at all that would directly appear to be lowering people's housing equity. Looking again at that Premier Horgan quote,

"Housing is a critical component of many people's equity and their retirement prospects, and we want to make sure we don't adversely affect the marketplace."

This is basically the exact talking point that his Liberal predecessor Clark was saying for the last few years while the housing bubble spiralled out of control.

I expect the NDP government to tinker around the edges in the same way that the Liberals did, though likely a bit more actively. The foreign buyers tax is an example of such a policy. It's doesn't address the core structural issues, but it does have an effect.

In BC now over a quarter of the GDP is housing related. These sort of policies have created a monster, and the government is trapped. Housing is unaffordable for everyone, which is a serious drag on the economy and has many other severe implications, but the entire economy is based around housing. It's going to be really difficult to unwind this.

There is a bit of growing unease with the absence of movement from the NDP government on housing since they've been elected. The NDP were proposing a 2% speculation tax and they seem to be in no rush to implement it. The Greens had other ideas in their platform, so it may be that the holdup is related to negotiations between the two parties.

Tiktaalik · Oct 3, 2017

Terrell said:
There is also the matter of "peak social justice", where every generation hits a turning point or milestone (Suffrage, civil rights, women's lib, etc.) and believes the work is done, with anything past it that they haven't conceived of being a bridge too far. In Canada, it's not so much a desire of social conservative views (except in the prairies) but turning a blind eye to them when there's something they want more on the line. Millennials will surely hit their peak some day, but until we see the results of how they vote past their 40s, it's too soon to say they'll meet the same fate as the generations before them. That trend you speak of is dependent on similar factors being applicable to them, chief among them being wealth distribution and the stability of the left during their younger voting years.

And millennials, by and large, are going to spend a lot more time being in the lowest percentage of wealth distribution, so with a lot less wealth to lose, the drift to the right will happen a lot more gradually.

This is spot on. The bolded section reminds me of a conversation I had with my Aunt at some holiday dinner. I was expressing how important I thought universal daycare was and talking about the benefits it could bring, where she stopped me stating, "we tried that, it's impossible." She is a progressive feminist that at least one point was probably in favour of significantly increased daycare support, but because her generation had failed to achieve this, or because her generation had moved on from placing importance on this, she deemed it impossible and not worth trying anymore.

Vamphuntr · Oct 3, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
Sign of a potential CAQ victory in Quebec next year?

If nothing else, I think we'll see the LPQ start getting into a few more fights with the federal government, and it probably signals the end of the Couillard-Wynne alliance.

Depends on how you read the situation. It was Sam Hamad's riding which was shown the door and people liked him the riding (even though his ethic was often dubious) so it could be seen as revenge voting. On the other hand the PLQ candidate started talking about how she was for full face veil which is not the brightest thing to say in Quebec city.

The CAQ has been on the rise in polls during the summer so they have the momentum right now while the PLQ is swimming from one scandal to the next. Considering the previous PLQ and CAQ candidates in the riding had to be removed from the race because of intimidation and bullying they did in the past it kind of show the PQ as crumbling too.

CazTGG · Oct 3, 2017

So Scheer's attempt to politicize anti-choice beliefs as being censored or whatever he hoped to accomplish has failed as Liberal & NDP MPs have voted against anti-choice MP Harder and gone with the pro-choice Conservative MP Karen Vecchio as chair of the status of women committee: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rachael-harder-status-of-women-vecchio-1.4319646

Simon Belmont · Oct 3, 2017

CazTGG said:
So Scheer's attempt to politicize anti-choice beliefs as being censored or whatever he hoped to accomplish has failed as Liberal & NDP MPs have voted against anti-choice MP Harder and gone with the pro-choice Conservative MP Karen Vecchio as chair of the status of women committee: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rachael-harder-status-of-women-vecchio-1.4319646

Thats my MP. Shes aight. As far as concervatife MPs go.

gutter_trash · Oct 3, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
Sign of a potential CAQ victory in Quebec next year?

If nothing else, I think we'll see the LPQ start getting into a few more fights with the federal government, and it probably signals the end of the Couillard-Wynne alliance.

I think the second bolded answers the first. I'm going to admit that I'm way, waaaaay out of my depth when talking about economics and economic theory, but I feel like it's a self-sustaining cycle. Property is seen as a stable investment, so people buy it up, so it becomes more valuable, so it becomes even more of a stable investment. It's like the capital gains tax fix you suggested -- it may make sense in some ways, but no politician is going to stand up and tell people relying on property investments that they're going to hurt their investments. The challenge is also cooling the market, while at the same time not cooling the rest of our economic growth. From what I understand -- which, again, is quite limited, so I defer to those of you here who know better -- the measures the BC Liberals enacted last summer (?) helped a little in terms of lowering the average housing price, it's going to be tough to diversify the economy when the benefits of investing in real estate now seem so much more obvious than investing elsewhere.

I'm *shocked* to learn that your understanding of US politics is as shallow as your understanding of Canadian politics.

Baby boomers didn't vote for Nixon. Nixon won because he appealed to older Americans as the law-and-order candidate, fighting off the hippies who'd caused the Democratic National Convention to descend into chaos. He even gave a speech about it the year after winning, where he called his voters the "Silent Majority."

And suggesting that just because millenial voters are more left-leaning *now* means they'll continue to be left-leaning a decade from now ignores history. Those left-wing hippie baby boomers got older, and within ten years they were voting for Reagan, Thatcher, and -- though he wasn't as right-wing as either of those people -- Mulroney. They supported Chretien's austerity measures in the '90s, and they voted for the Common Sense Revolution in Ontario and Ralph Klein in Alberta. Young voters today will probably remain fairly socially progressive, but saying a leftward drift of the electorate is guaranteed is being wildly overconfident.

Now off to the Ignore List with you.

the Netflix tax that Couillard wants to push is stupid

imBask · Oct 3, 2017

gutter_trash have you watched Melanie Joly at TLMEP?

i'm looking forward to reading your defense for that cassette-spewing robot lady

Pedrito · Oct 3, 2017

A robot would actually be good at cassette-spewing. Joly is awful at it.

ItIsOkBro · Oct 4, 2017

gutter_trash · Oct 4, 2017

imBask said:
gutter_trash have you watched Melanie Joly at TLMEP?

i'm looking forward to reading your defense for that cassette-spewing robot lady

I've been out of country for 14 days, I am sure that nothing can top Trump tossing paper towels into a crowd in Puerto Rico.

I love Melanie Joly

matthewwhatever · Oct 4, 2017

The way this bill is worded sounds incredibly ominous:

Kady O'Malley looked into it, and apparently it really is as bland as the title makes it sound, but seriously: "matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature" sounds like a trick.

CazTGG said:
So Scheer's attempt to politicize anti-choice beliefs as being censored or whatever he hoped to accomplish has failed as Liberal & NDP MPs have voted against anti-choice MP Harder and gone with the pro-choice Conservative MP Karen Vecchio as chair of the status of women committee: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rachael-harder-status-of-women-vecchio-1.4319646

That story leaves out the most darkly funny part of the story:

I know of a bunch of CPCers who are now ranting about consent, which is kind of ironic.

I really wonder how what Scheer thinks his party is getting out of this. It makes for a couple of good fundraising emails, I guess, but why continually double-down on issues that emphasize how far right his party is? Harper didn't win by going hard right on everything, he won by seeming as blandly unthreatening as he could, so that soft Liberal-Conservative voters would go Conservative, and soft Liberal-NDPers would feel it was safe to vote NDP. If you're waffling between the Liberals and the NDP, and you know that a vote for the NDP could help put Scheer in power, at this point, I think you'd be able to overlook minor disappointments with Trudeau and vote Liberal, because the alternative is clearly terrifying. As a Liberal, I'm not complaining, but it's still baffling.

Tiktaalik said:
This is spot on. The bolded section reminds me of a conversation I had with my Aunt at some holiday dinner. I was expressing how important I thought universal daycare was and talking about the benefits it could bring, where she stopped me stating, "we tried that, it's impossible." She is a progressive feminist that at least one point was probably in favour of significantly increased daycare support, but because her generation had failed to achieve this, or because her generation had moved on from placing importance on this, she deemed it impossible and not worth trying anymore.

I wonder, though, whether there's any kind of appetite on the part of governments anymore for big, universal social programs. It feels like federal and provincial governments between the '60s and the late-'80s/early '90s were willing to take the political risks associated with getting together on stuff like CPP, health care, and the constitution. Then Meech and Charlottetown put an end to it, and it taught politicians that thinking big can backfire spectacularly.

I'm trying -- and failing -- to think of the last big pan-Canadian initiative that involved multiple levels of government. Chretien and Harper were both pretty opposed to the First Ministers Meetings that were so common from Pearson to Mulroney, which meant that they mostly dealt with the provinces on an individual basis. Martin tried bringing back executive federalism with the Kelowna Accords, but that failed when he lost. Trudeau has held FMMs, but he's still dealt with each province individually. To bring it back to your example of universal daycare, back in June we had a federal-provincial-territorial agreement signed on early learning and childcare...but to implement it requires coming up with individual deals with each province and territory. We've had the same thing with healthcare funding and the carbon tax.

The only way we're going to have more big social programs is if we get 10 provincial governments that are all on the same page as the federal government, and I don't know when that could happen next.

Vamphuntr · Oct 4, 2017

gutter_trash said:
the Netflix tax that Couillard wants to push is stupid

Diversion tactic after the beat up he received in the by-election and he's also submitting to the pressure of UDA (Quebec's artist union).

Melanie Joly's mission was probably to find a way to not come up with a new tax for digital streaming service and she kind of did that? I understand traditional content providers are furious because of the obvious fiscal inequity. She should have consulted those people before striking the deal and well not after like she's doing.

Mr.Mike · Oct 4, 2017

https://twitter.com/kady/status/915237139671060480

killer rin · Oct 4, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
I wonder, though, whether there's any kind of appetite on the part of governments anymore for big, universal social programs. It feels like federal and provincial governments between the '60s and the late-'80s/early '90s were willing to take the political risks associated with getting together on stuff like CPP, health care, and the constitution. Then Meech and Charlottetown put an end to it, and it taught politicians that thinking big can backfire spectacularly.

I'm trying -- and failing -- to think of the last big pan-Canadian initiative that involved multiple levels of government. Chretien and Harper were both pretty opposed to the First Ministers Meetings that were so common from Pearson to Mulroney, which meant that they mostly dealt with the provinces on an individual basis. Martin tried bringing back executive federalism with the Kelowna Accords, but that failed when he lost. Trudeau has held FMMs, but he's still dealt with each province individually. To bring it back to your example of universal daycare, back in June we had a federal-provincial-territorial agreement signed on early learning and childcare...but to implement it requires coming up with individual deals with each province and territory. We've had the same thing with healthcare funding and the carbon tax.

The only way we're going to have more big social programs is if we get 10 provincial governments that are all on the same page as the federal government, and I don't know when that could happen next.

No, we'll definitely end up on track to implementing big social programs again. Especially now that we dont have many constitutional crisis looming over us, or major separatist movements diverting attention and we did get out of 10 years of a cut and slash Conservative government. Now if we get it under a Trudeau Majority or we have to wait for a Minority backed by the NDP...who knows. I just have a feeling that we'll get back on track eventually. I mean, take Pharmacare for example. The ball is pretty much almost at the line there. We just need someone to actually kick it across. It's almost guaranteed that once/if Trudeau drops down to a Minority the NDP or Greens (if they are still in parliament) will rush to form a Supply and Confidence Agreement with it as the key component.

Pedrito · Oct 4, 2017

gutter_trash said:
I've been out of country for 14 days, I am sure that nothing can top Trump tossing paper towels into a crowd in Puerto Rico.

I love Melanie Joly

But why?
I feel second-hand embarrassment everytime she answers a question.

And am I the only one who doesn't get why ~~Netfix~~Netflix's clients aren't paying taxes? You offer goods/services, you charge taxes. What makes them special? Is it still because of that campaign video with robot Harper saying he likes Breaking Bad?

matthewwhatever said:
I really wonder how what Scheer thinks his party is getting out of this. It makes for a couple of good fundraising emails, I guess, but why continually double-down on issues that emphasize how far right his party is? Harper didn't win by going hard right on everything, he won by seeming as blandly unthreatening as he could, so that soft Liberal-Conservative voters would go Conservative, and soft Liberal-NDPers would feel it was safe to vote NDP. If you're waffling between the Liberals and the NDP, and you know that a vote for the NDP could help put Scheer in power, at this point, I think you'd be able to overlook minor disappointments with Trudeau and vote Liberal, because the alternative is clearly terrifying. As a Liberal, I'm not complaining, but it's still baffling.

They're probably going for the "mah free speech" talking point that is so in vogue right now among the right. We should ask Jordan Peterson what he thinks.

gutter_trash · Oct 4, 2017

Pedrito said:
But why?
I feel second-hand embarrassment everytime she answers a question.

And am I the only one who doesn't get why ~~Netfix~~Netflix's clients aren't paying taxes? You offer goods/services, you charge taxes. What makes them special? Is it still because of that campaign video with robot Harper saying he likes Breaking Bad?

They're probably going for the "mah free speech" talking point that is so in vogue right now among the right. We should ask Jordan Peterson what he thinks.

Vamphuntr · Oct 4, 2017

Pedrito said:
But why?
I feel second-hand embarrassment everytime she answers a question.

And am I the only one who doesn't get why ~~Netfix~~Netflix's clients aren't paying taxes? You offer goods/services, you charge taxes. What makes them special? Is it still because of that campaign video with robot Harper saying he likes Breaking Bad?

Nah I think the only reason there is no tax charged is because our laws aren't updated to take account digital services. For instance there was not tax on PSN charged for a while here. There is still no tax charged when buying on Steam either.

imBask · Oct 4, 2017

Vamphuntr said:
Nah I think the only reason there is no tax charged is because our laws aren't updated to take account digital services. For instance there was not tax on PSN charged for a while here. There is still no tax charged when buying on Steam either.

you said what Joly should've said + add "and we're looking into it" even if it's a lie

instead she dodged the questions, ran the cassette tape to the ground and looked like a complete fool

mdubs · Oct 4, 2017

Vamphuntr said:
Nah I think the only reason there is no tax charged is because our laws aren't updated to take account digital services. For instance there was not tax on PSN charged for a while here. There is still no tax charged when buying on Steam either.

Pretty sure PSN is still thankfully tax free. I approve of Trudeau governments stance.

matthewwhatever · Oct 4, 2017

killer rin said:
No, we'll definitely end up on track to implementing big social programs again. Especially now that we dont have many constitutional crisis looming over us, or major separatist movements diverting attention and we did get out of 10 years of a cut and slash Conservative government. Now if we get it under a Trudeau Majority or we have to wait for a Minority backed by the NDP...who knows. I just have a feeling that we'll get back on track eventually. I mean, take Pharmacare for example. The ball is pretty much almost at the line there. We just need someone to actually kick it across. It's almost guaranteed that once/if Trudeau drops down to a Minority the NDP or Greens (if they are still in parliament) will rush to form a Supply and Confidence Agreement with it as the key component.

Even if all that happens, you still have to get buy-in from all the provinces and territories. We're long past the time when -- to use your example as, uh, an example -- the feds could unilaterally impose a $20B/year program. As is the case with CPP, Quebec would almost definitely opt out and want to be reimbursed the money. Once they're gone, it'd probably make more sense to have each province run the program individually, since they already have the infrastructure set up to deal with it (since the alternative would basically be setting up the third- or fourth-largest federal department). Then you have to work out 13 separate agreements to fund each provincial & territorial pharmacare program.

I'm not saying it's not doable -- this June's Early Learning & Child Care Framework shows that it's possible -- but it's a lot harder than just throwing it into a budget.

Pedrito said:
And am I the only one who doesn't get why ~~Netfix~~Netflix's clients aren't paying taxes? You offer goods/services, you charge taxes. What makes them special? Is it still because of that campaign video with robot Harper saying he likes Breaking Bad?

Like Vamphuntr says, it's something to do with digital services being different than physical goods. I think it also depends on whether the company in question has offices or processes the money in Canada -- i.e. Netflix and PlayStation don't, whereas Nintendo and Microsoft do. It's something that really needs to be fixed.

killer rin · Oct 4, 2017

matthewwhatever said:
Even if all that happens, you still have to get buy-in from all the provinces and territories. We're long past the time when -- to use your example as, uh, an example -- the feds could unilaterally impose a $20B/year program. As is the case with CPP, Quebec would almost definitely opt out and want to be reimbursed the money. Once they're gone, it'd probably make more sense to have each province run the program individually, since they already have the infrastructure set up to deal with it (since the alternative would basically be setting up the third- or fourth-largest federal department). Then you have to work out 13 separate agreements to fund each provincial & territorial pharmacare program.

I'm not saying it's not doable -- this June's Early Learning & Child Care Framework shows that it's possible -- but it's a lot harder than just throwing it into a budget.

Yeah they would still need buyin. However any proposal would almost definitely come with increased funding from the federal side of things. A National Pharmacare program doesn't mean it has to be run by the feds, They just have to help facilitate getting it up and running as a standard across the country. In fact most of the provinces already cover drugs for the Elderly, Youth, Disabled and Poor so the main issue is just opening those up to everybody... which is more of a funding issue than anything.

The theoretical minority government could easily go the Health Accord route of saying "You get this much extra funding if you implement pharmacare". That would be enough to get the children to act. Quebec being as easy as letting them use the money for anything like every other agreement signed with them. As long as one or two provinces bite, the rest will fall in line.

Terrell · Oct 4, 2017

Mr.Mike said:
https://twitter.com/kady/status/915237139671060480

Isn't the irony here that this was done to a Tory by other Tories?

matthewwhatever said:
I know of a bunch of CPCers who are now ranting about consent, which is kind of ironic.

I really wonder how what Scheer thinks his party is getting out of this. It makes for a couple of good fundraising emails, I guess, but why continually double-down on issues that emphasize how far right his party is? Harper didn't win by going hard right on everything, he won by seeming as blandly unthreatening as he could, so that soft Liberal-Conservative voters would go Conservative, and soft Liberal-NDPers would feel it was safe to vote NDP. If you're waffling between the Liberals and the NDP, and you know that a vote for the NDP could help put Scheer in power, at this point, I think you'd be able to overlook minor disappointments with Trudeau and vote Liberal, because the alternative is clearly terrifying. As a Liberal, I'm not complaining, but it's still baffling.

It's a known tactic for tories out of power to be broadly far-right during regular season and then try to dial it back closer to election season, so the people who like the far-right message know tories have their back and hoping everyone else wasn't paying close enough attention.
He could also just be stupid enough to think that his loudest supporters in his riding match up with the loudest supporters in every other riding and that it'll be enough to secure his party's seats.

It's easily either of those 2 things.

Or, even more wildly and much less likely, he could be seeing an upcoming vote split on the left and feel like he has to capitalize on the far-right to further solidify the conservative message and encourage disillusioned far right voters to vote again or steal all those votes from hard-right fringe parties to put them past the leftist parties and their vote split.

EDIT: Also, the doubling down continues. Look at who was chosen to cover Rona Ambrose's riding in the upcoming by-election: Conservative candidate in Ambrose's old riding regrets 'feminazis' remark

gutter_trash · Oct 4, 2017

LOL former Mulroney-ite, Luc Lavoie has been suspended from TVA for saying on air that "we should hunt separatists like squirrels"

I chuckled, but violence should never be equated into espunging opponents.

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/p...stes-luc-lavoie-suspendu-enquete-de-la-sq.php

Terrell · Oct 4, 2017

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...l-guy-caron-as-ndp-leader-in-the-commons.html

Guy Caron has been named NDP leader in the HoC in Singh's absence. Good on him, following up on what he said on Power & Politics where he named Guy Caron as #2 on his leadership ballot.
There's been talk from an opinion piece in the Globe & Mail that all the leadership candidates were offered to move to the front of the bench, which they all accepted. I'd assume Angus will be named Crown-Indigenous Relations critic and Ashton as Status of Women critic, but won't know till we see it.

He apparently was also able to dial back Nantel's threats to leave the party:

Singh also said that he gave Nantel a hug during Wednesday's caucus meeting — his first as leader — and ”had a nice chat" Tuesday night when the party's MPs went out for dinner in Ottawa.

Nantel told reporters afterwards that he is no longer concerned about any lack of respect for Quebec from the NDP leader.

”I am reassured to know that he respects the sovereignty of the National Assembly on these questions," he said.

”Guy Caron as a parliamentary chief: this speaks volumes to how important Quebec is to him."

But I legit LOLd at Caron's statement about Martine Ouellet's "rise of the religious left" comments toward Jagmeet Singh:

Guy Caron said:
sadly, Martine Ouellet missed an opportunity to languish in her anonymity.

matthewwhatever · Oct 5, 2017

1) For anyone interested, the new mandate letters to cabinet have been posted. Most of them rehash what was in previous letters, but the interesting ones are Bennett's and Philpott's -- those are where they lay out a little more clearly how INAC's dissolution will take place. Basically, Philpott is going to be in charge of a massive new ministry that takes pieces from INAC, plus Health, Employment & Social Development, and probably a few other departments, too.

2) The Conservatives, apparently deciding they needed to go even further to the right, have decided to embrace missile defense as their next big issue. I know I'm on record here as saying that the CPC base is pretty set in terms of size, and their voters will turn out almost no matter what, but...they do realize that non-CPC voters see this stuff too, right? And that when you add it to the Rebel stuff, and the climate change denial, and the sexism, and the wildly regressive indigenous stuff, and everything else terrible that Scheer supports, that it makes it more likely that the anti-CPC vote will turn out?

killer rin said:
Yeah they would still need buyin. However any proposal would almost definitely come with increased funding from the federal side of things. A National Pharmacare program doesn't mean it has to be run by the feds, They just have to help facilitate getting it up and running as a standard across the country. In fact most of the provinces already cover drugs for the Elderly, Youth, Disabled and Poor so the main issue is just opening those up to everybody... which is more of a funding issue than anything.

The theoretical minority government could easily go the Health Accord route of saying "You get this much extra funding if you implement pharmacare". That would be enough to get the children to act. Quebec being as easy as letting them use the money for anything like every other agreement signed with them. As long as one or two provinces bite, the rest will fall in line.

I see what you're saying, and I just wish I could be as optimistic as you. I just look back to the last round of health care deals -- where it took ten months to get agreements with all the provinces and territories, and that was with the amounts practically set in stone -- and it seems like something significantly more ambitious would be really, really hard.

mo60 · Oct 5, 2017

A Calgary MLA has left the Alberta NDP caucus.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-ndp-karen-mcpherson-independent-1.4331219

This would have been the biggest story today if the UCP was not fighting with each other again, if someone did not pull an obvious and predictable move in the UCP leadership race or if the Alberta NDP did not outline their cannabis plan.

gutter_trash · Oct 5, 2017

TransCanada abandons Energy East

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/transcanada-abandons-energy-east-pipeline-project-1.3620137

Pedrito · Oct 5, 2017

gutter_trash said:
TransCanada abandons Energy East

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/transcanada-abandons-energy-east-pipeline-project-1.3620137

That's a political blow for the PQ, QS and especially the Bloc. It's been their go-to "see how the evil anglos are dictating our lives" for the past few years.

bremon · Oct 5, 2017

mo60 said:
A Calgary MLA has left the Alberta NDP caucus.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-ndp-karen-mcpherson-independent-1.4331219

This would have been the biggest story today if the UCP was not fighting with each other again, if someone did not pull an obvious and predictable move in the UCP leadership race or if the Alberta NDP did not outline their cannabis plan.

Somewhat interesting...the NDP seem closer to centre in AB than the UCP does so any increasing divide probably invites fingers to be pointed at Brian Jean and Jason Kenney. Hearing UCP leaders argue with each other is pretty comical in a way, but doesnt bode well for the future of this province.

matthewwhatever · Oct 5, 2017

BC's electoral reform referendum has been scheduled for November 2018. It'd be kind of hilarious (though much less likely now than a few months ago) if the government fell and the BC Liberals got back into power before then.

mo60 said:
A Calgary MLA has left the Alberta NDP caucus.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-ndp-karen-mcpherson-independent-1.4331219

This would have been the biggest story today if the UCP was not fighting with each other again, if someone did not pull an obvious and predictable move in the UCP leadership race or if the Alberta NDP did not outline their cannabis plan.

Does she have an actual reason for leaving? Because everything in that story makes it sound like she's just pulling a "Both sides are bad!", without having any specific gripes.

gutter_trash said:
TransCanada abandons Energy East

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/transcanada-abandons-energy-east-pipeline-project-1.3620137

Good for them. I wonder what it means for the future of Keystone? Because they sounded a little down on that too, the last time they talked about it.

gutter_trash · Oct 5, 2017

China is going big in green tech, even if there is lots of oxymorons in terms of the present environmental standards, but they are developing green tech and jumping ahead while the US lags behind.

The whole Pipeline debate IMO has changed; it is empirical that Canada gets serious about green tech before we fall behind to China and Europe.

Vamphuntr · Oct 5, 2017

Pedrito said:
That's a political blow for the PQ, QS and especially the Bloc. It's been their go-to "see how the evil anglos are dictating our lives" for the past few years.

It's pretty minor for QC politics I would think. Even Couillard was happy about the news and pretty much everyone were against it. Today the more important stuff is about Couillard trying to do a cabinet shuffle while navigating a minefield and QS and ON fusing. Bonus point for dealing the sinking racial discrimination inquiry.

Support NeoGAF

Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Similar threads