Quote:
Originally Posted by eddly
I doubt that is happening now.
For me I need to know what regulating marijuana means. Similar to tobacco? Trudeau has hinted no... it wouldn't be as freely available as tobacco but he hasn't explained it any further. It is just my personal opinion for which I feel I am being lightly attacked for. I guess that is fine.
I just find that Mulcair makes promises he won't be able to keep and Trudeau makes promises that are well received but he neglects to provide sufficient detail. Lower taxes for middle class? Has he defined the middle class for us? There is no one widely accepted definition of middle class. I guess we would find out eventually. Borrow money now because debt is cheap now? Does he gave a plan to pay it back once rates get higher? Haven't heard anything about that... pension splitting and tfsas are only used by the rich? That is a stretch. Universal childcare benefits favor the rich and instead should be based on income thresholds? Well I guess Trudeau does not understand that they are taxable income and technically it is then based on income thresholds.
Despite this I am warming up to him as a potential PM as I get the impression that he has a good team that supports him... he is just too dependant on them.
|
Regardless of whether or not people are being jailed for simple possession, the illegality of the substance is still providing cash for gangs. What could become a regulated and heavily taxed industry is instead a drain on our prison system and a loss of taxable earnings. Any capitalist should support the legalization of marijuana.
If it's only downside is the smell, it can be addressed with much more fair and less compromising laws.
As for what Trudeau considers to be the middle class, his platform makes a pattern of targeting the richest 1%. A common figure for middle class is less than $200,000:
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10...ddle-class.pdf
Page 80.
The Liberals plan to have a balanced budget at the end of four years. Their deficit spending is intended to stimulate the economy to generate larger surpluses further down the line, as well as to provide much needed infrastructure throughout the country. For Calgary, this means the green line and flood mitigation infrastructure. Whether or not you agree with this is up to you.
They've never stated that the doubling of the TFSA and income splitting benefits only the rich, merely that they are strongly weighted towards the rich. I don't care for their reversal on the TFSA, but it's not enough of an election issue for me to sway to either side.
Your argument about the UCCB has me confused. Even if the rich are taxed at a higher bracket, they are still receiving money that they do not need when that money could be going to the people that need it significantly more.