This is a great discussion but immediately fell into the trap of "We are going to reinvent the party from the ground up by throwing away all of our old views...except this one... and that one... and we need this one as well of course...and if we get rid of this one then the .001% of the population will be mad at us so we have to keep that..." and so on.
I would also suggest we eliminate coded or loaded terms like progressive, labour, etc., and basically any term that already has baggage. Powderjunkie's post made a great start on this. I am not sure the family budget is the best template, but it is a good place to start. We can chew gum and walk at the same time.
I like the suggestion of losing left/right and finding a new paradigm. Not sure vertical is the way to go as it implies top and bottom (hee hee) and we don't want people to view themselves as the bottom if we can avoid it. We can workshop that.
1. Sell as much O/G as we can for as long as we can. The idea of transitioning away from O/G by reducing its use is the same as a CEO saying his company is more profitable by cutting costs. It meets the short-term goal of rising stock prices and quarterly numbers, but does nothing to actually increase the company's efficacy, and in many cases, it actually cannibalizes it. Sell that #### before the MARKET determines it is no longer the best use case. (I think of it as show me a solar-powered airplane, then we can talk. O/G is far too entrenched in everything we make and use to just stop getting it.
2. Encourage ANY promising industry to mature and develop as much as we can. Solar is a great idea. Incentivize businesses and residents to install solar on every available surface in the country. I almost got solar installed on a zero-interest loan. I will do it if another program like this comes along. This increases the demand for panels, installers, all the other parts involved, the energy guys to do assessments. Obvious benefit at minimal cost, as the gov't gets the money back, maybe even just guaranteed loans to throw the banks a bone to run the program. Incentivize kids to go into these industries with favourable student loans and, maybe, I don't know, educate them about these opportunities instead of the useless #### school counsellors do now.
3. Support the vast majority of the country instead of the 1%. What makes life hard? Help with that. Daycare, hospital waits, Dr. availability. Incent Drs. to come here and not leave. Pay the #### out of them. Make our immigration system work better. Want to move here? Work in home construction (or whatever required industry for 3 years. Look at immigration as HR to be used to solve problems, and create markets, and not as a drain. Staff the immigration process on a 'for-profit' basis, so to speak.
4. Have a fair income tax code. Don't put the entire burden on the middle class. Make rich people pay their share, or at least a share. Eliminate the workarounds. Pay the CRA lawyers like real lawyers. You win? You get a cut of the winnings. Watch enforcement skyrocket and challenges plummet.
5. Pay teachers what they are worth, in view of what they are contributing to the overall economy over the next generation. Structure schools like they should be, not just lowest-common-denominator catchalls.
6. Teach kids the skills they will actually need. Proper long-term investing. Banking, budgeting, how to run a household, how to maintain a household. How to eat properly and why. How to go grocery shopping and prepare simple, healthy meals.
7. Incent students to go into the most in demand areas. We need welders? Welding school tuition is free, paid part by gov't, part by industry.
8. Disincentivize the #### out of unhealthy food. You want that twinkie? It will be 25% more and the money goes DIRECTLY into the health care budget. Have you seen the display in the grocery store? Or most of the food in the aisles of the grocery store? Why do we make it so easy for people to eat terribly?
9. No more general revenue bull####. If it is promised to go to something, it has to and must be proven to or automatic recall (maybe not that harsh but accountability) No more robbing pensions to pay for opex.
10. Make lobbying more transparent (No, PP, that is not what that word means!) Severely limit the ability of money to influence results. Go farther away from the US system, not towards it.
11. Make farming and rural living desirable. Has a city kid ever gone to become a farmer? We need those roles too. Treat them like the business people they are. Although there are no slave labour-type employment policies. Like WTF?
12. You invoke the NW clause, you have to have a general election within 6 months, AND that issue must be on the ballot. Or even just a binding referendum, and if you lose, the government falls. (Haha. I like this one. Just thought of it. If it is really necessary, they should be able to defend it in an election.
Remind the politicians they are there to represent EVERYBODY in their riding and make them catch hell if they don't. We should understand that the proper incentives do encourage the sought-after behaviour. Put that to use.
I disagree with you on number 4. Our problem in terms of service level versus funding is a lack of middle class taxation. I agree with you that the wealthy should not have access to loopholes holes but we need to increase taxes on the middle class to fund at the level of our European counterparts we want to compare to.
It’s not a platform to run on but a Prentoce look in the mirror type statement is required on taxation versus expected service level.
I disagree with you on number 4. Our problem in terms of service level versus funding is a lack of middle class taxation. I agree with you that the wealthy should not have access to loopholes holes but we need to increase taxes on the middle class to fund at the level of our European counterparts we want to compare to.
It’s not a platform to run on but a Prentoce look in the mirror type statement is required on taxation versus expected service level.
I do agree with you. Everyone wants everything, right now, and someone else can pay for it. "IT'S A WRITE OFF!!" The perfect platform is to eliminate taxes and have the same services as Norway. Easy win. A bit tougher to implement.
Also, as per #4, the idea was to collect from those who are not contributing, as opposed to being realistic in cost for service. I think both discussions are valid. I would be happy with my tax level if the current level of services were only slightly improved. Flying Dani to Texas to fellate the far right would not fall into this category.
All of the above are planks to be worked on, not final policies but I think they get us closer to where we want/need to be as opposed to the same old bull####.
Give poor people money doesn’t necessarily solve food deserts efficiently. There will still be access issues. Now would money plus uber vouchers be more efficient than the government running a store? I don’t know.
The food desert problem is likely a bigger issue than mark up when it comes to government grocers.
If you're poor, dessert is the least of your food concern.
Just getting your primary meals is difficult enough. Let's solve that before focusing on ice cream and cakes.
The Following User Says Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
Not if it was put directly on their Driver's Licence. We should have all of our gov't documents on one scannable ID card. Most people have a DL. Put your sin, number, health care number, etc. all on the one card.
But then what if you lost the card? It's too important... hey, maybe we should put a tracking chip in it!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I disagree with you on number 4. Our problem in terms of service level versus funding is a lack of middle class taxation. I agree with you that the wealthy should not have access to loopholes holes but we need to increase taxes on the middle class to fund at the level of our European counterparts we want to compare to.
It’s not a platform to run on but a Prentoce look in the mirror type statement is required on taxation versus expected service level.
I think the issue with the tax code is it captures basically the entire middle and lower class while keeping the elite upper class taxed the same as the middle class.
15% - 57,375 or less
20.5% - over $57,375 to $114,750
26% - over $114,750 to $177,882
29% - over $177,882 to $253,414
33% - More than $253,414
To me this is a completely outdated range set. Why is the max so low? You could bump everyone down a tax bracket if you could capture people making $1M+ and then those with $5M+. And you need to separate the lower end more.
5% - 60k or less
10% - over $60k to $80k
15% - over $80K to $110K
20% - over $110 to $500k
25% - 500k to 1M
30% - 1M to 5M
35% - 5M+
The problem is, even if you set this up, the people at the top can find away to put themselves in the 110-500k bracket just by paying themselves personally a salary falling into that range, while stashing everything else in various shell companies, trusts, etc.. This is also what groups people like the plumber with a few million in a solid business with people like Kevin O'Leary. Because despite being lightyears apart in income, they are for some reason fighting to stay in the same tax bracket.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
The highest income earners already end up paying a significant portion of the overall taxes (which makes sense) but if you want services brought up to the level we're seemingly demanding, everyone has to pay for it.
Low income earners, especially those with children, likely end up paying negative taxes when you factor the basic personal exemption, Canada child benefit, guaranteed income supplement, working income tax benefit and other programs into the equation. Whether these programs are successful in bring those out of poverty or not is debatable.
This only leaves the middle and upper classes to pay. Currently the top 10% earn about 34% of the income, and pay about 55% of the overall personal taxes. The top 1% in that group earn about 10% of the income, and pay about 22% of the taxes.
If we want better services, you can increase the percentage the top pay, but you have to increase the percentage the middle class pays as well. Since this isn't a popular political position given the increased cost of living, we're likely stuck with the services that we currently have.
I'd have to assume just judging taxes paid in income tax misses a whole load of very wealthy people not technically earning income that is taxed the same. Their wealth may increase 20% in a year, but they only pay 0.5% of it in taxes(random made up numbers). So by saying "The top 1% in that group earn about 10% of the income, and pay about 22% of the taxes" it's technically true, but they've gotten a whole lot wealthier in other ways. Consolidation of wealth in this manner is a problem we haven't really solved, and it's only going to get worse.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
What Alberta is doing is Anti-Solar policy. It is stupid.
What I am proposing is pro-industry policy all accross all energy sources. You seem to be caught up in there being a dichotomy between different types of energy investments. Instead we should be building taxation and investment frameworks to support all energy sources. We can walk and chew gum.
Yes, I get caught up on forward looking investments.
If everyone else is investing 100% into electrification, does it make sense for us to do otherwise? Not really (in my opinion). The best thing we can do is try to race ahead and capture innovations faster than other nations so that we can be the ones producing the next generation of technology and selling it to everyone else. If we are the producers instead of the consumers then we are making jobs instead of buying products made by workers in other nations.
I am not saying we would shut down legacy energy industries prematurely, we need to keep using them to bankroll our development of replacement tech. This is what the Saudis are doing as they intend to be off fossil fuels themselves while they bankroll their transition plan and stuff their coffers by continuing to sell O&G to the suckers who are not pushing electrification agendas.
This is what we should be doing but we are not only failing at it, we are looking to invest even more dollars into the legacy tech.
I'd have to assume just judging taxes paid in income tax misses a whole load of very wealthy people not technically earning income that is taxed the same. Their wealth may increase 20% in a year, but they only pay 0.5% of it in taxes(random made up numbers). So by saying "The top 1% in that group earn about 10% of the income, and pay about 22% of the taxes" it's technically true, but they've gotten a whole lot wealthier in other ways. Consolidation of wealth in this manner is a problem we haven't really solved, and it's only going to get worse.
Those gains are captured into income (and taxed) at death. So every year's number includes in both tax/income the people who died that year, which I assume would sort od average out each year.
The highest income earners already end up paying a significant portion of the overall taxes (which makes sense) but if you want services brought up to the level we're seemingly demanding, everyone has to pay for it.
Low income earners, especially those with children, likely end up paying negative taxes when you factor the basic personal exemption, Canada child benefit, guaranteed income supplement, working income tax benefit and other programs into the equation. Whether these programs are successful in bring those out of poverty or not is debatable.
This only leaves the middle and upper classes to pay. Currently the top 10% earn about 34% of the income, and pay about 55% of the overall personal taxes. The top 1% in that group earn about 10% of the income, and pay about 22% of the taxes.
If we want better services, you can increase the percentage the top pay, but you have to increase the percentage the middle class pays as well. Since this isn't a popular political position given the increased cost of living, we're likely stuck with the services that we currently have.
Top 1% = 22%
The 9% from 10-1% = 33%
The 40% from 50-10% = 40% of income taxes paid
Bottom 50% = 5%
It's interesting that the third group as a whole ends up perfectly proportional. Perhaps someone knows the exact income level/% group where its exactly proportional? I'm guessing about top 35%.
But the tricky thing is that the median income of the whole top 50% (ie. the top 25%) was 76,200 (2023), which is to say that income level is still a subsidizer and not a subsidizee (which is totally fine).
Taxing the 50th to 75th percentile range more sounds like a reasonable solution (and it is), but it feels a lot harder to say that when you assign the gross income levels: 44,100-76,200 (2023)
__________________
The UCP are trampling on our rights and freedoms. Donate $200 to Alberta NDP and get $150 back on your taxes
Are Albertan's clamoring for the return of ALCB liquor stores?
Public grocery stores would be essentially taxpayer subsidized employment and contracts to private businesses. When you factor in all the sub-commercial things mentioned in that video ('Living wages' as defined by the NDP, mandatory union participation, Dictating where food is sourced from, Putting stores not where it makes economic sense but rather markets where private interests abandoned and combine it with the lack of accountability to the bottom line that plaques most government run enterprise and there would be no hypothetical profits left to distribute if the goal was also to undercut private grocery store pricing. Rather it would be the opposite, it would require massive taxpayer subsidies to keep afloat year after year.
When put that way there's probably more effective public tools at achieving the goals laid out than the boondoggle of creating a massive government run enterprise. Like just give poorer people money for food. It would be more effective and cheaper than blueprinting and creating from scratch a government food distribution network and stores.
The idea that government run enterprises are inefficient is always a talking point but barring total corruption, they typically provide services for people that private enterprise isn't conserved with. It's kind of the Canada Post or Library thing. We don't have these things because they are meant to be profitable money makers. We have these things because they improve conditions for Canadians.
Would it be taxpayer subsidiary of groceries be essentially what you describe?
Yes.
Is that a good thing?
Yes. Because it takes money away from enterprises like Loblaws that in turn tax shelter their profits and buy up every independent grocer out there.
It keeps the industry accountable at a time when five corporations own just about every grocery store in the country and find loopholes to avoid paying tax on their profit.
The market has its place, but
- food
- water
- shelter
- heat / electricity
- firefighters
- health care
are just basic human needs and we cannot have capitalism controlling food.
Our tax dollars SHOULD subsidize them. Even if they lose money.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 11-11-2025 at 09:36 PM.
Alright. I agree, let's see what they can do to combat the out of touch ideological mess they have created for themselves and get back to being a worker's party.
Well it was a good 8 minutes.
Here's a few links to see why he is not the answer and is actually the biggest problem for the NDP.
He's downright obsessed with the Leap Manifesto and one of the founders, to the point where he preferred having the Alberta NDP collapse than mind his tongue about destructive policies against other provinces that are led by the NDP. Avi Lewis is one of the main reasons why I believe the Alberta NDP needs to cut ties from the federal NDP for being completely out of touch and harming their chances.
The guy is pretty much unelectable and had to go out in NDP friendly Vancouver land to try to get elected. He tried his hand at West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and failed, and tried Vancouver Centre and failed. Both are hard hitting workers first areas of course.
So a Torontonian criticized by his own party for his Toronto centric views, residing and failing to get elected in Vancouver (and failing in such a gimme area twice, both as 3rd choice) is the saviour of the NDP to fight for...checks note...become the workers party again?
Frankly, if people like you are vouching for people like Avi Lewis as the salvation for the NDP, the NDP doesn't need enemies.
Hi Firebolt.
First off, it is easy for me to like Avi more than the other 4 people running because he is the only one with policies thus far. When everyone else is just showing up with vibes (or fear or AI) then I like to see the guy who is showing up with something prepared. It helps that I like a number of things he is saying thus far.
For example, when he talks about the automotive companies that took public money bailouts and are now shuttering their Canadian factories and laying Canadians off so they can focus on appeasing Trump and America.... his solution is to seize the land, factory, and equipment and reopen the factory to make Canadian EVs. I think that is a strong populist idea - they took our money and ran away, we should take their stuff in compensation and put it to use. It is also a very pro-labour idea as it would reopen factories, create local jobs, and build local products.
Also, I think the public grocer is a great idea. Standing up public owned grocery stores with a public own distribution network and contracts with local farmers who are getting squeezed by corporation farmers that are trying to restrict their seeds or take their land.... I think there could be great benefits on multiple levels and it is very pro-labour as well as populist. The grocery store mega-corps active in Canada do not need to be making record profits at a time like this.
However, the vote is in March and I am looking at the other options too (hence why I posted Rob's kickoff video too). I have said nothing about anyone being a savior or salvation or whatever but I did want to kick this conversation off and frame it impartially in my first couple of posts and then put in my opinion in a separate post to break the ice and try to draw in more people to do the same.
I disagree with your assessment of Avi running in "NDP friendly" Vancouver. Vancouver Centre has never elected an NDP, ever, but they did vote CCF that one time in '48. West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country has also never elected an NDP. For either of those ridings to be friendly or safe they need to have elected his party at least once in their entire history.... So in both cases he attempted to flip a seat to his party that his party has never won and you think that is some kind of "gotcha"?
So while you are putting a lot of work into tearing down my current favourite (even if your facts are not that great), perhaps you could instead talk about what you would rather see to build the party up? Who is the leader that you would support? Would you vote for Heather McPherson because she is from Alberta and has Notley's endorsement? Here is her kickoff video to round out the 3 front runners.
The idea that government run enterprises are inefficient is always a talking point but barring total corruption, they typically provide services for people that private enterprise isn't conserved with. It's kind of the Canada Post or Library thing. We don't have these things because they are meant to be profitable money makers. We have these things because they improve conditions for Canadians.
Would it be taxpayer subsidiary of groceries be essentially what you describe?
Yes.
Is that a good thing?
Yes. Because it takes money away from enterprises like Loblaws that in turn tax shelter their profits and buy up every independent grocer out there.
It keeps the industry accountable at a time when five corporations own just about every grocery store in the country and find loopholes to avoid paying tax on their profit.
The market has its place, but
- food
- water
- shelter
- heat / electricity
- firefighters
- health care
are just basic human needs and we cannot have capitalism controlling food.
Our tax dollars SHOULD subsidize them. Even if they lose money.
I think a big thing people will always fail to consider with the idea of a public grocer is that even if we each are contributing $500 in tax dollars to make it happen, it is worth it if we end up saving any number that is more than $500 of post tax money when buying groceries. Having a public grocer gives an affordable option but it also drives down the prices in the private corporations as they will have a harder and harder time justifying their significantly higher prices.
So ya, we may subsidize it via taxes but if each of us end up saving more money than we pay into it then that is a win.
Not to mention the opportunity to support other services. Like if we want to have $10/day daycare that actually feeds the kids good food, you could use the publicly funded food distribution network to supply the daycares that are feeding kids. Then go a step further and use the same system to feed kids (and teachers) in the public schools. And feed the patients and staff in hospitals.
There are ways that the savings could be multiplied by integrating the services.
The private sector hates the idea of any of this happening because it takes away from their profits. Hence they run aggressive campaigns about how governments are bad at doing things like this even when there are examples of governments being good at it and people benefiting from the services.
I think a big thing people will always fail to consider with the idea of a public grocer is that even if we each are contributing $500 in tax dollars to make it happen, it is worth it if we end up saving any number that is more than $500 of post tax money when buying groceries. Having a public grocer gives an affordable option but it also drives down the prices in the private corporations as they will have a harder and harder time justifying their significantly higher prices.
So ya, we may subsidize it via taxes but if each of us end up saving more money than we pay into it then that is a win.
Not to mention the opportunity to support other services. Like if we want to have $10/day daycare that actually feeds the kids good food, you could use the publicly funded food distribution network to supply the daycares that are feeding kids. Then go a step further and use the same system to feed kids (and teachers) in the public schools. And feed the patients and staff in hospitals.
There are ways that the savings could be multiplied by integrating the services.
The private sector hates the idea of any of this happening because it takes away from their profits. Hence they run aggressive campaigns about how governments are bad at doing things like this even when there are examples of governments being good at it and people benefiting from the services.
Vertical Integration: Crown Corporation version
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Do we really want the people who run the passport office, etc. (I know, different level, same idea —pick a gov't service) to be responsible for fresh food? Really?
