Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[BananaPancakes]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How is the middle class defined in Canada? I read something today that suggested it was individual income between $50,000/year and $500,000/year.

A lot of "middle class" families don't make enough money to worry about TFSAs because they have nothing to put in them, and because both parents work up to (but not over" the $50 floor, the income splitting doesn't do anything for them either.

The problem is most people think they're part of the middle class regardless of how much they make.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/a...lass-1.3267982

According to the survey in that video, 88% of people who make 100k+ identify themselves as "middle class".

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by V

So Justin wants to get rid of UCCB, income splitting and the increased TSFA limits? Ouch, that's three things that hurt me directly. I thought I was middle class, and Justin's saying he wants to help the middle class, but I'm having a hard time understanding how he's trying to help me.

And you are one of the few to be able to do so.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by BananaPancakes

The problem is most people think they're part of the middle class regardless of how much they make.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/a...lass-1.3267982

According to the survey in that video, 88% of people who make 100k+ identify themselves as "middle class".

Middle class also seem to have a wide stair. Lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class......upper upper middle class....

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by calculoso

He's not wrong about this. Drugs do damage to families and communities, although usually this is not said in reference to pot but harder drugs.

Marijuana has negative impact on children's minds.. this is true.

I am very much hoping that legalizing it will actually reduce the amount it gets into children's hands, but I very much doubt it. High schools are full of it and other drugs already, and nobody seems to care. Legalizing it will hopefully raise the price just enough so that its availability decreases... but I think that is a pipe dream...

Let's face it: any teenager who wants pot can get it, probably even easier than getting liquor.

The best things that legalizing it can do are (1) regulate THC content; (2) regulate production to avoid chemical additives and "lacing" with other substances; (3) prevent kids from coming into contact with drug dealers who likely sell other, more harmful substances too.

Originally Posted by MattyC

Why even waste your time campaigning outside of a polling station?

Would it not be fair to say that the vast majority of people have made up their minds before showing up at a poll? Particularly an early voter poll?

I think the main thing the law intends to avoid is voter intimidation. You can totally see how some worked up party volunteers could get into harassing people at the polls, deterring them from voting at all. It's important people have a clear path to the ballot box.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Buh Bye Harper. Not sad to see you go, even though I believe the CPC's fiscal policies far exceed the Liberals' fiscal policies.

(i.e. my ideal scenario is a CPC minority with a leadership change).

This! Thank you. Hopefully the conservatives win a minority, and then see the writing on the wall and Harper is replaced within a few months. Best case scenario.

[EldrickOnIce]

According to statscan, there is about 4.2 million working Canadians who earn between 35 and 50k. You add another 3+ million when you include those making over 25k, but I expect some of these are not full time workers. Regardless, that's a pretty significant amount of full time working people who will receive no (or next to no) benefit from the LPC plan to give tax breaks to 'middle class' Canadians.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...il105a-eng.htm

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I am very much hoping that legalizing it will actually reduce the amount it gets into children's hands, but I very much doubt it.

I'm not sure about the "amount" (as in metric weight) but post-legalization stats in Colorado show little change in the rate of youth consumption. A slight decrease actually but that was more in line with recent trends and may be unrelated.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Legalizing it will hopefully raise the price just enough so that its availability decreases... but I think that is a pipe dream...

Price will probably stay the same or go down. If you increase the price then you maintain the criminal element since blackmarketeers will still have significant profit avenues. Basically you want to set it at a price point where smuggling isn't profitable enough to offset risk.

Still safer for kids since their point of contact on marijuana sales won't likely be the street-level distribution network of an organized crime sydicate. And safer for everyone since police resources can be reallocated towards curbing more dangerous activities.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Let's face it: any teenager who wants pot can get it, probably even easier than getting liquor.

The best things that legalizing it can do are (1) regulate THC content; (2) regulate production to avoid chemical additives and "lacing" with other substances; (3) prevent kids from coming into contact with drug dealers who likely sell other, more harmful substances too.

Agree whole heartedly

[peter12]

Originally Posted by BananaPancakes

The problem is most people think they're part of the middle class regardless of how much they make.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/a...lass-1.3267982

According to the survey in that video, 88% of people who make 100k+ identify themselves as "middle class".

This is actually a very good thing.

[rubecube]

Looks like it's not just Trudeau we have to worry about embarrassing us internationally. Obviously leftist site, so take with a massive grain of salt, but the actual quotes come from international publications (The Economist, The Guardian, etc.).

http://www.pressprogress.ca/congratu...acist_rhetoric

Here are 7 international news stories that underline just how far off course Stephen Harper's divisive rhetoric has taken all of us:

The Economist informs its international readership that Harper's "Muslim-bashing" rhetoric appears to have spurred a series of physical attacks on Muslim-Canadians:

The [Niqab] fuss is a godsend for Stephen Harper, who hopes voters will re-elect him for a fourth term as prime minister—despite their fatigue with his ten-year rule and a weak economy ... Canada’s 1m Muslims are dismayed. Although hate crimes in general are declining, those targeting Muslims are not. In the past week, a pregnant woman wearing a headscarf in Montreal was knocked down by two teenagers. Another wearing a niqab in Toronto said she was assaulted. Politicising the niqab is "unbelievably dangerous," said Calgary’s mayor, Naheed Nenshi, who is a Muslim.

[peter12]

Is there any evidence to support the notion that hate crimes on Muslims are increasing?

[calculoso]

What do those International Publications say about France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, etc that completely bands the Niqab, and not just for citizenship ceremonies?

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

I am confused, are you stating that the liberal supporters are the vocal minority?

This thread shows the Liberals at 50%, Cons at 42% (small quantity of votes, it can change quick)

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=149701

If the most recent finished poll of this site is believed, liberal supports are the vocal majority on this form at 54%:

By quoting a poll with ~200 respondents I think you've proven my point.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Buh Bye Harper. Not sad to see you go, even though I believe the CPC's fiscal policies far exceed the Liberals' fiscal policies.

(i.e. my ideal scenario is a CPC minority with a leadership change).

What makes you think Jason Kenney would be an upgrade on Harper?

Or do you think the Conservatives could select a 'progressive' leader?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is actually a very good thing.

It is from an economic standpoint. Technically, they are "in the middle" and it's a good thing to have a large portion of the country have expendable income.

However, it becomes a bad thing when politicians refer to the middle-class as the receiver of benefits and people think it applies to them when it doesn't. What the middle class IS and what it is interpreted to be are two different things. Economically, it's those that fall in the middle and if there is a significant enough number of people under 200k that they fall into the middle as well, it's a good sign. But politically, when people hear "middle-class" they think of the lower-end, the people that are struggling to get/keep their heads above water. So they vote with the party claiming to benefit the middle-class, without considering what that actually means, which is not necessarily a good thing.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by V

So Justin wants to get rid of UCCB, income splitting and the increased TSFA limits? Ouch, that's three things that hurt me directly. I thought I was middle class, and Justin's saying he wants to help the middle class, but I'm having a hard time understanding how he's trying to help me.

Income splitting being gone may hurt you, but the main benefactors of something like it are families with one higher earner and another with no income. Single parent - nothing for you. Single person - nothing for you. Two spouses earning the same amount - nothing for you. Family with low income - nothing for you.

Its just a random benefit that goes mainly helps the wealthy.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It is from an economic standpoint. Technically, they are "in the middle" and it's a good thing to have a large portion of the country have expendable income.

However, it becomes a bad thing when politicians refer to the middle-class as the receiver of benefits and people think it applies to them when it doesn't. What the middle class IS and what it is interpreted to be are two different things. Economically, it's those that fall in the middle and if there is a significant enough number of people under 200k that they fall into the middle as well, it's a good sign. But politically, when people hear "middle-class" they think of the lower-end, the people that are struggling to get/keep their heads above water. So they vote with the party claiming to benefit the middle-class, without considering what that actually means, which is not necessarily a good thing.

I do find it amusing that it works on the other end as well. A lot of people that make less than 44k also consider themselves middle class, and that Trudeau's tax cut leaves them out.

It really is the greatest politic-term ever. It's so vague, yet it's positive and everyone thinks they're part of it. Pandering to the "middle class" is probably like 95% of the population (whether they're actually middle class or not).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by calculoso

What do those International Publications say about France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, etc that completely bands the Niqab, and not just for citizenship ceremonies?

Tu quo que is not a valid response to criticism. Also, why would articles specifically discussing Canada and the Canadian elections talk about other countries?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I do find it amusing that it works on the other end as well. A lot of people that make less than 44k also consider themselves middle class, and that Trudeau's tax cut leaves them out.

It really is the greatest politic-term ever. It's so vague, yet it's positive and everyone thinks they're part of it. Pandering to the "middle class" is probably like 95% of the population (whether they're actually middle class or not).

This could very well be why I don't really care about fiscal policies. As a single, childless male, making under $45k/year, who does not belong to a visible minority, nor owns a home he will be renovating, there is dick all for me in any of three fiscal platforms. Well except the Greens, who are promising to wipe my student down the line. So it makes a lot more sense for someone like me to focus on social issues.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I do find it amusing that it works on the other end as well. A lot of people that make less than 44k also consider themselves middle class, and that Trudeau's tax cut leaves them out.

It really is the greatest politic-term ever. It's so vague, yet it's positive and everyone thinks they're part of it. Pandering to the "middle class" is probably like 95% of the population (whether they're actually middle class or not).

Which is exactly why the LPC wisely refers to it as 'middle class' and otherwise left it undefined, as their proposed tax cuts to the 'middle class' give the biggest dollar benefits to those individuals making between 89k and 200k, and zero benefit to those under 45k.
Savvy politicking.