This sort of sums up my feelings on Mulcair's NDP. In an election where people would have seriously considered a progressive alternative, they instead opted for classic brokerage policies. Whether you agree with progressive policies or not, they have played a pivotal role in developing the welfare state, and I think most of us agree that we're better off with strong labour laws and a public health care system. Honestly, the legacy of Mulcair's NDP will be that they finally gave up any remaining resistance to neoliberalism in Canada.
Sadly, the greatest selling point of both the NDP and Liberals in this campaign is that they are not the Conservatives. Between the two, the NDP has most consistently opposed Harper’s policies. But New Democrats have utterly failed to present a fresh vision for Canada, one that transcends not only Harper’s apparent mistakes and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s apparent shortcomings, but the ideological chokehold of neo-liberalism on the Canadian imagination.
The party’s taxation policy is a big yawner. New Democrats want to increase corporate income taxes from 15 per cent to 17 per cent. While the NDP is the only party to even suggest an increase, it’s worth noting that the corporate tax rate was nearly 40 per cent in 1970. We don’t know if the NDP has a longer term plan on corporate income taxes, as it does for say, reducing pollution.
But we know New Democrats won’t increase taxes on Canada’s richest individuals — that’s a Liberal promise this time around. And the NDP pledge to reduce small business taxes from 11 to 9 per cent is identical to the Liberals and Conservatives.
The NDP’s promise to implement a $15-a-day national child care program for a million Canadians seemed like a distinction when it was announced last year. But Mulcair says now he needs at least eight years to implement the plan. Mulcair’s corporate tax hike is his tool to pay for the child care spaces — in other words, his inability to create more spaces in less time relates directly to his reluctance to tax corporations more aggressively.
The best example of Mulcair’s desire to signal but not necessarily deliver change is his cynical stance to deliver a balanced budget. As we have seen over several years in the last decade, Canadians will accept deficit spending if politicians make the case for it. The NDP’s budget promise says there’s very little to change about current government spending, or that the party thinks it must say so in order to be taken seriously.
It doesn’t help New Democrats that their appeal for change is being delivered by an almost 60-year-old white man who (minus the beard) looks and sounds like most other politicians. Trudeau’s ability to symbolize change through his youthful appearance is an important factor in this campaign. Mulcair could contrast this by saying things most politicians refuse to say, by challenging Canadians with a new way of thinking about our country. He simply hasn’t done this.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I hate Harper and believe he should go, along with most the Tories.
I do benefit from the Family Tax Cut with income splitting (I make ~$100k per year, my wife makes $0; we are raising a 11 month old baby).
No Income splitting means I will lose out on a $2000 break at tax time.
Personally I consider myself and my income middle class, so one would think I should benefit from the Liberals comment of a 'Middle Class tax break', however looking at the Liberal website:
"Canadians with taxable annual income between $44,700 and $89,401 will see their income tax rate fall."
So I am a little SOL voting Liberal, even though I don't necessarily want Harper to win again.
You also have to consider what you think is best for the country and whether taxes are the end all.
I am close to your situation, but am voting on other issues like foreign policy, legalization of marijuana, infrastructure investment, child care, and funding of science.
I'll pay the extra taxes because I feel there is a greater good, at least for now.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
You also have to consider what you think is best for the country and whether taxes are the end all.
I am close to your situation, but am voting on other issues like foreign policy, legalization of marijuana, infrastructure investment, child care, and funding of science.
I'll pay the extra taxes because I feel there is a greater good, at least for now.
If only more people thought like you do.
The Following User Says Thank You to Looch City For This Useful Post:
I hate Harper and believe he should go, along with most the Tories.
I do benefit from the Family Tax Cut with income splitting (I make ~$100k per year, my wife makes $0; we are raising a 11 month old baby).
No Income splitting means I will lose out on a $2000 break at tax time.
Personally I consider myself and my income middle class, so one would think I should benefit from the Liberals comment of a 'Middle Class tax break', however looking at the Liberal website:
"Canadians with taxable annual income between $44,700 and $89,401 will see their income tax rate fall."
So I am a little SOL voting Liberal, even though I don't necessarily want Harper to win again.
You'd lose income splitting, but you'd gain from the tax cuts and the child care benefits. The income tax cut would apply to all income between $44,700 and $89,401 which means you'd pay a rate that's 1.5 percent lower on that $45K or so which equates to about $670 a year. Just because you earn over $89K doesn't mean you don't benefit. In fact people earning $89-$200K see the biggest cut in terms of dollars.
And you'd also get more for child benefits under the Liberal plan. Under the current UCCB you get $1920 a year of taxable money. Under the Liberal plan, with $100K in income and one child that age, you'd receive just under $3K in money ($245 a month) that's not subject to tax.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
You'd lose income splitting, but you'd gain from the tax cuts and the child care benefits. The income tax cut would apply to all income between $44,700 and $89,401 which means you'd pay a rate that's 1.5 percent lower on that $45K or so which equates to about $670 a year. Just because you earn over $89K doesn't mean you don't benefit. In fact people earning $89-$200K see the biggest cut in terms of dollars.
And you'd also get more for child benefits under the Liberal plan. Under the current UCCB you get $1920 a year of taxable money. Under the Liberal plan, with $100K in income and one child that age, you'd receive just under $3K in money ($245 a month) that's not subject to tax.
Thanks - I was hoping someone could point out the benefits of a Liberal gov't, rebutting my notes. Listening to ads and trying to figure it out looking at party websites just wasn't doing it for me.
And you'd also get more for child benefits under the Liberal plan. Under the current UCCB you get $1920 a year of taxable money. Under the Liberal plan, with $100K in income and one child that age, you'd receive just under $3K in money ($245 a month) that's not subject to tax.
Until they hit 7 (or is it 6?). Then you're out of luck. Unfortunately, children become more expensive after that age. At least with the UCCB, it continuous until age 18.
You also have to consider what you think is best for the country and whether taxes are the end all.
I am close to your situation, but am voting on other issues like foreign policy, legalization of marijuana, infrastructure investment, child care, and funding of science.
I'll pay the extra taxes because I feel there is a greater good, at least for now.
If Opendoor is right then we should get a better deal on taxes in other ways besides the Family Tax Cut (income splitting).
So hopefully this means getting a better deal on taxes for those who work our assses off to make that $90-$120K per year while also getting a better gov't such as "foreign policy, legalization of marijuana, infrastructure investment, child care, and funding of science."
Fingers crossed!
Curious though, if the Libs or the Tories (or even the NDP) get a minority win, not too much can change right? It takes a majority to make a real change...
It's desperate times for the NDP. They're taking shots at everyone now. Saw one article today from an NDP supporter that basically called Elizabeth May an MRA who supports domestic violence.
Maybe this sort of thing gets written every election, but man this one has been depressing.
Harper is seemingly intent on proving his most hysterical critics right, and is seems to be basically just an a-hole.
Trudeau has dumbed down every policy conversation to a mushy grade 2 nothing, leaving us with really no idea wtf he's going to do, but is winning anyway by being mostly not repulsive while he talks about how repulsive everyone else is
Mulcair as far as I can tell just wants everyone to feel ####ty about everything, and harper gone.
For all the talk of proportional representation I think the biggest issue is all the parties are total asshats. Why would anyone vote for any of these guys. (And yet I will, holding my nose)
/getoffmylawn
I find articles like this so irritating. The "just not ready" campaign is about the nicest attack ad you will ever see. And what attack ads have the Liberals even used? Trudeau on an escalator saying he's tired of Harper? The only thing remotely resembling a US style ad is the NDP one about Tories going to jail. And that one hardly got any air time (as far as I could tell).
I'm also bothered by this "all the leaders suck" rhetoric. It's incredibly tiresome, and reeks of grumpy old man. Honestly, I can't stand Stephen Harper, but I have an immense respect for him. Justin Trudeau is young and enthusiastic, and while he's a bit green, I think he has a great future as the leader of this country. What's wrong with him leaning on the likes of Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale until he's fully up to speed? And Tom - people just seem to hate him, and I'm not sure why. He's a good politician, and I think he'd make a great PM.
Anyways, I just really dislike how our leaders get routinely denigrated. I actually think our current crop of leaders is the best in several elections, but even if you disagree, they still deserve significantly more respect than they are routinely afforded here.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to evman150 For This Useful Post:
I find articles like this so irritating. The "just not ready" campaign is about the nicest attack ad you will ever see. And what attack ads have the Liberals even used? Trudeau on an escalator saying he's tired of Harper? The only thing remotely resembling a US style ad is the NDP one about Tories going to jail. And that one hardly got any air time (as far as I could tell).
I'm also bothered by this "all the leaders suck" rhetoric. It's incredibly tiresome, and reeks of grumpy old man. Honestly, I can't stand Stephen Harper, but I have an immense respect for him. Justin Trudeau is young and enthusiastic, and while he's a bit green, I think he has a great future as the leader of this country. What's wrong with him leaning on the likes of Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale until he's fully up to speed? And Tom - people just seem to hate him, and I'm not sure why. He's a good politician, and I think he'd make a great PM.
Anyways, I just really dislike how our leaders get routinely denigrated. I actually think our current crop of leaders is the best in several elections, but even if you disagree, they still deserve significantly more respect than they are routinely afforded here.
Don't forget Elizabeth May!!
Ok, not going to vote Green, but seeing this made me like Elizabeth May more than I did before watching it. Total respect to the way she explains things with very little rhetoric.
I find articles like this so irritating. The "just not ready" campaign is about the nicest attack ad you will ever see. And what attack ads have the Liberals even used? Trudeau on an escalator saying he's tired of Harper? The only thing remotely resembling a US style ad is the NDP one about Tories going to jail. And that one hardly got any air time (as far as I could tell).
I'm also bothered by this "all the leaders suck" rhetoric. It's incredibly tiresome, and reeks of grumpy old man. Honestly, I can't stand Stephen Harper, but I have an immense respect for him. Justin Trudeau is young and enthusiastic, and while he's a bit green, I think he has a great future as the leader of this country. What's wrong with him leaning on the likes of Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale until he's fully up to speed? And Tom - people just seem to hate him, and I'm not sure why. He's a good politician, and I think he'd make a great PM.
Anyways, I just really dislike how our leaders get routinely denigrated. I actually think our current crop of leaders is the best in several elections, but even if you disagree, they still deserve significantly more respect than they are routinely afforded here.
This reminds me of a front page picture during an election where my mother commented that they were all honorable men.
Can't find the picture but it included; Diefenbaker (C), Pearson (L), R. Thompson (SC), Douglas (ND), and Tim Buck (Com.)
If Opendoor is right then we should get a better deal on taxes in other ways besides the Family Tax Cut (income splitting).
So hopefully this means getting a better deal on taxes for those who work our assses off to make that $90-$120K per year while also getting a better gov't such as "foreign policy, legalization of marijuana, infrastructure investment, child care, and funding of science."
Fingers crossed!
Curious though, if the Libs or the Tories (or even the NDP) get a minority win, not too much can change right? It takes a majority to make a real change...
Yeah, Trudeau is like a first-timer receiving a shiny new Capital One card with an $8900 limit. It's fun all the things you can have and how rich one can feel when you only plan to make minimum payments.
The problem with minimum payments is the debt takes 23 years to pay off.
Until they hit 7 (or is it 6?). Then you're out of luck. Unfortunately, children become more expensive after that age. At least with the UCCB, it continuous until age 18.
The UCB gets cut to $60 taxable income at age six per month currently and that $60 replaced a 3000 dollar income tax credit worth $450 or 37.50 per month. So if your at a 15% marginal rate you gained $12 per month. So the check you got in July was literally buying you with your own money before an election. Just a disgusting tactic to advertise moving money around as giving more money back.
At a 29% marginal rate you gained nothing
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Yeah, Trudeau is like a first-timer receiving a shiny new Capital One card with an $8900 limit. It's fun all the things you can have and how rich one can feel when you only plan to make minimum payments.
The problem with minimum payments is the debt takes 23 years to pay off.
National debt has increased by $150 billion under Harper so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
The Following User Says Thank You to Party Elephant For This Useful Post:
National debt has increased by $150 billion under Harper so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Well that was all necessary spending though, everything the Liberals would like to spend money on is a complete waste.
I'd really like to see the projections of how much money will be saved/made once marijuana is legalized. Obviously funneling a portion of police funding into awareness and education campaigns will offset it a bit, but the removal of police funding, retroactive release of low-level marijuana "criminals" from prisons, and subsequent taxation income should be pretty notable.
Well that was all necessary spending though, everything the Liberals would like to spend money on is a complete waste.
I'd really like to see the projections of how much money will be saved/made once marijuana is legalized. Obviously funneling a portion of police funding into awareness and education campaigns will offset it a bit, but the removal of police funding, retroactive release of low-level marijuana "criminals" from prisons, and subsequent taxation income should be pretty notable.
You think they can still legalize marijuana if they get a minority government?
