Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...eir-fair-share

On Thursday, the Trudeau Liberals brought in a new luxury tax on high-end cars, boats and planes.

It’s just their latest attempt to tax Canada into prosperity, which as Churchill said, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.


Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who also holds the finance portfolio, defended the new tax Wednesday by once again falling back on the argument that’s it’s about people paying their fair share.


“I think it is great for Canadians to be successful. It is great for Canadians to be prosperous. I also think that people who are doing really, really well should feel comfortable supporting everybody else.”


Just another tax. Another tax that will unfortunately harm some industries. Costing jobs for working class people.

Originally Posted by SebC

In terms of harms to working class people, a tax on $100,000 cars and $250,000 boats is about the least onerous tax you could design other than a progressive income tax.

Realistically, it isnt the fact that its a tax on Luxury goods that matters, its the fact that its just another tax.

We tax everything and its never enough, so they find another thing to tax.

Maybe its not the 'Revenue' side that we need to be concerning ourselves with?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree with Doctorfever. We should just raise the income taxes on people who can afford a $250,000 boat instead of making them buy a $250,000 boat to try and get extra taxes from them. That way they can’t just avoid the tax by buying a $249,999 boat while making the guy who works at the $250,000+ boat dealership lose his job.

Great point Doctorfever. Tax the rich. Directly and swiftly.

Right right. More tax. You go Jagmeet!

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Rest up and I’m sure the scare tactics will naturally start to come to you.

So you agree with this tax?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Just so I'm clear, the party of small government, less bureaucrats, wants to....

Rewrite all federal legislation AND government documents to change words to dumb down the reading level?

The party that says "registering a gun is too much red tape" wants to *check notes* build a red tape factory?!

[CliffFletcher]

It’s hilarious people are suggesting a sinister agenda behind the plain English proposal.

I’m a communications professional. Governments and corporations have been imposing plain English policies for over a decade now. In 2010 the Obama administration passed the Plain Writing Act.

Plain language (also called plain writing or plain English) is communication your audience can understand the first time they read or hear it.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 defines plain language as:

Writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience.
Language that is plain to one set of readers may not be plain to others. Material is in plain language if your audience can:

Find what they need
Understand what they find the first time they read or hear it
Use what they find to meet their needs

There are many techniques that can help you achieve this goal. Among the most common are:

Reader-centered organization
“You” and other pronouns
Active voice, not passive
Short sentences and paragraphs
Common, everyday words
Easy-to-follow design features (lists, headers, tables)

Other governments have legislated plain English standards. Many corporations have similar policies. The problem they address is content of public interest being written using jargon and the kind of stilted, impenetrable language that technical experts are in the habit of using.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Just so I'm clear, the party of small government, less bureaucrats, wants to....

Rewrite all federal legislation AND government documents to change words to dumb down the reading level?

The party that says "registering a gun is too much red tape" wants to *check notes* build a red tape factory?!

No, they (PP) do not want to rewrite all federal legislation and government documents. That is not the scope of that campaign promise.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

No, they (PP) do not want to rewrite all federal legislation and government documents. That is not the scope of that campaign promise.

It’s as if they didn’t even read the linked article.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

Realistically, it isnt the fact that its a tax on Luxury goods that matters, its the fact that its just another tax.

We tax everything and its never enough, so they find another thing to tax.

Maybe its not the 'Revenue' side that we need to be concerning ourselves with?

Federal taxes have never been lower in your lifetime.

Provincial taxes had the 1-5% increases on the top income levels but other than that as low as they have ever been.

The carbon tax is fully rebated.

What tax are you talking about?

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s hilarious people are suggesting a sinister agenda behind the plain English proposal.

It's the conservatives, we are quite used to there being some other motive behind everything they do. So excuse us when we can't help but think it'll keep happening.

[Ozy_Flame]

Why does PP have to gaslight the issue by getting rid of "bureaucratese"? That's not even a word itself. That's a PP word. Plain language indeed.

Also, is this really one of the priorities for Canada right now? Again, there are professionals and institutions designed to handle legal jargon for day-to-day matters.

Maybe they should just hire an official paraphraser and you can submit requests for the things you need. Get the "I need it in a punchline" special.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

So you agree with this tax?

That’s kind of irrelevantly. Did you get enough rest to start listing off all of the other jobs that the tax is going to put in jeopardy or were you too busy staying up to keep posting that you’re still too tired?

Just my 2 cents, but caring about the challenges working class people face in situations outside of when someone with way more money than they have has to pay a little bit more for something might provide some credibility to people’s attempts to frame anything and everything that costs extremely wealthy people more money as bad for workers. Otherwise it kinda comes off as gaslighting.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I don’t understand the lost jobs/hurting working class argument. My understanding that luxury goods are generally price inelastic. The dude seriously considering buying a Lamborghini will do so, notwithstanding +/-10% price change. Is that wrong? Where is the loss of jobs coming from?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That’s kind of irrelevantly. Did you get enough rest to start listing off all of the other jobs that the tax is going to put in jeopardy or were you too busy staying up to keep posting that you’re still too tired?

Just my 2 cents, but caring about the challenges working class people face in situations outside of when someone with way more money than they have has to pay a little bit more for something might provide some credibility to people’s attempts to frame anything and everything that costs extremely wealthy people more money as bad for workers. Otherwise it kinda comes off as gaslighting.

Thanks for your 2 cents. 3 more and you will have a nickel.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Thanks for your 2 cents. 3 more and you will have a nickel.

Yeah but think of all the working class jobs that would be lost if I was given an extra 3 cents.

[TheIronMaiden]

I prefer this voluntary tax over more punitive taxes of recent.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Locke

Realistically, it isnt the fact that its a tax on Luxury goods that matters, its the fact that its just another tax.

We tax everything and its never enough, so they find another thing to tax.

Maybe its not the 'Revenue' side that we need to be concerning ourselves with?

I agree with whay you've said, but I can also get behind this luxury tax and wish it would go further. Quads, RV's, vacation homes are only a few examples of what other luxurious items that this tax should apply to. I believe in an increase in taxing consumption over increase in taxing income as those who spend more should have more disposable income and there far fewer loopholes.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I agree with whay you've said, but I can also get behind this luxury tax and wish it would go further. Quads, RV's, vacation homes are only a few examples of what other luxurious items that this tax should apply to. I believe in an increase in taxing consumption over increase in taxing income as those who spend more should have more disposable income and there far fewer loopholes.

I'm 100% in favour of consumption taxes instead of income tax. That's not what this is though...it's a consumption tax on top of income tax.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s hilarious people are suggesting a sinister agenda behind the plain English proposal.

I’m a communications professional. Governments and corporations have been imposing plain English policies for over a decade now. In 2010 the Obama administration passed the Plain Writing Act.



Other governments have legislated plain English standards. Many corporations have similar policies. The problem they address is content of public interest being written using jargon and the kind of stilted, impenetrable language that technical experts are in the habit of using.

There's a huge difference between government/corporate communications being written in plain English (or French) vs. what PP is proposing here: he wants actual laws to be written that way. Laws, by their very nature, must be explicit, detailed, and precise in how they are written or else they will be open to unintended consequences, misinterpretation, or abuse of loopholes.

I don't think anybody would have a problem with a government policy mandating ministerial publications and other communications intended for a public audience be written in plain language, but proposing that all federal government legislation should also follow that standard is just stupid and asinine.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm 100% in favour of consumption taxes instead of income tax. That's not what this is though...it's a consumption tax on top of income tax.

Could there be not be a healthy mix of both?

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I agree with whay you've said, but I can also get behind this luxury tax and wish it would go further. Quads, RV's, vacation homes are only a few examples of what other luxurious items that this tax should apply to. I believe in an increase in taxing consumption over increase in taxing income as those who spend more should have more disposable income and there far fewer loopholes.

See when you get into that you are only hurting the middle class. People who've saved over their lifetime for one extravagance in their retirement, maybe an RV to tour around in, a small aircraft to enjoy, or a cool car to cruise in. This won't hurt the rich who can lease these items on a business and have a dozen loopholes.

Luxury taxes are sold to the poor saying anything they can't afford is a luxury but they should be based more on the income of the purchaser than the cost of the item.