Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Red Slinger]

The other consideration for the "it costs too much" crowd is that it's likely you will reduce the overall cost of healthcare by providing a proactive health service like free pharma.

[Azure]

And that is exactly what I'm saying. Our economy is not growing enough to allow us to sustain our spending levels, and even the additional money we need to spend in the future.

If we want to manage our debt properly, our GDP needs to keep growing, and that SHOULD grow the tax base.

Unfortunately none of that is happening.

Well, except for more debt.

[CaptainCrunch]

In the first 9 months of 2023-34 the deficit is going to be $23.61 billion, the same period last year was $5.54 billion.

Revenues grew by 2.6% or I think about 8 billion.

The public debt servicing grew by 35.6% due to higher interest rates, I think its about 35 billion a year now.

These are insanely crazy numbers.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americ...ln-2024-02-23/

The pharma plan care isn't really a pharma plan care its restricted to free contraceptives and diabetes drugs, and Singh basically didn't indicate today that there would be much expansion unless more NDP MP's were elected.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1762238328168956302

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

And that is exactly what I'm saying. Our economy is not growing enough to allow us to sustain our spending levels, and even the additional money we need to spend in the future.

If we want to manage our debt properly, our GDP needs to keep growing, and that SHOULD grow the tax base.

Unfortunately none of that is happening.

Well, except for more debt.

Well, that’s the line that gets trotted out, but it’s not quite accurate. GDP is growing, and generally does unless we’re in recession. And yeah debt spiked a lot with Covid, but as a percentage of GDP it dropped something like 6% (from 73 to 67) between 2021 and 2023.

Obviously at 67 it’s high compared to recent times, but it’s going in the right direction.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

And that is exactly what I'm saying. Our economy is not growing enough to allow us to sustain our spending levels, and even the additional money we need to spend in the future.

If we want to manage our debt properly, our GDP needs to keep growing, and that SHOULD grow the tax base.

Unfortunately none of that is happening.

Well, except for more debt.

If the current federal government had the same revenue-to-GDP ratio as what the Chretien Liberals averaged, they'd have a $65B surplus and could withstand several years of increases in federal spending while simultaneously having zero economic growth before they'd dip into a deficit.

So even with sluggish growth, new spending would be easily affordable if we just had the revenue-to-GDP that we've had for most of the last 40 years.

[Azure]

You are really just pointing out the insane potential we would have as a county if we wanted to be serious.

Unfortunately we're not serious.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In the first 9 months of 2023-34 the deficit is going to be $23.61 billion, the same period last year was $5.54 billion.

Revenues grew by 2.6% or I think about 8 billion.

The public debt servicing grew by 35.6% due to higher interest rates, I think its about 35 billion a year now.

These are insanely crazy numbers.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americ...ln-2024-02-23/

The pharma plan care isn't really a pharma plan care its restricted to free contraceptives and diabetes drugs, and Singh basically didn't indicate today that there would be much expansion unless more NDP MP's were elected.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1762238328168956302

So it doesn't actually cover all drugs?

Why are they calling it national pharmacare?

What a joke.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In the first 9 months of 2023-34 the deficit is going to be $23.61 billion, the same period last year was $5.54 billion.

Revenues grew by 2.6% or I think about 8 billion.

The public debt servicing grew by 35.6% due to higher interest rates, I think its about 35 billion a year now.

These are insanely crazy numbers.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americ...ln-2024-02-23/

The pharma plan care isn't really a pharma plan care its restricted to free contraceptives and diabetes drugs, and Singh basically didn't indicate today that there would be much expansion unless more NDP MP's were elected.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1762238328168956302

Uhh...I was all good with it, but if it only covers two things? No Bueno.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Locke

Uhh...I was all good with it, but if it only covers two things? No Bueno.

And it doesn't even include the diabetes medicine that my significant other uses and which costs us $300 per month or something.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, that’s the line that gets trotted out, but it’s not quite accurate. GDP is growing, and generally does unless we’re in recession. And yeah debt spiked a lot with Covid, but as a percentage of GDP it dropped something like 6% (from 73 to 67) between 2021 and 2023.

Obviously at 67 it’s high compared to recent times, but it’s going in the right direction.

Isn't our per capita GDP shrinking? Our GDP is barely growing due to large volumes of immigration obfuscating it.

[Doctorfever]

It’s a clever political play. Liberals will claim they implemented national Pharma care. NDP saying they will expand if you vote for them.

Probably wouldn’t have happened at all if Liberals were polling better.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Azure

So it doesn't actually cover all drugs?

Why are they calling it national pharmacare?

What a joke.

It's meant to be rolled out in stages, until it eventually covers all drugs.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But that's more of a revenue problem. As I pointed out, current federal spending is low by historical standards. Unfortunately, so is the revenue.

Most people point to the Chretien Liberals as the best fiscal managers of Canada in the last half century. But they mostly achieved that through maintaining strong government revenues while simultaneously cutting expenses. From 1995-2005, the federal government averaged about 23-25% of GDP in revenue.

Right now, largely due to ill-advised tax cuts and an international race to the bottom, Canada's federal government is only bringing in about 20.4% of GDP in revenue. When our government is bringing in ~15% less revenue relative to the size of the economy, is it really surprising that services seem to be getting worse while we're running deficits?

I'm curious to know what the big revenue generators were from 1995 to 2005.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I'm curious to know what the big revenue generators were from 1995 to 2005.

Data is here:
Statscan


Click download and grab the first option to get into Excel where you can examine/graph it if you are more ambitions than I.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

It's meant to be rolled out in stages, until it eventually covers all drugs.

That's really not how Singh tried to sell it today.


He didn't mention future add ons, just the elect more of us for more.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Isn't our per capita GDP shrinking? Our GDP is barely growing due to large volumes of immigration obfuscating it.

Revenue went up by 8 billion due more to taxes. But yeah our GDP I think declined last quarter and has been fairly flat for a while.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

It's meant to be rolled out in stages, until it eventually covers all drugs.

Don't think so, this is all the Liberals agreed to so far

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Azure

What we need is economic growth and increasing the taxbase without increasing the strain on the welfare system.

In other words, not more immigration and worker programs.

Oh wait....

Which translates to:
- everything needs to be private, so it can be taxed
- private companies = profit
- profit = do the bare minimum for maximum price (eg: Shrinkinflation)
- maximum price = more expensive for all of us

?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obviously raising the GST now is a bad idea, but it should have been done in Trudeau's first term.

Its only political suicide if done leading up to an election.

Also, most of the taxation issues in Canada are related to who controls most of the money. The boomers. Also the same people benefiting from our housing crisis.

Fuzz just to lash out at 'those filthy conservatives' to make himself feel better.

This is an incredibly important point.

Ask yourself a few key questions, and you'll see exactly what the problem is, and why a solution is decades away because that generation is not going to ever volunteer to raise taxes and reduce spending on areas that concern them:

1. Why are capital gains taxed so much less than dividends and ordinary income?
2. Why are principal residences completely tax sheltered and mortgages (or rent) are not deductible (in most cases)?
3. Why are capital rich seniors able to obtain OAS by sheltering income?
4. Why does the US have a full estate tax (of up to 40%) and Canada only have a deemed disposition on assets (with exclusions)?
5. Why is the entitlement age (largely) still 65 when life expectancy is roughly 83 (most financial plans put second to die at 95), and life expectancy in 1975 was nearly a decade earlier at 73.5?
and..

6. Who are the largest voter group in the country?...

Unfortunately, raising consumption tax and income tax will do nothing more than add more strain on the lower and middle classes while simultaneously driving educated professionals who are income rich and capital poor to places like the US in order to keep more of their income and build wealth at a quicker rate.

We already have an issue with attracting and keeping medical professionals... with Ontario, Quebec, and BC having their highest marginal rate of tax well over 50% (versus about 35-40% in most US states), the best tax planning opportunities for business owners and professionals that the boomers enjoyed are largely in the rear view mirror, and the US offering more money (with a more valuable currency)... hometown discounts from 25-45 year old professionals may not last much longer.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Azure

So it doesn't actually cover all drugs?

Why are they calling it national pharmacare?

What a joke.

A pharmacy care plan that covers diabetic needs and contraceptives. In other words, two of the most prevalent and sought-after treatments that effect the majority of the population. Coincidentally, the same pharmaceutics that aid groups conservatives target and consider the biggest burden: lazy fat asses and sluts.

And if you want this crazily restrictive proposal to expand to your blood-pressure medication and protein-pump blockers you should consider voting for people that got you this absolute horse plop in the first place.

What a joke.