Federal NDP Leadership Race - What do you want out of Canada's progressive party?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Titan2

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.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

[Titan2]

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####.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Titan2

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!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

[RandyHolt]

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.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=1110005501

[Fuzz]

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.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

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.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by RandyHolt

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.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=1110005501

Great data.

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)