What legislation would you enact?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by #-3

Increase on income taxes off-set by the elimination of the GST.

I think this is a bad idea. I'd increase the GST and use the money to reduce income taxes. The exemption for necessities/low income rebates means the GST is still progressive. It's also harder to avoid for the very rich - they want to buy stuff but can control the level/type of income they generate.

I'd also rather incentivize productivity/income than consumption.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

Compulsory voting. All eligible citizens aged 18 and over are required to enroll and vote in federal, provincial, and local elections. Failure to vote would result in a fine. You file taxes? You vote.

I don't know why 20-30% voter turnouts chap my ass so much, but it does.

Honestly speaking, I'd want to lower the age where you are allowed to vote (ie: 12 or 14). I'm OK with them being in a separate pool for tracking purposes, but if you don't get people involved younger, they are more likely to end up not caring as they grow older.

Let them vote when they learn about it in grade 6 or 8 or whenever. This might also help to attract better pools of talent into politics longer term.

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

This one is needed and it's embarrassing we are stuck following the German model of sending stuff by paper and other outdated 70s methods. To be fair, Netfile has been a godsend the past few years, but it's still not good enough. Filing taxes should not be the burden or ordeal that it is.

When I lived in Poland, filing taxes was a 2 mintue process once you figured out what to do. Your employer and banks/investment firms/other financial accounts submit everything on your behalf and upload everything to the tax portal. You log in, click a few buttons, fill in your bank info, confirm the docs, done. That's it. Got my refund a few weeks later.

To make it even better, when I went back to visit last year, I simply logged into my PL mobile banking app and it triggered the filing for the previous tax year automatically. Didn't even have to log into the tax portal. Logging into the bank app did it all for me. The refund was deposited a few days later. Literally all I did was log into the banking app to make sure it still worked and I ended up having a bunch of bonus money for my trip.

God forbid we make it easier for citizens to file something the government can already automate to be done automatically. But I guess way to much revenue to be made for people who file late.

Agreed. I'm also OK with ensuring that if you don't review or respond, the auto filing comes with an admin fee of like $150-200 bucks or whatever. Therefore, there is an incentive for taxpayers to review/respond and submit credits to lower their taxes owing.

However, auto filing would also require a significant increase in withholdings on income to ensure a taxpayer always in a refund position to reduce certain administrative headaches for the CRA. Perhaps you could also have it that the withholdings are higher, but each month if you log into the portal, you can see the YTD info registered to you and request the withholdings reduced for the month after. This way, the taxpayer wanting more favorable tax treatment to their situation has to be more engaged, vs the lazy tax payer never dealing with their stuff basically has to pay a fee for someone else to manage their affairs.

[Julio]

Lots of great ideas in this thread.
One I have thought about a lot:
If you make minimum wage, you pay no income tax. This would up the basic amount to around 30k. Claw the 'extra' personal exemption at around $100k
How to pay for it? Agree on the more progressive clawback on OAS people have postulated. Put in a 'millionaire' tax bracket with an extra couple percent. Call it the McDavid tax in Alberta.

Other thoughts:
-Like the 2% PST idea floated earlier in the thread, but would say that the municipalities get 1 of the 2 points.
-Tax religions, and be a lot tighter on what constitutes a 'charity'.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think this is a bad idea. I'd increase the GST and use the money to reduce income taxes. The exemption for necessities/low income rebates means the GST is still progressive. It's also harder to avoid for the very rich - they want to buy stuff but can control the level/type of income they generate.

I'd also rather incentivize productivity/income than consumption.

The GST is just a tax on people who don't have the means to save.
If you are putting 20% of your income into savings every month, then you are only paying 4% GST, while those who live pay to pay pay 5% GST, and often those who manage to save the 20% are able to recoup the 4% they did spend on GST in capital gains before they actually spend down their savings, It's a terrible tax if you fundamentally believe in progressive taxes.

Also in modern service economies the biggest drag on productivity is often demand. If someone is willing to buy it, someone will supply it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Julio

Agree with your point in theory, but there are more than 39 gas plants in Alberta, let alone Canada.

Google let me down.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’d probably need to rewrite the charter first mr freedom fighter

Stopping by to make a quick public service announcement...

I think that Canadians need to get very quickly educated on how much of the Charter that they take for granted is not the constitutional law that they want to think it is.

Simple majority government legislation can infringe / ignore all of the following:

2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

...

7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8 Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9 Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned

10 Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

11 Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and

(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

12 Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

13 A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

14 A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

There is no Charter re-write required to render Canada unrecognizable for 5-year chunks at a time.

The advocates and political types who are attempting to loudly declare that section 33 of the Charter was never meant to be used pre-emptively, or to look for ways to invent new legal arguments to curtail its use that are plainly not there, are doing a major disservice to their own interests (because people who believe them may be comforted to not worry about voting for a government planning to use it widely).

What Canadians need to understand before electing any government is that massive swaths of their Charter rights absolutely can be lawfully deleted limited essentially only by the feelings of shame that might hold a majority government back on some issues (and the aforementioned 5 years at a time limit).

As the federal Leader of the Opposition recently started foreshadowing his intent to pre-emptively invoke the notwithstanding clause as Prime Minister, all kinds of people were beside themselves at the thought of such an 'unprecedented' move...but the Supreme Court of Canada has already long ago ruled on the legality of such conduct. Citizens who do not want that to be done need to not elect governments who will do it (because they can and will).

Once invoked, section 33 effectively precludes judicial review of the legislation under the listed Charter sections. A section 33 declaration is only valid for 5 years. After this time period, it ceases to have any effect unless it is re-enacted.

Section 33 lays down a requirement of form only. In invoking section 33, the legislature does not need to identify the provisions of the Act in question which might otherwise infringe specified guaranteed rights and/or freedoms, nor does the legislature need to provide a substantive justification for using the override (Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, paragraph 33).

A declaration under section 33 is valid if it generally names all of sections 2 and 7 to 15, without specifying the possible provisions to which the override may apply. Omnibus legislation will not affect the validity of the declaration (Ford, supra).

Where the legislative intent is to override only part of the provision or provisions contained in a section, subsection or paragraph of the Charter, there must be a sufficient reference in words to the part to be overridden (Ford, supra).

The general rule of interpretation against retroactive and retrospective operation applies to section 33 of the Charter: section 33 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as permitting prospective derogation only. If enacting legislation purports to give retrospective effect to an override of the Charter, the legislation is, to that extent, of no force or effect. (Ford, supra; Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927).

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...ity%20rights).

[Fuzz]

It's almost like we need to be very careful who who vote for. Thank you again, MBates.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by #-3

The GST is just a tax on people who don't have the means to save.
If you are putting 20% of your income into savings every month, then you are only paying 4% GST, while those who live pay to pay pay 5% GST, and often those who manage to save the 20% are able to recoup the 4% they did spend on GST in capital gains before they actually spend down their savings, It's a terrible tax if you fundamentally believe in progressive taxes.

Also in modern service economies the biggest drag on productivity is often demand. If someone is willing to buy it, someone will supply it.

Disagree. At low income levels the total amount of GST paid is ~0 on a net basis.

Someone making $20k gets 2.5% of their gross income as GST rebate, so even if we assume they pay no other taxes the maximum GST they're paying is 2.5%.

And at that income level I have to think 50% of income gets spent on things without GST. For example rent and groceries, making effective GST rate 0.

While it's true that those with high income don't pay GST on money they save, high income earners have a lot more tax planning opportunities to reduce income taxes. Capital gains inclusion, dividend tax credit, RRSP deductions, donations, business expenses, etc. GST is very difficult to avoid.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MBates

Stopping by to make a quick public service announcement...

I think that Canadians need to get very quickly educated on how much of the Charter that they take for granted is not the constitutional law that they want to think it is.

Simple majority government legislation can infringe / ignore all of the following:



There is no Charter re-write required to render Canada unrecognizable for 5-year chunks at a time.

The advocates and political types who are attempting to loudly declare that section 33 of the Charter was never meant to be used pre-emptively, or to look for ways to invent new legal arguments to curtail its use that are plainly not there, are doing a major disservice to their own interests (because people who believe them may be comforted to not worry about voting for a government planning to use it widely).

What Canadians need to understand before electing any government is that massive swaths of their Charter rights absolutely can be lawfully deleted limited essentially only by the feelings of shame that might hold a majority government back on some issues (and the aforementioned 5 years at a time limit).

As the federal Leader of the Opposition recently started foreshadowing his intent to pre-emptively invoke the notwithstanding clause as Prime Minister, all kinds of people were beside themselves at the thought of such an 'unprecedented' move...but the Supreme Court of Canada has already long ago ruled on the legality of such conduct. Citizens who do not want that to be done need to not elect governments who will do it (because they can and will).



https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...ity%20rights).

Yes, but the Charter clearly intends that invocation of the notwithstanding clause will require the spending of enormous political capital/cause enormous political damage.

I think that would be the cost today. But maybe not tomorrow?

[#-3]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Disagree. At low income levels the total amount of GST paid is ~0 on a net basis.

Someone making $20k gets 2.5% of their gross income as GST rebate, so even if we assume they pay no other taxes the maximum GST they're paying is 2.5%.

And at that income level I have to think 50% of income gets spent on things without GST. For example rent and groceries, making effective GST rate 0.

While it's true that those with high income don't pay GST on money they save, high income earners have a lot more tax planning opportunities to reduce income taxes. Capital gains inclusion, dividend tax credit, RRSP deductions, donations, business expenses, etc. GST is very difficult to avoid.

Fair enough, I just generally feel that time is an object that has been repeatedly weaponized against the working poor in favour of the investment class, any opportunity they have to differ spending including taxes is the greatest source of inequality we have, moreso than income disparity.

Actual percentages and quantities aside, the poor experience taxation within 0 to 14 days of receiving income, and the wealthy often experience taxation years after earning money through a variety of mechanism. I think anything to equalize that will be a meaningful change

[RandyHolt]

The other good thing about increasing GST would be the additional amounts received by people visiting Canada.

Anecdotally, it seems most major tourist destinations have high GST/VAT or hotel and short term rental taxes. Hawaii had proposed to bring their taxes on short term rentals up to 33% from the current 18% that hotels and rentals are charged now.

I'd be in favor of bringing GST up to 10% and reducing personal taxes or increasing personal exemptions to make up for it. GST rebates I'm sure would also increase with a higher GST rate so the working poor should likely come out ahead with a change like that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MBates

Stopping by to make a quick public service announcement...

I think that Canadians need to get very quickly educated on how much of the Charter that they take for granted is not the constitutional law that they want to think it is.

Simple majority government legislation can infringe / ignore all of the following:



There is no Charter re-write required to render Canada unrecognizable for 5-year chunks at a time.

The advocates and political types who are attempting to loudly declare that section 33 of the Charter was never meant to be used pre-emptively, or to look for ways to invent new legal arguments to curtail its use that are plainly not there, are doing a major disservice to their own interests (because people who believe them may be comforted to not worry about voting for a government planning to use it widely).

What Canadians need to understand before electing any government is that massive swaths of their Charter rights absolutely can be lawfully deleted limited essentially only by the feelings of shame that might hold a majority government back on some issues (and the aforementioned 5 years at a time limit).

As the federal Leader of the Opposition recently started foreshadowing his intent to pre-emptively invoke the notwithstanding clause as Prime Minister, all kinds of people were beside themselves at the thought of such an 'unprecedented' move...but the Supreme Court of Canada has already long ago ruled on the legality of such conduct. Citizens who do not want that to be done need to not elect governments who will do it (because they can and will).



https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...ity%20rights).

Thank you.


People really don’t understand that our model of government is currently elected dictatorship and only societal norms protect us.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Yamer

3. Eliminate tax exemptions on churches and religions - I don't really feel this needs anything after the dash mark, but here we are.

I am so here for this.

It is ####ing disgusting and archaic that churches get a pass on taxes.

The amount of $$ that could be raised by taxing those ####ers is crazy.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MBates

Stopping by to make a quick public service announcement...

I think that Canadians need to get very quickly educated on how much of the Charter that they take for granted is not the constitutional law that they want to think it is.

Simple majority government legislation can infringe / ignore all of the following:

No doubt, but I was referring to it from the perspective of assuming good faith and desiring to follow the charter. But in any event while you can’t stop a law or action that is not in accordance with the charter from happening there are still mechanisms in place to deal with violations.

[Frequitude]

Ban all Political Action Committees and any other types of political funding beyond capped individual donations.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

No doubt, but I was referring to it from the perspective of assuming good faith and desiring to follow the charter. But in any event while you can’t stop a law or action that is not in accordance with the charter from happening there are still mechanisms in place to deal with violations.

I think you may have missed the purpose of my post...

If a majority government (federal or provincial) passes a law that says the law will operate notwithstanding the violation(s) of the very long list of Charter rights I noted in my initial post, then your mechanism to "deal with violations" is vote out the government and have it replaced with one that will repeal said law (which you can only be assured of the opportunity to do that once every 5 years).

And really my whole point was people need to pay attention to what is already happening in front of their own eyes and stop approaching the analysis from a place where you presume good faith and an inherent desire to follow the Charter.

Doug Ford has openly and repeatedly declared he will appoint judges that will provide the results he desires. Pierre Pollievre is telling law enforcement agencies he will use all tools available to him to give them the results they desire. Danielle Smith gives nearly daily sermons of what she personally thinks the constitution actually means (which is rarely what it does mean according to the actual law as written). Her government is pushing through a law right now that will empower her cabinet to cancel municipal bylaws and replace elected municipal officials (hint, that won't be done unless the bylaws or municipal officials are creating results her cabinet doesn't like).

To Makarov's point - I am not sure that spending 'enormous political capital' is either (a) even accurate anymore in the post-Covid society where apparently all societal norms and public institutions are up for dismantling by yelling FREEDOM and then doing whatever you want, or (b) in any way a deterrent to a government with a strong majority and confidence the electorate will tolerate significant harm on broad issues as long as they get an election promise to at some unknown time in the future give them lots of money or something else they care about.

In the end my point simply is that advocates and political types should stop saying carpet-bomb style use of the section 33 notwithstanding clause is somehow "undemocratic" or "unconstitutional" or "not the intent" of the law.

It is quite literally, democratic, constitutional and we only have a Charter because that very broad escape valve was built in.

We should be open and frank that it is perfectly legal for a majority government to take drastic steps to undermine the Charter rights of Canadians in any number of ways that might seem hard to even fathom. And so when you are voting in upcoming elections you should start to fathom...and at least be honest with yourself about what you are allowing to be done to your neighbours if you vote for some personal benefit and choose to just not care about the potential mayhem that will come along with it (if you actually even get your promised benefit once the election is over).

[Fuzz]

No, no, what you do is say "well they say that just to get elected. They'll moderate once in government."

[powderjunkie]

Alright, I've got an idea that will earn me a hasty assassination, but someday future generations will deify me: ban personal car ownership.

Which I know sounds crazy and absolutely is, but it would be crazy awesome. It involves a major reallocation of resources, but imagine how efficiently a massively expanded transit system would work without traffic.

There's a whole lot more to unpack there and I need a few more napkins to sketch it out, but it will be great. I'm just gonna need a decade of total authoritarianism to implement it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Alright, I've got an idea that will earn me a hasty assassination, but someday future generations will deify me: ban personal car ownership.

Which I know sounds crazy and absolutely is, but it would be crazy awesome. It involves a major reallocation of resources, but imagine how efficiently a massively expanded transit system would work without traffic.

There's a whole lot more to unpack there and I need a few more napkins to sketch it out, but it will be great. I'm just gonna need a decade of total authoritarianism to implement it.

Maybe start with somewhere that doesn't matter, like Saskatchewan?

[calf]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

I love this idea of a significant incentive for corporations that foster permanent, well paying jobs. "Shareholder Value" is the worst thing that's happened to our society and capitalism.



Also...if an individual makes over a certain amount, say $50,000,000...anything they make over that is taxed at 95% - who the eff needs more than that?

I'm of the opinion that trickle down economics is a sham. The economy works better when people have good, well paying jobs.

I'd make laws that make companies more accountable for layoff decisions. One off decisions because it's not working out, I'd keep mostly the same (but upping severance requirements and benefits continuance, especially for lower paid workers), but, if you let go a certain amount of your workforce in a given time period, you have to:
1) Demonstrate true economic hardship for the company (ie, the company will not be able to pay its bills, etc if these people are kept around)
2) If it's purely to juice up earnings, give everyone at least 6 months to a year's worth of severance to start - lower paid people getting more time's worth of pay
3) Key executives must also take a cut in compensation and forego bonuses.