Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by GGG

“Fairly good”

-My understanding is as follows

They had a forecast of 40 billion.

There was 2 one time expenses not considered previously of 16 billion and 5 billion. (Why these werent previously budgeted certainly should be investigated)

So in the absense of those two items and despite revenues being 5 billion lower the update still has a 40 billion deficit plus one time items. So on a day to day basis the government is managing expenses and revenues as they planned to. Perhaps that’s a low bar. But even if indisagree with the spending contained within budget, following that budget is improtant and it appears the liberals are doing that.

Even if you want to hold them to account for the unplanned expenses 20 billion excess on a 400 ish billion budget is fairly reasonable. That’s +/-5%. To me that is within the realm of acceptable for any annual budgets that I am involved with.

Essentially this fiscal update should not have materially changed your opinion of the liberal party budget planning which in terms of a budget update is what you are going for.

Why do you find FES an absolute disaster?

Planning for a bad outcome, and then achieving a more bad outcome but that it's within +/- 5% of bad is still BAD!!!

How it can be considered acceptable is beyond my ability to comprehend.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

MATH IS HARD BRO

Let's make this real real real simple for ya, ok buds?

If I pay a 5 percent tax on a 1000 dollars that is 50 dollars in tax
If I then pay 6 percent tax on a 1000 dollars that is 60 dollars
That is 10 dollars more!

That is an increase of WAIT for it 20 percent.

60-50/50 = 10/50 = 0.2 X 100 = 20%

So are you claiming that is not a 20 percent increase in your tax bill? Did you get out of elementary school?

Good lord.

[/MATH]

Nobody is claiming that. They’re claiming it’s a low IQ, doltish move with the intended purpose to rile up the plebs who don’t math so well and are like, “omgz, 20%! That’s bizonkers huge!”

[Dentoman]

This thread is a master class in trolling techniques

[chemgear]

Already free after being part of a robbery and car chase that killed a bunch of people. Seems like a pretty clear example of a criminal that we would surely want to deport out of our country.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...tion-1.7412649



Passenger in deadly Highway 401 wrong-way crash pleads guilty, released on probation

A Toronto-area man involved in a robbery in April — leading to a high-speed police chase and a deadly wrong-way crash on a busy highway — has been released on probation and warned he may still face "immigration consequences."

The fiery, multi-vehicle collision on Highway 401 in Whitby, Ont., which remains under investigation by Ontario's police watchdog, killed four people, including an infant.

An Oshawa, Ont., court heard last month that he acted as the "lookout" during the liquor store robbery in nearby Clarington on April 29, according to records reviewed by CBC News.

"I understand that … there's the potential for immigration consequences," Wood said. Gill's status in Canada is unclear.

Speaking through a Punjabi-language interpreter in court last month, he pleaded guilty to three counts, including the lesser charge of theft under $5,000. Other charges were withdrawn.

Gill also pleaded guilty to breaching probation and a release order. Court heard it was the second time in the past two years that he was found to be breaching his bail conditions, as Gill struggled with opioid addiction.

Left unsaid during the November hearing was the deadly cascade of events set off after Gill and an accomplice stole $1,602.80 worth of booze.

According to Durham Regional Police, a suspect pulled a knife on an off-duty officer at the store, then took off in a U-Haul van. The chase ended in a multi-vehicle crash that killed three-month-old Aditya Vivaan and his two paternal grandparents visiting from India. The infant's parents were also both injured.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Looch City;

Sure, it's a 20% tax increase

Thanks!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

MATH IS HARD BRO

Let's make this real real real simple for ya, ok buds?

If I pay a 5 percent tax on a 1000 dollars that is 50 dollars in tax
If I then pay 6 percent tax on a 1000 dollars that is 60 dollars
That is 10 dollars more!

That is an increase of WAIT for it 20 percent.

60-50/50 = 10/50 = 0.2 X 100 = 20%

So are you claiming that is not a 20 percent increase in your tax bill? Did you get out of elementary school?

Good lord.

[/MATH]

But if tax was 1% and was raised to 2% that’s a 100% tax increase.

And if tax was 99% and raised 1% it would only be a 1.01% tax increase

Yet in all of these cases the increase would be $10.

I think using either the % change out of total income or the % change in after tax income are more representative of what happens to the individual.

In the 5-6% tax change a persons after tax income goes from 950 to 940 so a 1.06% reduction in after tax income. In the 99% to 100% case a person loses 100% of after tax income.

Essentially the 20% corporate tax increase was presented in a manner designed to overstate its affects the correct measure would be the reduction in profit as a result of the tax increase.

You can be technically correct while intentionally misleading.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

This is the third federal liberal meltdown that I can remember, alongside two PC ones.

It’s crazy how this happens in Canada, I think this will be a Kim Campbell sized collapse. Under 10 seats for the Libs after the election? Could happen.

I don’t think you go that low as the reform party effectively replaced the PCs at the time. I’m less certain if you can make the same argument for the Bloc . If the NDP had a strong position then maybe you get there but Singh has failed to gain any traction.

It does make you wonder if Trudeau tried to run again could a new centrist party like the one with that guy from Nee Brunswick could gain real traction with a mass back bench defection. That’s the only scenario I see complete collapse. Without a credible alternative they will still get seats.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by GGG

But if tax was 1% and was raised to 2% that’s a 100% tax increase.

And if tax was 99% and raised 1% it would only be a 1.01% tax increase

Yet in all of these cases the increase would be $10.

I think using either the % change out of total income or the % change in after tax income are more representative of what happens to the individual.

In the 5-6% tax change a persons after tax income goes from 950 to 940 so a 1.06% reduction in after tax income. In the 99% to 100% case a person loses 100% of after tax income.

Essentially the 20% corporate tax increase was presented in a manner designed to overstate its affects the correct measure would be the reduction in profit as a result of the tax increase.

You can be technically correct while intentionally misleading.

Yes i get that but i was responding to

it's suddenly a MASSIVE 20% TAX INCREASE.

and it is a 20 percent increase in your tax bill.

Its 1 pecent of your income, but 20 percent more on the tax bill

That is how some people "suddenly" come to that conclusion

I guess Press Progress Boy could of explained himself better.

[Looch City]

All this groveling to Trump is ####ing disgusting with this border security "issue".

Let him impose the tariffs. Call his ####ing bluff.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yes i get that but i was responding to



and it is a 20 percent increase in your tax bill.

Its 1 pecent of your income, but 20 percent more on the tax bill

That is how some people "suddenly" come to that conclusion

You are technically correct but misleading people about the impact which is what Ozys comment was about.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Looch City

All this groveling to Trump is ####ing disgusting with this border security "issue".

Let him impose the tariffs. Call his ####ing bluff.

Yeah. And if you use Mel’s math, this is an infinity percent increase. We can’t allow infinity to happen!

[Ozy_Flame]

Mel is that histrionic tax banshee. Let's roleplay for funsies.

Calgary has 15 wins this year versus 13 at the same time last year. Behold! That's a 15% INCREASE, DOUBLE DIGITS.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by woob

Why does someone countering/disagreeing certain points by others have to be defined as "mental meltdown."

If certain posters were having a true mental meltdown, they'd likely be pacing about their room/office/whatever, not capable of forming a coherent thought, much less type out serveral sentences/paragraphs/counter-arguments on a subject.

Yes, x posters disagree with you and is stating as much and explaining their thoughts. That's ok. It's not a mental meltdown.

I know this is a useless post, but it annoys me.

Because those people aren’t capable of controlling the conversation like they want to or assert the kind of intellectual dominance that plays out in their imagination, so whether to influence others or as an expression of their own delusion, it’s preferable to them to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is having a mental breakdown instead of the reality, which is that they don’t have the social or intellectual capability to disagree with people normally.

It’s the same reason why certain people re-categorize criticisms they receive as people being “triggered.” It’s not their short comings, ever. It’s always everyone else’s problem or everyone else’s shortcomings that causes it. These are the same kinds of people that will tell you a story about a confrontation they had, but in this story, all the things they wish they said or thought of later are told as if they were said in the moment, “and then everyone clapped.”

[GGG]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Planning for a bad outcome, and then achieving a more bad outcome but that it's within +/- 5% of bad is still BAD!!!

How it can be considered acceptable is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I disagree we already priced in the Bad plan so meeting the bad plan doesn’t change expectations.

Did the FEE make you feel better or worse about the liberals ability to manage? Why or why not.

For me the liberals more or less met targets. So it increased my confidence in them being +/-5% of their numbers going forward.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Just trying to get her share of the $16 billion? Shameless.

thats not how those payouts work

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are technically correct but misleading people about the impact which is what Ozys comment was about.

I also think it's misleading to justify the impact as minimal just because it's just a percent or two over budget, when in reality that money has to come from somewhere. It gets taken as debt that Canadian taxpayers have to pay for, and if you take the massive deficit projected deficit this year, Canada's debt servicing costs have essentially doubled in the last few years. So not sure why you are throwing stones about misleading when you are the one minimizing the impact of blowing through what was supposed to be a 'guardrail'.

I understand that much of the spending over the past few years had to happen to keep things afloat when the pandemic hit, but it's not a pandemic anymore, and we're still piling on enormous deficits. With how much Canada's economy has dragged, you can't afford to continually pile on debt. Debt is a great lever when you have a growing economy (ie. the USA). Debt is a killer when your economy is shrinking (ie. Canada). And in terms of the real GDP growth rate of the economy, Canada ranks dead last in the G7 since 2015. People can spout that absolute real GDP isn't bad when you look at G7 countries, but it's the trends that matter, and the trends are grim for Canada.

With investment being a global game now, there is no investment thesis for Canada anymore. Why in the world would the marginal investment dollar go to Canada when investors can put their money into the US with more stability and higher growth potential, or they can invest in emerging markets for riskier high growth opportunities?

You're already seeing that with how much the US dollar has continued to strengthen and the Canadian dollar hitting a low today (since 2020). Maybe that changes with Trump in power, but looking at what the markets have done since Trump won the election, that's not the bet anyone is making right now, and in fact, it's gone the other way with the US dollar strengthening even more and the Canadian dollar weakening.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

It has nothing to do with being black. The folklore is his skin is permanently covered in chimney soot from going down the chimneys to give kids treats. But sure, racism.

Not entirely.

The original portrayal of Zwarte Piet was of Moorish origins, with clothes to match. He has since been modernized to be "sooty piet"

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Yesterday’s news;
Trudeaus’s top cabinet minister resigns in spectacular fashion.
The annual fiscal update is an absolute disaster.
Freeland calls out Trudeau for using “costly political gimics”
Liberals lose by election by a wide margin.
The NDP still seemingly support the failing Liberal government.
Canada’s housing minister also resigns.
The Liberal party is not internally aligned on what direction the party should be headed.

Liberal supporters- the big news from yesterday should be ‘voter apathy’.

Oh weird... I could've sworn those other things were discussed at length in this very forum

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I also think it's misleading to justify the impact as minimal just because it's just a percent or two over budget, when in reality that money has to come from somewhere. It gets taken as debt that Canadian taxpayers have to pay for, and if you take the massive deficit projected deficit this year, Canada's debt servicing costs have essentially doubled in the last few years. So not sure why you are throwing stones about misleading when you are the one minimizing the impact of blowing through what was supposed to be a 'guardrail'.

I understand that much of the spending over the past few years had to happen to keep things afloat when the pandemic hit, but it's not a pandemic anymore, and we're still piling on enormous deficits. With how much Canada's economy has dragged, you can't afford to continually pile on debt. Debt is a great lever when you have a growing economy (ie. the USA). Debt is a killer when your economy is shrinking (ie. Canada). And in terms of the real GDP growth rate of the economy, Canada ranks dead last in the G7 since 2015. People can spout that absolute real GDP isn't bad when you look at G7 countries, but it's the trends that matter, and the trends are grim for Canada.

With investment being a global game now, there is no investment thesis for Canada anymore. Why in the world would the marginal investment dollar go to Canada when investors can put their money into the US with more stability and higher growth potential, or they can invest in emerging markets for riskier high growth opportunities?

You're already seeing that with how much the US dollar has continued to strengthen and the Canadian dollar hitting a low today (since 2020). Maybe that changes with Trump in power, but looking at what the markets have done since Trump won the election, that's not the bet anyone is making right now, and in fact, it's gone the other way with the US dollar strengthening even more and the Canadian dollar weakening.

I agree our deficits are far too large and that competitiveness will be important going forward. That’s where the criticism should lie. The problem isn’t that due to one time costs the deficit target was exceeded by 50 PERCENT. It’s that our government deficit is 10% of its total spending.

So when people complain the FES was a disaster I don’t think they were paying attention. Nothing new was learned My argument isn’t that we are in good shape. It’s there is an over reaction to this particular news as it didn’t materially change anything about this government.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree our deficits are far too large and that competitiveness will be important going forward. That’s where the criticism should lie. The problem isn’t that due to one time costs the deficit target was exceeded by 50 PERCENT. It’s that our government deficit is 10% of its total spending.

So when people complain the FES was a disaster I don’t think they were paying attention. Nothing new was learned My argument isn’t that we are in good shape. It’s there is an over reaction to this particular news as it didn’t materially change anything about this government.

Totally understand your point, and is valid - I guess I would say my reaction was that the government put out the $40B number fully knowing that their spending was under extreme scrutiny, and sold it as a guardrail to show they can be prudent spenders, and then they did blow through it.

Understand that in the grand scheme of the budget, it's a small percent. But when you put a number out there, say it's a guard rail and that they can be smart spenders, and then still blow through it, while being extremely cagey over the last month or two about it and delaying the release of the FES, I understand why people are "overreacting". It was a terrible way of handling the news and how it was put out to the general public, and the overreaction is a function of that.