Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Y'all I know it's not how it works today. I am literally working on a portion of this exact project for another type of facility design. This absolutely CAN be done if we change a few small regulatory considerations. It's not about full pre approval, but getting everything not requiring exact design approval up to regulatory snuff and just requiring the design portions for the last 15 yards. This is achievable. Alternately, you can pre approve a range of design options.

We can't just say "this is not how it works". Yes, it's not how it currently works. But how it currently works doesn't actually work, and that's what we need to fix.

Oh I don't agree with most of this

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

PP fighting the good fight for the common man

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...prime-minister





If there is one thing we need it is to have laws written in the most simple way possible.

I think there is something to be said for clear and concise legislation, but is there really anyone confused by the word "obtain" vs. "get"?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I think there is something to be said for clear and concise legislation, but is there really anyone confused by the word "obtain" vs. "get"?

Is it more of a second language/immigration issue rather than dumbing things down for native speakers?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is it more of a second language/immigration issue rather than dumbing things down for native speakers?

I think it’s more about keeping the language as ambiguous as possible. The lawyers on here can probably better explain how that will inevitably be problematic.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

PP fighting the good fight for the common man

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...prime-minister





If there is one thing we need it is to have laws written in the most simple way possible.

I have been told that it takes a lot more effort, in terms of work, skill and time, to write laws that are simple, as opposed to what normally takes place. My guess is finding the right people to accomplish this is going to be difficult. I don't think bureaucrats are that talented...they aren't paid enough to attract the right people.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I have been told that it takes a lot more effort, in terms of work, skill and time, to write laws that are simple, as opposed to what normally takes place. My guess is finding the right people to accomplish this is going to be difficult. I don't think bureaucrats are that talented...they aren't paid enough to attract the right people.

People are only talented if they make a lot of money?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

PP fighting the good fight for the common man

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...prime-minister


If there is one thing we need it is to have laws written in the most simple way possible.

Druh Farrell and Pierre Poilievre; two peas in a pod



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rell-1.5871829

[Ozy_Flame]

"According to a press release obtained by the National Post ahead of release, Conservative leadership front-runner would pass the law to require government publications use the “fewest and simplest words needed” to state information but also require legal drafters to write laws as simply as possible.

and

Ordinary Canadians would also be able to report “bureaucratese” — defined as overcomplicated language used by bureaucrats — on a specially created webpage.

Simpler language = more vague language for interpreting laws.

In other words, people who want more freedoms can simply argue the law was written to wordy to understand.

It effectively dumbs down our legal system and lets people obstruct justice based on more vague interpretations of laws, legislations, and policy.

This also effectively assumes that courts, lawyers, and the legal profession as a whole are too dumb to do their own jobs.

We should just call this the "Be Your Own Lawyer" Act.

[Roughneck]

Can I report 'bureaucratese'?

[BlackArcher101]

Basically he'll get after the tax laws, simplify them, create more loopholes he and his buddies can take advantage of.

[jammies]

One of the major strengths of the English language is the breadth of vocabulary it has, choosing the correct word is usually more important than choosing the simplest. That said, there's nothing wrong with having style guides - but there is definitely something wrong with having a single style guide for the entire federal government and all its many parts.

[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.

[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.

[sa226]

I'd be curious how much tax revenue they're estimating from this.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by sa226

I'd be curious how much tax revenue they're estimating from this.

PBO says 2023-24 could see $163M in tax revenue generated. But this new tax could also see a decrease in sales of these luxury goods by $2.8B over the next 5 years.

[Doctorfever]

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.

I don’t know. I just think it could be as simple as a salesperson losing their job. I’m sure if I wasn’t so tired right now, I could think of more people and more jobs that could be directly affected by this tax.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I don’t know. I just think it could be as simple as a salesperson losing their job. I’m sure if I wasn’t so tired right now, I could think of more people and more jobs that could be directly affected by this tax.

No need. I acknowledge they exist, and concede that simply taxing high incomes (or wealth/capital gains) would avoid the drawback of picking winners and losers (i.e. distorting the economy) while producing an overall similar effect in terms of raising revenue while distributing the burden to those who can most afford to bear it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I don’t know. I just think it could be as simple as a salesperson losing their job. I’m sure if I wasn’t so tired right now, I could think of more people and more jobs that could be directly affected by this tax.

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

[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.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

"According to a press release obtained by the National Post ahead of release, Conservative leadership front-runner would pass the law to require government publications use the “fewest and simplest words needed” to state information but also require legal drafters to write laws as simply as possible.

and

Ordinary Canadians would also be able to report “bureaucratese” — defined as overcomplicated language used by bureaucrats — on a specially created webpage.

Simpler language = more vague language for interpreting laws.

In other words, people who want more freedoms can simply argue the law was written to wordy to understand.

It effectively dumbs down our legal system and lets people obstruct justice based on more vague interpretations of laws, legislations, and policy.

This also effectively assumes that courts, lawyers, and the legal profession as a whole are too dumb to do their own jobs.

We should just call this the "Be Your Own Lawyer" Act.

Hi, I'd like to report the bureaucratise website for bureaucratise