Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Anita Anaud announcing that she's not interested in running for leadership or running in the next election.



I expect that this will come down to Freeland versus Carney, with what's his face that announced. If feels like the Liberal Party just really wants to show what's left of their weight behind Carney.

That would make it, Ironically for me after a lifetime of NDP support, the first time in my life I would see the Liberals as the better bet, I'd see both Carney and Freedland as serious politicians unlike Singh and Trump lite

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Anita Anaud announcing that she's not interested in running for leadership or running in the next election.



I expect that this will come down to Freeland versus Carney, with what's his face that announced. If feels like the Liberal Party just really wants to show what's left of their weight behind Carney.

Freeland vs Carney without any other distraction candidates is a really interesting leadership battle.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Freeland vs Carney without any other distraction candidates is a really interesting leadership battle.

I really don’t think it matters, there may be a few other candidates, but it’s going to come down to those two. Assuming they both run.

[Geraldsh]

The ones that are dropping out don’t want to win the leadership just to be trounced in the general election.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The NDP and in recent leadership votes the Alberta NDP. Anyone who is a member or supporter of another party can not become a member of the NDP.

I never saw that. I quit being a UCP member post Smith though so maybe that’s enough. I suppose I need to cancel my federal NDP membership before this one that came with the Alberta one.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by lucky1

what an absolute twit...apparently she 'forgot' about all those statements and interviews she made years ago about joining the Federal Con party. But, she is a career politician so no real surprise there. I bet this is probably enough to keep her from throwing her hat into the race....

This is one of those areas of Canadian politics I have never understood, Clark was a BC liberal, they were far to the right of the old PC's, pretty much in the Reform territory, how can you be taken seriously in the Federal Liberals when you have been the Premier of a right wing provincial conservative party in all but name?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I'm super biased, but I've never understood why this wasn't a thing. I guess it could lead to marriages of convenience and other ways to abuse it.

2 big reasons I can think of:

1) Basic fairness. With full income splitting, a single person would pay about 30-50% more income tax (depending on the income level) than a person earning the same amount but with a spouse who didn't work. Which can create some sort of perverse financial incentives, both marriages of convenience and people staying in relationships they'd otherwise leave.

2) It disincentivizes working for the lower earning spouse (primarily women) because it makes marginal income for that person be taxed at a higher rate than it otherwise would. Under the current system, if you had a person making $200K and their spouse didn't work, if that non-earning spouse rejoined the labor force and earned say $50K, they would keep almost all of that money with an average tax rate of about 15%. But with income splitting, if the non-earning spouse took that same $50K job, the effective tax rate on that additional income would be more like 35-40%. High labor force participation is generally a good thing for society but income splitting can discourage it, as can things like high childcare costs.

Granted, there are cases where you may want to encourage a member of the household to not work if they don't want to, like a family with very young kids. But if you want that, then you target that group with supports or tax incentives, rather than any random person who happens to be married.

[GullFoss]

Here is how I want to see it play out:

1) Carney wins leadership.

2) Singh allows government to function

3) Carney negotiates with trump

4) elections in summer. Liberals get trounced and conservative majority

[Winsor_Pilates]

So does JT still remain an MP as an independent?
Is the new Liberal leader interum PM until the next election?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So does JT still remain an MP as an independent?
Is the new Liberal leader interum PM until the next election?

The PM is the leader of the party, since we don’t vote for PM. So yeah, whoever wins becomes PM, nothing interim about it. Tradition dictates that they should go the polls as soon as practical to get a true mandate from the public but what’s tradition anymore. They don’t require a new mandate to govern.

JT likely resigns his seat when the new leader is selected or stays on as a Liberal MP until the election.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

That would make it, Ironically for me after a lifetime of NDP support, the first time in my life I would see the Liberals as the better bet, I'd see both Carney and Freedland as serious politicians unlike Singh and Trump lite

I actually 2 months ago promised my vote to the first party to change leaders, as long as it wasn't Smith taking over the Cons. So red it is. I don't know who they'll elect, but I have faith that they be the best option in front of me, assuming Poilievre, Singh, May, and Bernier are the most likely leaders for choices on my ballet.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Here is how I want to see it play out:

1) Carney wins leadership.

2) Singh allows government to function

3) Carney negotiates with trump

4) elections in summer. Liberals get trounced and conservative majority

I’d prefer a conservative minority but Carney is really the best person for the job of negotiating with Trump.

[Slava]

I think a Carney/Polievre debate is going to be fascinating. Whether you agree with him or not, Carney is the real deal. Obviously he was both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor. You don’t just end up in those roles and particularly not the BoE after if you don’t know what you’re doing.

He was the first non-Briton to run the Bank of England and took them through Brexit and a piece of Covid. In Canada he was governor coming out of the GFC (2008-09) where Canada was the first country to raise interest rates coming out of that crisis.

Bottom line, is it would be very interesting to see how Poilievre fares against an outsider, who clearly knows his stuff.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Bottom line, is it would be very interesting to see how Poilievre fares against an outsider, who clearly knows his stuff.

I’d be interested to see how he fares against anyone who knows their stuff.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by opendoor

2 big reasons I can think of:

1) Basic fairness. With full income splitting, a single person would pay about 30-50% more income tax (depending on the income level) than a person earning the same amount but with a spouse who didn't work. Which can create some sort of perverse financial incentives, both marriages of convenience and people staying in relationships they'd otherwise leave.

2) It disincentivizes working for the lower earning spouse (primarily women) because it makes marginal income for that person be taxed at a higher rate than it otherwise would. Under the current system, if you had a person making $200K and their spouse didn't work, if that non-earning spouse rejoined the labor force and earned say $50K, they would keep almost all of that money with an average tax rate of about 15%. But with income splitting, if the non-earning spouse took that same $50K job, the effective tax rate on that additional income would be more like 35-40%. High labor force participation is generally a good thing for society but income splitting can discourage it, as can things like high childcare costs.

Granted, there are cases where you may want to encourage a member of the household to not work if they don't want to, like a family with very young kids. But if you want that, then you target that group with supports or tax incentives, rather than any random person who happens to be married.

On the fairness side, the eligibility for most programs is based on pre-tax HHI. Which makes sense, because a stay-at-home parent shouldn't suddenly be eligible for a bunch of stuff based on their income, but without at least some degree of income splitting, it is not 'fair'.

example with a very basic calculator:
1x$160k earner takes home $112,423

2x$75k earners take home $112,350, but their lower income may give them even more credits for program XYZ that earner 1 above is ineligible for

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

The Liberals just changed their rules, foreigners and bots no longer allowed.

You can still be in grade 8 though

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Locke

Nobody said anything about money. I think the last thing Democracy needs is to be ruled by those with the most money.

I merely (and quite sarcastically) suggested that perhaps some form of effort should be required in order to be deigned the responsibility of a vote rather than mere simple existence?

Now, I'm being really sarcastic here so take this with a grain of salt the size of the International Space Station, but there are rules for votes. For instance you must be a citizen, you must be at least 18, etc, we have placed limits and rules on who is allowed to vote. Maybe there could be a few more?

If you want skin in the game and it’s not based on taxes paid to the pot how else could you identify it. I.e. you have to have done xxxxxx to get a ballot.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Goriders

You can still be in grade 8 though

Seems more reasonable than the current upper age limit if we want to pick one to complain about.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

On the fairness side, the eligibility for most programs is based on pre-tax HHI. Which makes sense, because a stay-at-home parent shouldn't suddenly be eligible for a bunch of stuff based on their income, but without at least some degree of income splitting, it is not 'fair'.

example with a very basic calculator:
1x$160k earner takes home $112,423

2x$75k earners take home $112,350, but their lower income may give them even more credits for program XYZ that earner 1 above is ineligible for

I think if you did that you would need to add income for child care and house work and all the other in kind services being provided by the SAHP.

The other reason that comparison is not the correct run is that the SAHP has a choice they too could work for income but choose not to so you would need to add 30-40k to the HHI at a minimum. Forgoing earning income is a choice that doesn’t need to be subsidized.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

Forgoing earning income is a choice that doesn’t need to be subsidized.

Who subsidizes who depends very much on your lens. Currently, the $151,001st dollar earned in one household subsidizes the $151,001st dollar in another.

Full income splitting would take it too far in the other direction; there is a 'more fair' balance that could be struck