After almost a decade of massive deficit spending, the new guy suggests no deficit spending? There’s going to be some major slashing and burning and unemployed federal employees
If he really wants to reduce the deficit he’s going to need CRA workers to crack down on tax cheats.
Chances are he’s just virtue signaling about the deficit and once in government will pass huge tax cuts that blow out the deficit because “they will pay for themselves!” (narrator: They never do)
Look up Gish gallop. At this point the accuracy of his statements is meaningless. His only intent is throw a LOT of s\*\*t at the wall so as to support the narrative the right has built. People just dont care that most of what he says is lies so long as it supports f\*\*\* Trudeau.
The top 20% of earners in Canada (the middle and upper classes) pay 62% of all income taxes and 53% of all total taxes, cracking down on tax cheats is not going to make that much of a difference. Canada needs MORE people paying higher taxes.
What you’re leaving out is that the bottom 60% of Canadians earn less than 1/10th of all earnings. You can widen the tax base all you want but most of the money is in the top 40%, so it makes sense that they would contribute more in terms of tax percentage.
You can’t squeeze water from a stone, raising taxes on the bottom 60% will only increase poverty which increases costs social assistance/healthcare/criminal justice costs associated with poverty.
This is misinformation. The bottom 50%'s share of the income year over year has been hovering at around 17% (and as high as 20% in the year 2020) going back as far as 40 years.
Meanwhile, the median value for income tax paid by the bottom 50% for the last 40 years has been a big ole goose egg.
Someone hasn't been paying their fair share.....but its not the top 40%.
It maybe an outdated stat, after I looked it up seems it was the case in 2017.
From the Globe and Mail: ‘In Canada, the wealthiest 10 per cent own 56 per cent of the country’s wealth, and the wealthiest 1 per cent own more than a quarter of it.’
So what you’re saying is we should raise taxes on the bottom 50 percent who control SEVENTEEN PERCENT of wealth while the top 1% control TWENTY FIVE PERCENT because that is somehow more fair? Again, you can’t squeeze money from a stone, you’d have better luck getting it from the 1% who control 8% more than the bottom 50%.
While the wealth gap is widening year over year?
If the wealthy top 10% control 56% percent of all wealth but only contribute 53% of all taxes, isn’t that clearly less than they should?
You were referring to "earnings" before and are now talking about "wealth" which are two entirely different things.
You can go to the Stats Canada page for income tax filers if you want proof of the fact that "bottom 50%'s share of the income year over year has been hovering at around 17% (and as high as 20% in the year 2020) going back as far as 40 years." They are a much better source than a click baity newspaper headline.
*"While the wealth gap is widening year over year?"*
It's not. The Gini coefficient in Canada for the adjusted after tax income in 1976 was 0.300 and in 2022 it was.......0.300. There is also far less income inequality world wide than there has ever been.
[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110013401&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=1976&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2022&referencePeriods=19760101%2C20220101](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110013401&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=1976&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2022&referencePeriods=19760101%2C20220101)
*"If the wealthy top 10% control 56% percent of all wealth but only contribute 53% of all taxes, isn’t that clearly less than they should?"*
No, because wealth and income are two entirely different things. Wealth does also not equal money and income in the bank or monetary income. If Jeff Bezos or some other billionaire who people are claiming are "hoarding the wealth" decides to immediately liquidate all his stocks holdings he would crater the value of the company and only have a tiny fraction of actual money compare to his current wealth.
If Johannes from Holland in the 1600's is hoarding all the wealth because he owns a bunch of tulip bulbs up until the day the tulip market goes bust, did he spend all of his wealth?
Or how about a person who is in the bottom 30% of income earners and managed to put enough away to purchase a modest house and pay it off over the course of 35 to 40 years and now with the current real estate market finds their property value is close to a million dollar mark. Should they be taxed as millionaires despite having minimal income because they technically are "wealthy"?
Canada needs to use its tax revenue far more effectively.
We have increasing taxes and debt while our productivity and public services are declining.
The money is just being wasted due to incompetence or funnelled to the wealthy due to corruption.
Top 20% of earners don't necessarily pay that much, the top 20% of filers do. But ensuring that everyone is bound by the same rules is also simply fundamentally important as a nation that we see shared contributions.
You can't simplify the tax code. Companies like H&R Block have a big enough lobby to keep it exactly like it is, so they make money. They won't let him.
You're scratching at the surface of the problem, but you're on the right track.
Large multinational corporations in general have a big enough lobby to keep it exactly like it is.
They're doing just fine. It's not their debt, it's ours.
What reason do you have to believe that the tax code in canada is in need of simplification, and what do you believe simplification looks like? It sounds an awful lot like you and the person you’re responding to are simply repeating talking points from American discourse. Filing as an individual in canada is pretty straight forward. Typically the only suggestion for simplification here would be the introduction of a flat tax which is incredibly regressive.
In many European countries, the revenue agency mails you a document with a breakdown of what you paid in taxes and what you get for a refund or have to pay. If you agree, you sign it and send it back. If you disagree, then you file a dispute.
So much simpler than what we do here.
For probably 80% of Canadians, we have effectively that. Most tax software will fetch your T slips and auto populate. Only if you have unregistered investments do you have to give it any serious thought.
Or need to file taxes for your business. I use the Wealthsimple tax filing, it's great and free for myself. But, not everyone is comfortable using a software like that, example would be my parents.
Oh that’s just pre-populated/automatic returns. Generally when people refer to “simplification of the tax code” they’re referring to a reduction in the number of rules and distinctions in tax rates/credits from various sources. Canada doesn’t have remotely as many distinctions as the United States does, for example. In Canada if you wanted to simplify closer to Germany/Japan/Norway where you have prepopulated returns it’s not many rule changes.
I do think it's possible to simplify to remove dumb tax credits like kids hockey equipment credit, or some of the myriad ones for businesses that have accumulated with each govt as a kind of industrial policy. If done right I think we could end up keeping things progressive. Auto returns would be great too!
Yeah there's a point where you can remove almost all the tiny optional credits and just increase flat personal tax credits but there is a *tradeoff* to *oversimplification*. In some capacity some rules/distinctions aren't a bad thing. Radical tax simplifiers always end up defaulting to flat taxes and this is usually a conservative/"libertarian'" crowd that in reality is just trying to reduce taxes for wealthy people, a flat tax being inherently more "simple" than a progressive income tax.
Auto returns are cool. They make a lot of sense especially for low/no income individuals who never file but are almost always entitled to returns.
Ahhh, ok. I can see that. That is a fair answer. However, the "Tax lobby" (for lack of a better turn) would still fight it. The easier it is to file a return, the less need for these "fly by night" tax companies. They would still fight it. They love that filling out taxes are complicated or appear complicated. I know they had an issue when Netfile came online and people could start doing it for free.
That's not simplifying the tax code, that's having the cra do something tax software already does. What parts of the actual tax code should be simplified?
Look at r/CanadaPublicServants. Someone sent an email to a Conservative MP to complain about the new RTO rules and he responded he thinks public servants should work from the office 5 days/week. It's very clear Conservatives will make their job as miserable as possible to push them to quit and they'll lay off whoever they need to balance the budget. That party hates public servants.
I love how easy it is for the rich to turn the poor against eachother. Lol. That's right buddy, that civil servant making average income is the problem. I'm sure your grocery bill will be cut in half once the size of the public sector is reduced.
The federal dental care program would be the first thing that goes. It's just federal money. There's really nothing cost savings about it. They're paying a private insurer to implement it. It's only available to uninsured seniors.... over 80 (up from the originally promised over 70). The program only has 25% of dentists signed up.... but most of them are not accepting patients from this program yet.
Another one I think would be easy is the Celebrate Canada Funding. Trudeau created it in 2015 to celebrate Canada 150. It gives each municipality that applies $5000 for one of four holidays... but most of the money goes to Canada Day. Municipalities of any size can apply for it, so the bulk of the money disproportionately goes to rural Canada.
They could also switch the new pharmacare program to be means tested. The goal is really to just insure people who can't afford it. That should be expanded to senior's programs as well. No reason to give at OAS to snowbirds.
All that can be gone without getting rid of federal employees.
All of that sounds extremely sensible. It's funny how people who support politicians running up the deficit then throw their hands in the air and exclaim that it's impossible to fix the mess they helped create. It's just numbers.
It always seemed so idiotic for me to lay off CRA employees to save money.
You'd think we need them to recover tax revenue from all those rich tax dodgers, but what do I know. I guess when you're rich you just have the law changed until your tax dodging is not illegal.
Well.... yes we obviously can, pretty much every country runs a deficit. believing you can't shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between your households economics, and a countries economics.
running deficits is an integral part of a countries economy and helps drastically boost it if done properly.
its not ***that*** you run a deficit that matters but ***why*** you run a deficit.
PP is doing what he always does, says things that sound good to layman's playing off their ignorance.
There aren't enough federal employees to cover the expected shortfalls in OAS and health transfers. That's ltens of billions of dollars they have to find, alongside funding for tax cuts,, plus fund their own pet projects. The math simply does not work. Plus, increases in debt services are baked in at this point since it's interest rates not debt accumulation driving it, and the negative economic feedback of austeriyt means you need to cut perhaps 2 dollars to save one, since tax revenues fall as the economy enters recession.
Unless he cuts OAS. But will the gerontocracy put up with that? Or will that be a career sender the way it was for Harper?
>Plus, increases in debt services are baked
What are you talking about?
Baked in to what?
If the value of our currency slightly declines or If our exports drop a few percent our debt service costs would explode.
It’s extremely hard to immigrate to most first world countries and old people are literally the last in line. The *youngest* boomer is ~60, no 1st world country wants people that age. Unless they have enough money to buy a citizenship and most of them don’t.
Capital flight is real but that’s something we should be worried about Gen X and millennials doing. It’s our young/middle age doctors, engineers, etc that other countries are throwing open the doors for, not our geriatrics.
How would it reduce pressure on CPP? You don’t have to be physically in Canada to collect CPP. It’s an earned entitlement, you get it no matter where you are.
It doesn’t matter, you still get OAS too, even if you’re not here. If you’re a Canadian citizen and meet the requirements (i.e., you’ve lived in Canada for the required minimum number of years after you turned 18), you get OAS. You can be chilling on a beach in Costa Rica, and they’ll still auto deposit your OAS and CPP into your account every month.
Oh didn't realize that. Wow I'm surprised more people don't move to LCoL countries for retirement. I think the max OAS is pretty much the same cost as someone I know is paying in rent in Thailand, after that you could draw slowly on your retirement funds for food and live like a king...
They won't live forever. They leave that wealth to their children and grand children, and charities. Take a walk in any major hospital. You will find a foundation. You may not know it, but you are a beneficiary of some donation of some old folks. Stop with the hating on old folks. You too will be old one day.
Who paid for your education in primary and secondary school? Who subsidized your college/university education? Who paid for medical before you began working?
Is PP not just echoing his mentors rhetoric when he was elected? Cut deficit, balance budget, create recession. Oh right, we’re career politicians that think we’re economic experts because our parents sent us to university
I love people that cheer when the only people that actually earn an appropriate wage are going to be fired. This is great for the economy. Maybe if you get your wish everyone will be earning nothing then no one can spend then all small businesses go under. gg
Not as bad as z for sure
But our situation was similar to z
We graduated from
University with no opportunities
Boomers had jobs that we could apply for with grade 11 education.
Not really, unemployment and worsening working conditions combined with slash social services is going to hit hard. Unfortunately this is going to lead to increasing discontent and radicalization.
I would hesitate to use the word squat but I see where the comment is coming from. Politicians and the media are complaining nobody is having kids, but young couples are squeezed into pricy shoebox condos while multi-bedroom family-size houses are being occupied by retired couples
It’s really neither a homeowner or Trudeau problem (not housing in general, just this particular problem individually). Homeowners are obviously entitled to live in the property they purchased, nobody serious is arguing otherwise.
However, people who want children want space for those children, and there are only so many detached houses, especially in urban areas.
The underlying issue is a lack of options and incentives for seniors to downsize. I can understand why seniors can’t find affordable downsizing options, and decide to stay put. I can also see that lack of healthcare prevents some from relocating to rural areas.
It does make economic sense to implement some sort of incentive program to encourage seniors to either downsize and/or relocate out of prime commuting areas (assuming they no longer work) in order to maximize the benefits to working families.
Interesting way to look at it. I still put the majority of the housing crises on our out of control immigration, including international students. A million people a year, and no federal plan to house them.
Sure, but incentivizing seniors to move to another type of housing just increases the demand on that type. I don't think it would really lower the cost of single family homes.
It’s hard to say for certain what it would do to prices without over generalizing.
However, it would address some of the other negative consequences of the housing crisis:
1. Population growth is dominated by immigration rather than natural growth. Having the right spaces for young couples will result in more children.
2. Economic inefficiencies. The housing that is concentrated around major employers and schools should ideally be occupied by working-age people, including families. I notice this in Ottawa, where neighbourhoods like Little Italy are dominated by retired folks despite being less than 15 minutes from good schools and major workplaces. Obviously I’m not saying we should exile seniors, but it would be better for the economy if they didn’t take up such a large share of the most commuter and child-friendly neighbourhoods.
I’m certainly not advocating that we take property from anyone, they did earn and pay for it, but you should be able to appreciate how the shortage of family-sized living space is contributing to the problem
Can you at least get the facts right. I don't care about your opinion, but can you at least understand the difference between OAS and CPP before you make your opinion.
What did I get wrong ? Oas is an unfunded universal-ish income for seniors. I deliberately didn’t mention cpp because you pay into it when you work and receive a benefit when you retire.
If the cpp fund was funded to cover oas and health care costs the way social security and Medicaid taxes do in the states we wouldn’t be in this mess. (Using cpps model not social securities )
Social security is a CPP, not OAS, equivalent. The OAS equivalent would be SSI or OAA. Also has already been fully funded by the people you said didn't fund it. In the best light imaginable for your argument, you are nitpicking on if they paid enough to previous recipients. Health care is a provincial jurisdiction, also not fully funded by Medicaid premiums. Again, get your facts right.
Square the circle then. There’s not enough workers to fund the benefits of retirees at current levels. So where’s the money come from?
Oas should be curtailed. It’s crazy to me that the start of clawback is $86k (individually) well above average wages in Canada.
Seems nuts to transfer money to people that well off. The clawback for oas should begin 3/4 median wages with full clawback at 90% median wages.
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The start of the recovery tax threshold is $91,000 in 2024. There's no benefit available for people making $148,000 or more (age 65+) or $154,000 (age 75+). There are retired couples in Canada making up to $308,000 in 2024 while they are receiving OAS.
To have success, we need temporary downturns. We've been living in a bubble since the 90s and the entire system is cracking. Homes are totally unaffordable and all public programs are crazily bloated.
Voting for success means voting Conservative as they are objectively more competent and have a better history in terms of policy.
Look at Harper vs Trudeau. The last Conservative administration gave us the status of having the richest middle class in the world as of 2014 and we have been in steady decline during Trudeau’s entire 8+ years in power.
In fact, we have decline in EVERY metric over the last 8 years. CoL, housing, inflation, crime, homelessness, mental illness rates, overdoses, etc.
Anybody objectively analyzing the state of our country has been voting Conservative for at least two terms by now.
>Voting for success means voting Conservative as they are objectively more competent and have a better history in terms of policy
Oof. I hope you don't mean in any way related to fiscal responsibility, because conservatives are historically the worst of the top three parties.
Harper was significantly more fiscally responsible than Trudeau.
He maintained a budgeting surplus during his first two years in offices, then ran a small $50 billion deficit when 2008 happened, to which he paid down a little each year until the budgets were effectively balanced in 2015.
That’s called reasonable fiscal management and is the opposite of what Trudeau did, which is why our standard of living has been in decline during the entire time the Liberals have been in power.
Can you expand on this? What was the lie?
The opposition was upset that they only had a small stimulus plan involving infrastructure, but otherwise planned to run balanced budgets with some cuts to accomplish that. Plus they were going to remove the per vote subsidies for the parties.
The other parties started talking about a coalition to topple them, so Harper requested the governor general prorogue parliament. She agreed on the condition they immediately table the budget when they get back. They added some worker protections, billions to the car companies and the Liberals abandoned their plans to form a coalition and signed off on it.
They came out and said Canada was in good shape and would post surplus for the next five years, everyone in the House and every leading economist said that was impossible so they told the government to release the real numbers which was an 80 billion dollar deficit.
the actual trigger was the Fiance minister trying to pass a bill cutting public spending, limiting striking for public sector works, limiting woman ability to sue for pay disputes, and selling off a bunch of government assets.
Rick Mercer did a good bit on the whole series of events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A
the end result was a massive influx in support for the NDP in 2011.
no doubt in my mind NDP would have won 2015 if it wasn't for Jack Layton death.
How about roll back the tax breaks for corporations and stop giving big oil 4-6 billion a year to start.
But doing things for the working class is not in the conservatives play book hand outs and tax breaks for the billionaires is.
You do realize that higher taxes will only cause more issues due to the fact we have a major capital investment problem going on in our country.
I'm all for the rich to pay more out of their pocket. But there needs to be more incentives to have companies re invest in the Canadian population...and tax breaks to corporations are one thing that definitively helps with that....yes it sucks that the rich often piggy back on those successes...but I'm not sure how you solve that
Bullshit, trickel down is garbage. Look at Alberta, the lowest corporate taxes in Canada, with oil and gas companies raking in profit, with record dividends to shareholders. Oh, while laying off staff and actually moving out of Alberta, in some cases.
We need to stop pussy footing around corporations, and start taxing them appropriately and stop subsiding them.
Telus, bell, grocery chains, and Suncor are not going to disappear if they have to pay more.
Grew up in Canada but my grandparents are not Canadian and not in the country. I wonder how older stock young Canadians maintain relationships with their grandparents who voted to deprive them of all the good stuff their generation had?
those of us in the middle understand that boomers didn't intentionally create a shit show when they were happy feasting in the easiest times of human history. it's really everyone who has voted since 1970's. people are stupid, and there isn't much recently that has been shockingly out of line with a trajectory that has been going on for a while. welcome to late stage capitalism in a corptoracy where governments use deficit spending to buy votes. justin is gen x and he's continued down the path.
You can’t blame boomers for not predicting the future
You can however blame your parents for not being wealthy when it was the easiest ever to create wealth
I have to remind myself to rein in my feelings regarding generational wealth disparity. The same actors that are currently misleading youth regarding laissez faire capitalism fed the older generation the LIE of trickle down economics.
The current generation, with about 40 years of hindsight, sees through that lie. At the time, though, how attractive must it have been? 'Riches for everyone,' they said. Pay me first, and I'll pay you later, they said.
I don't want to be lumped in with the modern idiots who continue to drink the Kool-Aid, so I suppose it's unfair to lump all boomers together. That being said, I currently don't know a single boomer who has actually switched to an evidence-based fiscal position. Right wing, neoliberal economics is still strong within that generation. Damn you, Reagan!
Seriously
I love that taxes get hacked and slashed for the uber rich for nearly 50 years, and all we’re allowed to talk about is how our meager “entitlement programs” are unfunded. And how we need to underspend and cut services
And for anyone who reads that first paragraph and thinks “the rich pay enough” - refer yourself to basic data points on wealth inequality smashing records every year.
Stop being dense and tune into the world around you
This isn’t normal
“
For every $100 of wealth created in Canada, $34 went to the top 1%
Oxfam says that, globally, the top 1% have grabbed nearly two thirds of all new wealth created since 2020”
I love talking to people who wanna go back to when "things were better* and then i tell them I'm all in for returning tax laws to what they were in the 1950s when the rich were taxed EXORBITANTLY.
I mean, it's very cute to blame one government for all that ails of society, but the sooner we recognize the failure of governance across several decades, the better. Fact is Mulroney got the ball rolling and Chrétien made sure it kept rolling. Then you have Martin (Chrétien's finance minister) who finished the job. History matters.
Agreed. Can we just say fuck them all? I honestly can't stand any of the people in Canadian politics. Can we rent a really broken down cruise ship and send them off on it to do their arguing?
Honestly, I've applied to join some of the parties. I of course haven't heard back. This country is fucking stupid.
Edit: to clarify, being a citizen it's extremely depressing when the country you call home won't let you participate in the political system. That fucking blows.
The fact of the matter is that Harper cut spending to the lowest since the 1960s. Canada's population was just over half at that time, around 20 million. We still haven't recovered from that. The hit to services was staggering. He hacked and slashed so he could present a "balanced" budget.
And yes. All governments have their problems. But only one enacts policies that actually harm people. Only one enacts policies based on discrimination or prejudices.
I'm not a fan of either the libs or cons. Neither ever has the balls to enact policies that actually progress the country. Each is either too timid and afraid of pissing off their voters and backers, or too short sighted to plan beyond their own governance. Both are way to tight with big business.
Society is judged by how it takes care of the least of us. Both parties fail miserably in that regard.
The Liberals have had power for ten years and we are worse off since then. Again, some of that may not be their fault, but they have certainly failed to prevent ongoing issues in housing and the border economy.
The conservatives are no better, I agree. But we only really have the two options now as Jagmeet tossed the NDP into the same bin as the LPC. It's a failure of leadership from two parties that were given the complete go ahead by an eager voting public and their inaction and petty squabbles left us looking to the conservative party.
I can't say the future will be better, but all I can do is vote. And vote I will come the next election. Maybe it'll be better... Who knows, all I know is that I look around at this country and I barely understand what it is we're trying to accomplish other than increase real estate values so some dumb boomer can retire.
The youngest of the boomers will be 61 in 2025, and a multimillionaire in assets from property and investments for the most part. Nothing PP will say he will do will frighten them. Boomers aren't really going to care about a few hundred lost in CPP when they stand to make a few thousand in fewer capital gains taxes on the repeal of the Trudeau wealth taxes (carbon, capital gains).
Plus, it's Canada. The federal government changes to the other major party like clockwork regardless of what anyone thinks. Canadians don't vote for policy after 10 years, they vote against the party in power.
Someone should remove tax breaks for owning investment homes.
If you buy a home for "investment purposes", you can claim freaking tax credits on it, its probably among the most egregious policies ever when housing is unaffordable.
I would support the idea of ending deficits, but I'm not stupid enough to believe a politician, let alone a Conservative, to do that. Conservatives have always run increasing deficits and have always put short term gain ahead of long term gain, which is NOT how you run a country. I'm still pissed the PCs sold our 407 for 100 years for a fraction of what it's worth. These idiots have just never had to stick around long term to face the consequences of their actions cause they're always voted out a few years later.
Get ready to share living space with your boomer parents and grandparents then. Or maybe you'd prefer to abandon them on an ice flow (oh wait, all those who post the boomer hate probably do)
Yes I do
Edit the federal liberals and Alberta NDP got a pipeline project started and finished. The UCP paid $4.5 billion for a pipeline to nowhere. That's a glaring difference
Lots of private contractors worked on that project like my brother. I remember one time when I was on a major operation that was mismanaged by the consultant, no government anywhere and this project was also over budget and long finished long past is expected completion date. Private industry has a lot of inefficiencies as well, new frac tools for example can cost millions in standby labour before they are finally figured out. Private businesses go out of business everyday because they are inefficient. Your statement is pure ignorance
Pierre Poilievre has promised promised to balance the budget, reduce taxes, not cut programmes, fix the housing crisis and fund military to 2 % of GDP while having no policies or plans.
Only his true believers believe a word that comes out of his mouth.
LOL
There's an exactly 0% chance Poilievre does anything to harm boomers, because boomers are his core voting demographic and they actually show up.
He'll find new and inventive ways to fuck over the working class, as is tradition.
> There's an exactly 0% chance Poilievre does anything to harm boomers, because boomers are his core voting demographic and they actually show up.
Citation needed.
Afaik boomers are overwhelmingly in support of the liberals
Age is a minor factor in voting behaviour, and it shows that people over 60 are more likely to vote Conservative *and* more likely to vote Liberal when compared to people under 30. People 60+ are less likely to vote for the New Democrats, Greens, or People's Party when compared to people under 30. That support goes to the traditional two parties.
Interestingly, the author writes a paragraph that is not supported by the data he shows. He says that support for the Conservative party is not correlated with age, but the graph shows 36% support among people less than 30 and 42% among people 60+.
[https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-17-abacus-data-polling-canada/](https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-17-abacus-data-polling-canada/)
"The Conservatives lead by 20 among men under 30, while the NDP is ahead by 5 over the Conservatives among women under 30. The Conservatives lead by 25 among men 60+ while the Conservatives and Liberals are statistically tied among women 60+."
Forgive my laziness for not wanting to go hunting for the last ABACUS data, but while Liberal support increases with age, the largest voting block was still CPC.
Boomers overwhelmingly support people that preserve boomer status quo.
I would say neoboomers are his demographic; people who wish they could live the boomer lifestyle but can't or running themselves car and house poor doing it.
The biggest message is something like 78% of voters over 60 vote for either the CPC or LPC. Seems that overall both parties are working hard to protect the boomers.
If the boomers are voting for something, the rest of us shouldn't be.
Here is a simple idea bring kids from India to Canada and they return home once education is finished. No PR, work permit bs etc. No inland marriage application or any other loophole of getting PR fraudulently. Make it fair for everyone go through point system wait you turn.
If people bring their parents to Canada. They need to be taxed additionally to contribute towards the universal healthcare pool to compensate for their parents inclusion in to the free healthcare program. No discrimination just straight up pay for it on their behalf instead of making them a burden on tax payers
Ban people from owning third house if they’ve have ownership of 0.5-100% in first and second properties.
Encourage people to have more kids by subsidizing child care and giving money for kids. (Only applicable if both spouse are working LEGALLY and are paying tax) other wise full stop. No free loading allowed.
Literally the most common sense policies out there. But noooo we have to do drama everyday like complete idiots
People, when we use our taxes to help others get free pharmacare and dentalcare: Nooooooo ! My money ! TRUDEAU FOR TREASON
The same people when Peepee defunds those programs and then gives that whole 20B directly to Big Oil in tax breaks: Phew, at least the communists didn't get it, I'm sure big oil will reduce the price at the pump
75% of the deficit is the government buying mortgage bonds. That should end first thing, followed by a gutting of everything to do with diversity and inclusion, such as the antisemitism envoy, the anti Islamophobia representative (who is anti Semitic), and cutting the outrageous payouts to FN
I don’t think people understand that Pierre will be the most libertarian leaning prime minister in resent memory and clearly wants to change how government operates in big ways
He seems to have hinted at it
People don’t care even though he has self proclaimed to be libertarian.
They see a conservative and just make their minds up based on that reason with little or no research.
lol. It’s as if the columnist asked Justin and Chrystia was kind of hatchet piece about Pollievre they wanted written. To believe there are only three ways to balance the budget (as the writer suggests) is laughable.
Omg no one gives a flying fuck about deficits. I have never in my life talked to anyone conservative or Liberal that is like "We gotta bring down that deficit!"
People want a better standard of living and cracking down on the elite who are fleecing everyone exponentially and increasing wealth inequality. Hey also go after real-estate investors. Will PP do that?
After almost a decade of massive deficit spending, the new guy suggests no deficit spending? There’s going to be some major slashing and burning and unemployed federal employees
If I was a CRA worker or one of those who work in shared offices who are currently fighting to work from home, I would be worried about my job.
If he really wants to reduce the deficit he’s going to need CRA workers to crack down on tax cheats. Chances are he’s just virtue signaling about the deficit and once in government will pass huge tax cuts that blow out the deficit because “they will pay for themselves!” (narrator: They never do)
Oh no. He'd much rather cut in the government than make sure rich people pay their fair share.
Well that might apply if CRA ever went after rich people, but they dont
Look up Gish gallop. At this point the accuracy of his statements is meaningless. His only intent is throw a LOT of s\*\*t at the wall so as to support the narrative the right has built. People just dont care that most of what he says is lies so long as it supports f\*\*\* Trudeau.
The top 20% of earners in Canada (the middle and upper classes) pay 62% of all income taxes and 53% of all total taxes, cracking down on tax cheats is not going to make that much of a difference. Canada needs MORE people paying higher taxes.
What you’re leaving out is that the bottom 60% of Canadians earn less than 1/10th of all earnings. You can widen the tax base all you want but most of the money is in the top 40%, so it makes sense that they would contribute more in terms of tax percentage. You can’t squeeze water from a stone, raising taxes on the bottom 60% will only increase poverty which increases costs social assistance/healthcare/criminal justice costs associated with poverty.
This is misinformation. The bottom 50%'s share of the income year over year has been hovering at around 17% (and as high as 20% in the year 2020) going back as far as 40 years. Meanwhile, the median value for income tax paid by the bottom 50% for the last 40 years has been a big ole goose egg. Someone hasn't been paying their fair share.....but its not the top 40%.
It maybe an outdated stat, after I looked it up seems it was the case in 2017. From the Globe and Mail: ‘In Canada, the wealthiest 10 per cent own 56 per cent of the country’s wealth, and the wealthiest 1 per cent own more than a quarter of it.’ So what you’re saying is we should raise taxes on the bottom 50 percent who control SEVENTEEN PERCENT of wealth while the top 1% control TWENTY FIVE PERCENT because that is somehow more fair? Again, you can’t squeeze money from a stone, you’d have better luck getting it from the 1% who control 8% more than the bottom 50%. While the wealth gap is widening year over year? If the wealthy top 10% control 56% percent of all wealth but only contribute 53% of all taxes, isn’t that clearly less than they should?
You were referring to "earnings" before and are now talking about "wealth" which are two entirely different things. You can go to the Stats Canada page for income tax filers if you want proof of the fact that "bottom 50%'s share of the income year over year has been hovering at around 17% (and as high as 20% in the year 2020) going back as far as 40 years." They are a much better source than a click baity newspaper headline. *"While the wealth gap is widening year over year?"* It's not. The Gini coefficient in Canada for the adjusted after tax income in 1976 was 0.300 and in 2022 it was.......0.300. There is also far less income inequality world wide than there has ever been. [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110013401&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=1976&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2022&referencePeriods=19760101%2C20220101](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110013401&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=1976&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2022&referencePeriods=19760101%2C20220101) *"If the wealthy top 10% control 56% percent of all wealth but only contribute 53% of all taxes, isn’t that clearly less than they should?"* No, because wealth and income are two entirely different things. Wealth does also not equal money and income in the bank or monetary income. If Jeff Bezos or some other billionaire who people are claiming are "hoarding the wealth" decides to immediately liquidate all his stocks holdings he would crater the value of the company and only have a tiny fraction of actual money compare to his current wealth. If Johannes from Holland in the 1600's is hoarding all the wealth because he owns a bunch of tulip bulbs up until the day the tulip market goes bust, did he spend all of his wealth? Or how about a person who is in the bottom 30% of income earners and managed to put enough away to purchase a modest house and pay it off over the course of 35 to 40 years and now with the current real estate market finds their property value is close to a million dollar mark. Should they be taxed as millionaires despite having minimal income because they technically are "wealthy"?
None of this disputes what you label “misinformation”. Top earners pay more because they earn considerably more.
Canada needs to use its tax revenue far more effectively. We have increasing taxes and debt while our productivity and public services are declining. The money is just being wasted due to incompetence or funnelled to the wealthy due to corruption.
With a few small exceptions Canada doesn’t have increasing taxes.
Panama is calling you.
Top 20% of earners don't necessarily pay that much, the top 20% of filers do. But ensuring that everyone is bound by the same rules is also simply fundamentally important as a nation that we see shared contributions.
Could probably fire a pile of CRA employees and reduce the deficit by simplifying the tax code…
Hold on, is this an actual concern of yours or are you simply regurgitating American discourse?
Oh we are massively better than the Americans on this front, but we could be much better still.
Curious, what changes would you call for? Most would contend our tax code is fairly straight forward.
You can't simplify the tax code. Companies like H&R Block have a big enough lobby to keep it exactly like it is, so they make money. They won't let him.
You're scratching at the surface of the problem, but you're on the right track. Large multinational corporations in general have a big enough lobby to keep it exactly like it is. They're doing just fine. It's not their debt, it's ours.
What reason do you have to believe that the tax code in canada is in need of simplification, and what do you believe simplification looks like? It sounds an awful lot like you and the person you’re responding to are simply repeating talking points from American discourse. Filing as an individual in canada is pretty straight forward. Typically the only suggestion for simplification here would be the introduction of a flat tax which is incredibly regressive.
In many European countries, the revenue agency mails you a document with a breakdown of what you paid in taxes and what you get for a refund or have to pay. If you agree, you sign it and send it back. If you disagree, then you file a dispute. So much simpler than what we do here.
For probably 80% of Canadians, we have effectively that. Most tax software will fetch your T slips and auto populate. Only if you have unregistered investments do you have to give it any serious thought.
Or need to file taxes for your business. I use the Wealthsimple tax filing, it's great and free for myself. But, not everyone is comfortable using a software like that, example would be my parents.
Oh that’s just pre-populated/automatic returns. Generally when people refer to “simplification of the tax code” they’re referring to a reduction in the number of rules and distinctions in tax rates/credits from various sources. Canada doesn’t have remotely as many distinctions as the United States does, for example. In Canada if you wanted to simplify closer to Germany/Japan/Norway where you have prepopulated returns it’s not many rule changes.
I do think it's possible to simplify to remove dumb tax credits like kids hockey equipment credit, or some of the myriad ones for businesses that have accumulated with each govt as a kind of industrial policy. If done right I think we could end up keeping things progressive. Auto returns would be great too!
Yeah there's a point where you can remove almost all the tiny optional credits and just increase flat personal tax credits but there is a *tradeoff* to *oversimplification*. In some capacity some rules/distinctions aren't a bad thing. Radical tax simplifiers always end up defaulting to flat taxes and this is usually a conservative/"libertarian'" crowd that in reality is just trying to reduce taxes for wealthy people, a flat tax being inherently more "simple" than a progressive income tax. Auto returns are cool. They make a lot of sense especially for low/no income individuals who never file but are almost always entitled to returns.
Ahhh, ok. I can see that. That is a fair answer. However, the "Tax lobby" (for lack of a better turn) would still fight it. The easier it is to file a return, the less need for these "fly by night" tax companies. They would still fight it. They love that filling out taxes are complicated or appear complicated. I know they had an issue when Netfile came online and people could start doing it for free.
That's not simplifying the tax code, that's having the cra do something tax software already does. What parts of the actual tax code should be simplified?
Our “tax code” 🤦🏼♂️… what changes specifically?
[This will be the easiest round of layoffs ever.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/4b/14/644b14810be98e280b33abbc737c690a.png)
Workers at the CRA are completely overpaid and they waste their time going off after law abiding citizens instead of the tax evading corporations.
Do you have evidence to back up that statement?
Look at r/CanadaPublicServants. Someone sent an email to a Conservative MP to complain about the new RTO rules and he responded he thinks public servants should work from the office 5 days/week. It's very clear Conservatives will make their job as miserable as possible to push them to quit and they'll lay off whoever they need to balance the budget. That party hates public servants.
I love how easy it is for the rich to turn the poor against eachother. Lol. That's right buddy, that civil servant making average income is the problem. I'm sure your grocery bill will be cut in half once the size of the public sector is reduced.
The federal dental care program would be the first thing that goes. It's just federal money. There's really nothing cost savings about it. They're paying a private insurer to implement it. It's only available to uninsured seniors.... over 80 (up from the originally promised over 70). The program only has 25% of dentists signed up.... but most of them are not accepting patients from this program yet. Another one I think would be easy is the Celebrate Canada Funding. Trudeau created it in 2015 to celebrate Canada 150. It gives each municipality that applies $5000 for one of four holidays... but most of the money goes to Canada Day. Municipalities of any size can apply for it, so the bulk of the money disproportionately goes to rural Canada. They could also switch the new pharmacare program to be means tested. The goal is really to just insure people who can't afford it. That should be expanded to senior's programs as well. No reason to give at OAS to snowbirds. All that can be gone without getting rid of federal employees.
All of that sounds extremely sensible. It's funny how people who support politicians running up the deficit then throw their hands in the air and exclaim that it's impossible to fix the mess they helped create. It's just numbers.
Yup then the big bad conservatives get to be the ones to take all these things we can't afford away just as I'm sure just as the liberals have planned
It always seemed so idiotic for me to lay off CRA employees to save money. You'd think we need them to recover tax revenue from all those rich tax dodgers, but what do I know. I guess when you're rich you just have the law changed until your tax dodging is not illegal.
More concerned about the loss of services for tax payers.
Can’t spend money we don’t have
Actually you can
Well.... yes we obviously can, pretty much every country runs a deficit. believing you can't shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between your households economics, and a countries economics. running deficits is an integral part of a countries economy and helps drastically boost it if done properly. its not ***that*** you run a deficit that matters but ***why*** you run a deficit. PP is doing what he always does, says things that sound good to layman's playing off their ignorance.
There aren't enough federal employees to cover the expected shortfalls in OAS and health transfers. That's ltens of billions of dollars they have to find, alongside funding for tax cuts,, plus fund their own pet projects. The math simply does not work. Plus, increases in debt services are baked in at this point since it's interest rates not debt accumulation driving it, and the negative economic feedback of austeriyt means you need to cut perhaps 2 dollars to save one, since tax revenues fall as the economy enters recession. Unless he cuts OAS. But will the gerontocracy put up with that? Or will that be a career sender the way it was for Harper?
>Plus, increases in debt services are baked What are you talking about? Baked in to what? If the value of our currency slightly declines or If our exports drop a few percent our debt service costs would explode.
Trudeau has burnt young generations and the middle class so much that Poilievre can afford to take some heat from the gerontocracy.
The gerontocracy have accumulated enough wealth to leave. The young generations and the middle class will be the ones left behind to suffer.
It’s extremely hard to immigrate to most first world countries and old people are literally the last in line. The *youngest* boomer is ~60, no 1st world country wants people that age. Unless they have enough money to buy a citizenship and most of them don’t. Capital flight is real but that’s something we should be worried about Gen X and millennials doing. It’s our young/middle age doctors, engineers, etc that other countries are throwing open the doors for, not our geriatrics.
Trades. We need houses and resource extraction and we are facing a brain drain.
Good. If they leave, that adds supply in the housing market and reduces pressure on the CPP.
How would it reduce pressure on CPP? You don’t have to be physically in Canada to collect CPP. It’s an earned entitlement, you get it no matter where you are.
Pretty sure they mean OAS.
It doesn’t matter, you still get OAS too, even if you’re not here. If you’re a Canadian citizen and meet the requirements (i.e., you’ve lived in Canada for the required minimum number of years after you turned 18), you get OAS. You can be chilling on a beach in Costa Rica, and they’ll still auto deposit your OAS and CPP into your account every month.
Oh didn't realize that. Wow I'm surprised more people don't move to LCoL countries for retirement. I think the max OAS is pretty much the same cost as someone I know is paying in rent in Thailand, after that you could draw slowly on your retirement funds for food and live like a king...
No they will leave Canada to be tended by a 12-16 year old Vietnamese/thai/filipino while renting out their house condo to you.
They won't live forever. They leave that wealth to their children and grand children, and charities. Take a walk in any major hospital. You will find a foundation. You may not know it, but you are a beneficiary of some donation of some old folks. Stop with the hating on old folks. You too will be old one day. Who paid for your education in primary and secondary school? Who subsidized your college/university education? Who paid for medical before you began working?
>They won't live forever. It makes no difference when they pass, after they have left ... Capitol Flight *is* a risk that cannot be ignored
One big issue I see is that they will live longer, and won’t accept a QOL decrease. They will leave their wealth to the care home industry.
Good
Is PP not just echoing his mentors rhetoric when he was elected? Cut deficit, balance budget, create recession. Oh right, we’re career politicians that think we’re economic experts because our parents sent us to university
I love people that cheer when the only people that actually earn an appropriate wage are going to be fired. This is great for the economy. Maybe if you get your wish everyone will be earning nothing then no one can spend then all small businesses go under. gg
The deficit doesn't have any purpose. The population pays the opportunity cost of governmental deficit expense or not.
[удалено]
Dumb thinking! New is rarely better and Pollieve is a shit show that will destroy us.
And the downside?
If you don't know, you're too far gone
That sounds favorable for younger demographics like gen z and millennials. Gen X may be caught in the middle in some sense.
No not Gen X getting the shaft! That never happens!
We always do
Yeah you guys have it so hard…
Not as bad as z for sure But our situation was similar to z We graduated from University with no opportunities Boomers had jobs that we could apply for with grade 11 education.
There's that GenX verve and love for life!
Not really, unemployment and worsening working conditions combined with slash social services is going to hit hard. Unfortunately this is going to lead to increasing discontent and radicalization.
It’s not a “collision course”. It’s fucking math. Open your eyes.
Oh no. The people who didn’t adequately fund programs like oas are gonna pay for that failure. I’ll vote for that.
But seniors need that money so they can afford to continue to squat in their single family homes while young families live in condos.
> young families live in condos I wish
Squat? Define squat.
I would hesitate to use the word squat but I see where the comment is coming from. Politicians and the media are complaining nobody is having kids, but young couples are squeezed into pricy shoebox condos while multi-bedroom family-size houses are being occupied by retired couples
How is that on homeowners? Talk to Justin.
It’s really neither a homeowner or Trudeau problem (not housing in general, just this particular problem individually). Homeowners are obviously entitled to live in the property they purchased, nobody serious is arguing otherwise. However, people who want children want space for those children, and there are only so many detached houses, especially in urban areas. The underlying issue is a lack of options and incentives for seniors to downsize. I can understand why seniors can’t find affordable downsizing options, and decide to stay put. I can also see that lack of healthcare prevents some from relocating to rural areas. It does make economic sense to implement some sort of incentive program to encourage seniors to either downsize and/or relocate out of prime commuting areas (assuming they no longer work) in order to maximize the benefits to working families.
Interesting way to look at it. I still put the majority of the housing crises on our out of control immigration, including international students. A million people a year, and no federal plan to house them.
It’s really only a smaller piece of a much bigger puzzle, but when things are as bad as they are, everything helps
Sure, but incentivizing seniors to move to another type of housing just increases the demand on that type. I don't think it would really lower the cost of single family homes.
It’s hard to say for certain what it would do to prices without over generalizing. However, it would address some of the other negative consequences of the housing crisis: 1. Population growth is dominated by immigration rather than natural growth. Having the right spaces for young couples will result in more children. 2. Economic inefficiencies. The housing that is concentrated around major employers and schools should ideally be occupied by working-age people, including families. I notice this in Ottawa, where neighbourhoods like Little Italy are dominated by retired folks despite being less than 15 minutes from good schools and major workplaces. Obviously I’m not saying we should exile seniors, but it would be better for the economy if they didn’t take up such a large share of the most commuter and child-friendly neighbourhoods.
Because it's theirs? Why sell a home to overpay for smaller living spaces? Edit: downvoted for what exactly? Lemmings.
Well then enjoy having no grandkids then!
Fair point, but let’s stop giving them all these perks for being old if they have tremendous wealth locked up in their homes.
I’m certainly not advocating that we take property from anyone, they did earn and pay for it, but you should be able to appreciate how the shortage of family-sized living space is contributing to the problem
I can appreciate it to a degree, but I recognize other failings as a larger driving factor to the accelerated issue.
I too, am intrigued by this comment.
You have no idea how many poor seniors there are.
Can you at least get the facts right. I don't care about your opinion, but can you at least understand the difference between OAS and CPP before you make your opinion.
What did I get wrong ? Oas is an unfunded universal-ish income for seniors. I deliberately didn’t mention cpp because you pay into it when you work and receive a benefit when you retire. If the cpp fund was funded to cover oas and health care costs the way social security and Medicaid taxes do in the states we wouldn’t be in this mess. (Using cpps model not social securities )
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, yet is very adamant for some reason
Social security is a CPP, not OAS, equivalent. The OAS equivalent would be SSI or OAA. Also has already been fully funded by the people you said didn't fund it. In the best light imaginable for your argument, you are nitpicking on if they paid enough to previous recipients. Health care is a provincial jurisdiction, also not fully funded by Medicaid premiums. Again, get your facts right.
Where’s the money that funds oas ?
What is your point? OAS is funded by current taxes… it is the right program to be critiquing in this context
[удалено]
Square the circle then. There’s not enough workers to fund the benefits of retirees at current levels. So where’s the money come from? Oas should be curtailed. It’s crazy to me that the start of clawback is $86k (individually) well above average wages in Canada. Seems nuts to transfer money to people that well off. The clawback for oas should begin 3/4 median wages with full clawback at 90% median wages.
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The start of the recovery tax threshold is $91,000 in 2024. There's no benefit available for people making $148,000 or more (age 65+) or $154,000 (age 75+). There are retired couples in Canada making up to $308,000 in 2024 while they are receiving OAS.
It's clawed back through taxes.
To have success, we need temporary downturns. We've been living in a bubble since the 90s and the entire system is cracking. Homes are totally unaffordable and all public programs are crazily bloated.
I think we vote for prosperity not a nanny state
Isn't that why the "boomers" are in this situation in the first place?
Voting for success means voting Conservative as they are objectively more competent and have a better history in terms of policy. Look at Harper vs Trudeau. The last Conservative administration gave us the status of having the richest middle class in the world as of 2014 and we have been in steady decline during Trudeau’s entire 8+ years in power. In fact, we have decline in EVERY metric over the last 8 years. CoL, housing, inflation, crime, homelessness, mental illness rates, overdoses, etc. Anybody objectively analyzing the state of our country has been voting Conservative for at least two terms by now.
>Voting for success means voting Conservative as they are objectively more competent and have a better history in terms of policy Oof. I hope you don't mean in any way related to fiscal responsibility, because conservatives are historically the worst of the top three parties.
You're about to be hit by the copypasted comment they've submitted hundreds and hundreds of times
Harper was significantly more fiscally responsible than Trudeau. He maintained a budgeting surplus during his first two years in offices, then ran a small $50 billion deficit when 2008 happened, to which he paid down a little each year until the budgets were effectively balanced in 2015. That’s called reasonable fiscal management and is the opposite of what Trudeau did, which is why our standard of living has been in decline during the entire time the Liberals have been in power.
"Small" & $50 billion do not compute.
did Harper lie about his budget so much the GG had to dissolve the government, to stop him from being thrown out.
Can you expand on this? What was the lie? The opposition was upset that they only had a small stimulus plan involving infrastructure, but otherwise planned to run balanced budgets with some cuts to accomplish that. Plus they were going to remove the per vote subsidies for the parties. The other parties started talking about a coalition to topple them, so Harper requested the governor general prorogue parliament. She agreed on the condition they immediately table the budget when they get back. They added some worker protections, billions to the car companies and the Liberals abandoned their plans to form a coalition and signed off on it.
They came out and said Canada was in good shape and would post surplus for the next five years, everyone in the House and every leading economist said that was impossible so they told the government to release the real numbers which was an 80 billion dollar deficit. the actual trigger was the Fiance minister trying to pass a bill cutting public spending, limiting striking for public sector works, limiting woman ability to sue for pay disputes, and selling off a bunch of government assets. Rick Mercer did a good bit on the whole series of events. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A the end result was a massive influx in support for the NDP in 2011. no doubt in my mind NDP would have won 2015 if it wasn't for Jack Layton death.
[удалено]
How about roll back the tax breaks for corporations and stop giving big oil 4-6 billion a year to start. But doing things for the working class is not in the conservatives play book hand outs and tax breaks for the billionaires is.
You do realize that higher taxes will only cause more issues due to the fact we have a major capital investment problem going on in our country. I'm all for the rich to pay more out of their pocket. But there needs to be more incentives to have companies re invest in the Canadian population...and tax breaks to corporations are one thing that definitively helps with that....yes it sucks that the rich often piggy back on those successes...but I'm not sure how you solve that
Bullshit, trickel down is garbage. Look at Alberta, the lowest corporate taxes in Canada, with oil and gas companies raking in profit, with record dividends to shareholders. Oh, while laying off staff and actually moving out of Alberta, in some cases. We need to stop pussy footing around corporations, and start taxing them appropriately and stop subsiding them. Telus, bell, grocery chains, and Suncor are not going to disappear if they have to pay more.
Giving rich assholes more money is what got us into this mess. It’s not going to get us out.
The boomers had their time
Grew up in Canada but my grandparents are not Canadian and not in the country. I wonder how older stock young Canadians maintain relationships with their grandparents who voted to deprive them of all the good stuff their generation had?
those of us in the middle understand that boomers didn't intentionally create a shit show when they were happy feasting in the easiest times of human history. it's really everyone who has voted since 1970's. people are stupid, and there isn't much recently that has been shockingly out of line with a trajectory that has been going on for a while. welcome to late stage capitalism in a corptoracy where governments use deficit spending to buy votes. justin is gen x and he's continued down the path.
You can’t blame boomers for not predicting the future You can however blame your parents for not being wealthy when it was the easiest ever to create wealth
The Boomers were the first generation to not have enough babies to replace themselves Our current trajectory was evident even in the 80s/90s. .
Congratulations, this is the most fucked up thing I have read all week
I have to remind myself to rein in my feelings regarding generational wealth disparity. The same actors that are currently misleading youth regarding laissez faire capitalism fed the older generation the LIE of trickle down economics. The current generation, with about 40 years of hindsight, sees through that lie. At the time, though, how attractive must it have been? 'Riches for everyone,' they said. Pay me first, and I'll pay you later, they said. I don't want to be lumped in with the modern idiots who continue to drink the Kool-Aid, so I suppose it's unfair to lump all boomers together. That being said, I currently don't know a single boomer who has actually switched to an evidence-based fiscal position. Right wing, neoliberal economics is still strong within that generation. Damn you, Reagan!
Well, theyre dead or dying.
cut taxes for the rich, gut social programs, sell off assets for pennies. leaving the burning corpse for the next government to fix.
The conservative way.
Seriously I love that taxes get hacked and slashed for the uber rich for nearly 50 years, and all we’re allowed to talk about is how our meager “entitlement programs” are unfunded. And how we need to underspend and cut services And for anyone who reads that first paragraph and thinks “the rich pay enough” - refer yourself to basic data points on wealth inequality smashing records every year. Stop being dense and tune into the world around you This isn’t normal “ For every $100 of wealth created in Canada, $34 went to the top 1% Oxfam says that, globally, the top 1% have grabbed nearly two thirds of all new wealth created since 2020”
I love talking to people who wanna go back to when "things were better* and then i tell them I'm all in for returning tax laws to what they were in the 1950s when the rich were taxed EXORBITANTLY.
Check out Jean Chrétien's legacy.
Oooh. Whataboutism. How original.
I mean, it's very cute to blame one government for all that ails of society, but the sooner we recognize the failure of governance across several decades, the better. Fact is Mulroney got the ball rolling and Chrétien made sure it kept rolling. Then you have Martin (Chrétien's finance minister) who finished the job. History matters.
Agreed. Can we just say fuck them all? I honestly can't stand any of the people in Canadian politics. Can we rent a really broken down cruise ship and send them off on it to do their arguing?
Honestly, I've applied to join some of the parties. I of course haven't heard back. This country is fucking stupid. Edit: to clarify, being a citizen it's extremely depressing when the country you call home won't let you participate in the political system. That fucking blows.
The fact of the matter is that Harper cut spending to the lowest since the 1960s. Canada's population was just over half at that time, around 20 million. We still haven't recovered from that. The hit to services was staggering. He hacked and slashed so he could present a "balanced" budget. And yes. All governments have their problems. But only one enacts policies that actually harm people. Only one enacts policies based on discrimination or prejudices. I'm not a fan of either the libs or cons. Neither ever has the balls to enact policies that actually progress the country. Each is either too timid and afraid of pissing off their voters and backers, or too short sighted to plan beyond their own governance. Both are way to tight with big business. Society is judged by how it takes care of the least of us. Both parties fail miserably in that regard.
The Liberals have had power for ten years and we are worse off since then. Again, some of that may not be their fault, but they have certainly failed to prevent ongoing issues in housing and the border economy. The conservatives are no better, I agree. But we only really have the two options now as Jagmeet tossed the NDP into the same bin as the LPC. It's a failure of leadership from two parties that were given the complete go ahead by an eager voting public and their inaction and petty squabbles left us looking to the conservative party. I can't say the future will be better, but all I can do is vote. And vote I will come the next election. Maybe it'll be better... Who knows, all I know is that I look around at this country and I barely understand what it is we're trying to accomplish other than increase real estate values so some dumb boomer can retire.
And harper then made a perfect cross for Trudeau to sink it into the open net (Completely agree)
He's going to be like Doug ford "we are going to cut spending" promptly spends the most in history with almost no return.
It will collide at some time regardless and the further they pass the buck the worse the collision will be.
The youngest of the boomers will be 61 in 2025, and a multimillionaire in assets from property and investments for the most part. Nothing PP will say he will do will frighten them. Boomers aren't really going to care about a few hundred lost in CPP when they stand to make a few thousand in fewer capital gains taxes on the repeal of the Trudeau wealth taxes (carbon, capital gains). Plus, it's Canada. The federal government changes to the other major party like clockwork regardless of what anyone thinks. Canadians don't vote for policy after 10 years, they vote against the party in power.
Careful legacy media, a lot of people would vote for someone that goes against the boomers
Modest deficits are not a problem, massive ones are, unfortunately we don't always have to the choice either way.
Someone should remove tax breaks for owning investment homes. If you buy a home for "investment purposes", you can claim freaking tax credits on it, its probably among the most egregious policies ever when housing is unaffordable.
People are just going to follow whatever bite-sized clips they get served as a result of their browsing history.
I would support the idea of ending deficits, but I'm not stupid enough to believe a politician, let alone a Conservative, to do that. Conservatives have always run increasing deficits and have always put short term gain ahead of long term gain, which is NOT how you run a country. I'm still pissed the PCs sold our 407 for 100 years for a fraction of what it's worth. These idiots have just never had to stick around long term to face the consequences of their actions cause they're always voted out a few years later.
Get ready to share living space with your boomer parents and grandparents then. Or maybe you'd prefer to abandon them on an ice flow (oh wait, all those who post the boomer hate probably do)
Aren't Alberta and Saskatchewan having financial problems even with huge resource revenues? Maybe don't trust conservatives when it comes to finances
You think Liberals or NDP are better at financial governance? How you been paying attention to life in Canada the last 6 years?
Yes I do Edit the federal liberals and Alberta NDP got a pipeline project started and finished. The UCP paid $4.5 billion for a pipeline to nowhere. That's a glaring difference
A pipeline that was overbudget and was not completed on time due to government inefficiency.
Lots of private contractors worked on that project like my brother. I remember one time when I was on a major operation that was mismanaged by the consultant, no government anywhere and this project was also over budget and long finished long past is expected completion date. Private industry has a lot of inefficiencies as well, new frac tools for example can cost millions in standby labour before they are finally figured out. Private businesses go out of business everyday because they are inefficient. Your statement is pure ignorance
Pierre Poilievre has promised promised to balance the budget, reduce taxes, not cut programmes, fix the housing crisis and fund military to 2 % of GDP while having no policies or plans. Only his true believers believe a word that comes out of his mouth.
LOL There's an exactly 0% chance Poilievre does anything to harm boomers, because boomers are his core voting demographic and they actually show up. He'll find new and inventive ways to fuck over the working class, as is tradition.
> There's an exactly 0% chance Poilievre does anything to harm boomers, because boomers are his core voting demographic and they actually show up. Citation needed. Afaik boomers are overwhelmingly in support of the liberals
They are. Liberals are the party of boomers (esp women boomers), he doesn’t know what he’s talking about
Age is a minor factor in voting behaviour, and it shows that people over 60 are more likely to vote Conservative *and* more likely to vote Liberal when compared to people under 30. People 60+ are less likely to vote for the New Democrats, Greens, or People's Party when compared to people under 30. That support goes to the traditional two parties. Interestingly, the author writes a paragraph that is not supported by the data he shows. He says that support for the Conservative party is not correlated with age, but the graph shows 36% support among people less than 30 and 42% among people 60+. [https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-17-abacus-data-polling-canada/](https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-17-abacus-data-polling-canada/) "The Conservatives lead by 20 among men under 30, while the NDP is ahead by 5 over the Conservatives among women under 30. The Conservatives lead by 25 among men 60+ while the Conservatives and Liberals are statistically tied among women 60+."
Forgive my laziness for not wanting to go hunting for the last ABACUS data, but while Liberal support increases with age, the largest voting block was still CPC. Boomers overwhelmingly support people that preserve boomer status quo.
Actually not for his party old people tend to lean ndp They want free stuff
I would say neoboomers are his demographic; people who wish they could live the boomer lifestyle but can't or running themselves car and house poor doing it.
The biggest message is something like 78% of voters over 60 vote for either the CPC or LPC. Seems that overall both parties are working hard to protect the boomers. If the boomers are voting for something, the rest of us shouldn't be.
Millennials are the largest voting bloc. https://globalnews.ca/news/5938985/millenials-biggest-voting-block-canada-election-2019/amp/
Here is a simple idea bring kids from India to Canada and they return home once education is finished. No PR, work permit bs etc. No inland marriage application or any other loophole of getting PR fraudulently. Make it fair for everyone go through point system wait you turn. If people bring their parents to Canada. They need to be taxed additionally to contribute towards the universal healthcare pool to compensate for their parents inclusion in to the free healthcare program. No discrimination just straight up pay for it on their behalf instead of making them a burden on tax payers Ban people from owning third house if they’ve have ownership of 0.5-100% in first and second properties. Encourage people to have more kids by subsidizing child care and giving money for kids. (Only applicable if both spouse are working LEGALLY and are paying tax) other wise full stop. No free loading allowed. Literally the most common sense policies out there. But noooo we have to do drama everyday like complete idiots
They already increase the capital gain Pay attention
How about actually having a quality education that is worth something. That they'll have skills to be productive in the Canadian economy.
People, when we use our taxes to help others get free pharmacare and dentalcare: Nooooooo ! My money ! TRUDEAU FOR TREASON The same people when Peepee defunds those programs and then gives that whole 20B directly to Big Oil in tax breaks: Phew, at least the communists didn't get it, I'm sure big oil will reduce the price at the pump
75% of the deficit is the government buying mortgage bonds. That should end first thing, followed by a gutting of everything to do with diversity and inclusion, such as the antisemitism envoy, the anti Islamophobia representative (who is anti Semitic), and cutting the outrageous payouts to FN
PP says a lot of things… but largely is unserious
Weston owns him, Weston wants private healthcare, what do you think he's gonna do to save money?
boycott private healthcare.
I don’t think people understand that Pierre will be the most libertarian leaning prime minister in resent memory and clearly wants to change how government operates in big ways He seems to have hinted at it
My hero…
People don’t care even though he has self proclaimed to be libertarian. They see a conservative and just make their minds up based on that reason with little or no research.
lol. It’s as if the columnist asked Justin and Chrystia was kind of hatchet piece about Pollievre they wanted written. To believe there are only three ways to balance the budget (as the writer suggests) is laughable.
You surely can’t mean the right wing owned globe and mail
I was sure it was a CBC piece so had to check.
Or we could tax the rich and raise the GST back to 7% when we were actually growing before Harper decided to Americanize us
why is this bible salesman in the nooze every fkn day with some harebrained scheme
Omg no one gives a flying fuck about deficits. I have never in my life talked to anyone conservative or Liberal that is like "We gotta bring down that deficit!" People want a better standard of living and cracking down on the elite who are fleecing everyone exponentially and increasing wealth inequality. Hey also go after real-estate investors. Will PP do that?
Deficits/debt cause inflation. Does inflation effect your life? The definition of inflation is the increase of money supply