New BC Political Discussion - POST BC Election 2017

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A nation at war has a federal debt in the high nineties, like we did in 1915 and the States in '45. Let's not make mountains out of molehills just because we're borrowing to build a new dam.



Yeah, approve or disapprove of Horgan, anybody who considers renting a "wacky time of life" and domestic abuse a "tough marriage" is highly unlikely to be a better premier.

Quotes taken out of context but yes he needs to be more careful with what he says.

If you listen to the whole speech he gives on both the quote fits.

For instance he was talking about his own experiences renting a "wacky time of [his] life".

Or the full quote below:

He told the host the NDP government had "offered nothing for the future" in the speech.

"They talked about guns in hospitals, which nobody has ever heard of, they talked about rural policing, they talk about five days' pay for people who are in a tough marriage, and that's it," Wilkinson said.

The throne speech had included a promise of updated legislation that will give people fleeing domestic violence up to five days of paid leave from work.

While the wrong choice of words, in the end nothing particularly offensive. If he directly said domestic/sexual violence is a tough marriage it would be offensive. But instead he made a casual comment and said the wrong thing. And honestly this was a lot worse than the wacky rent one.

In the end just like Scheer "called gay people people dogs" incident, things are taken out of context and then turned into weapons.

On Wednesday, Wilkinson said renting is just a “fun part” of growing up.

“I was a renter for 15 years. I lived in a dozen different rentals,” he said. “It was challenging at times, but it was fun.”


He added that being a renter is a “rite of passage” and “part of growing up and getting better.”

“We’ve all done it,” he added. “It’s kind of a wacky time of life, but it can be really enjoyable.”

And hes totally right here. I know I miss my 240sqft studio. Renting is not the "tragedy" that people seem to want to characterize it as. Lots of people rent who can easily buy. And homeownership rates are actually up from three decades ago so its not like things are "tragic" like popular opinion pushes. Does this look like we have a problem with homeownership?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Overall I think this a good budget.

If anything a lot of debt here is being used for capital projects, and to a lesser degree, the capital grant for post-secondary students. This is what we should be doing, borrowing and investing in capital projects now, when interest rates are low to hep the province in the future.

----

I will be greatly affected by the carbonated beverage tax , but i'll probably drink less of them i guess...

Overall I think the budget is fine. The "1%" tax was higher than expected, but on brand for the NDP. I would have liked to see more to specifically support the Clean BC plan.

Yes they are building hospitals and upgrading/replacing schools at a faster pace than the Liberals, which is welcome. Debateably they are also doing more for transportation infrastructure, depending what is underway by the time their 1st term is up.

As for the soda tax, interesting, but it was actually just removing the PST exemption. It's too bad we didn't keep the HST. The things that are somehow PST exempt are silly IMO.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Overall I think the budget is fine. The "1%" tax was higher than expected, but on brand for the NDP. I would have liked to see more to specifically support the Clean BC plan.

Yes they are building hospitals and upgrading/replacing schools at a faster pace than the Liberals, which is welcome. Debateably they are also doing more for transportation infrastructure, depending what is underway by the time their 1st term is up.

As for the soda tax, interesting, but it was actually just removing the PST exemption. It's too bad we didn't keep the HST. The things that are somehow PST exempt are silly IMO.

Def against the new top tax bracket. Brings our income taxes to ~50% which is insanely high and I think we will end up losing more than we gain tax revenue wise (but we will have to see).

A sugar tax is a welcome addition (though why just carbonated drinks?). A tax on sweetened diet drinks is plain wrong.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Def against the new top tax bracket. Brings our income taxes to ~50% which is insanely high and I think we will end up losing more than we gain tax revenue wise (but we will have to see).

A sugar tax is a welcome addition (though why just carbonated drinks?). A tax on sweetened diet drinks is plain wrong.

Aren't you making like $40k? Why so much sympathy for the Uber wealthy? I'm willing to bet you're personally much better off under the NDP.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by misher

While the wrong choice of words, in the end nothing particularly offensive. If he directly said domestic/sexual violence is a tough marriage it would be offensive. But instead he made a casual comment and said the wrong thing. And honestly this was a lot worse than the wacky rent one.

The NDP's five day paid leave was specifically for victims of domestic violence. There's literally no other context. There's nothing else he could be comparing a "tough marriage" to. It's out of touch, and very unlikable.

Originally Posted by misher

Def against the new top tax bracket. Brings our income taxes to ~50% which is insanely high and I think we will end up losing more than we gain tax revenue wise (but we will have to see).

The marginal rate is 50%, the actual rate is something a bit lower unless you're pulling in a seven figure income. And this is a new tax bracket as well, anyone under 220k won't be paying any more taxes. Probably not going to be a negative for the province.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

As for the soda tax, interesting, but it was actually just removing the PST exemption. It's too bad we didn't keep the HST. The things that are somehow PST exempt are silly IMO.

Originally Posted by misher

A sugar tax is a welcome addition (though why just carbonated drinks?). A tax on sweetened diet drinks is plain wrong.

PST exemptions are generally for basic necessities like groceries and medications to try to keep sales tax from being a regressive tax for the poor. At the same time we can use taxes to discourage certain behaviours. This might be a step in the right direction since carbonated beverages, even diet ones, are absolutely awful for your teeth. If we ever have universal dental care this would seem like a no brainer policy.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Aren't you making like $40k? Why so much sympathy for the Uber wealthy? I'm willing to bet you're personally much better off under the NDP.

It's not necessarily about sympathy. There is clearly some tax burden which is completely unsustainable. If tomorrow we started taxing all business leaders in the province at 90%, you're going to see a lot fewer businesses in the province.

[misher]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's not necessarily about sympathy. There is clearly some tax burden which is completely unsustainable. If tomorrow we started taxing all business leaders in the province at 90%, you're going to see a lot fewer businesses in the province.

I do make more than 48k now although I don't go to 6 figures yet. But in the end I think we will see less tax dollars overall with this tax. Just like our new taxes on luxury cars resulted in less overall.

Russia is a great example of a nation that lowered taxes and saw huge gains. There are times when more isn't better. I would feel much more comfortable if the NDP announced their expected revenues factoring this in rather than announce it assuming that people won't change to adapt. They did a similar announcement with the luxury car tax and instead they screwed up the luxury car industry and decreased total tax revenues.

I suspect we are not making more money overall after the new housing taxes too. Its not like revenues have magically gone up since the Liberal days, all these new taxes don't seem to result in "net" gains.

I don't believe in tax policy thats based on "punishing" people. If we're going to implement a tax we should have a ton of research and studies showing why it will be successful and factoring in all factors. So far the NDP tax policy seems to largely be based on punishing people we don't like rather than raising revenue to better the nation.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3601019?seq=1

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Aren't you making like $40k? ...

Maybe that was last week. Or last post...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Quotes taken out of context but yes he needs to be more careful with what he says.

If you listen to the whole speech he gives on both the quote fits.

For instance he was talking about his own experiences renting a "wacky time of [his] life".

Or the full quote below:

While the wrong choice of words, in the end nothing particularly offensive. If he directly said domestic/sexual violence is a tough marriage it would be offensive. But instead he made a casual comment and said the wrong thing. And honestly this was a lot worse than the wacky rent one.

In the end just like Scheer "called gay people people dogs" incident, things are taken out of context and then turned into weapons.

That 36% represents almost a million Metro Vancouverites. And 43% of owners and renters in the metro are spending 30+ percent on shelter costs.
Yes, there's a context, No, it's not offensive.Yes, it still hurts his electability - Wilkinson appears committed to thinking that renting is just a temporary setback in your twenties on your way to steady ownership, which is neither an option nor even an end goal for many residents. You see a similar disconnect in the minimum wage debate.

It doesn't help that he went to diss the speculation tax in the West Van Yacht Club a month later. The whole thing can be summed up as "let them eat cake."

As for the marriage quote, there's really no good context to put it in, as chowhou mentioned. At least Scheer's can be reduced to "marriage = man + woman," which is harmless but still dumb to say in Canada unless you're running as a PPC candidate.

Originally Posted by misher

I do make more than 48k now although I don't go to 6 figures yet. But in the end I think we will see less tax dollars overall with this tax. Just like our new taxes on luxury cars resulted in less overall.

Russia is a great example of a nation that lowered taxes and saw huge gains. There are times when more isn't better. I would feel much more comfortable if the NDP announced their expected revenues factoring this in rather than announce it assuming that people won't change to adapt. They did a similar announcement with the luxury car tax and instead they screwed up the luxury car industry and decreased total tax revenues.

Laffer curve economics has been mostly debunked over the last few decades; some of the highest revenues have been taken in with a top bracket in the low eighties, so one could argue that taxes should go even higher.
General consensus is that simplifying the tax code is more effective.

At any rate, "post-Soviet kleptocracy" really shouldn't be the end goal for BC.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That 36% represents almost a million Metro Vancouverites. And 43% of owners and renters in the metro are spending 30+ percent on shelter costs.
Yes, there's a context, No, it's not offensive.Yes, it still hurts his electability - Wilkinson appears committed to thinking that renting is just a temporary setback in your twenties on your way to steady ownership, which is neither an option nor even an end goal for many residents. You see a similar disconnect in the minimum wage debate.

It doesn't help that he went to diss the speculation tax in the West Van Yacht Club a month later. The whole thing can be summed up as "let them eat cake."

As for the marriage quote, there's really no good context to put it in, as chowhou mentioned. At least Scheer's can be reduced to "marriage = man + woman," which is harmless but still dumb to say in Canada unless you're running as a PPC candidate.



Laffer curve economics has been mostly debunked over the last few decades; some of the highest revenues have been taken in with a top bracket in the low eighties, so one could argue that taxes should go even higher.
General consensus is that simplifying the tax code is more effective.

At any rate, "post-Soviet kleptocracy" really shouldn't be the end goal for BC.

Comparing taxes raised to GDP were already near Sweden levels so I’m worried going higher brings us down the mountain. If our top 1% weren't 50% poorer than America’s top 1% (Or even Sweden’s) I would support this tax but obviously right now our rich are not doing very well compared to how they “should” be doing.

And as I’ve pointed out the NDP housing taxes didn’t bring in any extra revenue overall so clearly they aren’t doing much research before putting taxes in as they are using absolute numbers rather than accounting for reactions.

Btw they are saying housing starts will be down 25% this year despite immigration increasing, scary.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by misher

Comparing taxes raised to GDP were already near Sweden levels so I’m worried going higher brings us down the mountain. If our top 1% weren't 50% poorer than America’s top 1% (Or even Sweden’s) I would support this tax but obviously right now our rich are not doing very well compared to how they “should” be doing.

And as I’ve pointed out the NDP housing taxes didn’t bring in any extra revenue overall so clearly they aren’t doing much research before putting taxes in as they are using absolute numbers rather than accounting for reactions.

Btw they are saying housing starts will be down 25% this year despite immigration increasing, scary.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "our rich are not doing very well compared to how they 'should' be doing". Can you elaborate on that?

And I could have sworn that the housing taxes were expected to be revenue neutral.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't quite understand what you mean by "our rich are not doing very well compared to how they 'should' be doing". Can you elaborate on that?

He means walking on eggshells with BC one-percenters out of fear that they run to the States. At last check, Sweden's economy is fine and their upper classes aren't leaving in droves.

Originally Posted by misher

And as I’ve pointed out the NDP housing taxes didn’t bring in any extra revenue overall so clearly they aren’t doing much research before putting taxes in as they are using absolute numbers rather than accounting for reactions.

Btw they are saying housing starts will be down 25% this year despite immigration increasing, scary.

The spec tax is revenue-neutral. Think of it as a Compass Card - it's more about regulation than income. Chasing away the vultures can only help the economy.

... Who's "they?" CMHC's predicting even more construction than last year.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's not necessarily about sympathy. There is clearly some tax burden which is completely unsustainable. If tomorrow we started taxing all business leaders in the province at 90%, you're going to see a lot fewer businesses in the province.

Of course, but this new change actually brings us inline with the vast majority of Canada.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't quite understand what you mean by "our rich are not doing very well compared to how they 'should' be doing". Can you elaborate on that?

And I could have sworn that the housing taxes were expected to be revenue neutral.

He's completely brainwashed by the false "job creating, trickle down" theory of why the rich deserve everything they have, and we should continue to bribe them to exist.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

He means walking on eggshells with BC one-percenters out of fear that they run to the States. At last check, Sweden's economy is fine and their upper classes aren't leaving in droves.



The spec tax is revenue-neutral. Think of it as a Compass Card - it's more about regulation than income. Chasing away the vultures can only help the economy.

... Who's "they?" CMHC's predicting even more construction than last year.

NDP budget.

[Changing City]

The BC Budget forecast for housing starts isn't what they necessarily expect to happen, it's what they government are relying on to happen for financial planning purposes. The 2019 budget expected housing starts to fall from 40,000 to 34,000 in 2019. They actually went up to 45,000. This budget anticipates only 35,000 starts in BC in 2020. However, "James said the government’s conservative estimates for housing construction are consistently outperformed by actual results, and she expects that over the next year, both housing starts and sales will climb."

So budget estimates are not predictions, they're conservative expectations of activity.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by misher

Def against the new top tax bracket. Brings our income taxes to ~50% which is insanely high and I think we will end up losing more than we gain tax revenue wise (but we will have to see).

Please explain, in your own words and not using Google, the difference between marginal tax rate and effective tax rate.

[misher]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Please explain, in your own words and not using Google, the difference between marginal tax rate and effective tax rate.

Lol I took intro to finance among others. I know what they mean.

Are you familiar with the Laffer curve? I have a big problem with tax increases that don't examine and factor in the predicted decreases in total revenue. Even if you generally support a tax increase you must demand that your government show you the research its done (or demand that research be done) when its announced to justify the increase.



Lower/flat taxes have had some success stories.

In 2001, Russia switched from a system of 12, 20 and 30 percent tax rates to a 13 percent flat income tax. Adjusted for inflation, revenue from Russia’s personal income tax increased by 26 percent [PDF] in the year after a flat tax was implemented, and by nearly one-fifth as a percentage of GDP. Russia also saw strong GDP growth throughout the 2000s, ranging from 6 to 8 percent from 2003-07.

https://www.propublica.org/article/f...ve-they-worked

Not arguing against taxation, I'm saying that we must do research and pick the perfect #. I don't see the NDP doing that research.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Lol I took intro to finance among others. I know what they mean.

Are you familiar with the Laffer curve?

Intro? Whoa, step back everyone!

Are you familiar with the Laffer curve and "trickle down" economics being proven to be bullshit?

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Intro? Whoa, step back everyone!

Are you familiar with the Laffer curve and "trickle down" economics being proven to be bullshit?

Your required to take most intro business courses and I didn't specialize in finance.

Trickle down happens but its not fully understood and its debateable what the best policy is to implement it or if it should be implemented at all. If trickle down didn't work, then you wouldn't want to pay the government more taxes in the hopes it ends up in the pockets of us. Demands to pay more taxes so that they end up lower is trickle down economics.

The laffer curve is based on common sense...at 100% no one will work and at 0% more people will work more hours. So obviously there is a perfect number in the middle to tax people.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Your required to take most intro business courses and I didn't specialize in finance.

Trickle down happens but its not fully understood and its debateable what the best policy is to implement it or if it should be implemented at all. If trickle down didn't work, then you wouldn't want to pay the government more taxes in the hopes it ends up in the pockets of us. Demands to pay more taxes so that they end up lower is trickle down economics.

The laffer curve is based on common sense...at 100% no one will work and at 0% more people will work more hours. So obviously there is a perfect number in the middle to tax people.

LOL what?

As for the 0-100 example, of course that's true, but it's meaningless.

Now prove to me that we've set taxes high enough to reduce revenue? The economists working at the Ministry of Finance have predicted an increase of ~$200M from this additional tax bracket alone. Do you disagree with them?

FYI, here's what trickle down means:

Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term