Canadian Federal Election

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Please link to any Canadian politician or party who proposed a debt elimination plan in under 5 years. Not a balanced budget plan either. A debt elimination plan. And a plan with specific details, not musing about it in passing.

I'll eagerly await this source.

We should have a $100,000 universal basic income if we are living in fantasyland.

Nonsense Doge ideas let’s cut X just because have no place in reasonable political discourse.

[ssiguy]

I don't have a problem with running large deficits now but it depends upon where the money is going.

Gov't spending has mushroomed under Trudeau along with the civil service. There should be huge cuts to the civil service and an amalgamation of programs that seem to serve the same purpose. Our new childcare/pharmacare/dentalcare programs should be means tested........Galan doesn't need our tax money. Getting rid of these ridiculous consultancy fees would also save billions. At the same time, our defense spending must rise significantly. In other words get back to an operational balanced budget.

The capitol budget however, must be increased exponentially and I don't blame Carney for doing it. Canada has not kept it's infrastructure up with population growth and so much of our economic infrastructure has been built in a north/south direction and now we must rebuild it in an east/west one so that we cannot only supply Canadians with Canadian products but also open up our export markets by being able to get all of our resources and products to tidewater. Canada needs monstrous new infrastructure projects and they need to get done yesterday.

As far as housing goes, Carney has the best plan. Yes, he will build needed social housing but he is the only candidate to say the obvious, we have to create an entire new housing industry. Making rentals affordable will NEVER happen with our current system. The more expensive the real estate, the more expensive the rental market is. He knows that we must get away from this stupid idea that we should be building homes the same way as we built cars 120 years ago. We need a modern, modular housing industry and he is willing to put the money into it to help create and sustain one. We should have massive housing plants all over the country. Modular is easier to build, much cheaper, requires less skilled labour per house built, each unit is less expensive to build, is always of superior quality than how we build currently build, and can be producing houses 24/7/365 and not just M-F business hours and the foundation and the home can be built at the same time. Modular housing is also exportable to bring Canadian homes to not just Canadians but to the world.

One interesting thing of note is he supports the construction of a Corridor HSR BUT it would stretch from Windsor to Quebec City as opposed to just ending in Toronto.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

It's the constant polarizing comments like this that are dividing Canadians. It's honestly exhausting how you continue to doom, gloom, and divide people with this rhetoric.

PP has been firm against Trump since he took office. There is a reason why the Liberals aren't really using this attack line anymore and instead changed the question to "Who is better to handle trump", which is a much fairer and quite frankly, less polarizing question.

PP only started speaking out against Trump when CPC support started to crash in the polls. PP made the big mistake of saying a lot of similar things that Trump said and then it caught up with him once Trump was re-elected and especially so when Trump attacked Canada economically and with threats to annex.

The pro-convoy people evolved into Maple MAGA which also didn't help PP and the CPC. Many of the extreme CPC supporters have been posting vile, negative and hateful comments and content which turned off a lot of people who were willing to give PP a chance at one point.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

The liberal platform isn't terrible, but the amount of spending is crazy. I can understand the threat of tarrifs and all that, but adding $225 billion to the federal debt is insane.

I'm happy Carney will go after government efficiency, but that alone isn't enough.

Most other developed countries are posting much larger deficits and aren't suffering. While debt is an absolute legit concern we have to spend on things for us to be competitive and self-sufficient.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

As far as housing goes, Carney has the best plan. Yes, he will build needed social housing but he is the only candidate to say the obvious, we have to create an entire new housing industry. Making rentals affordable will NEVER happen with our current system. The more expensive the real estate, the more expensive the rental market is. He knows that we must get away from this stupid idea that we should be building homes the same way as we built cars 120 years ago. We need a modern, modular housing industry and he is willing to put the money into it to help create and sustain one.

Modular housing used to be frowned upon; it still carries a negative stigma. We should look to other Nordic countries, such as in Scandinavia. We could be building modular homes that not only can be built fast but also look great and will bring down housing costs.

• Video Link

[casper]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

What has been released by Carney appears to be the most conservative-lite platform we've seen from the Liberals since Paul Martin. Apart from touting a government-run builder as the solution to the housing crisis (I have quite a few thoughts on this), you could've put Erin O'Toole's name on this and I would be largely convinced of its authenticity.

On the flip side, if you've been a Liberal voter for the past 10 years willing to buy into Trudeau-era fiscal policy, consumption spending as a virtue, counter-productive housing policies, and everything else, then the smugness around a possible Carney majority is odd to say the least. It's dangerously close to admitting that your vote is largely determined by the colour on the candidate's placard.

I think what we have from Carney is a traditional Liberal platform. Trudeau was left leaning but also needed to run with some of the NDP policies to retain their support. I think most people accepted that as the pragmatic result of a collaboration between the NDP and Liberals. While not ideal it was better than what the conservatives were offering.

The fact you think O'Toole's could sell it goes back to the fact that traditionally the Progressive Conservatives in years past were fairly moderate. There was a reasonable consensus on most things between the PC and Liberals.

The current conservatives are fixated on some weird concepts. As an example, the CBC today was reporting on how PP wants to force universities to stop being "woke" similar to what Trump is doing in the US. A traditional Progressive Conservative would have never have viewed it the place of the federal government to interfere in Provincial University HR practices.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Isn't it safe to assume that most assets of any significant value would already have been appraised for insurance purposes? Who's going to have a $1 million+ piece of art hanging on their wall without it being insured? And I don't see why the taxes couldn't just be based on the most recent appraisal by a 3rd party, accredited entity. A future valuation wouldn't have any bearing on that unless one could prove that said appraisal was done fraudulently.

I think it's true that it's more complex than many other taxes but it doesn't help to overstate the point.

What about asserts that have not been assessed?

I have a stamp collection from when I was a teenager. I haven’t looked at it in decades, but, there may be some valuable stamps in there ( assets do accrue with age). Does a wealth tax mean I would be forced to have it assessed? It’s a large collection with several thousand stamps. Assessing it would be time consuming and expensive. Is this fair?

What about the old sofa and TV in your basement where you watch hockey games with your friends? Are they taxable assets too?

Wealth taxes are messy.

When is an asset a taxable asset?

What if you don’t know you have a taxable asset?

Is you don’t know, and don’t declare, does this make you a tax cheat?

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It must suck for conservative voters, you guys came so close this time but it looks like the far right south of the border and PP's attempt over the years to mirror MAGA has ruined your chances once again of winning back parliament.

Sucks for Canadians, Canadians now are worse off than they were 10 years ago, 4 more years of the exact same government except for the face. Ahhh well, this is Canada, I’ve learned to expect nothing more than mediocrity out of our leaders.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

What about asserts that have not been assessed?

I have a stamp collection from when I was a teenager. I haven’t looked at it in decades, but, there may be some valuable stamps in there ( assets do accrue with age). Does a wealth tax mean I would be forced to have it assessed? It’s a large collection with several thousand stamps. Assessing it would be time consuming and expensive. Is this fair?

What about the old sofa and TV in your basement where you watch hockey games with your friends? Are they taxable assets too?

Wealth taxes are messy.

When is an asset a taxable asset?

What if you don’t know you have a taxable asset?

Is you don’t know, and don’t declare, does this make you a tax cheat?

Wealth taxes aren't focused on ordinary daily possessions. No one's going to need their normal TV or sofa appraised. Next thing people will be worried they'll need someone to go through their dressers and assess the value of their socks and underwear.

Wealth taxes are focused on just that. Wealth. Things that if a typical person learned that you possessed it, they would assume you must be wealthy. And generally such things would need to be insured unless you were a very careless person. Yes, obviously there would need to be clear guidelines, but the fact that none have been established now before such a tax is even under discussion doesn't mean they can't be created.

But yes, if you think your stamp collection might quality then you probably should have it appraised and potentially insured just in case of fire, flood or theft.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Sucks for Canadians, Canadians now are worse off than they were 10 years ago, 4 more years of the exact same government except for the face. Ahhh well, this is Canada, I’ve learned to expect nothing more than mediocrity out of our leaders.

The PC party hasn't elected a leader that even comes close to being above mediocre in years. So Canadians have been voting for the best of the worst. This time around, though, I would argue Carny is completely different from the JT. It's a new party now, with a new direction. It's definitely the most centrist party in this race and the most centrist-looking party we've seen in years.


PP as PM would suck for Canadians, but would be great for Frump.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

The PC party hasn't elected a leader that even comes close to being above mediocre in years. So Canadians have been voting for the best of the worst. This time around, though, I would argue Carny is completely different from the JT. It's a new party now, with a new direction. It's definitely the most centrist party in this race and the most centrist-looking party we've seen in years.


PP as PM would suck for Canadians, but would be great for Frump.

Tell me why PP would be great for Trump?

Carney continues to support a bill that literally redirects capital spending to the US, to develop resource and energy infrastructure in the USA…. That’s pretty great for Trump.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But yes, if you think your stamp collection might quality then you probably should have it appraised and potentially insured just in case of fire, flood or theft.

I didn’t collect stamps as a wealth generator. I collected stamps because I was a nerdy kid and I found it interesting. I am not particularly interested in selling my collection to actually realize any value. My collection is just there. It is essentially a stranded asset. I don’t think it fair that some people think my hobby should be taxed.

But is it valuable? Yeah, it contains some stamps that might have significant intrinsic value (like about 15 penny reds, the third oldest stamp in the world). But, if I have no intention to sell, and therefore no intention to actually realize value, then is it truly an asset?

Now there is a philosophical question for you.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theman23

What world we live in where Jagmeet Singh is the face of fiscal discipline.

You voting NDP again then?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I didn’t collect stamps as a wealth generator. I collected stamps because I was a nerdy kid and I found it interesting. I am not particularly interested in selling my collection to actually realize any value. My collection is just there. It is essentially a stranded asset. I don’t think it fair that some people think my hobby should be taxed.

But is it valuable? Yeah, it contains some stamps that might have significant intrinsic value (like about 15 penny reds, the third oldest stamp in the world). But, if I have no intention to sell, and therefore no intention to actually realize value, then is it truly an asset?

Now there is a philosophical question for you.

It's interesting we had similar results on the vote compass survey... I'm going to guess we answered very differently on the question about taxing the ultra wealthy. You're right though, wealth taxes could be very messy.

Wealth taxes shouldn't exactly be an issue for your stamp collection, unless you have something in there the equivalent of an expensive piece of art.

While you're certainly a lot better off than the Canadian average as a doctor, I don't think you're exactly the type of wealthy person that a wealth tax would target.

If we're talking about priceless works of art, multi million dollar classic cars, multiple mansions, etc, those kind of assets are pretty fair game if you ask most people if the ultra rich should pay some form of tax on their lavish assets...

But of course, the real issue for the tax would be on financial assets... stocks, bonds, crypto, and just the mountains of cash that the ultra wealthy like to sit on top of, or squirrel away in off show bank accounts.

I don't think we have to worry about Prime Minister Carney being the one to institute a wealth tax, because it's the type of thing that could result in capital flight, and risk our economy. But I think we can all agree that the ultra wealthy are not paying their fair share, and in our home province, this is abundantly clear.

Thankfully, Carney is a Keynesian economist who has studied for decades on how to best invest in an economy during times of economic crisis and downturn. I'm sure Carney would like to see the ultra wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, and cut down on tax loopholes and tax havens, but he's also well aware that they are the people with the capital he needs to rebuild and restructure the Canadian economy for a future where we are less reliant on the bilateral US-Canada trading relationship.

So again, wealth taxes could be messy, and unless they are enforced globally, the risk of capital flight would be quite high as there would still be limitless ways to utilize offshore tax shelters. Sounds like a case for the World Economic Forum.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Financial assets: Pensions, insurance, and banks.

Sorry you are the guy calling Carney communist is saying the government should instead seize assets wholesale from across the economy? No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sorry you are the guy calling Carney communist is saying the government should instead seize assets wholesale from across the economy? No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

Carney is going to apply a 20% sovereign wealth tax in the form of inflation.

Plus 1% perpetually in increased debt servicing.

So 10% doesn't sound so bad, does it?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Carney is going to apply a 20% sovereign wealth tax in the form of inflation.

What does that even mean? Inflation by definition means assets gain value. Your ideas would get laughed out of first year university macro economics.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What does that even mean? Inflation by definition means assets gain value. Your ideas would get laughed out of first year university macro economics.

I have 20yrs in macro finance, business and tech. And one of the best forecasting track records on the web. Thanks though.

Inflation means your DOLLAR buys less. You know, the affordability crisis everyone talks about? Housing? Food?

That's because gov printed $360B of Cov stimulus.

Not because of this nonsense housing shortage narrative that's being pushed. There's no shortage of housing. There's a surplus of dollars.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

But is it valuable? Yeah, it contains some stamps that might have significant intrinsic value (like about 15 penny reds, the third oldest stamp in the world).

"Hi, we're from the government and we're here to determine what varieties of penny reds you possess."

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...aluable-stamp-goes-up-for-sale-at-650000

[casper]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

I have 20yrs in macro finance, business and tech. And one of the best forecasting track records on the web. Thanks though.

Inflation means your DOLLAR buys less. You know, the affordability crisis everyone talks about? Housing? Food?

That's because gov printed $360B of Cov stimulus.

Not because of this nonsense housing shortage narrative that's being pushed. There's no shortage of housing. There's a surplus of dollars.

I always find this printing money narrative weird.....

Well Conservatives love to talk about Liberals printing money. No one is printing money. Central banks are doing quantitate easing where they are loaning more money to banks to make it easier and cheaper to borrow money. When those bonds expire they can issue new ones or just let them expire and therefore take cash out of the economy.

Bank of Canada stopped quantitative easing in Oct 2021 and since then has been doing the opposite. That is where they "un-print money". So after tightening the money supply for 3 years they switched gears again in January.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2025/01/the-end-of-quantitative-tightening-and-what-comes-next/

Fewer housing in Canada than the G7. Low vacancy rates would suggest a shortage of housing.