Federal Government & Politics II

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I guess I'll have to go down with the ship like everyone else..........

You could do like me, and start a life raft business...

(That said, the sinking ship analogy isn't that good for what's happening. If we want to stick to a sinking ship analogy, 10%-20% of the passengers of the ship are pirates who are taking off with a lot of loot thanks to the fact that the ship sinks.)

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've also soured on this country. No patriotism in me anymore. It's actually liberating to not have to worry about anything else, in a way. The way I see it, "have the courage to change what I can change, have the wisdom to accept what I can't change, and have the wisdom to position myself to financially benefit from what I can't change (housing crisis, climate change)".

I didn't vote for Justin Trudeau, so it's not my fault.

I'm not usually a quitter or very pessimistic by nature. But if people in this forum (who by nature are better informed and more articulate than average) can't understand how dire the situation is for coming generations and choices that need to be made, then we are truly hooped. It's kinda sad to me that my effort raising a little bilingual kid might actually benefit the US or Europe more than the country actually putting in the work.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Same here.

I've been a patriotic Canadian all my life. I did start the mechanism to move to the US however in the mid 1990s, at the height of Chretien's austerity, following the lead of 25% of my med school class, but, ultimately chickened out.

Subsequently, I felt I had made the right move, and became a Canada booster again for the next 25 years, but, it is pretty hard to boost Canada in it's current state. There seems to be almost no hope, especially with JT at the helm.

If I was 40 years old again, I would be contemplating my option again, but, at my current point in my career, I'm pretty much stuck. I guess I'll have to go down with the ship like everyone else..........

JT isn't the problem now. Let's be honest. One way or another he's gone before the end of 2025. The question now is what happens through the rest of this decade. We're kind of at a pivot point on several issues. And if we don't accept pain now, your kids, grandkids and great grandchildren will be paying for it in the decades to come.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

No, really I’m just commenting on the tone of your posts. You may get off on it, but it’s not how I choose to communicate.

The funny thing is that I am often in agreement with much of what you post, but then you toss in some snide comment that appears to portray my point of view as some stereotypical caricature while portraying yourself as virtuous, and I tune out. Just adorable.

Not worth putting a bunch of energy into, TBH, but I suppose that’s your intent. Have a nice day.

You put in a lot of energy for somebody that claims to not put in a lot of energy. You're not a mod. So quit with the tone policing.

[kool maudit]

I don't think Trudeau is the problem, either. He is just an avatar who has become kind of ridiculous because he can only say the same things, can only double down. And this is because he is just an avatar. He is coded to perform a narrow role, and circumstances have been so unkind as to show its parameters.

Having just decided I would not return to Canada at what was likely a pretty important juncture, Trudeau wasn't a big part of my thinking. Canada is failing in a very similar way to the UK despite their Tories being in charge. It seems larger than and oblique to the political spectrum.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I don't think Trudeau is the problem, either. He is just an avatar who has become kind of ridiculous because he can only say the same things, can only double down. And this is because he is just an avatar. He is coded to perform a narrow role, and circumstances have been so unkind as to show its parameters.

Having just decided I would not return to Canada at what was likely a pretty important juncture, Trudeau wasn't a big part of my thinking. Canada is failing in a very similar way to the UK despite their Tories being in charge. It seems larger than and oblique to the political spectrum.

He's a good chunk of the problem, the Scheme is his pet project.

Larger problems than Trudeau include: the fact that Canada is the most welcoming major developed country, no questions asked, for foreign capital from questionable sources, combined with the fact that Canadian real estate is a very favored asset class from a taxation point of view, which results in real estate sucking a lot of available capital, and productivity and innovation being awful as a result, which requires a Scheme of throwing larger and larger amounts of warm bodies at the economy, since our setup, with overly generous social programs, requires ever-increasing quantities of new suckers to pay for the older ones.

Most of the above isn't directly Trudeau's fault, though he has had nearly 10 years to tackle those problems instead of greatly exacerbating them like he did.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You put in a lot of energy for somebody that claims to not put in a lot of energy. You're not a mod. So quit with the tone policing.

Hey, I'm free to post my opinions, just as you are. If I don't like your tone towards me, I'll call you out on it. That's how it works. I know you know this as this isn't your first week on the internet.

I put in energy into conversations where there is mutual respect and a reasonable exchange of ideas. I don't have to come here if I don't want to, and I don't have to put up with somebody who doesn't bother to try to understand the ideas I'm trying to convey, and instead prefers to toss in negative comments that don't do anything to advance the conversation. If that's how you view life and anybody who doesn't share your opinions, I feel sorry for you. If you're a mod, and I'm breaking some kind of forum rules, then delete my comments. Ban me if you want to, but I'm not taking abuse from anybody. Full stop.

Anyhow, this is silly. I graduated from high school many years ago, and I'm not going to go back to high school level exchanges. As I said, Have a Nice Day.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Having just decided I would not return to Canada at what was likely a pretty important juncture, Trudeau wasn't a big part of my thinking. Canada is failing in a very similar way to the UK despite their Tories being in charge. It seems larger than and oblique to the political spectrum.

This might just be a symptom of the natural ebb and flow of world politics. The late 1800s were looking pretty good worldwide, until some nastiness happened that precluded over two decades of hell, then things quieted down for awhile. Of course history will never exactly repeat itself, but looking around the world, one can draw some parallels in the politics and the direction of some countries that have the power to affect things in a pretty big way. The thing is, the technology of today has raised the stakes that much higher, so there's no guarantee of a better outcome if the doodoo hits the fan.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm not usually a quitter or very pessimistic by nature. But if people in this forum (who by nature are better informed and more articulate than average) can't understand how dire the situation is for coming generations and choices that need to be made, then we are truly hooped. It's kinda sad to me that my effort raising a little bilingual kid might actually benefit the US or Europe more than the country actually putting in the work.

I really don't see anything as particularly dire. Since when are obscenely high house prices dire? This is a sign of wealth and demand. Sure a lot of it is from unfettered immigration that has hurt younger workers but if this continues for the next 30 years they will inherit the wealth from their parents. If it doesn't the market will equalize. Probably even with immigration we will laugh in 15 years at the idea we had a housing shortage. We do have endless swaths of developable land we merely need to connect to our infrastructure.

Our debt is high mostly from Covid. It was a decision to delay and spread out the pain rather than see an economic depression starvation and/or have no lockdown and lose a few more 80 year olds. It was a democratic decision confirmed by the 2021 election when any hint of more open/reckless depending on your view policy on Covid was rejected. We now need to pay the piper. Raise the GST to 7% cut CCB in half and OAS by a third and return Civil service numbers to 2019 and we are already balanced with all approximately the policy in the golden age of 1993-2006 for all the grumbling and sky is falling all of those would engender. Sure we don't have the political will to do much of this but the fact it would fix things means we are not in an actual dire situation fiscally.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I don't think Trudeau is the problem, either. He is just an avatar who has become kind of ridiculous because he can only say the same things, can only double down. And this is because he is just an avatar. He is coded to perform a narrow role, and circumstances have been so unkind as to show its parameters.

Having just decided I would not return to Canada at what was likely a pretty important juncture, Trudeau wasn't a big part of my thinking. Canada is failing in a very similar way to the UK despite their Tories being in charge. It seems larger than and oblique to the political spectrum.

Agreed. Which is why it's kinda ironic and worrisome that our Tories recently gave Boris Johnson the rockstar treatment at their convention. They seem to see Johnson as a success rather than seeing him as a member of a team that is going to see the Tory brand decimated in the UK shortly.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sure we don't have the political will to do much of this but the fact it would fix things means we are not in an actual dire situation fiscally.

If an alcoholic isn't willing to attend AA meetings and stop drinking than their theoretical beautiful sober life is irrelevant. What is relevant is impending cirrhosis.

It's not just that we have to make some difficult changes. It's also when we have to make them. The sooner the better. Putting off OAS reform for a decade doesn't shrink the deficit. And with interest on the debt equal to all the government's GST/HST revenue, this isn't a minor issue.

Also a balanced budget is not the only challenge here. You seem to be forgetting the multi-decade low in GDP per capita growth, stagnant productivity, housing affordability problems, etc. Those don't go away just because you balanced the budget. And all of that is hitting at the same time and will get worse over the coming decades if left unaddressed (as this government did).

Your post kinda reminds me of the report that showed a stark difference in happiness between over 60s and under 30s. Of course, older folks with substantial assets aren't going to perceive any real urgency with the status quo. Life is pretty good for them. If you're under 30 life is pretty bleak. And come 2029, those Zoomers will be in their early 30s (regular voting years) and angry.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which is why it's kinda ironic and worrisome that our Tories recently gave Boris Johnson the rockstar treatment at their convention

They did? That's a bad sign.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by lio45

He's a good chunk of the problem, the Scheme is his pet project.

Is it, though? All Anglo countries with the partial exception of the US are running basically the same casino and marketing it the same way.

I think Trudeau is basically someone out of sales, like Sadiq Khan, but promoted above his station to a management role.

Axworthy and Rae drafted him out of teaching drama in Vancouver in the late '00s, the LSE/Rhodes Scholar-type circles are all over this scheme globally, I really don't see him as having created anything.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If an alcoholic isn't willing to attend AA meetings and stop drinking than their theoretical beautiful sober life is irrelevant. What is relevant is impending cirrhosis.

I mean I guess I agree with this analogy but impending cirrhosis is not cirrhosis. Are we really addicted to spending and low(ish) taxes or does the drink just taste good?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not just that we have to make some difficult changes. It's also when we have to make them. The sooner the better. Putting off OAS reform for a decade doesn't shrink the deficit. And with interest on the debt equal to all the government's GST/HST revenue, this isn't a minor issue.

5% GST is pretty low for all our complaining about the cost of living. Really we are spoiled. Eventually Millenials will get their political act together and tax the rich elderly directly or indirectly which is enough to pay for most of our problems. In other words we are closer to Alberta where all we need to a sales tax and we are swimming in revenues than we are to somewhere 60% tax still won't pay the bills.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Eventually Millenials will get their political act together and tax the rich elderly directly or indirectly which is enough to pay for most of our problems.

Didn't you say in your previous post that boomers and early gen-xer's will be tranfering wealth once they die? The only real effective way to tax boomer "wealth" will be through inheritance taxes. Their income will drop as will much of their big ticket spending. Increasing GST to catch the increase in boomer service spend will hit non-boomers as hard or moreso as gen-x+mils will still be spending on goods and services. And don't forget that boomers are about to put a heavy strain on healthcare - which in some provinces is already consuming close to 50% of expenses.

Perhaps we do need some seriously hard medicine ... changes to free capital gains on primary residence (say 25% above a 1M gain and 50% above a 2M gain), big reduction in the cutoff level for OAS, up the base eligibility age for OAS to 70 (over 10 years), but keep the 60 availability option with suitable reductions, kill the plus 75 OAS top up and introduce inheritance taxes starting at even 250K. Serisously most gen-x/mils won't be getting any boomer inheritance until they are in their 50's so they don't really need all the money.

I know, too much.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

5% GST is pretty low for all our complaining about the cost of living.

LOL @ the idea that a Conservative government would raise taxes. Especially one led by PM who was a member of the very government that cut the tax to begin with.

Like the LPC on housing and climate, the CPC's rhetoric on federal finances is well ahead of reality. They'll cut the obvious stuff like the public service, "Green" spending, universal dental care and even childcare. Then they'll discover that accounts for only a quarter of the deficit. That is when the fun starts. And that is when we start discussing the real generational unfairness in our tax code and social programs. And also the structural issues therein. A country with a birth rate quickly approaching that of One Child Policy China (I'm not even exaggerating) can't exactly say no to high immigration. But that creates a whole bunch of other issues. But if you want higher birthrates, chopping CCB more than OAS sends the country in the wrong direction.

I fully expect the CPC to be UK Tories 2.0. it's the most logical option for a quick boost. Austerity Uber Alles! So gut the Canada Health Act to allow two tier healthcare and cap the health transfers. Cuts on every personal transfer like OAS and CCB. Remove a lot of barriers to competition in expensive sectors like airlines and telecom and banking. And of course, force as much liberalization of professions and trades as possible to drive down professional wages. If we can pay doctors half as much, we can double the number of doctors in the country. Licensing more immigrant health professionals neatly gets around the complaint that two tier healthcare will cause a shortage of personnel. Going to be interesting to see what happens when highly paid professionals get the same wage suppression as the working class have been getting for two decades.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

^ $20B vs projections by 2030 wouldn't have made a huge difference to the budget?

I don't even know what to say to an assertion like that.

In 2012, when Harper announced his idea of moving the pension age up by two years (at Davos, at the World Economic Forum) The National Post reported "Internal government documents project the cost of the OAS system will climb from $36.5-billion in 2010 to $48-billion in 2015. By 2030 — when the number of seniors is expected to climb to 9.3 million from 4.7 million now — the cost of the program could reach $108-billion."

The most recent Actuarial Study released in 2022 show that the current projected 2030 OAS cost will be less, at $82.3bn, but with GIS and Allowances it would be $107bn.

So despite the decision to drop the move from 65 to 67, we appear to be in no worse a position regarding OAS payments than we were in 2012.

The reason I don't view that decision as making a huge difference is because the changes would only have been intoduced last year, and worked through incrementally to 2028. So by 2030 there wouldn't have been a massive savings - basically every year the government would have paid out (at most) $3.7bn a year less on the total OAS bill by not giving 65 and 66 year olds OAS.

The number of OAS recipients (and the costs of OAS) would continue to increase steadily once the change had come in, because once pensioners reach 67 they get the payment, and there are still more retiring than dying off in the early 2030s.

$3.7bn a year less from a total government expenditure of $496.9bn isn't nothing, but it's also not a 'world is coming to an end as we know it' amount.
Here's a view of the OAS future liability from an outside observer. I'm not sure where you read that OAS is going to bankrupt the country, but that doesn't seem to be how its viewed by financial analysts.

[shreddog]

Here's a thought experiment. When Canada last did a major cut to the PS (under Chretien) the Ottawa housing market saw a big drop. I am not sure how much any cut would be localized to Ottawa this time (assuming that there is a this time), but would it move house prices at all, and if so, would it just be a blip as all the equity money elsewhere would buy up any distressed property as overall demand would still be high?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Here's a view of the OAS future liability from an outside observer. I'm not sure where you read that OAS is going to bankrupt the country, but that doesn't seem to be how its viewed by financial analysts.

Nowhere did I ever say OAS is going to bankrupt the country. But OAS growth outstripping all other demand means that our federal government increasingly lacks the fiscal room to do just about anything else. And it's particularly bad when we're basically deficit financing a huge chunk of that spending.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

They did? That's a bad sign.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ork-conference