A little recap is in order. As I excepted, Trudeau and the Liberals never did bring about electoral reform. Despite having a mandate of 73% for electoral reform, and similar numbers even in a questionnaire the liberal comity designed to cloud the issues. Canadian made it clear they wanted electoral reform. Sure you might argue that Canadian’s didn’t agree on what kind of system would be best, but the experts where quite clear on which options would be proportional and which would not be. The large consensus was on the Mix Member proportional (MMP) format. MMP would be easy for voters to understand, and cost effective to implement while also being highly proportional. However, the Liberals benefit the most of any political party from the First past the post system being on average the second vote for all parties, hence why I never thought they would follow through after winning a majority in the 2015 election. (Although this election it’s the NDP who are second vote even being the third option for conservative voters)
While the Liberals did Legalize cannabis even the legalization was a half measure. They didn’t decriminalize it or help those thousands of people in jail from simple possession of the now legalized drug, or those who where punished in the years leading up too legalization. They when back on their promises for reconciliation with first nations, and are even taking the aboriginal victims of child abuse to court at this very moment to get out of paying for program improperly funded. The Liberals with an ill gotten majority have managed to do a great deal of harm, and now have the gall to ransom Canadians claiming voting for anyone except the liberals is a vote for the conservatives. Not only is this not true, and the best it looks like the Federal Conservative can do is a minority government, but it’s not a valid strategy to rely on known liars, using an abusive tactics, to hope they will save you from other liars. The lie is especially galling when other options exist. Notably the NDP with their leader Jagmeet Singh (Jug-meet Sing) Who has been doing stellar over the last few weeks.
The election is tomorrow. The NDP are offering a green new deal for Canada, a no referendum electoral reform to MMP in the first months of the new term, and importantly Dental care for the most vulnerable out of the gate, funded by a modest tax on the top 0.1% of Canadian’s. All this before working on universal pharma and dental care, something need by all, benefits all. If we take the priority away from major cooperate handouts, these measures are something we can easily afford, and in fact will collectively save us money and a whole lot of human suffering.
At this point I am sick and tired of our thankfully short elections here in Canada, and as I live in Alberta I know the damage of a conservative government better then most. But continuing to bring in federal liberal governments as a stop gap only ensures better options will never arise, and the liberal option is only a lesser evil, and we have a much better option in Jagmeet Singh. I’d dare say this elections NDP present a genuinely good option for once now that they once again have a truly progressive platform, and now have a diverse party.
I am hopeful for a minority government tomorrow. Help make that happen, carefully look at the polls for your area. Vote to keep the cons and the liberals at bay, do your best to bring real options into our federal system. Vote for Electoral reform. Vote for universal Pharmacare. Vote for universal Dental. Vote to tax the super rich. Vote for the NDP. Make it so everyone’s vote counts.
October 21st, 2019 at 2:25 am
“Vote for Electoral reform. Vote for universal Pharmacare. Vote for universal Dental. Vote to tax the super rich”
Electoral reform sounds like an excellent idea. I didn’t understand all the aspects of your election system, but the results do not sound good.
However, I’m wondering about the other ideas. “Universal drugs and dental” sounds nice, but there are problems. First of all, the cost will be high, and the quality will likely be significantly reduced. It would be great for the people who are unable to afford their own, and that is worth investigating. It would also be happily received by the people who could afford their own but choose not to, preferring to suck at the public teat. And those who go to the effort to support themselves are screwed even more.
I don’t know about the Canadian government, but the US government is horridly inefficient and ineffective. Do you really think they can provide these services in a timely, effective and quality manor? Or will they spend the money on “pork”, take too long to provide the services, discourage quality and prevent innovation? Putting a government in charge of something is usually problematic; it should be reserved for those things which can not be done in the private sector.
Of course, the response to the high cost of anything governmental, is “tax the rich”. This is disingenuous. The rich are not evil, deserving of punishment (well, some are, but not because they are rich). And the rich are not infinite. Again, I can’t say about Canada, but in the US, if you taxed the top 5% of the wealthy at 100%, it would hardly make a dent in the current deficit, much less pay for a massive new program.
Taxation is not (well should not be) a weapon. It’s only valid and reasonable purpose is to fund the NECESSARY government (and some IS necessary). There are 3 major ways to tax. There is tax on income, tax on property, and tax on transactions. Income tax is problematic, as it generally is a very complex system, requiring a huge infrastructure and rife with opportunities for cheating and is very difficult for the taxpayer to do correctly. Furthermore, it disincentives people from excelling. Why do extra work for extra money if the government takes most of it?
The only “fair” income tax (and that just barely) is a universal flat rate, say 10%. If you make $100, you pay $10. If you make $100M, you pay $10M. Ah, but the poor can’t afford that is the cry. If someone is that poor, letting them slide on the 10% is not going to make their life any better. Plus, if someone does not pay “any” tax, they are alienated from the system. If everybody pays 10%, then everybody is equally engaged and perhaps the poor would not just vote for whoever promises the most freebies.
Then there is the rich can “afford more” claim. But why should they have to? They don’t get more benefit from the excess they pay.
“Sales tax” is a much simpler system to implement, requiring minimal infrastructure and being a lot harder to cheat on. And it is fair. Anybody who eats at McDonalds pays the same tax, and anyone who eats at Chez Ritzy pays the same, much higher tax. This is the ultimate fairness, in that you pay tax based on your purchases. If you don’t mind paying tax, buy whatever you want. If you want to reduce your tax, buy less or cheaper.
“Property tax” is a median system. Although moderately easy to implement and somewhat difficult to cheat on, it has some serious issues. First of all, the ones I’ve seen have no control over the tax amount. Whenever the government needs more money (which is always), they just raise the rate. It does not seem to require any citizen acceptance. Don’t like it, tough, because almost always, if you don’t pay what they charge you, they take your property.
Of course, governments want to have all three systems of taxation, which leads to duplicate taxation. You earn money and pay a chunk in income taxes, and then you buy some stuff and pay sales tax. Then you pay property tax on the stuff. After you are done with the stuff, you sell it at a loss and pay tax on the amount you did get. And then you die and your heirs pay tax on what is left.
October 21st, 2019 at 7:23 pm
The rich should pay more because one they exploit society at large to make their money. Profit by definition comes at the cost of either a consumer or a worker. The rich are the winners of society. They gain the most of anyone in society. They love and need to propagate the lie that they earn the plunder they possess, but the rich need to work the least of anyone to make the most. We can tax the rich the heaviest and it would effect them the least. This is very basic stuff. In a world with such rampant inequality as we have, where less then 10 people own more then 50% of everyone. The rich absolutely should have their stagnate rotting hordes of wealth plundered and redistributed. The ultra rich rest on their laurels dreaming of escaping to mars or some underground bunker to flee from the climate disaster they actively benefit from. While they only give platitudes, not substance, to the myriad problems, while they reap the wealth (good old disaster capitalism comes to mind). These ultra rich like gates, Bezo, or Zuck are monsters of their own and societies making, they a despicable and deserve nothing more then anyone else, and are far more culpable then anyone else due to the power they wield so selfishly. Eat the rich, either figuratively by taxation, or the zoomers will do it literally.
As for health care. Even in the USA single payer is the only sensible option. There is a reason the USA is the only developed nation with such a heavily privatized health sector. Americans pay twice as much and have health outcomes similar to many developing countries with the tiny fraction of the USA massive imperialist wealth. Hundreds if not thousands of people go bankrupt in your country every day due to the fact you don’t have socialize medicine. Hundreds and thousands of people die or have their lives cut short due to inadequate health care. The only ones who benefit from this are private corporation whom mostly hide taxes else where not giving back from those they actively take. In Canada Universal Pharma and Dental care would only cost a few billion a year, that really not hard to come up with. The Liberals and Cons are just happy to maintain tax cuts for highly profitable businesses… I wonder why?
Am I simplifying of course, but frankly, much of what you said simply isn’t true and isn’t worth responding to in good faith. You positions are aged republican talking point with little to no economic, sociological data to back them up, and much too counter them.