PMJT: The First 100 Days

[Altair]

You mean the extra $20 I am going to see on my pay check. What a ******* joke 

Cheers
Larry

The extra that everyone who makes between 45-90k will see no matter if they are single or married, single income or joint, those with kids and those without?

Sorry if one of your specialty taxes breaks was touched and replaced with one that helps the population on a whole.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So, he's just discovering that which everyone rediscovers every year around this time: It's a lot easier to make a New Year resolution than to keep it, or in political terms, it's easy to make promises when in opposition, but a lot harder to implement them in office.  ;D

BTW, anybody noticed that the whole matter of "stoping the bombing campaign and bringing the CF-18's home" has completely dropped off the MSM radar screens?  Last I checked, the mission has now a little under two months to go but it is still going on with the CF-18's in full use. Not doing anything to extend it would bring it to an end, but I would hardly call that keeping your campaign promise.

Well I am not going to fuss on that one, I am hoping on esteemed MOD is making some logical arguments in Cabinet.

 

[a_majoor]

Altair is falling for the sort of primitive economics which politicans and con men use to bamboozle people.

The short run benefit of everyone getting $20 is that you see the shiny pile of loonies and feel grateful to whoever gave them to you, which is the entire point. Now stop and think how much you are going to do with that $20?

The boutique tax cuts were at least designed as incentives for particular outcomes (although in general I don't agree with that approach) and provided meaningful amounts of benefits for those who qualified. Broad based tax cuts, which are affordable if governments would stop overspending are also far more effective in providing benefits both to the individuals, since they are getting a meaningful amount of money back, and provide a broad and deep economic boost since large numbers of people can choose to save and invest in a much broader range of market alternatives than bureaucrats. (As libertarians will tell you, the very best income tax based system is a flat tax, and the best tax system of all is to eliminate income taxes in favour of consumption taxes).

The effect of a very shallow tax cut as is being given here is to boost consumption, which has far less effects on economic performance and growth, but does have a very visible short term effect. In our context it will be even less than imagined, since much of what is being consumed is produced off shore (with only $20, I'm going to have to shop for some made in China widget at Wal Mart to meet my needs).

While I have often used F.A Hayek as the reference for economic theories (he correctly predicted the negative effects of credit fuelled booms, such as the Great Depression, Japan's lost decade and the 2008 economic crisis), another economist is starting to attract my attention: Frédéric Bastiat. The opportunity costs to the Canadian economy by these smoke and mirrors tricks will be enormous.

 

[PuckChaser]

Have you even looked at the tax tables?  (http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/PersonalTaxRates/Federal-and-Provincial-Income-Tax-Rates-and-Brackets-and-Surtaxes-for-2015-and-2016.pdf)

The tax bracket for 2015 is 44,702–89,401, 22%.  That is what's being lowered to 20.5%.  So anyone who makes $89,402 or more will receive the exact same tax credit.  Or, in your words, it's a targeted tax cut.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

While you were busy picking apart the red herring that is tax brackets, while ignoring the actual math, I looked up the Maclean's article that describes it more clearly for you:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-truth-about-justin-trudeaus-tax-cuts/

...

What might surprise many middle-income voters, though, is how the $3 billion in tax savings will be distributed. David Macdonald, senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an Ottawa-based think tank, used a Statistics Canada model to project how the Liberal proposal would affect families at various income levels. To get the maximum benefit, an individual must be making nearly $90,000, and having two earners in a family, both making that much or more, generates the highest savings. That leaves the tax cut for those who make considerably less looking very modest.

Macdonald has forecast the benefits for what Statistics Canada calls “economic families,” which include couples, with or without children, and single parents. The roughly 1.6 million families making about $48,000 to $62,000 will see their tax bills trimmed by, on average, just $51, while those making $62,000 to $78,000 will save $117. The tax savings rise steadily with family income, to $521 on average for families in the $124,000 to $166,000 range, and $813 for those making $166,000 to $211,000. Above that level, the new, higher top tax bracket erases any savings the families got by paying less tax on income in the reduced middle tax bracket.

Macdonald dismisses the excuse that income-tax cuts almost automatically amount to more for those earning more money. “The smart folks at [the Canada Revenue Agency] can design you a tax to do whatever you want it to do,” he says. Even calling the Liberal proposal a middle-class tax break is debatable, Macdonald says, since those who stand to benefit the most—families in the $166,000 to $211,000 income range—are in the top 10 per cent of Canadian earners. He calls those familes “upper middle class.” (As for families earning more than $211,000, Macdonald says they will pay, on average, $2,912 more in federal tax.)

...

Meanwhile, the Liberals decried the Tory income splitting plan as "benefitting only rich people", while their "tax cut" helps out the upper middle class bracket (and dual income households who both make upper middle class money) far more than it does the hardest hit Canadians below the $100K line. As a middle class taxpayer, I'm getting $117. Income splitting gave me $1500.

 

[JLB50]

I must say that, in many ways, I am very much in favour of his agenda, and I think he is generally doing a good job domestically.  However, I do feel that he is quite naive with respect to the security issues facing this country.

Others have already said this, but it's well worth repeating: if the PM isn't willing to use force against sick bloodthirsty groups like Isis, then who would he be willing to use force against?

It makes me wonder if, had he had been elected PM in the late 1930s when Hitler invaded Poland, how would he have responded?  Would he have told Canadians that using violence to stop violence is wrong?  Would he have told us that "we're not going to stoop to his level" and simply let the rest of the western nations deal with the evils of fascism?  I realize that's a hypothetical scenario, but I do have some serious doubts about the PM's ability to deal with matters of life and death and putting our armed forces in harm's way should the need arise.

 

[McG]

While you were busy picking apart the red herring that is tax brackets, while ignoring the actual math ...

Actually, correctly defining the tax brackets is critical to doing the actual math.  For a guy who has posted twice on the importance of the math, you are apparently not commenting from an informed possition.

In any case, if one really wants to create a targeted tax cut then one does not reduce the tax rate of a tax bracket.  The key is to shrink that bracket by raising the income threshold where it begins and lowering the income threshold where it ends.  To more accurately achieve thier stated intent the Liberals could have compressed the 22% tax bracket to range from approximately $55k to $75k.

Feel free to check.  I have done the math.

 

[larry Strong]

The extra that everyone who makes between 45-90k will see no matter if they are single or married, single income or joint, those with kids and those without?

Sorry if one of your specialty taxes breaks was touched and replaced with one that helps the population on a whole.

I am a working stiff in a black iron fab shop. Specialty taxes breaks......that's a joke.

On a thousand dollars gross pay you will make about $15 before taxes. Some people need to guit drinking the koolaid. Yup, gonna be able to retire on that.


Cheers
Larry

 

[Altair]

While you were busy picking apart the red herring that is tax brackets, while ignoring the actual math, I looked up the Maclean's article that describes it more clearly for you:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-truth-about-justin-trudeaus-tax-cuts/

Meanwhile, the Liberals decried the Tory income splitting plan as "benefitting only rich people", while their "tax cut" helps out the upper middle class bracket (and dual income households who both make upper middle class money) far more than it does the hardest hit Canadians below the $100K line. As a middle class taxpayer, I'm getting $117. Income splitting gave me $1500.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Income splitting helped a segment of the middle class, a segment you jut happened to be in.

Income tax cuts helps everyone who earns between 45 and 89k.

Single people and single parents who earn 45 and 89k deserve some help too.

 

[quadrapiper]

I must say that, in many ways, I am very much in favour of his agenda, and I think he is generally doing a good job domestically.  However, I do feel that he is quite naive with respect to the security issues facing this country.

Others have already said this, but it's well worth repeating: if the PM isn't willing to use force against sick bloodthirsty groups like Isis, then who would he be willing to use force against?

ISIS aren't a military problem for Canada: they're a domestic-security problem caused by a foreign group (so the business of the RCMP, CSIS, and so on) and a foreign-policy and trade issue (and even that only because of where they are, not what they are), so Global Affairs' and those departments dealing with internal trade-related matters. They represent nothing like the hegemonizing threat of the Soviets, Nazis, or Japanese.

That they are evil is clear: sending Canadian forces of any kind to deal with them, though, is perhaps better considered as a part of other Ministries' response. If evilness, demonstrated by e.g. killing civilians, torture, mandated rape, etc. is cause for CAF involvement, there's plenty of other groups (I'm thinking primarily of Africa) who must be placed on the to-do list. Many of those are less effectively opposed than ISIS.

What sort of response would you like to see, by the way? Continued air contribution? Operators on the ground training locals? Operators engaging ISIS directly? To what end, at what scale - individuals with local units, or as their own raiding force with vehicles, helicopters, etc? Or something larger: turn out "the army" for a maximum-effort short campaign, or commit to an Afghanistan-style long series of rotations?

 

[daftandbarmy]

It sounds like the PM may be breaking yet another campaign "promise".  Apparently legalizing pot in Canada isn't as easy as he thought since it breaks a few global treaties.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-legalizing-pot-global-treaties-1.3390745

Meanwhile, in science land....

“there is a strong body of epidemiologic evidence to support the view that regular or heavy cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychotic disorders….”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201601/does-marijuana-cause-psychosis

 

[cavalryman]

Meanwhile, in science land....

“there is a strong body of epidemiologic evidence to support the view that regular or heavy cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychotic disorders….”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201601/does-marijuana-cause-psychosis

If your goal is to increase the number of voters able to deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from blind belief in progressive ideology, then it's a feature, not a bug. [

 

[JLB50]

True, Isis isn't the same thing as what the Greatest Generation had to face during the WW2 years.  But I do think that Canada should  play a more significant role than it is currently playing.  It just seems to me that the PM is hoping that if he ignores it long enough, the problem will go away. And while I'm personally not in favour of boots on the ground, I can't understand why he is ending the air strikes against them. I just don't feel that he's being transparent enough in his motives.

 

[suffolkowner]

It sounds like the PM may be breaking yet another campaign "promise".  Apparently legalizing pot in Canada isn't as easy as he thought since it breaks a few global treaties.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-legalizing-pot-global-treaties-1.3390745

It doesn't seem to be stopping individual states from proceeding with legalization/decriminalization

 

[Altair]

It doesn't seem to be stopping individual states from proceeding with legalization/decriminalization

Amsterdam seems alright as well.

In other news, the new CCB will be effective come July 1st

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Frankly the Conservatives should said we amend the CCC to reflect whatever you decide in each province and territory and then they could hand the whole stinking bomb to the Provinces to deal with over the next 5-10 years.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm kind of loving this thread, it's all over the place. On that note West Canadian Select is below $20 a barrel. I'm thinking Trudeau would have been better off letting Harper have this round. Everything from the election can be thrown out if we don't hit bottom pretty soon.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If your goal is to increase the number of voters able to deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from blind belief in progressive ideology, then it's a feature, not a bug. [

Reality: the antidote to 'Hopey - Preachy'

 

[PuckChaser]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Income splitting helped a segment of the middle class, a segment you jut happened to be in.

Income tax cuts helps everyone who earns between 45 and 89k.

Single people and single parents who earn 45 and 89k deserve some help too.

But you're a big fan of CCB payments, benefiting only the segment of Canadian households with children. Where's the outrage at the single individuals, or DINK families? Are they not important to the Liberals.

Spin works both ways, friend.

 

[Kirkhill]

True, Isis isn't the same thing as what the Greatest Generation had to face during the WW2 years.  But I do think that Canada should  play a more significant role than it is currently playing.  It just seems to me that the PM is hoping that if he ignores it long enough, the problem will go away. And while I'm personally not in favour of boots on the ground, I can't understand why he is ending the air strikes against them. I just don't feel that he's being transparent enough in his motives.

Boots are already on the ground - and judging from these reports, they "advising" from one tactical bound behind the forward edge of the battle area.

"Our advise and assist forces positioned themselves primarily... on the north side of [Sinjar] mountain where the Kurd commanders positioned themselves, with the mission really to advise these Kurd commanders on how to synchronize the flow of forces into the battle, on how to refine their ongoing logistics operations, and how to do things like triage wounded and how to manage their casualty collection sites and things like this. Genuine advise and assist," Warren said.

"There were a handful of personnel on top of the mountain helping the Peshmerga forces identify and develop targets down there on the ground."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-isis-iraq-combat-1.3318451

Canadians on the ground laid down supporting fire against the militants to defend friendly forces during a combat operation that began Wednesday and stretched into Thursday, Maj.-Gen. Charles Lamarre, director of staff, strategic joint staff, told a briefing Thursday night.

As Kurdish forces moved forward to retake terrain, they came under fire. “Our guys were close enough and able to respond with fire onto those ISIL positions,” Lamarre told the briefing at defence headquarters, using another term for Islamic State.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/17/canadian-soldiers-help-repel-isis-attack.html

At this rate the aircraft will be removed and the Canadian Army will be advising at point of bayonet.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is another assessment of the new, Justin Trudeau government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/the-trudeau-government-is-looking-a-lot-like-the-harper-government/article28046655/

The Trudeau government is looking a lot like the Harper government

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Jan. 07, 2016

If you closed your eyes, you could almost imagine Stephen Harper is still prime minister.

Progressive voters who hoped Justin Trudeau would abruptly shift the federal government to the left once he became Prime Minister must be in despair as the new regime announces one conservative-friendly policy after another – further proof that when it comes to the really big decisions, the imperative of protecting jobs and the economy trumps human rights, the environment and other concerns in these difficult days.

For the umpteenth time, the Liberals campaigned from the left and now are governing from the centre-right. Only those born yesterday will be surprised by this.

The Globe’s Robert Fife reports that the Trudeau government has made improving relations with China a priority, with the ultimate goal a new free trade agreement. The Conservatives, of course, were all about free trade, and only dragged their heels on a deal with China because of concerns about human rights abuses and the shady nature of China’s state-controlled capitalism. But Mr. Trudeau appears ready to shrug off such technicalities.

In any case, the Harper government had already signed trade agreements with South Korea and the 11 nations of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Had the Conservatives been re-elected, they would probably have picked China as the next big target as well.

Speaking of trade versus human rights, Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion was quite indignant over the Saudi Arabian government’s execution of 47 citizens, including a cleric who peacefully criticized the regime: “We reiterate our call to the Government of Saudi Arabia to protect human rights, respect peaceful expressions of dissent and ensure fairness in judicial proceedings,” he declared in a statement.

But will this affect the $15-billion contract that the Harper government helped broker to sell military equipment to the Saudis? “A private company is delivering the goods according to a signed contract with the government of Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Dion said, despite calls from human rights groups to cancel the deal. “The government of Canada has no intention of cancelling that contract.”

John Baird could not have said it better. (Mr. Baird was foreign affairs minister in the third Harper government.)

The Liberals have taken a few token progressive steps: appointing women to half the posts in cabinet, restoring the long-form census, cancelling an ugly and intrusive monument to the victims of communism – that sort of on-the-margins thing. But on the big stuff, everyone is a Conservative, especially the Liberals.

During the election campaign, the Conservatives committed to bringing 10,000 refugees to Canada by Sept. 1 of this year. The Liberals promised 25,000 by Dec. 31 of last year. According to the latest data, the Liberal government has brought 6,300 Syrian refugees to Canada. At this point, the Conservative goal is looking more realistic than what the Liberals promised.

In the war against Islamic state, Canadian jets continue to pound targets while allied governments wait for Ottawa to decide exactly how it intends to re-profile the mission. If the jets do come home, as Mr. Trudeau promised, expect Canada to ramp up efforts in other areas – especially in training local fighters – to compensate. More boots may actually be on the ground in Iraq and Syria under the Liberals than under the Conservatives.

In the fight against global warming, Mr. Trudeau went to Paris to announce: “Canada is back.” But it is back with the same emission-reduction targets the Conservatives had. And meeting those targets will be as difficult and expensive – and therefore improbable – for the Liberals as they would have been for the Conservatives.

The Liberals promised to revamp the environmental assessment process for oil pipelines, then promptly allowed two major proposals – Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain expansion to Vancouver and TransCanada’s Energy East line to Saint John – to proceed under the old rules on the grounds that the reviews were already under way. Pipeline opponents rightly fear any changes the Liberals do impose on environmental reviews, if and when they get around to it, will be purely cosmetic.

The Tories cut taxes. The Liberals cut taxes. The Tories invested in child care. The Liberals are investing in child care. Any differences in approach exist only at the margins.

As for aboriginal issues, the rhetoric is entirely different, but on substance, the Conservatives planned to spend heavily on improving on-reserve education, and the Liberals plan to spend heavily on improving on-reserve education. Whether and how they plan to spend elsewhere remains to be seen.

There is one area where this government is markedly different from what we might have expected from a fourth Harper government: The Liberals are planning to rack up large deficits to invest in infrastructure.

We will find out in four years what voters think about that.

Caveat lector: my assessment is that John Ibbitson thinks that 40% of those of us who voted made a mistake and, amongst other things, reelected the old Librano$ ...

Additionally, it is, still, early going and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have enough guile and real leadership to shift his party, as his father did, from campaigning from the left and then governing from the right to governing from the left, too.

But, for those who are convinced that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, like President Barack Obama, represents real change, consider three things:

    1. This is still the Liberal Party of Canada, it's a big, traditionally successful, highly skilled "machine" that aims to secure and maintain power;

    2. The ministry consists of some bright, young newcomers and some very smart, seasoned professionals but, not matter which, no minister is ever "on top" of her/his department and they come to every meeting with detailed briefs
        and positions prepared by these guys ~

       

        (Remember, always that "Yes, Minister" was a documentary, not a comedy.) and

    3. "Events, dear boy, events."