Trudeau Popularity - or not. Nanos research

[dimsum]

According to this article from the Fraser Institute, the average family (2 adults, 2 kids) in 2022 earned $106430 and paid $48199 in taxes of all forms. A rate slightly above 45%.

The OECD published this document in 2022. Canada was below the OECD average in tax to GDP (figure 4) at about 33%. Denmark is about 45%.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf

 

[Cloud Cover]

Who is more accurate about how much tax a family pays in Canada- the family, the Fraser institute or the OECD.

A part of every dollar reported as earned , is taxed.
The remaining portion is used to buy goods and services, which are taxed.
The remainder from that is used to pay debt on goods and services, which were taxed. The remainder from that goes to savings, which are taxed either up front or when used, or both.
Since each families needs and spending habits differ, no entity but the family really knows how much they are taxed.
Further, because of the difference between each family within a postal code, arguably there is no longer an “average family” tax model that is reliable enough to make sound tax policy decisions.
Not that it matters, because this country long ago abandoned sound decision making.

 

[CBH99]

If you have an hour and a bit, this is WELL worth watching/listening to ...

This is a deep dive on some recent research, discussed by two hard-core Team Red'ites (one of whom did the survey work) talking about, in essence, Trudeau being a true anvil around the neck of the drowning Liberal party to the point where (if the #'s are transferable) Team Red would get 14 more points by replacing Trudeau as leader (also interesting content on potential contenders and how the public perceives them) ...
View attachment 85438
View attachment 85435
View attachment 85436
View attachment 85437
More details here (also archived here)

The Riskiness of Trudeau's Leadership

The Liberals’ polling numbers are bad and have been for months. Trudeau's staying or resigning are both risks. This study digs into both propositions.

relaywithkyla.beehiiv.com

Deets on how it was done
View attachment 85439

As much as Trudeau & Freeland are very deliberately trying to sabotage whoever comes after them, I think those same efforts
will be felt by the LPC for the foreseeable future regardless of who is elected as party leader.

I can easily see Trudeau's efforts to set up the next government for failure backfiring on the LPC.

So not only will he sabotage Pierre's first term (he will have to spend a significant portion of his efforts on just fixing what Justin has broken & getting things back on track) but he'll also be sabotaging any chance of being elected for whoever replaces him...

Talk about toxic! He's so toxic he'll poison the term of whoever replaces him as PM, and poison the chances of being elected for whoever replaces him as LPC leader...the only thing that could be more toxic in a room would be anthrax

 

[CBH99]

I listened to this. The both of them tried very hard to explain why JT doesn’t connect with men. How about the fact he is full of shit when it comes treating women as equals. Any man who loudly proclaims that he is a feminist is only trying to manipulate women and most men see through their bullshit.

Amen FSTO...

I'd consider myself an 'equalist' if there is such a term. I think every penny of what someone earns should be based on merit, qualifications, work ethic, etc - and not a single penny earned should be dictated by whether that person has tits or not.

I'll stand up all day (and march in the streets if I bloody have to) that women and men should be paid the same if it's the same work.

The idea that men make 15% (or whatever it is) more than women just on virtue of being born male seems idiotic to me.

Like I said, I'm an equalist...


Every male I've ever heard openly proclaim to be a feminist has turned out to be a total dickhead to the women in their life. I totally agree that most men who make a point of openly stating they are a feminist do it to manipulate women, get laid, manipulate a situation ultimately to their advantage, or are so sexually confused they've chopped their dick off (or perhaps plan to)

 

[Halifax Tar]

If you have an hour and a bit, this is WELL worth watching/listening to ...

This is a deep dive on some recent research, discussed by two hard-core Team Red'ites (one of whom did the survey work) talking about, in essence, Trudeau being a true anvil around the neck of the drowning Liberal party to the point where (if the #'s are transferable) Team Red would get 14 more points by replacing Trudeau as leader (also interesting content on potential contenders and how the public perceives them) ...
View attachment 85438
View attachment 85435
View attachment 85436
View attachment 85437
More details here (also archived here)

The Riskiness of Trudeau's Leadership

The Liberals’ polling numbers are bad and have been for months. Trudeau's staying or resigning are both risks. This study digs into both propositions.

relaywithkyla.beehiiv.com

Deets on how it was done
View attachment 85439

Pierre Poilievre's best asset in the next election is JT.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Pierre Poilievre's best asset in the next election is JT.

And JT seems to think the same of PP, but we see by the polls how that's working for him & Team Red ....

... The both of them tried very hard to explain why JT doesn’t connect with men. How about the fact he is full of shit when it comes treating women as equals. Any man who loudly proclaims that he is a feminist is only trying to manipulate women and most men see through their bullshit.

Bang on.

 

[Halifax Tar]

And JT seems to think the same of PP, but we see by the polls how that's working for him & Team Red ....

Bang on.

Ask Hillary Clinton and the MSM about polling though eh ?

 

[kratz]

Amen FSTO...

I'd consider myself an 'equalist' if there is such a term. I think every penny of what someone earns should be based on merit, qualifications, work ethic, etc - and not a single penny earned should be dictated by whether that person has tits or not.

I'll stand up all day (and march in the streets if I bloody have to) that women and men should be paid the same if it's the same work.

The idea that men make 15% (or whatever it is) more than women just on virtue of being born male seems idiotic to me.

Like I said, I'm an equalist...


Every male I've ever heard openly proclaim to be a feminist has turned out to be a total dickhead to the women in their life. I totally agree that most men who make a point of openly stating they are a feminist do it to manipulate women, get laid, manipulate a situation ultimately to their advantage, or are so sexually confused they've chopped their dick off (or perhaps plan to)

One of the readings from my course.

Halvorsen, J., Humphrey, T., Lorenzetti, L., & Rolle, M. (2024). Engaging White Men in Allyship for Structural Change: A Systematic Review. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265241254240

 

[Lumber]

As much as Trudeau & Freeland are very deliberately trying to sabotage whoever comes after them...

Do you mean both the inevitable next government lead by the CPC, or the next leader of the LPC? (or both?) If the latter, why do you think that they are deliberately trying to sabotage the next LPC leader? (and if the former, this who post is moot)

 

[Eaglelord17]

One of the readings from my course.

Halvorsen, J., Humphrey, T., Lorenzetti, L., & Rolle, M. (2024). Engaging White Men in Allyship for Structural Change: A Systematic Review. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265241254240

I pity you having to read such nonsense.

I love the racist, sexist outlook of the whole book though, mainly because they lack the self awareness to see how they are perpetuating racist, sexist, stereotypes.

White men are the sole reason that any of those groups listed in there have any sort of rights. That group ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, gave women equality, gave LGB people equality, gave different ethnicities equality, etc.

 

[brihard]

White men are the sole reason that any of those groups listed in there have any sort of rights. That group ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, gave women equality, gave LGB people equality, gave different ethnicities equality, etc.

Just out of curiosity, in western countries who was generally denying those rights/owned the slaves in the first place?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just out of curiosity, in western countries who was generally denying those rights/owned the slaves in the first place?

For most of recorded history, the Church and State, landowners, boards of trade, shareholders, military officers, magistrates, sheriffs and aristocrats.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Just out of curiosity, in western countries who was generally denying those rights/owned the slaves in the first place?

Generally white males. However they are basically the only group in history to actively go against what was in their best interest for the betterment of all.

I have been reading Gulliver’s travels recently. It is very interesting in that it was written in around 1720, a time period where slavery was still common. The main character is enslaved, freed, enslaved again, almost worked to death, etc. and it is all taken as part of life. The way it is just accepted is fascinating.

We don’t have the same view point in the modern era, but its only because in the 1800’s and 1900’s white men decided to end those practices. Not only did they decide to end those practices in their own countries, they actively worked to end them elsewhere too. Look at the West Africa Squadron for example, it prevented 150,000 Africans from being enslaved, cost a ton of money to do so, and was a political nightmare for the British.

Basically every society to ever exist up until recently had slavery. Basically every society to ever exist had discrimination, sexism, etc. its only very recently (last 200 years) have we moved towards a society which doesn’t have that. And its basically directly white males who are responsible for allowing/causing that.

 

[YZT580]

My wife and I were just talking about this, we sacrificed a fair bit to allow my wife to be at home with the kids. Now they are teenagers, I am home and doing the daily connection while the wife works.

and when you are watching them graduate or as they walk down the proverbial aisle you will have dropped the word sacrifice from that statement. It will have become a value-added effort.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just out of curiosity, in western countries who was generally denying those rights/owned the slaves in the first place?

In what way was the pre-Enlightenment West different than any other society of their day?

And which of those societies broadened the scope of freedoms?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Just out of curiosity, in western countries who was generally denying those rights/owned the slaves in the first place?

As noted above, white men, since they were the ruling class. Interesting, though, how there are so few societies that built a values system that contained the values needed to overcome deficiencies, and moreover were able to execute on those values.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Who is more accurate about how much tax a family pays in Canada- the family, the Fraser institute or the OECD.

The OECD report is a simple representation of all tax against GDP. It makes no claims about expressing the situation for the average family, but is accurately captures the system in aggregate with an appropriate relationship between numerator and denominator.

The Fraser Institute (in this instance) is mixing pot of contentious assumptions and inconsistently applied rules plugged into an obtuse model to generate the highest number they can. What they do is grab the national aggregate of everything that could conceivably called a tax (an arguably inflated numerator) and apply it against the arithmetic mean of only reported personal cash income (an inarguably understated) numerator to create a complete misrepresentation of the "typical family" and their tax burden. They don't even attempt to defend it when questioned. It's outrage fuel for those that won't stop to scrutinize.

Their basic (accurate) premise is that all taxes are in some way borne by individuals- which is technically correct. Whether by price inflation, wage depression, or drag on shareholder returns- that tax money comes from somewhere. BUT they take that premise and twist it into the assumption that therefore the entire tax burden is proportionally shared by all Canadian individuals so that they can take the lazy approach and just divide the total of payroll taxes, corporate income tax, resource royalties, corporate HST etc among "typical Canadians" - which is categorically incorrect. A material proportion of the tax burden is borne by non-Canadian employees. A material proportion of the price inflation is happening on exports. A material proportion of the drag on investment return is borne by either non-Canadian investors, or Canadian investors whose net worth/ income disqualifies them from the grouping of "typical Canadians"

Does the typical Canadian bear some of these costs? Undeniably. But not nearly to the extent they report. The Fraser Institute's own research (from the more qualified contributors), cited in the report, finds that a 1% change in the Corporate income tax rate would translate into a 0.15%-0.24% drag on wages. A 1% increase to payroll tax only a 0.03-0.14% drag.

Then there's things like the CPP. If you want to call it a tax rather than contributions to a defined benefit pension plan, fine. I disagree, but fine. But if you do that without either accounting for the present value of the accrued future benefit, or maintaining internal consistency and treating the net CPP payment as an untaxed government transfer rather than income and tax- you're skewing the result.



Don't take this as an argument for taxes, or against ours being too high. Just calling a spade a spade, and the annual FI tax series is complete BS

 

[Halifax Tar]

One of the readings from my course.

Halvorsen, J., Humphrey, T., Lorenzetti, L., & Rolle, M. (2024). Engaging White Men in Allyship for Structural Change: A Systematic Review. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265241254240

What course has that as required reading ?

 

[kratz]

It was an optional recommended reading for an Advanced Research Methods - Thesis preparation. course.
One of the article writers was the course professor and one was a guest speaker for the course.

 

[dimsum]

I pity you having to read such nonsense.

I love the racist, sexist outlook of the whole book though, mainly because they lack the self awareness to see how they are perpetuating racist, sexist, stereotypes.

White men are the sole reason that any of those groups listed in there have any sort of rights. That group ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, gave women equality, gave LGB people equality, gave different ethnicities equality, etc.

I’m pretty sure it was the campaigning from women like the Famous Five in Canada, and suffragettes, that led to women having some equality.

This is a circular argument anyway. White men were/are generally the rulers so of course they would be the ones “giving the rights”. Petitions, etc had to go through them to be legal.