Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Stockholm this thread is not about the Vatican and your exploits there.

No kidding...and i am the capital of a very Protestant country!

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
You are also wrong on the answer to question one above.  It is not redundant because the stupid term Caucasian can include many people from India and the Middle East.   Many of whom are not as white in skin pigmentation as most of the people on this board.

I don't think Unionist or I were referring to your many degrees of whiteness. Let's not discriminate between white people. It gives me a headache.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I don't believe the Liberals when they run from the centre left because I know they will govern from the centre right but you would have me believe that the NDP will run from the centre and govern from the left.

You're telling us that you know how a party that has no official record for governing federally will govern once elected based on the last seven decades worth of federal Liberal record in power?

You don't even know who will win the hockey game tonight never mind predicting what the NDP's federal legacy will be by 2020. And this is Canadian politics - Mulcair is not running for president of the United States. We have a multiparty system in Canada.

Don't quit your day job, Nostrapotkin.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fidel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I don't believe the Liberals when they run from the centre left because I know they will govern from the centre right but you would have me believe that the NDP will run from the centre and govern from the left.

You're telling us that you know how a party that has no official record for governing federally will govern once elected based on the last seven decades worth of federal Liberal record in power?

No I am telling you I haven't a clue what he would be like as PM.  However nothing in his past leads me to believe he has any socialist leanings.  I will give you the same promise that I have given to my Liberal friends in the past when they tried to sell me on the Red Book promises. If Mulcair is elected and he actually governs from the left and not the centre or centre right I will support your party in the subsequent election. I made that promise many toimes and I have never had to support the Liberals.  Maybe the NDP in power federally can break that record.

As it is now I am a doubting Thomas who doubts Tom's resurrection from being a Quebec Liberal and I will be one until I see the Risen Saviour of the left bleed socialist red in his policies.

NorthReport

Thomas Mulcair is the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal Axis’ greatest fear 

 

Old guard of Canadian politics backing Justin Trudeau against Thomas Mulcair

He is, in other words, the perfect complement to Mr. Harper himself in putting the carcass of the Liberal party to sleep once and for all.

Which explains, therefore, the attacks Mulcair is now facing.

Lawrence Martin, writing in today’s Globe and Mail, is a case in point.

Martin used his regular Tuesday column to carefully slice and dice the NDP leader, all for the ostensible benefit of his champion, Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau, you see, stands for what the Liberal Party has always stood for. Rule over Canada from the élite salons of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal axis, what John Ibbitson (also of the Globe) called, in a 2011 speech (and in his new book, co-authored with Darrell Bricker, The Big Shift: The Seismic Change in Canadian Politics, Business, and Culture, and what it Means for Our Future) the Laurentian Hypothesis.

The Laurentian Hypothesis, simply put, is that the centre matters. The Federal Government should rule over the provinces and the country. Wise guidance by the civil service is best. Québec must be constantly appeased as one of the two founding “nations”. The West (and the Maritimes) should be happy to be resource colonies of the centre. (They certainly shouldn’t presume to be in charge.)

Harper, as we all know by now, comes from the “The West Wants In” tradition. He may have been born in Toronto, but he does not subscribe to the T-O-M is dominant way of seeing the country.

What fewer have paid attention to is that Mulcair doesn’t subscribe to it, either (despite his party’s concentration of seats in the East).

Yes, he’s a strong federalist. He’s not an Ottawaist, though. There is a difference.

Yes, he’s a champion of a strong heartland economy. But not at the price of denying the economies of other parts of the country.

For lovers of the old Canadian order, Mulcair is as dangerous as Harper has been. Neither is about to let the good and the great, the best and the brightest (legends in their own minds one and all) pull their strings.

Justin Trudeau — indeed, just about any of those striving for the leadership of the Liberal Party, the historic vehicle of the ambitions of the Laurentianists in Canada — on the other hand, will do nicely. So puffing him up and sticking a stiletto or two in Mulcair alongside the blades in Harper is the order of the day.

In fact, for people like Lawrence Martin, the absolute worst outcome in a federal election, bar none, would be to see Mulcair win power.

They may hate Harper, but his government based in the West and Ontario doesn’t disturb their fantasies of turning the clock back.

Mulcair — who would win power by holding his Québec seats, taking more in Atlantic Canada, more in Ontario and a good chunk of BC, with some from Saskatchewan and Manitoba — would utterly destroy their dreams. His path to victory couldn’t be excused as an “invasion” from the West, or an “Ontario reaction to its Liberal government in Toronto” (as has been said).

(Neither, of course, could the Conservatives taking serious seats in Québec be dismissed, although there’s little chance of that anytime soon.)

More than any other leader the NDP have ever had, Mulcair has both the political nous and the hard-headed discipline required to push the party from opposition to government. On his own, he’s unlikely to pull off a majority by 2015. He is capable of holding the Conservatives to a minority — and thus could govern if the Liberals backed him.

That’s what Martin’s column was actually about. Closing the door on the Liberals being the junior partner.

Martin — who can’t stand Harper — would rather the Conservatives governed than that the NDP gained power.

He knows that if Mulcair is allowed to hold the Prime Ministership the Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal dream of restoring their dominance is dead. Canadian politics will have been transformed for decades if that happens. (Bricker and Ibbitson’s argument in The Big Shift hasn’t quite come to pass yet, and won’t until power alternates between two parties from the shift, not one that’s shifted and one that’s ancien régime.)

You’ll see a lot more of this in the two years ahead, along with a lot of puffery to build the Liberals back up.

What it means for Western Canadians is that it’s (more than ever) time to get beyond thinking in labels. There are parties that are happy with the shift that let the West in, and parties that want the West back in the box.

And there’s two that want the West in, not one.

 

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Thomas Mulcair is the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal Axis’ greatest fear 

 

Old guard of Canadian politics backing Justin Trudeau against Thomas Mulcair

He is, in other words, the perfect complement to Mr. Harper himself in putting the carcass of the Liberal party to sleep once and for all.

Which explains, therefore, the attacks Mulcair is now facing.

Lawrence Martin, writing in today’s Globe and Mail, is a case in point.

Interesting perspective.  However, Martin was a supporter of Mulcair over the other NDP leadership contenders. 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Please refrain from using the term caucasian. It is founded on lies and misinformation.

janfromthebruce

mark_alfred wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Thomas Mulcair is the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal Axis’ greatest fear 

 

Old guard of Canadian politics backing Justin Trudeau against Thomas Mulcair

He is, in other words, the perfect complement to Mr. Harper himself in putting the carcass of the Liberal party to sleep once and for all.

Which explains, therefore, the attacks Mulcair is now facing.

Lawrence Martin, writing in today’s Globe and Mail, is a case in point.

Interesting perspective.  However, Martin was a supporter of Mulcair over the other NDP leadership contenders. 

Was he a "real supporter" or just preferred Mulcair over the other NDP leadership candidates? There is big difference here.

If I had to choice a Liberal leadership candidate I could but I would never be a "supporter" of the party.

 

janfromthebruce

Mark, that was tongue in cheek above. Martin, like all Liberals would rather the Cons rule than for NDP rise in power. Hence, why anybody ever assumes that Liberals would back an minority NDP are dreaming. And why Liberals backed up the Harper Con minority govt for years.

If in fact, in 2015, the Cons got a minority govt, the libs would lay down again rather than consider a coalition with the NDP. They are the 2 heads of the same beast.

socialdemocrati...

He's right. The Geography is kind of odd.

We've seen the Ontario-Quebec coalition many times. The so called "Laurentian" coalition.

We've also seen the Western-Quebec coalition (Mulroney), and the Western-Ontario coalition (Harper).

Mulcair could actually win without Alberta, and with a split Ontario. It would be an odd geographic coalition. But I have more politically in common with BC and Quebec these days than the rest of my province of Ontario.

Roll out the red carpet for our new bi-coastal overlords.

 

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
As it is now I am a doubting Thomas who doubts Tom's resurrection from being a Quebec Liberal and I will be one until I see the Risen Saviour of the left bleed socialist red in his policies.

Oh, you must be referring to the same Thomas Mulcair who quit the Liberal Party and said he could not work with federal environment minister Stephane Dion of the same party that sold the environment to Exxon-Imperial and the fossil fuel industry. 

Yes we know all about what the federal Liberals did after winning so many phony baloney majorities in a row last time. Starting with Chretien they were further to the political right than the Brian Baloney conservatives before them.

But the NDP is a party that has no federal record in power. Your suggesting that the NDP will be just like the Libranos and even the Liebrals is, therefore, meaningless.

The Tories and Liberals have much more in common than they do the NDP. 

Remember Jack Layton telling Michael Ignatieff during debate that Iggy had been Harper's best friend for the last four years?

Liberal, Tory, it's the same old story and time for a new broom to sweep in clean in Ottawa.

North Star

Canada’s Mulcair Says Oil Companies Would Gain From NDP Victory

Thomas Mulcair, leader of Canada’s main opposition party, said oil companies hoping to build infrastructure needed to reach export markets would have more success if his party were in power.

A New Democratic Party government would do a better job gaining public acceptance for infrastructure projects like new pipelines because it would enforce a more credible environmental review process, Mulcair said in an interview at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/canada-s-mulcair-says-oil-compa...

 

mark_alfred

Article:  Canada’s Mulcair Says NDP Would Raise Business Tax Rate

It's good he's sticking with that.  He also mentions that he wouldn't raise income taxes on the rich, which I find a bit annoying, but oh well.  No mention of a position on capital gains.

Fidel

Why is Brad Wall upset?

Quote:
Traditionally even opposition leaders, when visiting the US, have Canada's interest first and foremost in mind and try to advance it. According to the National Post this is not what Mulcair did. Mulcair's message to the US is that Canada's environmental record is terrible. He accuses the Canadian government of gutting environmental assessments for energy projects and that climate change is not among its priorities.

Quote:
In the U.S. people know how to read,” he said. “They know that Canada is the only country that has withdrawn from Kyoto. They know that the Conservatives can’t possibly meet their Copenhagen targets [on greenhouse gas emissions] precisely because of the oilsands. They have to stop playing people for fools.

The NDP opposes the XL Keystone pipeline that would expand export of Alberta crude oil to 830,000 barrels a day

Quote:
.According to … studies, Keystone represents the export of 40,000 jobs and we think that is a bad thing for Canada,” Mulcair said in an interview. “We have never taken care of our energy security. We tend to forget that a 10-year supply to the U.S. is a 100-year supply to Canada. We are still going to need the energy supply to heat our homes and run our factories, whether it comes from the oilsands or it comes in the (form of) natural gas. Fossil fuels are always going to be part of the mix.

These comments outraged Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall that it caused him to take to twitter with his betrayal message.NDP Leader who wants to be PM betrays our country's national interest. Unbelievable.

Liberals sold the environment to the fossil fuel industry with Mulroney's expanded FTA, NAFTA.

And now the Harper Tories want to export thousands of refinery jobs to the U.S. along with the dirty oil, and they want to pull the wool over Canadians eyes by doing deals behind closed doors, just like the Liberals did for 13 long years in phoney majority power.

North Star

mark_alfred wrote:

Article:  Canada’s Mulcair Says NDP Would Raise Business Tax Rate

It's good he's sticking with that.  He also mentions that he wouldn't raise income taxes on the rich, which I find a bit annoying, but oh well.  No mention of a position on capital gains.

"Mulcair said he would not raise taxes for high-income earners because marginal tax rates in the country are already too high."

It's one thing to say you won't raise taxes on the rich, it's another thing say that marginal tax rates are to high, which the story suggests. Marginal tax rates on the wealthy are far from being too high. I'd like to know if there is an actual quote to back that up though. The fact that he can't even back a new top marginal rate for people at $500k + is ridiculous.

mark_alfred

Agreed.  Interesting too that there's an article about Canada slipping to eleventh place on the "most developed countries list", where Megan Leslie says,

Megan Leslie wrote:

And I think it reinforces what the NDP has been saying, but also what organizations like the Conference Board of Canada have been saying, about the fact that there's a growing income inequality gap in Canada.  That gap creates serious problems, and I don't think the Conservatives have been taking it seriously.

I'm not sure how her declaration of the NDP's concern with growing income inequality can be rationalized with Mulcair's alleged statement of not raising income taxes on the rich.  I wrote to her to ask her about this.

Fidel

North Star wrote:

It's one thing to say you won't raise taxes on the rich, it's another thing say that marginal tax rates are to high, which the story suggests. Marginal tax rates on the wealthy are far from being too high. I'd like to know if there is an actual quote to back that up though. The fact that he can't even back a new top marginal rate for people at $500k + is ridiculous.

That's because middle and low income earners are paying higher effective marginal tax rates than the richest Canadians. Tax cuts for the richest Canadians started under the Liberals. Higher effectiive marginal rates in the U.S. than Nordic countries run by social democrats long time so I don't know why anyone would think that raising marginal tax rates on the rich would solve Canada's revenue problems. The feds have been fiscal Frankensteins for decades.  It's partly why the U.S., Canada and Russia have higher concentrations of billionaires, large national debts, and low overall federal tax revs from all sources not just the richest 1%.

There are other ways of raising federal tax revenues and especially in a rich country like Canada, that Nordic social democracies simply cannot do and still remain as economically competitive as they are. Across the OECD Canada is middle of the pack when it comes to collectiing overall federal tax revenues. Since the 1970's and 80's the feds have sabotaged federal tax revenues and run deficits as a favour to Canada's monopoly banksters, foreign creditors and Bay St. bond salesmen.

ygtbk

North Star wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Article:  Canada’s Mulcair Says NDP Would Raise Business Tax Rate

It's good he's sticking with that.  He also mentions that he wouldn't raise income taxes on the rich, which I find a bit annoying, but oh well.  No mention of a position on capital gains.

"Mulcair said he would not raise taxes for high-income earners because marginal tax rates in the country are already too high."

It's one thing to say you won't raise taxes on the rich, it's another thing say that marginal tax rates are to high, which the story suggests. Marginal tax rates on the wealthy are far from being too high. I'd like to know if there is an actual quote to back that up though. The fact that he can't even back a new top marginal rate for people at $500k + is ridiculous.

From the cited Bloomberg article:

Quote:

Mulcair said he would not raise taxes for high-income earners because marginal tax rates in the country are already too high.

“Absolute guarantee it will never be part of my program,” he said. “It’s never been my policy and it never will be.”

That seems pretty unequivocal. Of course, there was once a politician who said "Read my lips: no new taxes." and then raised them, so a rational degree of skepticism is called for.

North Star

ygtbk wrote:

North Star wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Article:  Canada’s Mulcair Says NDP Would Raise Business Tax Rate

It's good he's sticking with that.  He also mentions that he wouldn't raise income taxes on the rich, which I find a bit annoying, but oh well.  No mention of a position on capital gains.

"Mulcair said he would not raise taxes for high-income earners because marginal tax rates in the country are already too high."

It's one thing to say you won't raise taxes on the rich, it's another thing say that marginal tax rates are to high, which the story suggests. Marginal tax rates on the wealthy are far from being too high. I'd like to know if there is an actual quote to back that up though. The fact that he can't even back a new top marginal rate for people at $500k + is ridiculous.

From the cited Bloomberg article:

Quote:

Mulcair said he would not raise taxes for high-income earners because marginal tax rates in the country are already too high.

“Absolute guarantee it will never be part of my program,” he said. “It’s never been my policy and it never will be.”

That seems pretty unequivocal. Of course, there was once a politician who said "Read my lips: no new taxes." and then raised them, so a rational degree of skepticism is called for.

It's politically harder for Mulcair to raise taxes than it was for George HW Bush. Of course it's not impossible that Mulcair has something up his sleave but the record of social democratic parties running to the centre then turning left is pretty dubious and non-existant these days.

Brachina

All he has to do is remove tax loop holes which will be more effective.

Fidel

All "he" meaning the future NDP government and not the president of Canada, has to do to raise federal tax revenues is bring Canada's overall federal tax revs up to just the OECD average of capitalist countries.

Raising Ottawa's overall federal tax revs to just the OECD average would mean about $35 billion a year more for Ottawa. And never mind raising Canada's overall fed tax revs to the socialist EU-15 average.

And let's not even mention the Nordic communist countries federal tax takes. Because Ottawa would have a long way to go in raising them to that level.

The two old line parties have slashed overall federal tax revenues by tens of billions of dollars since just 1995. The NDP would do well in reversing the fiscal Frankenstein-ness of the two old line parties in Ottawa since the 1990's when neoliberal Balkanization of economic ideology really got underway in Canada.

Fidel

North Star wrote:
It's politically harder for Mulcair to raise taxes than it was for George HW Bush. Of course it's not impossible that Mulcair has something up his sleave but the record of social democratic parties running to the centre then turning left is pretty dubious and non-existant these days.

Nordic countries run by social democrats and in strong political opposition long time  still make Canada look like a natural resource-rich banana republic by comparison. Shall we count the ways?

Canada has become a corrupt petro state. George Monbiot, 2009

Yes the tar barons have held Canada to ransom. Mulcair is right in saying that our dollar is artificially high due to marauding international capital pouring into the oil sands. Manufacturing will always be an important economic sector for all rich countries. Our two old line parties were fresh out of new ideas long ago. Their script is written for them in Washington and by right wing think tankerists. It's time for a democracy break in Ottawa.

North Star

Fidel wrote:

North Star wrote:
It's politically harder for Mulcair to raise taxes than it was for George HW Bush. Of course it's not impossible that Mulcair has something up his sleave but the record of social democratic parties running to the centre then turning left is pretty dubious and non-existant these days.

Nordic countries run by social democrats and in strong political opposition long time  still make Canada look like a natural resource-rich banana republic by comparison. Shall we count the ways?

Canada has become a corrupt petro state. George Monbiot, 2009

Yes the tar barons have held Canada to ransom. Mulcair is right in saying that our dollar is artificially high due to marauding international capital pouring into the oil sands. Manufacturing will always be an important economic sector for all rich countries. Our two old line parties were fresh out of new ideas long ago. Their script is written for them in Washington and by right wing think tankerists. It's time for a democracy break in Ottawa.

Quote:

Sweden has had a quicker liberalisation than any other advanced economy in the world, in terms of privatisation and deregulation, according to conservative American think tank The Heritage Foundation.

The Swedish school system is also one of the world's most liberal. Only Chile's school system is at a similar level. What's completely unique is that the Swedish government doesn't care who owns the school.

Liberalisation policies have been backed by previous social democratic governments as well as the current centre-right government.

http://www.thelocal.se/39864/20120324/#.UUNPKhdnoz8

The Sweden of the 1970's only exists in history books now.

 

Centrist

Fidel wrote:
And let's not even mention the Nordic communist countries federal tax takes. Because Ottawa would have a long way to go in raising them to that level.

Sometimes perception does not mesh with reality.

Here are the 2013 combined corporate tax rates for a few selected countries:

Canada: 26%

Norway: 28%

Denmark: 25%

Finland: 24.5%

Sweden: 22%

So Canada, in 2013, has a higher combined corporate tax rate than 3 out of 4 Nordic countries. In fact here's a headline from late last year:

Quote:
Sweden Unveils Plan to Slash Corporate Tax Rates

http://www.thelocal.se/43202/20120913/#.UUNPohzqmSI

That said, I agree with Mulcair that upward room exists to increase Canada's corporate taxation rate.

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
Megan Leslie wrote:

And I think it reinforces what the NDP has been saying, but also what organizations like the Conference Board of Canada have been saying, about the fact that there's a growing income inequality gap in Canada.  That gap creates serious problems, and I don't think the Conservatives have been taking it seriously.

I'm not sure how her declaration of the NDP's concern with growing income inequality can be rationalized with Mulcair's alleged statement of not raising income taxes on the rich.  I wrote to her to ask her about this.

As I've said before, if the NDP doesn't have a policy plank of making the 1% pay their fair share of taxes, that alone will cost them the election regardless of anything else that happens. We can disagree on the details of how to acheive this goal, whether to raise taxes, close loopholes, or other ideas (for example the financial transaction tax) but this plank must be there. I'm somewhat encouraged to see Mulcair talk about raising corporate taxes, but to flatly rule out raising taxes on higher income earners is somewhat reinforcing my view that he does not understand the party he leads (this after chiding Brian Topp for proposing higher taxes, saying we can't make any firm commitments now until we see the state of the finances after Harper is thrown out), nor does he understand the reality of everyday Canadians or how cynical they feel about mainstream policies and institutions. These are the very same institutions that Mulcair is trying to gain favour with to show how "moderate" the NDP is. And for his double-talk about "we have to get young people involved in politics" he doesn't understand that this will not go over well with this demographic specifically, because these systems and institutions have not worked well for so many young people.

Fidel

~Yawn~

Everyone and their dog knows that Sweden has a lower effective marginal tax rate for the rich than the USA. Swden also has what is probably the most efficient tax system in the world. They tax consumption and are still able to fund the social welfare state in ways that our ideologues in the two old line parties would never consider here.

What people don't seem to realize is that Sweden and Nordic countries overall federal tax revs as percentages of their GDP's are still significantly higher than it is for corrupt petro-states like Canada.

Sweden and Nordic countries run by social democrats long time are still rank higher in global economic competitive growth index than Canada run by tar barons and a few bankers and bond salesmen on Bay Street.

mark_alfred

I'm not totally clear on the concept of "marginal" tax rate.  I'm assuming that "average" tax rate is what I pay overall, whereas marginal tax rate is the top tax bracket that I achieved (if this is the case, then since I was in the lowest bracket anyway, there's no difference between my average and marginal tax rates, but for those in higher tax brackets, there would be). 

Well, guess I'll pull out my handy calculator to see if I can make sense of it (IE, clarify what marginal and average tax rates are.)  Lemme know if I'm correct:

So, I think for various income earners (starting with billionaires and working down to regular Joes and Janes), their tax rates would look like this:

Income = 1,000,000,000:  Average tax rate:  28.999%; Marginal tax rate:  29%

Income = 1,000,000:  Average tax rate:  27.96%;  Marginal tax rate:  29%

Income = $500,000:  Average tax rate:  26.92%; Marginal tax rate:  29%

Income = $250,000:  Average tax rate:  24.85%; Marginal tax rate:  29%

Income = $150,000:  Average tax rate:  22.08%; Marginal tax rate:  29%

Income = $100,000:  Average tax rate:  19.59%; Marginal tax rate:  26%

Income = $60,000:   Average tax rate:  17.02%;  Marginal tax rate:  22%

Income = $30,000:  Average tax rate:  15%; Marginal tax rate:  15%

 

Anyway, I personally think everyone's rates should go up, along with creating a new higher bracket for the uber-rich.  The well is running dry for health care and other programs.  I'm in full favour of tax and spend government.  Society needs more for programs?  Well, then all of us should chip in, and those of us with more should chip in more.  I don't see why that's considered so radical.

Fidel

Centrist wrote:

 

Sometimes perception does not mesh with reality.

Here are the 2013 combined corporate tax rates for a few selected countries:

You listed corporate tax rates. Corporate tax rates are a much smaller percentage of overall federal tax revenues as percentages of GDP where Canada is below even the OECD richest capitalist countries average.

Canada is a corporate welfare state and run a lot like a banana republic in comparison to the social welfare states of Europe and Scandinavia.

Our two old line party ideologues know that there is bags of room for Ottawa to raise overall tax revs.

Our two old line parties know that they have been playing the role of starve the beast conservatives American style and perhaps to a lesser extent in some and more in other ways.

Our two old line parties know that there is plenty of room for the NDP to look better both on paper and on the social welfare front than Ottawa has performed since 1984 or so. And it's why they don't want to lose the next federal election to the NDP who will, in all likelihood, reverse the bad central planning by a relative handful few Bay Street bankers, bond salesmen, and right wing Vancouver make believe think tankerists(The Howe & Fraser Institutes funded by corporations and the rich) running our two old line parties since the 1980's or so.

I'll be voting NDP in 2015.

North Star

Fidel wrote:

~Yawn~

Everyone and their dog knows that Sweden has a lower effective marginal tax rate for the rich than the USA. Swden also has what is probably the most efficient tax system in the world. They tax consumption and are still able to fund the social welfare state in ways that our ideologues in the two old line parties would never consider here.

What people don't seem to realize is that Sweden and Nordic countries overall federal tax revs as percentages of their GDP's are still significantly higher than it is for corrupt petro-states like Canada.

Sweden and Nordic countries run by social democrats long time are still rank higher in global economic competitive growth index than Canada run by tar barons and a few bankers and bond salesmen on Bay Street.

Well it's quite clear that wealthy Swedes are not paying their fair share then.

Quote:

"Workers who earn 25,000 kronor ($3,810) per month end up paying 69 percent, or 17,200 kronor per month, in taxes, according to an analysis carried out bySwedbank.

According to Statistics Sweden, the average salary of a municipal worker in Sweden in 2011 was 25,000 kronor.

http://www.thelocal.se/43900/20121018/#.UUNcWhdnoz8

Should also be noted that back in the 1960's social democrats oppposed VATs as they were not progressive. The only reason we still have welfare states is because of VATs, while the wealthy & corporations have avoided paying their fair share. That's why when progressives call for a regional sales tax in the GTA I cringe.

 

Fidel

North Star wrote:

Fidel wrote:

~Yawn~

Everyone and their dog knows that Sweden has a lower effective marginal tax rate for the rich than the USA. Swden also has what is probably the most efficient tax system in the world. They tax consumption and are still able to fund the social welfare state in ways that our ideologues in the two old line parties would never consider here.

What people don't seem to realize is that Sweden and Nordic countries overall federal tax revs as percentages of their GDP's are still significantly higher than it is for corrupt petro-states like Canada.

Sweden and Nordic countries run by social democrats long time are still rank higher in global economic competitive growth index than Canada run by tar barons and a few bankers and bond salesmen on Bay Street.

Well it's quite clear that wealthy Swedes are not paying their fair share then.

And it's clear that Canada has one of the highest concentrations of billionaires in the world by comparison. Inequality is still much greater in Canada than it is for Swedes. Sweden is in a class by itself when it comes to providing social programs for its citizens and still remains significantly more competitive economically than Canada, a corrupt petro-state being run into the ground by bad central planning.

 

Quote:
Should also be noted that back in the 1960's social democrats oppposed VATs as they were not progressive. The only reason we still have welfare states is because of VATs, while the wealthy & corporations have avoided paying their fair share. That's why when progressives call for a regional sales tax in the GTA I cringe.

Sure, and throughout the cold war capitalists were busy selling the world on consumption economies that scientists now tell us can never be globalized. Not unless we want to strip earth's resources bare in nothing flat and choke on the pollution. We were lied to constantly for the sake of cold war propaganda.

Back in the 60's the only people calling for reductions of greenhouse gases were scientists and the like. Taxing consumption is the social democrats way to maintaining a well funded social welfare state and tackling climate change at the same time.

mark_alfred

From the article, apparently Mulcair is ruling out both a consumption tax increase and an income tax increase.  It'll be interesting to see what's in the NDP 2015 platform, and how it's costed.

Fidel

The New Model  The Economist

Yes the Swedes have trimmed social spending. But even with conservatives running the country and social democrats in strong opposition, OECD says Sweden is still the most equal country in the world.

And that is because economically competitive Sweden also has one of the most modern and competitive electoral systems in the world. Their conservatives are politically neutered by fair voting. Their political conservatives can't afford to take voters for granted the way our's do.

Fidel

mark_alfred wrote:

From the article, apparently Mulcair is ruling out both a consumption tax increase and an income tax increase.  It'll be interesting to see what's in the NDP 2015 platform, and how it's costed.

Bags of room for tax increases. A little here, a little there, and Ottawa's fiscal irresponsibilities could be solved relatively easily. We have room for tax increases that certain natural resource poor Nordic countries just don't have.

Mulcair doesn't have to scare anyone when planning to raise more federal tax revs. And it's partly why the NDP is so confident and looking so good to voters.

Fidel

NDP needs to get Europe right Forget about Greece. Germany, Scandinavia remain attractive models.

David Gouter wrote:

The countries that have fared best, especially in weathering the Great Recession, are the ones that have long pursued policies similar to the NDP’s. Indeed, some of the most basic economic facts testify to the continued success of countries with large welfare states, relatively strong labour movements, and governments that spend big and stay active in the economy. The acknowledged economic powerhouse in Europe (and beyond) is Germany. The country that tops many charts for global economic competitiveness is Norway. The country with the greatest economic growth in the developed world for most of 2010 and 2011 was Sweden.

Good article. Scandinavia's social democrats looking pretty good as far as David Gouter is concerned. Scandinavia's debt to GDP looking better than Canada's same ratio.  Of course, the NDP will be up against the propaganda machine throughout the campaign. Should be a good fight.

ygtbk

Fidel wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

From the article, apparently Mulcair is ruling out both a consumption tax increase and an income tax increase.  It'll be interesting to see what's in the NDP 2015 platform, and how it's costed.

Bags of room for tax increases. A little here, a little there, and Ottawa's fiscal irresponsibilities could be solved relatively easily. We have room for tax increases that certain natural resource poor Nordic countries just don't have.

(*cough*) resource-poor Norway? (*cough*)

So aside from raising corporate taxes, what do you suggest, Fidel? The obvious answer is taking the GST back to 7%, since taking it down to 5% was widely derided, but Mulcair just explicitly ruled that out.

North Star

Fidel wrote:

North Star wrote:

Fidel wrote:

~Yawn~

Everyone and their dog knows that Sweden has a lower effective marginal tax rate for the rich than the USA. Swden also has what is probably the most efficient tax system in the world. They tax consumption and are still able to fund the social welfare state in ways that our ideologues in the two old line parties would never consider here.

What people don't seem to realize is that Sweden and Nordic countries overall federal tax revs as percentages of their GDP's are still significantly higher than it is for corrupt petro-states like Canada.

Sweden and Nordic countries run by social democrats long time are still rank higher in global economic competitive growth index than Canada run by tar barons and a few bankers and bond salesmen on Bay Street.

Well it's quite clear that wealthy Swedes are not paying their fair share then.

And it's clear that Canada has one of the highest concentrations of billionaires in the world by comparison. Inequality is still much greater in Canada than it is for Swedes. Sweden is in a class by itself when it comes to providing social programs for its citizens and still remains significantly more competitive economically than Canada, a corrupt petro-state being run into the ground by bad central planning.

 

Quote:
Should also be noted that back in the 1960's social democrats oppposed VATs as they were not progressive. The only reason we still have welfare states is because of VATs, while the wealthy & corporations have avoided paying their fair share. That's why when progressives call for a regional sales tax in the GTA I cringe.

Sure, and throughout the cold war capitalists were busy selling the world on consumption economies that scientists now tell us can never be globalized. Not unless we want to strip earth's resources bare in nothing flat and choke on the pollution. We were lied to constantly for the sake of cold war propaganda.

Back in the 60's the only people calling for reductions of greenhouse gases were scientists and the like. Taxing consumption is the social democrats way to maintaining a well funded social welfare state and tackling climate change at the same time.

Consumption taxes as we have them now have done zilch to decrease GHGs. Broad consumption taxes are just a way for the rich to pay a lower share. Look at all the right wingers and businesses who think we should move to an all consumption tax model.

mark_alfred

Regarding taxes, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released their alternative budget.  Some interesting ideas, but it's a bit pie-in-the-sky.

 

ETA:

Oops, just noticed this was already covered here.

Fidel

North Star wrote:

Fidel wrote:

North Star wrote:

Fidel wrote:

~Yawn~

Everyone and their dog knows that Sweden has a lower effective marginal tax rate for the rich than the USA. Swden also has what is probably the most efficient tax system in the world. They tax consumption and are still able to fund the social welfare state in ways that our ideologues in the two old line parties would never consider here.

What people don't seem to realize is that Sweden and Nordic countries overall federal tax revs as percentages of their GDP's are still significantly higher than it is for corrupt petro-states like Canada.

Sweden and Nordic countries run by social democrats long time are still rank higher in global economic competitive growth index than Canada run by tar barons and a few bankers and bond salesmen on Bay Street.

Well it's quite clear that wealthy Swedes are not paying their fair share then.

And it's clear that Canada has one of the highest concentrations of billionaires in the world by comparison. Inequality is still much greater in Canada than it is for Swedes. Sweden is in a class by itself when it comes to providing social programs for its citizens and still remains significantly more competitive economically than Canada, a corrupt petro-state being run into the ground by bad central planning.

 

Quote:
Should also be noted that back in the 1960's social democrats oppposed VATs as they were not progressive. The only reason we still have welfare states is because of VATs, while the wealthy & corporations have avoided paying their fair share. That's why when progressives call for a regional sales tax in the GTA I cringe.

Sure, and throughout the cold war capitalists were busy selling the world on consumption economies that scientists now tell us can never be globalized. Not unless we want to strip earth's resources bare in nothing flat and choke on the pollution. We were lied to constantly for the sake of cold war propaganda.

Back in the 60's the only people calling for reductions of greenhouse gases were scientists and the like. Taxing consumption is the social democrats way to maintaining a well funded social welfare state and tackling climate change at the same time.

Consumption taxes as we have them now have done zilch to decrease GHGs. Broad consumption taxes are just a way for the rich to pay a lower share. Look at all the right wingers and businesses who think we should move to an all consumption tax model.

List of countries by GHG emissions

knownothing knownothing's picture
clambake

If only Justin could make a speech that relevant. Would love to see him try to debate Mulcair on national TV

knownothing knownothing's picture

I think you are going to get your chance to see it.

The only question will be if Harper is there or not.

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/why-stephen-harper-may-step-d...

Mulcair accused of undermining Keystone pipeline project on D.C. trip

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mulcair-accused-of-undermining-keystone-pip...

Brachina

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/thomas-mulcair-champions-the-...

This is the sort of thing I expect and respect from Mulcair. The Tories are slamming this poor guy falsely as a cop killer and terrorist and Mulcair risks an unpopular position to come to his defence publicly.

I know Mulcair takes positions unpopular at times with people on these boards, but he does so because he believes them not to sell out. For example the income tax position is no lie or change, he refused to promise an income tax increase during the leadership race. He was honest.

People who complain they didn't know who they were voting for when it comes to Mulcair, where not paying attention. I knew who I was dealing with and am thierfor satisified.

mark_alfred

One reaction people have to Mulcair's Keystone XL pipeline stance is confusion over the environmental claims.  Some ask what the difference between having a pipe going east-west is to one going south to Texas.  He claims that the government has not been good stewards of the environment, and so Americans are well advised to be leery of the Keystone XL pipeline.  He then claims that Canada would be giving up a whack of jobs and giving up energy security by having the Keystone XL pipeline, advocating an east-west pipeline.  I find it a bit difficult to reconcile the environment claim with the claim of how it's preferable to have the pipeline be east-west within Canada.  Can anyone help me out here?

mark_alfred

knownothing wrote:

Mulcair accused of undermining Keystone pipeline project on D.C. trip

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mulcair-accused-of-undermining-keystone-pip...

Interesting article.  From it:

Quote:
“The Canadians don’t want the pipeline in their own country, but they want their own oil to be reaching export markets,” Pelosi said.

From this, it seems the Americans were not overly impressed (granted, this is reporting from CTV, so it should be taken with a grain of salt).

knownothing knownothing's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

I find it a bit difficult to reconcile the environment claim with the claim of how it's preferable to have the pipeline be east-west within Canada.  Can anyone help me out here?

Although there would be environmental benefits to east-west pipelines such as they are already built, there would be more environmental damage from refining our own oil.

However, I still support the idea. It is an economic nationalist argument.

We need to go Chavez on the oil industry and take control of our economy as much as we can in the face of imperialist domination. Once we do that we have more leeway for renewables, which would be great!

 

mark_alfred

Okay, that makes sense.

Fidel

mark_alfred wrote:
  I find it a bit difficult to reconcile the environment claim with the claim of how it's preferable to have the pipeline be east-west within Canada.  Can anyone help me out here?

Well to begin with I think it is late in the game for Canadians to be concerned that previous governments handed the oil patch to foreign investors and mainly American. Since the Liberals signed Mulroney's NAFTA, the dumbest trade deal in history as is in 1994, our national energy policy is pretty much dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America.And since then our governments have basically paid foreign energy companies to take the oil and oil profits from Canada and largely untaxed.

It's a bit late to be concerned that Canada no longer has a national energy policy, which is now dictated to us by foreign based energy companies and 60% of annual oil and gas production guaranteed to the most energy intensive and most unsustainable economy in the world south of us. The oil industry and exports are now deeply integrated with the North American economy. Americans and Canadians were betrayed a long time ago by our corrupt stooges in Ottawa, and by a succession of corrupt U.S. governments in Washington whose neglegence to develop corporate America's own sustainable national energy policy has resulted in expensive military attacks on energy-rich countries and those situated along pipeline routes proposed by multinational western energy companies in Europe and North America.

Mulcair says that we, the people and unemployed workers in Canada, should at least have dibs on oil refinery jobs instead of simply exporting both the dirty oil at a loss as well as jobs to the U.S. and elsewhere.

Conservatives sell out refining jobs in Canada 2009

Quote:
“For out of work Canadians, it’s troubling that these hearings conclude while the Prime Minister is in China flogging raw bitumen and selling out Canadian workers,” said Natural Resources critic Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt). “We heard worrying testimony about the decline of the Canadian refining industry – on average, we’re losing one refinery a year. With them, Canada loses thousands of high paying long-term jobs.”

Conservatives don't care about either the environment or whether Canadians have good paying jobs.

mark_alfred

I agree it's best to not export all those jobs.  Still, from the article:

Associate Critic for Natural Resources Kennedy Stewart wrote:
We need a plan which puts Canadian interests first, and we reject the false dichotomy of having to choose between protecting our environment and ensuring long-term jobs for Canadians.

It's odd to be trying to discourage the Americans from committing to Keystone XL on the basis of environmental concerns in the hope that we can have the pipeline go east to have bitumen be refined here instead.  However, if it works, then good.  Better for both the economy and the environment for us to have some control over it rather than outsiders, I suppose.

Fidel

Keep in mind that every year since NAFTA we've been exporting anywhere up to 60% of the oil and gas to northern states as guaranteed under the stupidest trade deal in history. One year of energy exports is said to represent about 10 year's worth of Canada's total energy requirements. And we started importing oil for use west of Quebec City for the first time as of a few years ago.

Mulcair is being realistic about Canadian energy needs and the need for Ottawa to begin drafting national energy policy for and by Canadians. NAFTA has been the stupidest, dumbest and most idiotic trade deal on the planet. We are paying for that colossal stoogery today and will continue being the root cause of Canada's energy and environmental problems in the future.

With NAFTA the energy exports are now integrated with American economy. That means millions of Americans in northern states have become dependent on Canadian natural gas and oil exports. As much as you and I would love to cut them off and pointing to environmental issues since the NDP opposed this dumb-dumb trade deal back in the 1980's and 90's, those ordinary Americans have rights, too. They are human beings with basic rights not to freeze in the dark, even if their corrupt governments are still bombing oil-rich countries for their oil due to bad/criminal central planning in Warshington.

socialdemocrati...

There's definitely an economic argument for keeping it in Canada. That much I agree with.

But I also think there's a (debateable) environmental argument. If we convince people that a nationalist energy strategy is in their economic best interest, then we also slow the flow of oil to thirstier countries. America has 10 times the population of Canada. China is almost 50 times the population of Canada. If the oil gets to either of those countries, it's game over. We'll be extracting it at ridiculous rates, and will only stop when there's a global climate catastrophe. If we keep it here ("for economic reasons") we incidentally slow down extraction by several orders of magnitude.

I'm still pretty cynical about the whole thing.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think we are about to see substantial Canadian opposition to an West - East  shipment of tar sands bitumen from environmental and possibly from aboriginal groups as well.

Pages

Topic locked