Your suggestions for Jagmeet Singh

68 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Netflix has separate per country content. This is why many people try to get American rather than Canadian Netflix.

Isn't that because the "Canadian" Netflix is simply a subset of what's available in the U.S.?  In other words, same stuff, MINUS some shows that aren't available here?

pietro_bcc

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Netflix has separate per country content. This is why many people try to get American rather than Canadian Netflix.

Isn't that because the "Canadian" Netflix is simply a subset of what's available in the U.S.?  In other words, same stuff, MINUS some shows that aren't available here?

Its been a couple of years since I had Netflix, but I remember there being some indie and international stuff on Canadian Netflix that the US didn't get, while the US had a better selection of mainstream stuff.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
but I remember there being some indie and international stuff on Canadian Netflix that the US didn't get

I wonder if U.S. subscribers freaked out over that.  We know how much they love international stuff.

"Where the f**k is my Bollywood????"

Sean in Ottawa

Left Turn wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

I'd like for Jagmeet's proposal for a wealth transfer tax on anything over $1 million to include an exemption for primary residences, the way that Niki's did.

My parents own a house in Burnaby (which is immediately next to Vancouver and thus affected by Vancouver's sky high property values), and if Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax were implemented without an exemption for primary residences, there's a chance myself and my brother would have to pay this tax on some of the money we receive from our parent's house when we inherit it.

So taxes are OK unless you have to pay them? Sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

josh wrote:
So?  Are you saying you should be able to inherit the house and not pay any inheritance tax on the proceeds if you sell it?

FYI, I'm on disability, anyone who's serious about fighting inequality would not want me to have to pay any tax on this portion of my inheritance.

My parents also own waterfront property on the Sunshine Coast, and I'd be ok with paying walth transfer surtax on this, just not on their primary residence.

The way that Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax proposal is currently worded, virtually everybody who inherits property in Vancouver (and Vancouver's inner suburbs like Burnaby) will have to pay an inheritance tax. Given that inheriting property is the only way that the vast majority of Vancouverites who do not currently own property will have any chance of getting into the property market, do you really think that placing a wealth transfer tax on primary residences is really fair?

 

Actually I do. Sorry. The mechnism of having an exemption amount satisfies this perfectly. The reaons is that you can have a principal residence of $300k and one of $6 million within a kilometre. The argument you present does not convince me of having an exception for a principal residence. It does however, make the case that the amount cannot be national or arbitrary. I would be comfortable with a formula that taxes any part of a principal residence over the median value of a principal residence for the municipality. Given how property taxes are established, this is not hard to do. So if as of today the median average of a principal residenc ein Vancouver is 1.3 million, then the tax should start there. In Ottawa the figure is closer to $400k so the tax should start there for Ottawa. Any market that rises or falls would be preserved there. It is possible that some people in above-median value properties might not be able to finance and have to sell and buy a closer to median value house but this should not happen to an entire city based on a national average.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect to transfer wealth (including value over the median for a home in a given area) on the the next generation without paying tax. That tax also supports people who have no relatives leaving them anything. And we are not talking about an expropriation or huge amount of tax and we are not talking about a tax on mortgaged equity. If the tax was say 5% and the median house in Vancouver was $1.3 million and the property in questions was $2 million clear of encumberance I would not have a problem with a tax bill needing refinancing of 5% of $700,000 or $35,000 for a person getting an inheritance of $2 million. Yes, I think it is fair. In fact overdue.

Let me put this a different way: consider the implications of an excemption on principal home. Think about it. It would encourage the unnecessary indulgence of more and more monster homes designed to avoid estate taxes. There has to be a limit otherwise people will sell say a rental property in their portfolio in order to buy an incredibly wasteful principal home to avoid estate taxes. Some might evean want to build modern-day castles. We need an effective estate tax and it needs to have a basic exemption -- both in terms of non realestate holdings and realestate holdings over the median amount in each city. That would be fair.

Now I think that we could also add an increase to the basic real estate exemption as follows: additional amounts that are in a property that are needed due to disability if any (like a disabled person should be able to have a higher deductable for a bungalow if that is what they need).

Also it could be possible to consider a reduced hit if an inheritance is going to a lower income person (they have low income and their inheritance is mostly such a property). One way would be to allow a person 5 years of annual exemptions (retroactive) for amounts earned below a floor limit. So if a person inherited a house and was making say $20,000 per year that they get a higher deduction than a person earning $100,000 k a year for the period. It is not difficult to create such a mechanism for people with below meidan incomes and an inheritance of an above median value house.

In any case these are fornulas possible to make things fair. A blank check on principal residence will never be fair. Consider the person with a $10 million principal residence paying nothing and a person with two $300,000 houses paying ful on the second. Recognizing the differences in values from one city to another is essential of course.

Sean, your suggestions, while fair, are far too complicated to explain to voters in the few second soundbites that most voters are exposed to during an election. As such, your policy proposal would probably be a flop with voters.

Exempting primary residences, as Nikki Ashton's wealth transfer tax proposal did (and as the existing inheritance tax does), would be easy to convey in a soundbite.

 

And it would be crap policy.

I disagree completely. The people of Canada are not too stupid as to be unable to understand House up to the average value in their city would be tax free.

Thinking voters are stupid is bad politics. Launching simplistic ideas that get shot full of holes the first time someone thinks about it for five minutes is not a good plan.

 

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Thinking voters are stupid is bad politics. Launching simplistic ideas that get shot full of holes the first time someone thinks about it for five minutes is not a good plan.

Well it worked for both Rob Ford and Donald Trump.

Martin N.

progressive17 wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

I'd like for Jagmeet's proposal for a wealth transfer tax on anything over $1 million to include an exemption for primary residences, the way that Niki's did.

My parents own a house in Burnaby (which is immediately next to Vancouver and thus affected by Vancouver's sky high property values), and if Jagmeet's wealth transfer tax were implemented without an exemption for primary residences, there's a chance myself and my brother would have to pay this tax on some of the money we receive from our parent's house when we inherit it.

So taxes are OK unless you have to pay them? Sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

This is the problem with Canadian politics - a mindset of operating on "other peoples' money" rather than contributing to the greater good. Trustfund Trudeau, he of the publicly funded nannies, is a perfect example of this entitled mindset.

The NDP, IMO, inflicted a strategic defeat on themselves with the unseemly haste with which they retreated from their reasonable inheritance tax proposal a few years ago. My advice to the new NDP leader is to create fair tax policy that the greatest percentage of voters will respond to and defend said policy against special interests opposition post-truth hyperbole with logical response.

If, for example, a one million dollar exemption to a proposed inheritance tax is considered onerous by special interests, how many people are negatively affected compared to how many are positively affected by the increased public revenues? Craft logical, fair and reasonable tax policy and defend it. 

WWWTT

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Thinking voters are stupid is bad politics. Launching simplistic ideas that get shot full of holes the first time someone thinks about it for five minutes is not a good plan.

Well it worked for both Rob Ford and Donald Trump.

No it didn't.

Being white western Eropean of English/German heritage  and wealthy worked well for them.  Trump's and Ford's BS campaign's don't work for minorities  without multi millions  actually

Mighty Middle

WWWTT wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Thinking voters are stupid is bad politics. Launching simplistic ideas that get shot full of holes the first time someone thinks about it for five minutes is not a good plan.

Well it worked for both Rob Ford and Donald Trump.

No it didn't.

Being white western Eropean of English/German heritage  and wealthy worked well for them.  Trump's and Ford's BS campaign's don't work for minorities  without multi millions  actually

Last time I checked Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Thinking voters are stupid is bad politics. Launching simplistic ideas that get shot full of holes the first time someone thinks about it for five minutes is not a good plan.

Well it worked for both Rob Ford and Donald Trump.

No it didn't.

Being white western Eropean of English/German heritage  and wealthy worked well for them.  Trump's and Ford's BS campaign's don't work for minorities  without multi millions  actually

Last time I checked Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

What part of "it only works for rich white candidates" did you miss?

Mighty Middle

Ken Burch wrote:

What part of "it only works for rich white candidates" did you miss?

"Ford's BS campaign's don't work for minorities" is completely untrue as Ford overwhelmingly won the ethnic vote in the mayor's race.

Plus Trump was no slouch in getting the ethnic vote as part of his coalition as well.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

What part of "it only works for rich white candidates" did you miss?

"Ford's BS campaign's don't work for minorities" is completely untrue as Ford overwhelmingly won the ethnic vote in the mayor's race.

Plus Trump was no slouch in getting the ethnic vote as part of his coalition as well.

That doesn't mean he treated voters as stupid. It's the Democrats that treated voters as if they were stupid and they lost.  Same goes for Ford's opponents.

In both cases these were votes against the establishment. These are votes the left would be getting if they knew how to talk to people that aren't social activists and aren't interested in politics. Most people don't want to be converted. All they want to know is what you are offering preferably in one sentence.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

What part of "it only works for rich white candidates" did you miss?

"Ford's BS campaign's don't work for minorities" is completely untrue as Ford overwhelmingly won the ethnic vote in the mayor's race.

Plus Trump was no slouch in getting the ethnic vote as part of his coalition as well.

What? Are you kidding?

Read this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-pre...

 

"It is insufficient to state the obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit."

"To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. "

"Trump’s white support was not determined by income. According to Edison Research, Trump won whites making less than $50,000 by 20 points, whites making $50,000 to $99,999 by 28 points, and whites making $100,000 or more by 14 points."

"Trump won white women (+9) and white men (+31). He won white people with college degrees (+3) and white people without them (+37). He won whites ages 18–29 (+4), 30–44 (+17), 45–64 (+28), and 65 and older (+19). Trump won whites in midwestern Illinois (+11), whites in mid-Atlantic New Jersey (+12), and whites in the Sun Belt’s New Mexico (+5). In no state that Edison polled did Trump’s white support dip below 40 percent. "

 

"According to Mother Jones, based on preelection polling data, if you tallied the popular vote of only white America to derive 2016 electoral votes, Trump would have defeated Clinton 389 to 81, with the remaining 68 votes either a toss-up or unknown."

 

This is just a couple quotes but -- people read the whole article -- it is one of the best on US politics I have read in a while.

Now let's talk about how Trump did as no slouch on minority voters and compare him to Bush 2004 (You can pick any other election and it would still be instructive.

Clinton won Black voters 88% to Trump 8%;

Kerry won 88% to Bush 11%

Trump got about 30% fewer voters than Bush from Black Americans

Hispanic voters 65% to 29%

Kerry won 53% to Kerry 44%

Trump got more than 30% fewer voters than Bush from Hispanic Americans

Asian voters 65% to 29

Kerry won 56% to Kerry 43%

Trump got more than 30% fewer voters than Bush from Asian Americans

"Other" 65% to 37%

Kerry won 54% to Kerry 43%

Trump got about 15% fewer voters than Bush from "other"Americans

Trump won white voters 58% to 37% -- Lost the popular vote 46% to 48%

Bush won 58% to Kerry 41%

And yet Trump won the election becuase he held the same vote among white voters that Bush did.

When it comes to minority voters Trump was slouching so much that if he was a teen his parents would be trying to give him an education in posture.

Mighty Middle

While it is not surprising that Trump got 8% of the Black, it is shocking he would get almost 30% of the vote from Latinos/Hispanics after he demonized them. Plus almost 30% from Asian community. As the saying goes every vote counts when added up, especially in a electoral college system.

Debater

Mighty Middle is correct that Trump got a larger amount of the Hispanic vote than was expected.

While Trump did not do as well as Bush with the Hispanic vote, he did better than McCain & Romney, and that's surprising given Trump's policies.

Sean in Ottawa

I think most Canadian observers do not understand the Hispanic vote numbers from the States. This result is not so much of a surprise when you actually look at it. First there are three Hispanic larger vote numbers and one smaller one: and they do not vote together. You have Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and others. In the Western United States the Mexican Hispanic vote collapsed for the Republicans.

In Florida the largely Cuban Hispanic voters supported Trump. Canadians do not understand this but it was predictable. Obama warmed relations with Cuba and has eased off the pressure there. Cubans who fled Castro's Cuba and their children punished the Democrats for this. Not only did the Cuban vote stay with the Republican, more moved to them than the previous elections. The reduction by 30% is a net result of increased Cuban support to punish Democrats along with even greater losses among Mexican Hispanic voters who Trump called rapists.

The only people surprised are those who know very little about US politics. The net loss of 30%, despite the gift of Cuban support due to Obama's warming relations is actually quite shocking -- and not in a way that looks good on Trump.

WWWTT

Ya I would beware labelling people into doing something based on their ethnic background the color of their skin their religion or language they speak.  The US loves to do this! Borderline racism stay away from it all together 

josh

Debater wrote:

Mighty Middle is correct that Trump got a larger amount of the Hispanic vote than was expected.

While Trump did not do as well as Bush with the Hispanic vote, he did better than McCain & Romney, and that's surprising given Trump's policies.

 

That is a matter of dispute.  The exit polls usually exagerrate the Republican Latino vote.  Which is then corrected based on further analysis.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pedraza-latino-vote-20170111-story.html

Pages