Federal Government & Politics II

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

In theory, means testing is great, but in practice, “wealth” and “yearly taxable income” are very far from interchangeable in modern Canada, and the former is very mobile and tricky to try to tax.

Correct. But where we can start is by ending tax breaks and subsidies for asset millionaires. Can't afford your property taxes? Move. It's the exact advice we give young people when they talk about housing costs and rents. At the very minimum any tax deferment should be charging interest at the municipal bond rate so they aren't being subsidized. Prime minus is absolutely ridiculous.

This is also where changing OAS would absolutely change behaviour. $8.5k/yr is very useful to somebody who has no mortgage. That's their property tax bill right there. If OAS was a min income system set at the poverty line? There would definitely be way more middle income seniors downsizing, when the federal government is not giving them a cheque large enough to pay their property taxes every month.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Funny. All of the recent Liberal spending on new social spending COMBINED is projected to be less than OAS growth. Once again, Boomer self-interest Uber Alles. Fuck those kids and parents. Grandpa needs walking around money.

If you wonder why young folks are mad. It's this. OAS? Untouchable. But how dare the government push universal daycare and dental care? You know what is a Liberal policy that is super expensive and should be rolled back? The reversal of Harper's push to make OAS 67.

Dude, you have outdone yourself. Give yourself a pat on the back. Wonderful.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Dude, you have outdone yourself. Give yourself a pat on the back. Wonderful.

Indeed. It's funny how basic math offends some people when it's their pogie at stake. "I'm entitled to my entitlements."

And just to be clear, every cut I advocate for is one that would impact me down the line. I don't have daycare kids. And I wouldn't qualify for OAS under my own proposal. And I still think they should cut OAS and pay for daycare.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If you wonder why young folks are mad. It's this. OAS? Untouchable. But how dare the government push universal daycare and dental care? You know what is a Liberal policy that is super expensive and should be rolled back? The reversal of Harper's push to make OAS 67.

If Harper's 2012 proposal hadn't been reversed, the age of retirement would have increased from 65 last year, to 67 in 2028. Right now, about 270,000 people become eligable for OAS each year. The average they receive is $7,800. (not everybody gets the full $8,500 as eligablilty depends on how long a recipiant has been in Canada). So I think the government would have saved around $4.2bn (over 4 years). The total cost of OAS in 2024 is expected to be $60.4bn, and by 2028 it is expected to be $74.7bn. If Harper's changes had been introduced, that would have been more like $70.5bn.

So it's not nothing, but in the big picture it wouldn't have made a huge of difference to the budget. Quite a few of the people aged 65-67 would be eligable for other social security payments if they didn't get OAS, so the net savings would almost certainly be less than $4.2bn.

A government reintroducing Harper's change wouldn't see it introduced until 2035, when OAS is expected to cost close to $100bn, but by then only 140,000 a year peple will added to the OAS bill as much of the bulge of the Boomers has already passed through the age pyramid.

A government serious about saving money on OAS would probably get more bang for their buck if they looked at the thresholds for the OAS Recovery Tax, which currently kicks in when you have a retirement income of $91,000 and takes all the OAS if you have $148,000 in income. But it wouldn't be popular, and I doubt that Pierre Poilievre is likely to want to be the one that goes there.

[Truenorth00]

^ $20B vs projections by 2030 wouldn't have made a huge difference to the budget?

I don't even know what to say to an assertion like that.

[Truenorth00]

To be clear, I don't believe Poilievre is going to do squat about OAS. That's how the gerontocracy works. Service cuts and tax increases for working parents and families. And tax breaks, shelters and pay outs for the wrinkled. But if any government actually had a view that extended beyond the next election, an honest look at the budget would look at cutting down the biggest and fastest growing liabilities on the books and closing the largest tax loopholes and shelters.

Right now we've (mostly) got Stephen Harper's tax code and Justin Trudeau's spending. And if the only path back to balance is through cuts, we need to have a tough discussion on who gets shafted the most.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To be clear, I don't believe Poilievre is going to do squat about OAS. That's how the gerontocracy works. Service cuts and tax increases for working parents and families. And tax breaks, shelters and pay outs for the wrinkled. But if any government actually had a view that extended beyond the next election, an honest look at the budget would look at cutting down the biggest and fastest growing liabilities on the books and closing the largest tax loopholes and shelters.

Right now we've (mostly) got Stephen Harper's tax code and Justin Trudeau's spending. And if the only path back to balance is through cuts, we need to have a tough discussion on who gets shafted the most.

Oh I think first on the screwed list will be the newly hired Fed Civil servants.
Perhaps AI will have its first service experiment.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To be clear, I don't believe Poilievre is going to do squat about OAS. That's how the gerontocracy works. Service cuts and tax increases for working parents and families. And tax breaks, shelters and pay outs for the wrinkled. But if any government actually had a view that extended beyond the next election, an honest look at the budget would look at cutting down the biggest and fastest growing liabilities on the books and closing the largest tax loopholes and shelters.

Right now we've (mostly) got Stephen Harper's tax code and Justin Trudeau's spending. And if the only path back to balance is through cuts, we need to have a tough discussion on who gets shafted the most.

It seems very doubtful we will have a discussion. The lesson from Ontario elections is it's better to avoid telling people what you plan to do. This was the case with Hudak whose 2014 plan was to pile all the cuts no families and none on priorities of the old.

The lesson of remaining popular is to:

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Oh I think first on the screwed list will be the newly hired Fed Civil servants.
Perhaps AI will have its first service experiment.

Why newly hired? Everyone thinks seniority is a thing but that's teachers and other unions not public service.

Real balance requires cutting benefits. I tend to think PP is not Ford or even Harper but someone ready to make tough unpopular decisions. I don't think the elderly will be the ones with cuts. I suspect some lower hanging fruit would be: all transit funding will be cut with the excuse they aren't building housing, all the green spending, and a cap on CCB which would impact the poorest. Add that to the Civil service cuts and with growth and inflation we could be near balance by 2029 in time for some tax cuts.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Oh I think first on the screwed list will be the newly hired Fed Civil servants.
Perhaps AI will have its first service experiment.

1) The federal government doesn't have the talent to implement AI properly. It would be a bigger disaster than ArriveCan and Phoenix combined. Indeed, the very reason those disasters happened is because the Federal government has so little IT management capacity in house that it simply accepts whatever the private sector turns in for a contract. You want really competent managers? You're going to have to pay.

2) Population has grown 14% and FPS has grown 39% since 2015 (roughly). If we assume that the FPS should scale with population (rough estimate), that means about 64k jobs or 18% of the FPS (which excludes the CAF, RCMP, CBSA, CSIS, etc). That's probably about $5-6B per year in savings. It's a lot. But not nearly enough to solve the massive deficit the feds have.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Correct. But where we can start is by ending tax breaks and subsidies for asset millionaires. Can't afford your property taxes? Move. It's the exact advice we give young people when they talk about housing costs and rents. At the very minimum any tax deferment should be charging interest at the municipal bond rate so they aren't being subsidized. Prime minus is absolutely ridiculous.

I've been deferring my property taxes for 15+ years now. I own a few extra properties now thanks to that extra leverage. The interest rate has been an acceptable 12%/year (hasn't changed since the mid-2000s in all of Sherbrooke, Lévis and Bécancour; Florida is actually cheaper* and New Hampshire doesn't allow any deferral so I've always been paying on time there). Just like you, I'm completely opposed to anyone who owns property getting subsidized. If you're cash-poor like me, then do like me, and pay the fair cost of the leverage you're getting.

What they do in FL is great: it's not the government that finances you when you don't pay your taxes, it's the private market: your past due property taxes are auctioned to the lowest bidder (the bidder who accepts the lowest interest rate), who then buys a tax certificate on your property, and if you don't pay after 3 years, they can grab the property (therefore, they accept really low rates, in the hopes of a lucky payoff). It's all private, no one is subsidizing anyone.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Right now we've (mostly) got Stephen Harper's tax code and Justin Trudeau's spending. And if the only path back to balance is through cuts, we need to have a tough discussion on who gets shafted the most.

That discussion can be easy, if the cohorts that get shafted the most aren't born yet (or at least, not old enough to complain at the moment); they aren't going to be opposed We can continue to kick the can forward.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) the federal government doesn't have the talent to implement AI properly. It would be a bigger disaster than ArriveCan and Phoenix combined.

I think the human mind would have a hard time picturing that as being possible

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Why newly hired? Everyone thinks seniority is a thing but that's teachers and other unions not public service.

To be fair, a lot of post 2015 hiring were in LPC policy priority areas. So a conservative government starting the cuts in those areas shouldn't be surprising.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Real balance requires cutting benefits. I tend to think PP is not Ford or even Harper but someone ready to make tough unpopular decisions. I don't think the elderly will be the ones with cuts. I suspect some lower hanging fruit would be: all transit funding will be cut with the excuse they aren't building housing, all the green spending, and a cap on CCB which would impact the poorest. Add that to the Civil service cuts and with growth and inflation we could be near balance by 2029 in time for some tax cuts.

You ever look at how much these line items cost?

Transit funding, despite Liberal rhetoric is $2B per year. And eliminating will actually give the feds literally zero leverage over housing (which is arguably the largest issue that will sweep in the CPC).

CCB is expensive. But again, it's half the cost of OAS. And it's arguably one of the few unambiguous programs that most middle class parents get. Andv was literally based on the most popular Harper era program. By comparison the universal daycare program is a mess with access varying massively from province to province and city to city. If there's a program that is likely to be cut or scaled back on child support, cutting CCB would arguably be the worst political choice. Also, now that banks ask about CCB for mortgage math, this would also screw over the middle class on the very issue they are voting in the CPC for.

Green spending? Again. Not much, despite the rhetoric. All of it combined is probably less than $1B per year. When the Liberals claim to spend billions on Green initiatives, is usually double counting things like transit spending or industrial support (like tax breaks for battery manufacturing which isn't actual outflow from the government). Also, no idea how sincere the CPC is. But their climate slogan has been "Technology. Not taxes." That's a tough argument to make if you then advocate for cutting all the tax breaks and grants that make the commercialization of that technology possible.

But let's say that the CPC does what you say and they cut CCB a bit, all transit funding and all "Green spending". That's maybe $10-15B (with most of that coming from CCB). What are they going to do for the other $25B? And now they have zero leverage on the provinces and municipalities with respect to housing, and a whole lot of angry working families. Could they do it? Sure. I don't think it's a strategy that let's them survive more than a term.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Could they do it? Sure. I don't think it's a strategy that let's them survive more than a term.

Agreed, but when I think about it, I'm not sure such a strategy even exists, as I would bet the average Canadian voter in 2029 will be significantly worse off than the previous generation, and pissed off about it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

That discussion can be easy, if the cohorts that get shafted the most aren't born yet (or at least, not old enough to complain at the moment); they aren't going to be opposed We can continue to kick the can forward.

I'm starting to think the best thing I did for my kid was marrying someone who can give them multiple passports. Apparently the rest of Canada doesn't care enough about the kids and grandkids to actually set winning conditions for them.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Agreed, but when I think about it, I'm not sure such a strategy even exists, as I would bet the average Canadian voter in 2029 will be significantly worse off than the previous generation, and pissed off about it.

This is the rare time I fully believe there's a "hidden agenda". I have zero doubts there's a bunch of political scientists, pollsters and accountants crafting some kind of strategy for Poilievre that is politically viable for 2029. And you can see snippets of this thought process from former Conservative staffers like Sean Speer and from conservative think tanks like the MacDonald-Laurier Institute. They won't campaign on, or talk about any of that in 2025. But I fully expect we'll see some surprisingly fully fleshed out legislation in 2026.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm starting to think the best thing I did for my kid was marrying someone who can give them multiple passports. Apparently the rest of Canada doesn't care enough about the kids and grandkids to actually set winning conditions for them.

I've also soured on this country. No patriotism in me anymore. It's actually liberating to not have to worry about anything else, in a way. The way I see it, "have the courage to change what I can change, have the wisdom to accept what I can't change, and have the wisdom to position myself to financially benefit from what I can't change (housing crisis, climate change)".

I didn't vote for Justin Trudeau, so it's not my fault.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is the rare time I fully believe there's a "hidden agenda". I have zero doubts there's a bunch of political scientists, pollsters and accountants crafting some kind of strategy for Poilievre that is politically viable for 2029. And you can see snippets of this thought process from former Conservative staffers like Sean Speer and from conservative think tanks like the MacDonald-Laurier Institute. They won't campaign on, or talk about any of that in 2025. But I fully expect we'll see some surprisingly fully fleshed out legislation in 2026.

Yeah, maybe. I just don't want to overestimate the electorate's intellect.

You're right that if the bar is as low as "Canada was getting worse and worse every year lately under JT, and in 2027-2028-2029 we've started to slow the decline and damage, and it's starting to be visible", then yeah, PP could get reelected to continue whatever he's doing. But I assume the bar will be more like "it's 2029 and Canada sucks, we can't make ends meet, let's kick out the incumbent and try something else".

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've also soured on this country. No patriotism in me anymore. It's actually liberating to not have to worry about anything else, in a way. The way I see it, "have the courage to change what I can change, have the wisdom to accept what I can't change, and have the wisdom to position myself to financially benefit from what I can't change (housing crisis, climate change)".

I didn't vote for Justin Trudeau, so it's not my fault.

Same here.

I've been a patriotic Canadian all my life. I did start the mechanism to move to the US however in the mid 1990s, at the height of Chretien's austerity, following the lead of 25% of my med school class, but, ultimately chickened out.

Subsequently, I felt I had made the right move, and became a Canada booster again for the next 25 years, but, it is pretty hard to boost Canada in it's current state. There seems to be almost no hope, especially with JT at the helm.

If I was 40 years old again, I would be contemplating my option again, but, at my current point in my career, I'm pretty much stuck. I guess I'll have to go down with the ship like everyone else..........

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indeed. It's funny how basic math offends some people when it's their pogie at stake. "I'm entitled to my entitlements."

And just to be clear, every cut I advocate for is one that would impact me down the line. I don't have daycare kids. And I wouldn't qualify for OAS under my own proposal. And I still think they should cut OAS and pay for daycare.

No, really I’m just commenting on the tone of your posts. You may get off on it, but it’s not how I choose to communicate.

The funny thing is that I am often in agreement with much of what you post, but then you toss in some snide comment that appears to portray my point of view as some stereotypical caricature while portraying yourself as virtuous, and I tune out. Just adorable.

Not worth putting a bunch of energy into, TBH, but I suppose that’s your intent. Have a nice day.