Queen's Park Politics

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by vid

I read this on Tumblr. I can't link to the actual account of the person who made it because it's been deactivated (presumable due to harassment, which is rampant on that site). But it demonstrates the importance of early and comprehensive sexual education today. Volunteering with youth, I've seen kids at young ages act like this. My own cousin did, having her first child at 13. The new curriculum just missed her.

It isn't the 90s anymore. We need our school curricula to keep up with technology, not lag behind it, or we're putting our kids and our whole society at a disadvantage.

Thanks for that. I think you make a very good point. I've got three daughters who are far too young for such things, but won't be forever. I hope we'll talk candidly with them about everything, but know that I might not be able to, and don't entirely trust myself to know when the timing is right. I hope I'll be able to maintain balance between trusting them, and monitoring what they see and do on the internet (for instance), but can't say for sure I'll be able to.

I read the sex ed curriculum the other year when it was a big topic of conversation, and saw nothing wrong with the way topics were addressed, and when. I suspect I won't be able to talk intelligently and frankly about some of those things when the time comes, and that's what school's for (in the same way I'm probably not going to be teaching them their long division).

I happen to be active in my church, and had people a few years ago, when it came up, asking me if I'd be comfortable with my daughters learning about x when they're so many years old, similar to how one of the candidates went on in the Tory leadership debates. I found that unfair, but it usually transpired that the "facts" presented conflicted with the actual content of the curriculum. I found at the time that very few parents had actually taken the time (not much!) to read it.

[Docere]

Latest Ipsos: PCs 39%, Liberals 32%, NDP 25%

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-pol...-March-15-2018

[ssiguy]

That's a very interesting poll.

I am surprised the Liberals are rising and the NDP aren't. Perhaps the ABC vote have already made up their minds that only Wynne can stop Ford. Also interesting how over half of all voters who said they were contemplating voting for the Tories will not do so now due to Ford. You would NEVER have gotten that response of Elliot had won the leader's race. In fact the question wouldn't even have been asked but it was because it's on everyone's mind...........how many potential Tory voters have been lost due to a Ford leadership.

No matter what happens in the election one thing is certain, the Tories will get far fewer votes and seats than they would if Elliot was chosen leader. From a Tory strategic position, electing Ford was a failure of epic proportions and Tory insiders know it as do the Liberals.

[SteelTown]

Ontario PCs to hold new nomination for Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas
The controversial nomination process is the subject of a police investigation

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...side-1.4579044

The Ontario PC party will hold another nomination contest for Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, according to a statement released late Thursday night by party president Jag Badwal.

"Doug Ford has been clear, the membership of our Party must be respected, and heard," Badwal said in the statement. "The PNC has set aside the nomination in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas as a result of the flawed process."

Police are investigating potential criminal wrongdoing at a May 4 nomination meeting for the west Hamilton riding in Ancaster. Ontario's Ministry of Attorney General has also referred the case to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to avoid any appearance of political interference.

Earlier this week, Hamilton police Const. Lorraine Edwards told CBC Hamilton that investigators don't know if they will wrap up their probe by June.

At that meeting, would-be candidates Ben Levitt, Vikram Singh, Jeff Peller and Jobson Easow vied for the nomination. Singh and Peller both alleged the party stuffed the ballot boxes so Levitt would win.

Both requested the party review the nomination, but then-leader Patrick Brown certified all candidates nominated so far, including Levitt.

[SteelTown]

NDP promises to give Ontario full dental coverage, repay student loans
Leader Andrea Horwath is unveiling her party’s election platform Saturday, with specific details to follow.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8...student-loans/

An NDP government would provide Ontarians with dental benefits and pay off students' post-secondary loans, said leader Andrea Horwath in a speech Saturday that gave a glimpse into her party's election platform.

"We know we can do better to make sure that everyone can build a good life, right here in Ontario," she said, outlining five key parts of the party's upcoming promises for the June 6 election, which also includes improvements to health and long-term care, returning Hydro One to public ownership while cutting rates, universal pharmacare, and boosting corporate tax rates.

"We can help people be healthier, and make more life affordable in Ontario, if we help more people go to the dentist," she told the NDPs provincial council.

"We are going to make sure every working person in Ontario has dental benefits. And we will make the largest investment in public dental coverage in Ontario's history — so that every senior can get the dental care they need. And every person on social assistance can get the dental care they need."

The dental program will be called "Ontario Benefits" and will be portable, moving with Ontarians when they switch employers, she said.

Specific details on the cost of the NDP plan were to be released following her speech.

"When we win, New Democrats will help every student by taking on student debt," she also said. "We will convert those crushing student loans into grants that don't have to be repaid" and also boost student co-op opportunities.

"Young people need more opportunities. Not more debt. With our plan, we will make repaying provincial student loans a thing of the past, and give young people a much better start in life."

Her plan for seniors begins with a "find-and-fix inquiry" into long-term care.

"We will give them the support and the time they need to provide great care," she said, likely referring to a private member's bill put forward by her party recommending at least four hours of personal care each day for residents.

[vid]

That NDP platform has decided the election for my mom (but she's been a reliable NDP supporter for a while). I don't make a firm commitment until I step behind the three piece cardboard display panel but I agree that our healthcare system should cover dental care and pharmaceuticals. Small businesses probably won't like it though, if it comes with increased taxes and doesn't apply to businesses already providing those benefits. My employer will have to pay even more for benefits than it already does. If it were truly universal and allowed us to eliminate dental and prescription coverage from our plan we might be able to reduce the cost, but that would potentially cost the government more. We can provide those benefits to 10 people for about $1,000 a month so if the government can find a way for a small business to offer the same thing for less they'll be on board.

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

In that case, how did you get 70% using that calculator? I don't see how. The top combined income tax rate is 54% in Ontario; there's no tax rate on the site you linked to that comes anywhere close to 70%.

Nor are Ontario's income tax rates especially progressive compared to other provinces, as you suggested. They're in the middle of the pack by any measure.

I was looking at the wrong column. Still at 58%, we're the highest for that bracket. Mysteriously if you put in 250,000 it drops again.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by vid

That NDP platform has decided the election for my mom (but she's been a reliable NDP supporter for a while). I don't make a firm commitment until I step behind the three piece cardboard display panel but I agree that our healthcare system should cover dental care and pharmaceuticals. Small businesses probably won't like it though, if it comes with increased taxes and doesn't apply to businesses already providing those benefits. My employer will have to pay even more for benefits than it already does. If it were truly universal and allowed us to eliminate dental and prescription coverage from our plan we might be able to reduce the cost, but that would potentially cost the government more. We can provide those benefits to 10 people for about $1,000 a month so if the government can find a way for a small business to offer the same thing for less they'll be on board.

We'll have to wait for the technical briefing on the policy on Monday.

My expectation is that the core pharmacare coverage which will apply to only 125 drugs initially (compared to the provincial formulary of over 4,000) will be universal to every Ontarian.

While dental sounds something like universal dental care for seniors, and maybe youth, but working-age covered by employers in some fashion.

But that's me reading between the lines. So again, briefing Monday to see detailed costing and coverage.

***

That said, I think its very important that we deliver more comprehensive healthcare to everyone.

Also lifting any coverage out of 'retiree' benefits tied to companies would improve competitiveness.

[swimmer_spe]

I keep thinking about how I and many others will vote this spring.

We all have that one party we will never vote for.
We all have that one party we would normally vote for.
We all have that one party we don't vote for unless we are pissed off.

I know I am voting for the one I vote for if I am pissed off.

[Loco101]

I had predicted Ford would become PC leader and am not happy about that.

I would like to see a more accurate telephone poll over these online ones.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

"When we win, New Democrats will help every student by taking on student debt," she also said. "We will convert those crushing student loans into grants that don't have to be repaid" and also boost student co-op opportunities.

"Young people need more opportunities. Not more debt. With our plan, we will make repaying provincial student loans a thing of the past, and give young people a much better start in life."

Any plans on how exactly the NDP would apportion money to erase those loans?

Would they be willing to go out on a limb and say what would have to be cut back on or increasingly taxed in order to allow for this payment to remove student debt.

It is a nice idea and obviously it is a pandering to the younger voters who knew the playing field when they took on the debt.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Any plans on how exactly the NDP would apportion money to erase those loans?

Apparently they're releasing details on Monday.

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Would they be willing to go out on a limb and say what would have to be cut back on or increasingly taxed in order to allow for this payment to remove student debt.

We're one of the lowest taxed provinces so there is room, trust me. And if a business can't make it in an Ontario with slightly higher taxes, then perhaps Canada isn't the place for them.

Student loan debt is just something the government is borrowing against anyway, the whole idea of all these governments and businesses being propped up by debts that are going to be paid off by a debt that's going to be paid off by a debt that's going to be paid off by a debt is just fucking absurd to me. The world's total debt is like 120% of its GDP, every dollar owed is owed to like 3 or 4 entities simultaneously. It's fucked. But we gotta make sure those dollars stop at each company and government along the way so they can take their cut and make it less valuable!

[QUOTE=Proof Sheet;8123932]It is a nice idea and obviously it is a pandering to the younger voters who knew the playing field when they took on the debt.

"Oh, the NDP is obviously pandering to its base here!!" well fuck me! Who'd've thought? Where is that pro-oil, pro-tax-cut, anti-student NDP when you need it? Answer: Alberta.

How is this worse than when parties are pandering to upper middle class people by cutting their taxes while reducing social assistance, or throwing money at oil companies instead of green energy companies while gutting regulations? Of course a party is going to support the people and businesses that support it; that's how parties work!

Every party, and therefore every government, picks winners and losers.

Actually, is this their base? Think of who has the most student loan debt: Lawyers. Doctors. Engineers. Are they NDP supporters? Nope. Liberals, usually. Though disillusioned with the Liberals due to their changes in federal tax laws (after bribing them all to convert how their businesses exist to take advantage of now non-existent tax breaks).

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by vid

Small businesses probably won't like it though

Small businesses, especially restaurants, are being raked over the coals already with the minimum wage increase, and now adding taxes specifically to target businesses providing the cost for these other benefits just seems like piling on.

I agree that businesses who don't plan for some combination of rising labour costs, rising taxes, and fluctuating economic conditions WILL fail, but that doesn't mean we should throw everything at them at once. Jumping from 11 to 15 minimum wage within a couple years is a huge change, personally I would advocate for letting that policy have some breathing room before turning around and hammering a bunch of other benefits through which also have to be paid by businesses.

Just some thoughts from a business owner.

As an aside, I was just spot checking NDP support in various ridings throughout the last couple elections and it seems the NDP are slowly clawing their support back. Almost every riding I checked had NDP support going up and up election over election. While I don't think the NDP have much of a hope of serious inroads in 2018, I think the trend is pretty obvious that they shouldn't be counted out yet. If they can re-group and actually have a candidate in all the ridings for the next election, so that people don't fundamentally feel they are throwing away their vote, I think they could be on track for the province to take another chance on them after Bob Rae.

[Northern Light]

[QUOTE=geotag277;8124223]Small businesses, especially restaurants, are being raked over the coals already with the minimum wage increase, and now adding taxes specifically to target businesses providing the cost for these other benefits just seems like piling on.

I agree that businesses who don't plan for some combination of rising labour costs, rising taxes, and fluctuating economic conditions WILL fail, but that doesn't mean we should throw everything at them at once. Jumping from 11 to 15 minimum wage within a couple years is a huge change, personally I would advocate for letting that policy have some breathing room before turning around and hammering a bunch of other benefits through which also have to be paid by businesses.

Just some thoughts from a business owner.

/QUOTE]

I think that small businesses have had it incredibly good on the small business corporate tax side, w/rates now reduced to 2.5% provincially and 9% federally.

A few years back, there was no separate class for small business and the corporate tax rate in ON was 14% and Federally 28%.

So from 42% to 11.5% pretty decent, really.

***

That said, I understand why many small businesses aren't that excited.

Because it only applies if you actually make a profit.

I have long argued the policy was wrong-headed, and if you wanted to help small business you should lower/remove the taxes, fees or gov't imposed burdens that are fixes, pre-tax costs instead.

An alternative regime would be to put small business tax back to the same level as big business, so let's say, 26.5%, plus further enhance some employment standards.

But in exchange, lower the business education tax which is a fixed cost whether business makes any money or not.

Also, relieve restaurant costs, by allowing a wholesale market for beer and wine. (such businesses now typically pay retail prices, or oddly, in some cases worse).

Tackle the issues of excessive auto insurance costs due to fraud, relieving that cost for both businesses and individuals.

Eliminate fees for filing most 'mandatory' forms.

Reduce superfluous paperwork (including in ways as simple as making sure that everything can be done online, and having forms pre-fill w/information the government already knows).

Reduce other property tax on businesses (cap it at 2x single-family homes in terms of rate) and remove from assessment the idea of theoretical zoning. (charging tax based on what you might build instead of what you own).

Fixing things like this would be much more helpful to most small businesses and reduce worries about actually losing money or going under, as opposed to reducing tax that only applies if you're in the black.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Reduce other property tax on businesses (cap it at 2x single-family homes in terms of rate) and remove from assessment the idea of theoretical zoning. (charging tax based on what you might build instead of what you own).

This would necessitate either decimating municipal budgets, or a sharp increase in residential property taxes to maintain the revenue municipalities have. With MPAC already slashing the assessed values of almost every large commercial property, cities are already left with little option than to increase residential property taxes. If we do something like this, we'll have to completely reform how cities get revenue.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by vid

This would necessitate either decimating municipal budgets, or a sharp increase in residential property taxes to maintain the revenue municipalities have. With MPAC already slashing the assessed values of almost every large commercial property, cities are already left with little option than to increase residential property taxes. If we do something like this, we'll have to completely reform how cities get revenue.

The Business Education portion of the property tax is entirely provincial.

As for the rest, yes it would mean somewhat higher residential property tax rates, if you put it all on that base.

But is not that large a shift, outside of Toronto, the commercial base isn't that large in most cities. (relative to residential). The multiple is also typically around 2.5 right now, so a shift down to 2, meaning shifting around 20% of the commercial base to residential, in most cities in Ontario would not mean a massive increase in residential rates, maybe a few hundred, per year, tops.

Toronto's s shift would actually be a bit larger, as its corporate base is higher, but it also has among the lowest single-family residential taxes in Ontario, despite some of the highest prices for homes.

***

That said, there are other revenue options, allow Toronto to toll the Gardiner/DVP as previously proposed.

Similar options for other cities w/municipal expressways could be done; and/or upload those the province.

Gas tax is likely a temporary option given improving fuel efficiency in cars and a move towards EV over time; but it would also work for now.

Add 3c per Litre, and give it straight to cities.

OR

Since I'm suggesting higher small bus. corp. tax, but that goes to the province and/or Feds; how about a single point of corp. tax goes straight to Cities?

Lots of different choices.

[vid]

I've long supported an extra percent added to the HST and given directly to cities, or give them an option to have it or not like some places in the US have. Duluth, Minnesota has an extra 1.125% sales tax or something like that within its city limits but that has never stopped people from shopping there, all the malls are still located within the city.

[Northern Light]

Some details on the NDP dental plan from CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...care-1.4582022

Summary:

2 Plans

1 for seniors and social assistance recipients.

1 for workers.

For workers, mandate imposed on business to provide certain dental coverage, which they may procure through private insurance OR a new gov't program called 'Ontario Benefits"

In the case of the latter, it would be funded by payroll tax, 75% employer, 25% employee to a limit of $4.33 per week or about $200 per year.

But if the employee earns less than 30k per year, their payments would be refundable when they file their taxes.

Not clear from the report is how children are covered.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by vid

I was looking at the wrong column. Still at 58%, we're the highest for that bracket. Mysteriously if you put in 250,000 it drops again.

The reason for that drop is that $200,000 in income is when the final component of the Ontario Health Premium is levied. At $200,600, the premium has been maxed out. So the marginal rate at that specific income level is indeed quite high, and then much lower for higher incomes.

Weird effective tax rates like that can be found at lower levels of income, too, when certain benefits become applicable and then no longer.

[SteelTown]

Andrea Horwath unveils $1.2B public dental plan
The plan would be free for anyone earning less than $30,000 a year, helping 4.5 million Ontarians who don’t have workplace dental benefits.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8...c-dental-plan/

Andrea Horwath is hoping the NDP's $1.2 billion public dental plan will have Ontario voters smiling at her party this spring.

Unveiling details of the scheme Monday at Queen's Park, Horwath said it would help some 4.5 million Ontarians who do not enjoy workplace dental benefits.

"No one should have to live in pain," the New Democratic leader told reporters.

"No one should go years without a visit to the dentist because they are a part-time worker or a contract worker or because they're retired," she said.

"And no Mom or Dad should ever — ever — have to put their little one's check-up off or fillings off because money is too tight."

Stressing "we can do so much better," Horwath said the new Ontario Benefits would create a minimum standard for dental plans that will apply to all employers.

Currently, about two-thirds of Ontario companies provide dental benefits to employees. The NDP plan would expand that to the remaining third as well as those who are unemployed or self-employed.

Businesses will be given the option of participating in the public Ontario Benefits program or a comparable private workplace benefits plan.

It would be free for anyone earning less than $30,000 a year and the most anyone would have to contribute off their paycheque to cover the employees' portion of the mandatory plan would be $4.33 a week.

"Mom and Pop family businesses are going to have an even playing field when it comes to recruiting and retaining employees, and taking care of their staff," she added.

"And artists and entrepreneurs will have the freedom to pursue their dreams, without worrying that their health or their family's health could suffer from the lack of benefits."

Mohammad Akbar, 26, who works on contract, said the NDP plan would be beneficial to someone like him who can't afford to visit the dentist regularly.

"This plan would support folks like me and other contractors, freelancers, who struggle to find a position with benefits, who struggle to find any sort of work at all," said Akbar.

"So this kind of coverage would help us significantly."

Horwath said the new plan would be paid for through higher corporate taxes and income taxes on wealthier Ontarians.

She said the NDP was "absolutely" willing to run a deficit and promised the party would have a "fully costed" platform well before the June 7 election.

The New Democrats' dental plan complements the existing $121-million a year Healthy Smiles Ontario program and other benefits for low-income earners.

Details on minimum levels of care are still to be worked out and the program is supposed to be up and running by 2020.

The NDP estimates that some 4 million people in the province — almost a quarter — have not seen a dentist in the past year.

[SteelTown]

Wynne’s throne speech promises new spending on health care, home care and child care in Ontario
Premier Kathleen Wynne is pressing the reset button — or the panic button.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8...re-in-ontario/

Care versus cuts.

That's the message Premier Kathleen Wynne's Liberals will take to voters as the governing party tries to contrast itself against Doug Ford's surging Progressive Conservatives.

In a speech from the throne Monday, Wynne outlined the Liberal government's agenda leading up to the June 7 election, promising new spending on health care, home care, dental care, pharmacare, and child care.

With the vote 80 days away — and public opinion polls suggesting the 14-and-a-half-year-old administration may be on its last legs — the premier is promising to expand the new OHIP+ prescription drug program "to include other parts of the population."

That means if the Liberals are re-elected, the free medications now limited to those 24 years and under would be available to many more Ontarians.

Details will be announced in Finance Minister Charles Sousa's March 28 budget, which will have a deficit as high as $8 billion.

"We have said all along that we believe pharmacare needs to be for everyone. We're going to take some next steps in the budget," Wynne told the Star.

The premier added that there would be an expanded public dental program in next week's fiscal blueprint.

"Some of the ideas that Andrea Horwath has put forward with the dental and pharma — on both of those, I like some of the things that she has put forward and they are certainly issues and directions that we've been talking about," she said.

In the throne speech — read in the legislature by Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell — the Liberals promised "major investments in home care, to provide more services for people aging at home and provide financial relief for families caring for aging loved ones."

"The next budget will also prioritize the growing need for mental health and addictions care in Ontario, expanding access to mental health care, and helping to ensure people can get the support they need in our schools and our communities," the speech said.

As well, there will be measures in the budget to reduce "the cost of child care, which has long been a stumbling block for growing families."

"At the same time, government programs that are already making it easier for you to care for your loved ones, and help them to succeed, will be expanded. OHIP+, the pharmacare program that is providing free medications for children and youth, will be expanded to include other parts of the population."

The speech added that "more people without a drug or dental benefits plan will have access to more affordable prescription drugs and dental care."

That comes as the New Democrats are promising a $1.2 billion public dental scheme if Horwath becomes premier.

"It's awfully coincidental that they stuck 'dental' into their throne speech," said the NDP leader.

For his part, Ford blasted Wynne for making "commitments on billions in new spending for expensive re-election promises in a desperate attempt to try and save her government."

"The Liberals are trying to buy votes from a few of us, instead of trying to fix our province for all of us," said the new Tory leader, who has promised to slash 4 per cent of government spending, which could mean $5.6 billion in cuts on a $141 billion annual budget.

But Wynne's government insisted the Liberals offer a stark difference from Ford's vision.

"We care for our families, our neighbours and our province. We see the big picture," the speech from the throne said.

"Our world is changing in ways we've never seen before and at speeds that make it feel hard to keep up. The cost of living is rising, and at the same time, stable, long-term jobs — jobs that pay a decent wage — are proving harder to find."