It's depressing to imagine that Trudeau could win another election by recycling the same rhetoric and platform he used in 2015. After 9 years in power and substantially increasing spending, what does Trudeau really have to show for it? Why give him another shot at doing things he promised but failed to do? Co-opting popular opposition policies and positions on issues such as the Conservative position on housing is a long-standing Liberal strategy. However, given the Trudeau government's inability to do much of anything, voters would be kidding themselves to believe that the Liberals would actually accomplish anything significant.
Sean Fraser is NOT a competent minister. He increased immigration to this country to 1M+ people per year despite of warnings by his own department that it will put more pressure on housing. He increased the population growth of this country to such a level that some economists say we’re in a population trap.
Now he’s moved to housing, handing out subsidies to developers left and right. He’s also telling municipalities to upzone which will only increases the price of land, which will lead to higher home prices. Zoning isnt the big impediment to housing. It’s excessive demand due to high population growth + many demand side policies govt pushes to incentivize more people to invest in housing.
If we want affordable housing, govt needs to let house prices fall instead of constantly stimulating the housing market.
My guess would be that we judge the competency of ministers based on how good they are at “communications” instead of public policy and public administration. And i guess sean fraser is good at talking…🤷🏽♂️
Going back to a capital gains inclusion rate lower than the one we had in the 90s is hardly an "eat the rich" budget (and you'd really have to reach for evidence that lowering it a decade later increased capital investment or productivity given the recent track record).
Not all capital gains are related to productive investment, either. If you're making pure rentier gains (e.g., real estate speculation) less attractive it's hard to see that a loss, although, yes, the measure is blunt and could backfire.
1). I don’t know where the government comes up with 40k Canadians (all obscenely loaded) will be affected by the capital gains tax. I know 3 rural veterinarians in a small town that will be affected ! Most small business owners in this country. Most farmers will be affected negatively by this.
Trudeau has fucked with my retirement. This will affect small town professionals more the an anyone else.
2). I am willing to be someone in the liberal party of Canada “reached out” to Kristian Firth of GC strategies ( wonder what the GC stands for?) and said “get a doctors note about stress and we won’t ask you any questions “!!!
This is unbelievable. This man has probably through graft has “stolen” millions of dollars from Canadians. He was called to the bar of the House of Commons. And the liberals did not ask him a single equation after he said he had a “doctors note to avoid stress”.
Sorry but. FUCK YOU. Chicken shit by the liberal party and chickenshit by Kristian Firth. Is he stressed? He fucking better be stressed. He fucked over millions of Canadians. Boo. Fucking. Hoo.
And the liberals took that as an opportunity to not ask any questions as all the answers if honest would have simply made them look bad.
I first saw some version of the line one election night looking searching for live updates that didn’t suck. I came across Jen Gerson, Matt Gurney and others talking smack about the election. Insightful stuff and spicy Jen says great things.
But then her husband’s hand slipped into the frame with a fresh drink and I knew I was going to keeping listening to these people. I’ve done the same for my wife, so kudos to “husband of the pod”.
Great podcast. Very happy your first live recording went so well. Looking forward to many more. Oh yeah, and that one of those will be in Ottawa! Cheers.
It's funny, having only 150 people allowed in a theatre capacity of 350 because of liquor license rules was a great example of how Canadians can't help but get in the way of themselves. Life imitating art, or at least your hypothesis being proven in real time?
Is anyone surprised that the government got the tax idea that is probably a good idea wrong? This may be incredibly naïve but when taxation on the really rich was significantly higher, they used to build things that benefitted everyone while writing the cost off their taxes. They didn't suffer to put food on their table, or do whatever they wanted to do. Now, with taxation rates cut for those same people through lobbying of assorted governments; read buying them of through donations, they now hoard wealth at unimaginable levels. hence my theory that the leaders of the G20 need to get together and put an end to all corporate subsidies which are nothing more than an upward transfer of wealth. Take the VW battery plant in St Thomas, Ontario. They were given a 14 billion dollar subsidy to create effectively 3000 permanent jobs. The basic math suggests that the corporate subsidy granted means the taxpayer are paying all 3000 of those people $100000/yr for the next 46 years....while getting nothing in return. This is not something one country can take on alone. That's why it needs to be the entire G20. At the same time, you dramatically increase taxation on income over $500000/yr, and go after the jurisdictions that have allowed people to hide their wealth. But the billionaire class seem to have established themselves as a new royalty using governments as tools to protect their wealth. An alliance is needed to restore the concept of responsible government that is actually intended to serve the citizens. Because, also in Ontario, the current Ford provincial government has one clear purpose; enriching Doug's donors. There are no other goals.
Touching the CPP or any other pension for political purposes it an utterly idiotic idea. Period. But that, Jen, was a beautiful rant.
All I really want to know is what did Bibi know and when? Because I'm leaning heavily towards the idea that Israel could have stopped this, and didn't for political purposes. I still don't believe this helps Israel's security long term.
As for the difference in the treatment you get, it's because men are stupid...and there is no rule two.
It's a shame you and the audience didn't have any fun with this :)
Tax rates used to be higher, but the actual revenue generated was lower. A quick search will show you that income tax revenue as a fraction of GDP has increased steadily since the introduction of the income tax in 1917; government revenue as a fraction of GDP is at an all-time high. In the US, the sky-high marginal tax rates of the ‘50s didn’t actually yield much revenue because it was accompanied by a generous deduction regime: nobody really paid that top marginal rate. The real story of why government revenue doesn’t buy what it used to is the rising expenditures on social programs, Baumol’s Cost Disease in the health care and other government sectors, and a government that’s generally become flabby and inefficient in program execution.
Right. They didn't pay the top marginal rate because they invested in all sorts of projects for the general good to get the tax break. I pay no attention to the various statistical theories that have been created to justify a debt funded economy. I think they are all complete bullshit.
There is no question we have more programs than we can afford. How else will they get elected? But at some point, the reality has to be addressed that growth cannot be a permanent expectation. There has to be a peak, and we have are probably already past it. But you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up.
The cost of everything is ridiculous. They added what was effectively 16km of new lanes to highway 401 in Southern Ontario. It took 4 years and cost $110 million. That's insanity.
But as mentioned, I still think the way to address it is to turn every corporate subsidy into low interest loan, so the taxpayers get all their investment back...at the same pace shareholders get the their dividends.
Capital, information and people are much more mobile now. Canada has to compete with the world, this place isn't nice or good enough to think goodwill alone will keep the wealthy here.
I bristle at politicians labeling all spending as “investments.” If it’s an investment, I’d expect to see a return. Given that federal revenue is ~20% of GDP, that means that investment had better yield 5 times its expenditure as increased GDP.
Spending on classic infrastructure is more expensive than it should be because of poor government management and a habit of larding it up with non-core objectives, but it still produces something physically tangible in 20-50 years. When the B.C. Liberal government launched the Site C hydroelectric dam project, it was criticized for its environmental impact, being unnecessary based on electricity consumption, and an unnecessary expense vs spending on healthcare and education. That expenditure is starting to look pretty prescient at this point: reducing CO2 emissions means increasing electrification and demand for electricity, and hydro is essentially zero emission. Like the dams built by WAC Bennett in the ‘50s, that’s an actual investment that’ll be delivering benefits well into the future, and the debt it incurred will be repaid.
In contrast, I’m not clear how much benefit was delivered by the increased education spending in B.C. that reduced class sizes and increased teacher pay. The teachers benefited; there was a surge in hiring to meet the classroom size requirements that meant they were hiring almost anybody with a heartbeat and a teaching certificate. I’m not convinced that a smaller class of students offsets being taught by teachers who wouldn’t be employed in a market requiring fewer teachers with larger class sizes.
It's depressing to imagine that Trudeau could win another election by recycling the same rhetoric and platform he used in 2015. After 9 years in power and substantially increasing spending, what does Trudeau really have to show for it? Why give him another shot at doing things he promised but failed to do? Co-opting popular opposition policies and positions on issues such as the Conservative position on housing is a long-standing Liberal strategy. However, given the Trudeau government's inability to do much of anything, voters would be kidding themselves to believe that the Liberals would actually accomplish anything significant.
There is no reason to vote for Trudeau except that Pierre scares you more.
A nice summation at how Canadians fight class wars. Envy and entitlement being of course the main ingredients.
Sean Fraser is NOT a competent minister. He increased immigration to this country to 1M+ people per year despite of warnings by his own department that it will put more pressure on housing. He increased the population growth of this country to such a level that some economists say we’re in a population trap.
Now he’s moved to housing, handing out subsidies to developers left and right. He’s also telling municipalities to upzone which will only increases the price of land, which will lead to higher home prices. Zoning isnt the big impediment to housing. It’s excessive demand due to high population growth + many demand side policies govt pushes to incentivize more people to invest in housing.
If we want affordable housing, govt needs to let house prices fall instead of constantly stimulating the housing market.
Yeah, I was confused about that remark.
My guess would be that we judge the competency of ministers based on how good they are at “communications” instead of public policy and public administration. And i guess sean fraser is good at talking…🤷🏽♂️
Lol. We've also lowered the bar drastically over the years.
Going back to a capital gains inclusion rate lower than the one we had in the 90s is hardly an "eat the rich" budget (and you'd really have to reach for evidence that lowering it a decade later increased capital investment or productivity given the recent track record).
Not all capital gains are related to productive investment, either. If you're making pure rentier gains (e.g., real estate speculation) less attractive it's hard to see that a loss, although, yes, the measure is blunt and could backfire.
What was also very endemic in the 1990s? Capital flight and brain drain, mostly to the US. Why wouldn't the same happen today?
Two comments
1). I don’t know where the government comes up with 40k Canadians (all obscenely loaded) will be affected by the capital gains tax. I know 3 rural veterinarians in a small town that will be affected ! Most small business owners in this country. Most farmers will be affected negatively by this.
Trudeau has fucked with my retirement. This will affect small town professionals more the an anyone else.
2). I am willing to be someone in the liberal party of Canada “reached out” to Kristian Firth of GC strategies ( wonder what the GC stands for?) and said “get a doctors note about stress and we won’t ask you any questions “!!!
This is unbelievable. This man has probably through graft has “stolen” millions of dollars from Canadians. He was called to the bar of the House of Commons. And the liberals did not ask him a single equation after he said he had a “doctors note to avoid stress”.
Sorry but. FUCK YOU. Chicken shit by the liberal party and chickenshit by Kristian Firth. Is he stressed? He fucking better be stressed. He fucked over millions of Canadians. Boo. Fucking. Hoo.
And the liberals took that as an opportunity to not ask any questions as all the answers if honest would have simply made them look bad.
Criminal collusion
I am willing to bet. Not be. Spellcheck sucks.
I first saw some version of the line one election night looking searching for live updates that didn’t suck. I came across Jen Gerson, Matt Gurney and others talking smack about the election. Insightful stuff and spicy Jen says great things.
But then her husband’s hand slipped into the frame with a fresh drink and I knew I was going to keeping listening to these people. I’ve done the same for my wife, so kudos to “husband of the pod”.
Man, I wish I could have been to the show.
Kelowna next time?
There were a few cringey moments due to mixing alcohol and podcasting.
Great podcast. Very happy your first live recording went so well. Looking forward to many more. Oh yeah, and that one of those will be in Ottawa! Cheers.
Count on it. Calgary was the proof of concept. It worked. We're absolutely going to do more.
It's funny, having only 150 people allowed in a theatre capacity of 350 because of liquor license rules was a great example of how Canadians can't help but get in the way of themselves. Life imitating art, or at least your hypothesis being proven in real time?
Matt...and Jen...LOVED the live podcast from Calgary!
Please plan for one of these live podcasts in the Niagara Region too. Wineries and craft breweries galore. Need I say more?
I'm happy to help plan and promote!
Is anyone surprised that the government got the tax idea that is probably a good idea wrong? This may be incredibly naïve but when taxation on the really rich was significantly higher, they used to build things that benefitted everyone while writing the cost off their taxes. They didn't suffer to put food on their table, or do whatever they wanted to do. Now, with taxation rates cut for those same people through lobbying of assorted governments; read buying them of through donations, they now hoard wealth at unimaginable levels. hence my theory that the leaders of the G20 need to get together and put an end to all corporate subsidies which are nothing more than an upward transfer of wealth. Take the VW battery plant in St Thomas, Ontario. They were given a 14 billion dollar subsidy to create effectively 3000 permanent jobs. The basic math suggests that the corporate subsidy granted means the taxpayer are paying all 3000 of those people $100000/yr for the next 46 years....while getting nothing in return. This is not something one country can take on alone. That's why it needs to be the entire G20. At the same time, you dramatically increase taxation on income over $500000/yr, and go after the jurisdictions that have allowed people to hide their wealth. But the billionaire class seem to have established themselves as a new royalty using governments as tools to protect their wealth. An alliance is needed to restore the concept of responsible government that is actually intended to serve the citizens. Because, also in Ontario, the current Ford provincial government has one clear purpose; enriching Doug's donors. There are no other goals.
Touching the CPP or any other pension for political purposes it an utterly idiotic idea. Period. But that, Jen, was a beautiful rant.
All I really want to know is what did Bibi know and when? Because I'm leaning heavily towards the idea that Israel could have stopped this, and didn't for political purposes. I still don't believe this helps Israel's security long term.
As for the difference in the treatment you get, it's because men are stupid...and there is no rule two.
It's a shame you and the audience didn't have any fun with this :)
Tax rates used to be higher, but the actual revenue generated was lower. A quick search will show you that income tax revenue as a fraction of GDP has increased steadily since the introduction of the income tax in 1917; government revenue as a fraction of GDP is at an all-time high. In the US, the sky-high marginal tax rates of the ‘50s didn’t actually yield much revenue because it was accompanied by a generous deduction regime: nobody really paid that top marginal rate. The real story of why government revenue doesn’t buy what it used to is the rising expenditures on social programs, Baumol’s Cost Disease in the health care and other government sectors, and a government that’s generally become flabby and inefficient in program execution.
Right. They didn't pay the top marginal rate because they invested in all sorts of projects for the general good to get the tax break. I pay no attention to the various statistical theories that have been created to justify a debt funded economy. I think they are all complete bullshit.
There is no question we have more programs than we can afford. How else will they get elected? But at some point, the reality has to be addressed that growth cannot be a permanent expectation. There has to be a peak, and we have are probably already past it. But you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up.
The cost of everything is ridiculous. They added what was effectively 16km of new lanes to highway 401 in Southern Ontario. It took 4 years and cost $110 million. That's insanity.
But as mentioned, I still think the way to address it is to turn every corporate subsidy into low interest loan, so the taxpayers get all their investment back...at the same pace shareholders get the their dividends.
Capital, information and people are much more mobile now. Canada has to compete with the world, this place isn't nice or good enough to think goodwill alone will keep the wealthy here.
I bristle at politicians labeling all spending as “investments.” If it’s an investment, I’d expect to see a return. Given that federal revenue is ~20% of GDP, that means that investment had better yield 5 times its expenditure as increased GDP.
Spending on classic infrastructure is more expensive than it should be because of poor government management and a habit of larding it up with non-core objectives, but it still produces something physically tangible in 20-50 years. When the B.C. Liberal government launched the Site C hydroelectric dam project, it was criticized for its environmental impact, being unnecessary based on electricity consumption, and an unnecessary expense vs spending on healthcare and education. That expenditure is starting to look pretty prescient at this point: reducing CO2 emissions means increasing electrification and demand for electricity, and hydro is essentially zero emission. Like the dams built by WAC Bennett in the ‘50s, that’s an actual investment that’ll be delivering benefits well into the future, and the debt it incurred will be repaid.
In contrast, I’m not clear how much benefit was delivered by the increased education spending in B.C. that reduced class sizes and increased teacher pay. The teachers benefited; there was a surge in hiring to meet the classroom size requirements that meant they were hiring almost anybody with a heartbeat and a teaching certificate. I’m not convinced that a smaller class of students offsets being taught by teachers who wouldn’t be employed in a market requiring fewer teachers with larger class sizes.
I heard it once, i heard it twice. I heard Jen and Matt tell us what's absurd.