Lionbackers.com

This is an independent analysis by a UBC prof on the Liberal basic allowance cuts versus the Tory tax cut.

It's clear that more Canadians who need help will benefit from the Liberal approach vs the tax cut which is more bogus trickle down economic thinking. The richer you are these days, the more you invest in paper. You don't start a business nor spend your money like back on the 1800 and early 1900s.

http://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinmilligan/2019/ ... al-amount/

"The proposal is to increase the Basic Personal Amount and the Spouse or Common-Law Partner Amount according to the schedule set out below. It is phased out over the 2nd highest tax bracket according to individual income.

The ‘Default BPA’ is the default path from 2020-2023. The ‘proposed BPA’ is the proposed schedule you provided me. The BPA gives rise to a 15% credit and is non-refundable. These are not changed under your proposal."



Taxation Year Default BPA Proposed BPA
2020 $12,309 $13,229
2021 $12,567 $13,808
2022 $12,852 $14,398
2023 $13,092 $15,000

Table 2: Impact of BPA increases on 2023 taxes, by family income group
BPA CPC
Change Tax Cut
0K-20K $ 37 $ 13
20K-40K $ 137 $ 65
40K-60K $ 343 $ 202
60K-80K $ 466 $ 339
80K-100K $ 506 $ 482
100K-125K $ 566 $ 564
125K-150K $ 603 $ 660
150K-250K $ 626 $ 770
250K+ $ 487 $ 887


Estimates by Kevin Milligan, Professor of Economics, University of British Columbia
Families grouped according to pre-tax (census family) 2023 income
PUBLISHED: September 22, 2019

As long as I have drawn breath, I've heard about the "trickle down tax" cut. I cant think of a single incidence of where that theory has beneffitted the average working guy.

I wish tax money would not be wasted as it is sometimes but we also get quite a bit for our money when you take into account health care, education, roads and all the other things that go into our "high" std of living. I hear people complaining about struggling to make ends meet and I agree that it can be hard. But i also remember a time when there werent multi car/tv/stereo/mobile phone/ compute and so on households Things cost more but we also spend way more than we used to so how much of the hard times are costs and how much is unrestrained consumerism? Many of us older folks may well remember the hand me down clothes, used toys, shared items etc

Our expectations arent the only problem but tbey are part of it. Bottom line, things that taxes pay for cost money. You cant have some of the things we have and not expect to pay for them. I would much rather see an emphasis put on effective spending rather than cuts. Seem much more practical long term.

Trickle down worked in the former years as richer people started businesses but in a modern economy all it does is create greater wealth and income disparity.

Today rich people get rich off paper investments and aren't out starting businesses. The idea that rich Chinese entrepreneurs would come to Canada and start businesses was well-intentioned but they already had businesses so they tossed their $500k into investments and no jobs got created.

The Conservative playbook to cut taxes for the first 14K and maintain essential services is a classic conservative philosophy. In fact that's how the British left it in Hong Kong. Very low taxes benefited expats and the local rich and over 60% of people pay NO INCOME TAXES! But what they get in the way of a social safety net is the same - pretty much nothing. I'm an HK Permanent Resident and I didn't bother to apply as I planned to be home and secondly I have Canada's benefits as a taxpayer that are superior.


Also if you look at Canada back to the end of WW2 our thinking was small time, fiscally responsible versus gov't investing to build and grow a more diversified economy.

Examples:
There are those who feel Canada had a chance to build our own auto industry in the 1950s.

Other than Toronto we didn't build public transportation infrastructure - as populations were not large enough.

1960s when PM Diefenbaker shut down the Avro Arrow on the real Black Friday, we lost a chance to build a world class aerospace industry and that - -most of it - simply moved to the USA.

The way forward is what the Liberals have tried in spots and what the NDP and Greens advocate - a guaranteed universal income scheme. This eventually must be global.

They will say its socialism but actually the origins of the idea were the early capitalists!!!!
The father of the concept that the only purpose of a business is to maximize the return on capital for investors - Milton Friedman - U of Chicago - advocate for a Negative Income Tax scheme to ensure capitalism works.

We haven't educated people even at university levels that this is vital to save the planet, stop refugee creation and ensure people can live in a world where many jobs will be automated. Also the bright minds says it's not too rich!!

Ontario Doug Ford shuts this down as Conservatives in Canada are freaking neanderthals with old tired ideas like trickle down. For them if you're poor, you didn't work hard enough.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot

India is about to launch its basic income program:

https://www.sciencealert.com/india-is-a ... in-history

India with 1.3 billion- unlike China at 1.4 billion pop - has been stuck at some 400 million in poverty for years and years due to caste system, etc. China from the 1980s to 2010 took 680 million out of poverty and continuing to improve.

The irony of China is that the ruling Communist Party know that to keep in power they have to keep delivering social and economic progress to its population or they''ll not survive. Unlike here they don't have to make election promises but they know they have to deliver. Former US Amb to China Jon Huntsman noted some years ago that talking to PRC gov't leaders how every conversation had elements of 'the people want ____ ' or 'the people won't accept ___'.

But we need China to adopt such a scheme as right now the middle class all want to consume like we do in the west which is not sustainable no matter how much they work on the climate and green initiatives.

I know I have a tendency to bring this up with regards to elections, so I'll do it again this time. Let's see what the voter turnout will be. There was a huge improvement from 2011 to 2015:

1993 - 70.9%
1997 - 67.0%
2000 - 64.1%
2004 - 60.9%
2006 - 64.7%
2008 - 58.8%
2011 - 61.1%
2015 - 68.5%
2019 -

Let's see if there will be another improvement from 2015 and if it will break the 70% barrier for the first time since 1993.

Liberal has an early lead 71-44 seats over Conservative. But lots of voting to be done especially in Western Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan) which will have a lot of Conservative voters.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals re-elected with a strong minority government.

Liberal - 156
Conservative - 121
Bloc Quebecois - 32
New Democratic - 25
Green - 3
Independent - 1

Let's see how this Liberal minority government will hold up.

BC was split into Liberal, Conservative, and NDP, and all three parties are scattered in the Lower Mainland.

I do not like how divided the country is becoming. I myself feel anger and resentment towards Alberta and Quebec. Trying not to but...

KnowItAll wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:04 am

I do not like how divided the country is becoming. I myself feel anger and resentment towards Alberta and Quebec. Trying not to but...

I also did not like Edmonton with their chippy play last game (and maybe the ones before - they are a dim memory), so yes, to them (and thus to Alberta) , I feel anger and resentment.

Updated results:

Liberal - 157
Conservative - 121
Bloc Quebecois - 32
New Democratic - 24
Green - 3
Independent - 1

It looks like for the first time since 1979 and very similar to the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, the winning party didn't also get the popular vote as the Conservative Party received the popular vote. I wonder if there will be any allegiances now as I heard that Liberal and NDP will join forces.

Voter turnout was disappointing as it went down to 66% and couldn't break the 70% mark.

Despite the Conservative Party making a lot of headway by gaining 26 seats, winning the popular vote, and forcing the Liberal Party to have a minority government, Andrew Scheer has stepped down as the Conservative and opposition leader.

It looks like it had nothing to do with his professional performance given his party's improvement and instead, it has to do with a personal scandal in that he was using money from the Conservative Party to pay for his children’s private school tuition.

KnowItAll wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:04 am

I do not like how divided the country is becoming. I myself feel anger and resentment towards Alberta and Quebec. Trying not to but...

Sadly in our times with the 30 second sound bite repeated on the news for a 24 hour cycle is how people get elected these days.

We need to demand policy from our political parties and their leaders and dump those who seek to be divisive.

However the electorate are too busy with their own lives - or not interested- to get informed and vote for policy.

A great example from the last federal election was how little play the analysis from the UBC prof Kevn Mlkk9o990p9809898909uh0jiiulgan got on the Lib and Tory tax proposal comparisons as to what groups benefited from each plan.

This prof has done analysis for the Libs and NDP in the past so he's not a hack.

My efforts here should not be interpreted as an endorsement of your party or its proposal by me, my employer, or any institution to which I am affiliated.

http://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinmilligan/

The Lib plan changes the Basic Personal Allowance and the Conservatives want a tax cut (and still do) wth the minority parliament even though the chart down below suggests that theBPA change is the right way to go.

I am writing about your request to provide information about the proposal by the Liberal Party of Canada to expand the Basic Personal Amount. Under your proposal, the Basic Personal Amount will increase between the 2020 and 2023 tax years to $15,000. In this letter, I am happy to provide the information requested about your proposal.

The main finding of my analysis is that the proposal to expand the Basic Personal Amount will remove about 690,000 Canadians from paying federal income taxes by 2023, and lift 38,000 Canadians above the poverty line (MBM).

I also show that Canadians from all family income groups benefit from this tax cut and provide a comparison to the recent tax cut proposed by the Conservative Party of Canada.

Table 2: Impact of BPA increases on 2023 taxes, by family income group


.................BPA CPC
..................Change Tax Cut
--------------------
0K-20K $ 37 $ 13
20K-40K $ 137 $ 65
40K-60K $ 343 $ 202
60K-80K $ 466 $ 339
80K-100K $ 506 $ 482
100K-125K $ 566 $ 564
125K-150K $ 603 $ 660
150K-250K $ 626 $ 770
250K+ $ 487 $ 887

Estimates by Kevin Milligan, Professor of Economics, University of British Columbia
Families grouped according to pre-tax (census family) 2023 income

Any thoughts on the late former Canadian PM John Turner?

When Pierre Trudeau, decided to retire in June 1984, the two front-runners Liberal Party of Canada leadership election were between Jean Chretien and John Turner, with the latter winning and becoming the 17th prime minister of Canada on June 30th. But less than three months later, he lost a landslide to Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party on September 4. He remained as Liberal leader for the 1988 federal election in which his Liberal party still lost and the biggest issue was that John Turner opposed the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement. I think 1984 and 1988 was the last time there were three main parties with the same leaders the election. Come 1993, Bloc Québécois and Reform became in the top 3 while NDP and especially PC faded away. And ironically in 1993, the man John Turner beat for the PM nine years earlier Jean Chretien, was voted as PM and unlike Turner who only had a 2.5 month stint, Chretien served as Canadian PM for over 10 years.

I think what I remember about John Turner most was famously his speech anxiety issue. He froze up in the middle of an interview and it was very hard to watch. In the resulting discussion about what happened I believe he said something to the effect that lots of people in Parliament had similar issues and dealt with it by drinking or other various pharmaceutical means. That didn't really sound too good. After that the writing was on the wall for him.