So what would an NDP government do?

[Evening Star]

It's triple taxation because that money invested had to be earned at some point.

Yes, but you are not taxed an additional time on the original earned income. You are taxed on the additional revenue that is generated by the investment. It's different from a consumption tax.

With respect to how it affects the decision on how much money to save, let's say I have $1000. I can spend it today or I can invest it and then spend the money + interest in 1 years time. Let's say that the interest is 5%, so my decision is $1000 today or $1050 in a year. Now if you have a capital gains tax, that interest is effectively lower (let's say 20% of capital gains are taxed; so the effective interest rate is 4%). Now the decision is $1000 today or $1040 in a year. The capital gains tax makes it less desirable to save, thus it lowers the savings rate.

Yes, this is clear enough and I did not question it. Inflation is also a factor. I don't think people are going to burn through all of their income and stop saving just because the interest rate is lower, but sure, it affects the incentive. If it is true that we need more saving right now (although the economy seems to be receding atm), this might be a reason to be more cautious here.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes, but you are not taxed an additional time on the original earned income. You are taxed on the additional revenue that is generated by the investment. It's different from a consumption tax.

$100 today is worth more than $100 in the future even without inflation. The revenue gained from investment represents the conversion of $100 today to its monetary value next year. That $100 was earned and income tax was paid on it, the person just chooses not to spend it right away.

[Evening Star]

$100 today is worth more than $100 in the future even without inflation.

Why?

[-1=e^ipi]

Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_value

For the same reason people are willing to take out loans from a bank and why the bank can make money by investing savings. Time is money.

[-1=e^ipi]

Even Mace Tyrell understands this concept.

[Argus]

Modest carbon taxes and slightly higher corporate taxes would probably be fine, although as I stated earlier, my preference would be for higher personal income taxes and reasonably low business taxes.

A higher GST would make more sense.

I tend to agree with taxing capital gains along with income, actually. I don't see why returns on investment in other people's work should be treated more favourably than money that one actually works for.

There are several reasons. First, for most people, the money they invest is what's left over after their income was already taxed. My tax rate is already around 50%, for example.

Second, the government wants to encourage people to save rather than putting that money into, for example, vacations down south every year.

Third, it wants to encourage them, and foreigners to invest in smaller Canadian companies. Smaller companies are riskier than bigger ones, and usually don't pay dividends. Tax capital gains at the full rate and people will flee from these companies into old, secure, dividend paying companies like BCE and the Royal Bank. Foreign investment will dry up, too, since capital gains would be taxed at a lower rate in other places, notably the US. Smaller and mid-cap companies wouldn't be able to get investment, and a lot of them, like technology pharma and biotech would start looking at other jurisdictions to relocate to.

Reinstating home delivery of mail seems like a good idea to me, considering how helpful it could be to people who are elderly or disabled, and considering that Canada Post has mostly been running profits anyway.

Canada Post, according to projections, will be running a large loss soon given home delivery. And would you reinstate it just to the ones who have it now? What about all those urban dwellers who have had community mailboxes for years? Is it fair they should have community mailboxes but people in other parts of the city get home delivery?

I expect a move away from so-called 'tough on crime' legislation, which imo does not achieve its stated purpose.

The hug-a-thug policies achieved even less, while failing to protect Canadians from violent criminals.

[-1=e^ipi]

Canada Post, according to projections, will be running a large loss soon given home delivery.

Just because Canada Post is operating at a loss doesn't mean it isn't a net benefit to Canada. There are arguably a lot of external costs associated with removing home delivery (old people slipping on ice for example).

[PrimeNumber]

Just because Canada Post is operating at a loss doesn't mean it isn't a net benefit to Canada. There are arguably a lot of external costs associated with removing home delivery (old people slipping on ice for example).

Old people can slip on ice everywhere.

[Evening Star]

A higher GST would make more sense.

I favour this too.

The hug-a-thug policies achieved even less, while failing to protect Canadians from violent criminals.

Really? Canada used to have a major problem with violent crime, relative to other industrialized nations? And the numbers have significantly dropped as a result of Conservative crime policy? I haven't heard this before.

[Evening Star]

The anti-science party that hates nuclear energy and GMOs? How do they not disgust you as well?

These don't really seem like anti-science positions to me. You could make a case that they are anti-technology (anti- specific kinds of technology, really) but that's not the same thing. I'm a little sceptical about both of these things as well tbh, although I'm very pro-technology in many areas. That's 'sceptical', though, not 'vehemently opposed'.

[TimG]

These don't really seem like anti-science positions to me.

They are anti-science in the sense that people adopt positions that ignore the scientific evidence.

The point of the label is to illustrate the gross hypocrisy of greens and their fellow travelers when it comes to questions of science.

Edited July 3, 2015 by TimG

[PrimeNumber]

They are anti-science in the sense that people adopt positions that ignore the scientific evidence.

The point of the label is to illustrate the gross hypocrisy of greens and their fellow travelers when it comes to questions of science.

As opposed to which party that doesn't ignore scientific evidence?

[-1=e^ipi]

As opposed to which party that doesn't ignore scientific evidence?

They are all anti-science. The green party just more so.

[Canada_First]

What about parties that are anti crime stats? We need to track crimes and arrests categorized by race and region so that we can appropriate funds and services accordingly.

[Argus]

I favour this too.

Really? Canada used to have a major problem with violent crime, relative to other industrialized nations? And the numbers have significantly dropped as a result of Conservative crime policy? I haven't heard this before.

I didn't say that. Although yes, crime was higher - back when we had the hug-a-thug policies of twenty five years of liberals.

[Evening Star]

What about parties that are anti crime stats?

Yeah, restoring the long-form census would be a plus in my books, too.

[PrimeNumber]

They are all anti-science. The green party just more so.

I don't know about that claim. I mean yeah they probably all bend the scientific truth a bit but it's pretty tough to say who does it the most.

Edited July 4, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Evening Star]

I didn't say that. Although yes, crime was higher - back when we had the hug-a-thug policies of twenty five years of liberals.

According to the statistics, the police-reported crime rate has been steadily declining since 1991, meaning that it declined throughout the entire tenure of the Chretien/Martin LPC. The fact that it has continued to decline under the CPC only seems to suggest the continuation of a long-term trend more than it shows anything about the success of their policies. (They haven't done any damage in terms of this indicator, though.)

[Argus]

According to the statistics, the police-reported crime rate has been steadily declining since 1991, meaning that it declined throughout the entire tenure of the Chretien/Martin LPC. The fact that it has continued to decline under the CPC only seems to suggest the continuation of a long-term trend more than it shows anything about the success of their policies. (They haven't done any damage in terms of this indicator, though.)

It is my belief that crime is more dependent on the number of young men in a society than anything else. I don't support harsh sentencing, by the way. I support just sentencing. That's particularly so for those who cause real harm to others. In other cases, such as those who like to wave guns around, I propose strong sentencing because, first, they deserve it, second , it should discourage others from doing the same, and third, keeping them behind bars as long as possible helps safeguard society.

If I was in charge, those people you find who have thirty or forty convictions would never be on the street again. I'd set up work farms or work industries, somewhere they can contribute at least something with their miserable lives, but I wouldn't ever let them go again. A small percentage of repeat criminals is responsible for a very large percentage of the violent crime in this country.

[On Guard for Thee]

I didn't say that. Although yes, crime was higher - back when we had the hug-a-thug policies of twenty five years of liberals.

You mean all those years when the crime rate dropped, especially violent crime, to where it is now...

[Big Guy]

To Evening Song - Interesting view. My favorite explanation of the dropping crime rates is the case of Roe vs Wade. In the book "Freakonomics" the author suggests that abortion on demand was first allowed in 1973. Up to that time, those women who did not want the child was still forced to have it. This made for a large number of unwanted children or children with a parent who could not supervise them. It is a fact that an unwanted or unloved child is ripe for creating social turmoil. In 1973, women who did not want to have children or could not look after children, began aborting them.

By 1990, these aborted children would have be into their middle teen years - the prime age for violent crime. Since they were never born, they could not be criminals and the crime rates started to drop dramatically - and continued to drop dramatically to this day.

Not sure that this is the only reason but it does make sense.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Big Guy

[-1=e^ipi]

If I was in charge, those people you find who have thirty or forty convictions would never be on the street again. I'd set up work farms or work industries, somewhere they can contribute at least something with their miserable lives, but I wouldn't ever let them go again. A small percentage of repeat criminals is responsible for a very large percentage of the violent crime in this country.

Yep, repeat criminals are a major problem. I hear them on the bus occasionally chatting about how they just got out of jail, how they intend to steal or peddle drugs, how they have stabbed people, etc. They just don't care about harming systems or our justice system. Personally I was mugged and assaulted by repeat criminals on probation and suffered brain damage.

[Canada_First]

Yep, repeat criminals are a major problem. I hear them on the bus occasionally chatting about how they just got out of jail, how they intend to steal or peddle drugs, how they have stabbed people, etc. They just don't care about harming systems or our justice system. Personally I was mugged and assaulted by repeat criminals on probation and suffered brain damage.

White people in this country are soft. Whites in Africa are much tougher. Whites in Africa stick together and help each other in Canada they screw each other. Sad.

[Canada_First]

Yep, repeat criminals are a major problem. I hear them on the bus occasionally chatting about how they just got out of jail, how they intend to steal or peddle drugs, how they have stabbed people, etc. They just don't care about harming systems or our justice system. Personally I was mugged and assaulted by repeat criminals on probation and suffered brain damage.

White people in this country are soft. Whites in Africa are much tougher. Whites in Africa stick together and help each other in Canada they screw each other. Sad.

[Canada_First]

Yep, repeat criminals are a major problem. I hear them on the bus occasionally chatting about how they just got out of jail, how they intend to steal or peddle drugs, how they have stabbed people, etc. They just don't care about harming systems or our justice system. Personally I was mugged and assaulted by repeat criminals on probation and suffered brain damage.

White people in this country are soft. Whites in Africa are much tougher. Whites in Africa stick together and help each other in Canada they screw each other. Sad.