Is the federal NDP irrelevant?

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You appear not to understand the modern approach to retail politics, which is to identify and target voting blocks and design policies to appeal to voters within these blocks

I think I do.  I also see what's happening in the real world:. Governments promise tax breaks to the largest voting block, which are referred to as "Middle Class" - the category that 70% of Canadians put themselves in.  That translates to 46% of the vote.

Raising minimum wage a few dollars an hour or giving those on social assistance  an extra hundred per month is not going to turn those people into tax payersand they are still going to only represent 16% of the vote.  

Consequently it is the middle class taxpayer that the politicians sell to; any benefit to non-taxpayers is minimal and they know it.  

28 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Further, there are vast regional variations in Canada, thus negating your assertion that those "who are employed and who pay taxes" constitute the middle class.  Somebody who earns $30K to $40K annually in St. Hyacinthe QC or Saint John NB, for instance, doesn't face the same economic circumstances as somebody living at that income level in Toronto or Vancouver. Working alone doesn't render one a member of the middle class and in fact income taxes in Canada kick in at very low levels.

I do not disagree with this, but I am talking about taxpayers and notn-taxpayers, not the standard of living obtained on the same income in different geographical areas. 

The assertion was made that those who pay no taxes are catered to by politicians, and vote entirely based on self-interest, thus having a negative effect on economic policy.  Eg:. It seems these non-taypayers vote in sufficient numbers to incentivize governments to pay attention to them.  I am pointing out that non-taxpayers make up the smallest voting block and cannot compete with the taxpayer voting block.  If they could, welfare, disability and minimum wage would all be higher.   

I would suggest that goodies offered to the poorest in our country are actually sold to the lower and midde-class taxpayers for votes, because people are generally fair-minded and most Canadians believe helping others is one of our values.  If I get a benefit, I will feel better about it if those poorer than me also get a benefit.

 The only people who regularly object to giving goodies to everyone, not just themselves, seem to be a particular type of fiscal conservative, often with an upper-middle-class income.

43 minutes ago, turningrite said:

As for the influence of corporations and the rich, they sure do get their way, which is generally to bear an increasingly smaller percentage of the taxation burden, which they've seen shifted to consumers and those in ordinary paid employment both middle class and otherwise. Corporations and the wealthy don't want to pay for redistributive schemes and they increasingly get their way on this.

So how weird is it that the poorest, least likely to vote or have influence on policy, are criticized for "voting for goodies", to the point that some on this board have suggested they not be allowed to vote at all?

[turningrite]

34 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think I do.  I also see what's happening in the real world:. Governments promise tax breaks to the largest voting block, which are referred to as "Middle Class" - the category that 70% of Canadians put themselves in.  That translates to 46% of the vote.

 

As indicated in the link to the CBC piece (link again provided, below) that discusses Ekos polling about the middle class released in late 2017, fewer than half of Canadians now identify themselves as belonging to the middle class. And this percentage, which has declined by more than 20 percentage points since 2002, when it was 70%, is likely to continue its steady decline. Subsidy programs merely mask the decline, and mainly so for particular segments of the population that are favored by government policy. This is the cynical game our political parties,, including our feckless Liberal government, are playing. Once you start to talk about facts we can debate further. Remember, it's 2018. It's not 2002.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/middle-class-poll-1.4542903

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by turningrite

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

As indicated in the link to the CBC post I provide, fewer than half of Canadians now identify themselves as belonging to the middle class. And this percentage, which has declined by more than 20 percentage points since 2002, is likely to continue its steady decline. Subsidy programs merely mask this decline, and only so for particular segments of the population that are favored by government policy.

Doesn't actually change my argument because I am using middle-class as describing taxpayers, whether they make $40,000 or $250,000 or more.  I can see how that could be confusing to you.

So the dividing line is between taxpayers and non-taxpayers if this statement of yours is anything to go by: It seems these non-taypayers vote in sufficient numbers to incentivize governments to pay attention to them.

If 30% of Canadians pay no (income) taxes, than 70% do and the 70% is a larger, much more significant voting block than the 30% of non-taxpayers.  My argument is that criticizing 30% of the population for the direction the other 70% takes us doesn't make sense, and that non-taxpayers are not a significant enough block for politicians to really target.  

Perhaps, for the purposes of your argument, you should make the dividing line somewhere other than taxpayer and non-taxpayer.  If, for example, the line were drawn at annual incomes above and below $80,000, the below $80,000 group might constitute a large enough voting block for politicians to pay attention to, and offer goodies and subsidies.

[turningrite]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Doesn't actually change my argument because I am using middle-class as describing taxpayers, whether they make $40,000 or $250,000 or more.  I can see how that could be confusing to you.

 

You're obfuscating. Lots of people who pay taxes in this country, like people earning $40K or thereabouts in Toronto or Vancouver, are realistically NOT in the middle class. Simply defining the issue in your own terms doesn't address the matter. As I've said, subsidies are being used and carefully targeted for maximum political benefit to mask the actual and very steep decline in the middle class in this country. And those paying for the subsidies are working individuals and in some cases seniors (who worked and paid taxes, usually for several decades) who are in many cases surviving on incomes just above subsidy eligible levels.

Edited November 12, 2018 by turningrite

[dialamah]

21 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You're obfuscating. Lots of people who pay taxes in this country, like people earning $40K or thereabouts in Toronto or Vancouver, are realistically NOT in the middle class. Simply defining the issue in your own terms doesn't address the matter. As I've said, subsidies are being used and carefully targeted for maximum political benefit to mask the actual and very steep decline in the middle class in this country. And those paying for the subsidies are working individuals and in some cases seniors (who worked and paid taxes, usually for several decades) who are in many cases surviving on incomes just above subsidy eligible levels.

Clearly, you are missing the point I am trying to make.  For the third time you said, and I quote:  It seems these non-taypayers vote in sufficient numbers to incentivize governments to pay attention to them.

I am saying that non-taxpayers do not make up a large enough voting block to warrant such a claim.

People who pay income-tax but who do not quite make the "middle-class" cut-off still pay income tax and are a growing demographic in Canada.  They, combined with people who do make the middle-class cut-off make up a much larger voting block to whom politicians must pay attention.

Incentives and subsidies are "sold" to the largest block of voters, which are taxpayers, whether they make $40,000 or $250,000 or several million.  Everybody wants these and can be "bribed" by politicians, regardless of their wealth and income.  Suggesting that the non-taxpayer is somehow at fault for behaving exactly as everyone else makes no sense.  

[turningrite]

21 hours ago, dialamah said:

1.) Clearly, you are missing the point I am trying to make.  For the third time you said, and I quote:  It seems these non-taypayers vote in sufficient numbers to incentivize governments to pay attention to them.

2.) Incentives and subsidies are "sold" to the largest block of voters, which are taxpayers, whether they make $40,000 or $250,000 or several million.  Everybody wants these and can be "bribed" by politicians, regardless of their wealth and income.  Suggesting that the non-taxpayer is somehow at fault for behaving exactly as everyone else makes no sense.  

1.) I think you're examining the issue through a faulty lens. All adult Canadians are legally obligated to file taxes and those potentially eligible for subsidies are logically incentivized to do so. Whether or not they are taxpayers isn't necessarily indicative of whether or not they enjoy middle class living standards as income levels are increasingly becoming disconnected from living standards.

2.) Actually, where subsidies are concerned, politicians get a far bigger electoral bang for their (i.e. taxpayers') buck by catering to those who are potentially subsidy eligible, particularly if they design policy objectives based on demographic characteristics, like family size and composition. There are a lot more people making $30K to $40K than there are tax filers or voters who earn $100K or $250K. If you believe this calculus isn't being applied to policy determination, I think you're being naive.

My main argument here is that the steep decline in the middle class is being masked for political reasons by subsidy programs and that those who are paying the highest price for this are those with incomes just above subsidy eligible levels. You haven't addressed this argument at all. (By the way, Trudeau doesn't actually give a fig about those who are "working hard to join the middle class." His rhetoric is just window dressing.) And you haven't addressed the polling outcome reported in the CBC article, which suggests a huge decline in economic status and security in this country over the course of less than two decades. Further, in the more limited context of this string (i.e. whether or not the NDP remains relevant), I believe the NDP's approach is little different from that the Libs offer. The NDP appears to believe in ever more subsidies for those who for the most part are already subsidy recipients. Its leader in fact reportedly wants to transform the basic old age pension from a largely universal program to an explicitly means-tested and subsidy-based system, an action that would undoubtedly further erode middle class security.

Edited November 13, 2018 by turningrite

[OftenWrong]

Watching Jagmeet Singh answer questions on TV. This man is always snarling when he replies. Perhaps someone should inform NDP how to win. Today's politics is acting. Charisma wins, not actual policy. Image wins. In some cases, as with Singh (and surely others), race wins.
How Jagmeet Singh won the NDP leadership

The front person is merely the face of the organization. You need someone who inspires the confidence of the people almost at a glance. Average voters attention span is about 30 seconds.

Let's not talk about some far-out future utopia, let's talk about today. On a federal level, one has to have charisma, and an appealing image. That is the real reason Trudeau won the PM (to wit- my Mom voted for him). Politics is image, and acting. That's the approach taken by the CPC, with their smiling Andrew Sheer:

Would you elect this man? Admit it, you want to hug this man!

Andrew cannot even look angry. Here's his best scowl-

 

Meanwhile, as you can see, Jagmeet cannot smile, even when trying:

====

It's creepy to think this man could be the next PM of Canada.

"Really? No damn way." says my wife. That's when I'm leaving!

"Not to worry," says I. Canadians are not that stupid. Well, not yet anyways but the Liberals and their news media are working on it. This guy Singh attained power when a cabal of Sikhs united to get him bing money votes from their constituencies. New NDP members. A majority of Sikhs, Hindus, and those of similar persuasion, who voted along entirely racial lines. Not by politics. Through united effort they have managed to get "Snarlin' Singh" the top job.

Oh to be a fly on the wall in NDP backrooms during those days, listening to the discussion by the NDP "old guard" as they watched the horror unfold.

A recent poll puts NDP support at a miserly 11.8 per cent.
Link

[youreirrelevent]

It is hard to be relevent when you pick a leader to represent an inproductive minority.

[Iznogoud]

The NDP will continue to be relevant as long as it remains a potential threat to the Conservatives and Liberals.  Just ask the other parties in Alberta, Ontario, BC, and Quebec.