Highest Rated Comments

CanPoliEnthusiast27 karma

No Rick! They actually paid contributors like Ford Prefect to research various remote backwaters of the Galaxy. That's how he ended up on Earth in the first place.

Granted, their editorial policies were a lot more lax than at Encyclopedia Galactica, but it remained firmly in the paradigm of the traditional publishing industry c. 1983.

CanPoliEnthusiast4 karma

Which play?

CanPoliEnthusiast3 karma

You are right that Trudeau won't do much to change the structure of the economy*, and income inequality before taxes and transfers will likely increase.

His plan for the Canadian Child Benefit will significantly redistribute income after taxes and transfers. And I expect that when politics and budgets permit, he will act to expand direct transfers. Trudeau's plan gives much more money to poor and working-class families.

I see a Liberal government as a baby step towards a Basic Income.

*Depending on the scope and impact of his environmental policies

CanPoliEnthusiast1 karma

I volunteered as a scrutineer about 15 years ago.

Their hypothetical role is to watch the poll workers to ensure that all voters who are eligible are allowed to vote, no one ineligible is able to vote. They also watch as the votes are counted. It's a transparency measure for the parties to ensure fairness.

In practice, their access to the lists of who has voted and who hasn't helps parties with their get out the vote tactics. If we have a name of a person who has told us they were going to vote for us, and they haven't shown up at the polls yet, the party can call them and offer a ride to the polling station.

CanPoliEnthusiast1 karma

As to straight tax cuts being less effective, I dont know that I agree. For those making 44 700 or less a minimum of 15% is taken off the top. I think anyone in that tax bracket would want their 15% back.

Ok, let's look at a hypothetical tax cut of 5 percentage points. In your model, a person who makes $45,000 will save $2250, but a person who makes $35,000 saves $1750. So the higher income earner saves more.

But you've forgotten that 15% is only taken off any income earned over the basic minimum deduction of $11,138. If you have a spouse or, for single parents, a dependent who makes zero income, that deduction can be up to $22,138.

So for a single person who makes $45,000, they would save $1693. A single parent who makes $35,000 would save $643.

Now, if you want to help inequality, does it make sense to give a single person who makes more money more than twice as much as a single parent who makes less?

If you want to use tax breaks to help the less fortunate, you're better off getting rid of EI premiums and funding the program out of general taxation, or increasing the basic minimum deduction.

But those changes will still benefit some people who make more over some people who make less. Just not as egregiously as a cut to the overall tax rate.

Edit: And let's not forget that tax cuts still help the wealthy. Someone who makes $100,000 saves the same $1693 as someone who makes $45,000.