Both the Liberals and CPC are proposing tax cuts to the lowest tax bracket:
much of the benefit of this tax cut will go to the best-off: they get the same tax cut as everyone else, on the first $57,375 of their income. As for the poorest-off, they will get no benefit whatever. They don’t earn enough to pay taxes. … Neither is it likely to have much impact on those in the lowest tax bracket. They don’t have much money to save or invest, for starters.
Coyne goes on to suggest the tax cut is pandering: it won’t help our productivity, spur investment, or help those who need it. He suggests that directed cuts would achieve those goals. I suggest increasing taxes on higher brackets to cover the $6-15 billion loss.
I suppose it’s more disappointing coming from Mr. Carney. The book on him was supposed to be that he was the principled egghead, the guy with the central banking pedigree and the PhD in economics who’d arrived, with impeccable timing, just as the crisis did, as if the moment had been made for him, when his dull decency and lack of political savvy would prove advantages rather than drawbacks.
But with each day and each cynical policy proposal, Mr. Carney shows he’s more than willing to play the political game, with the same all-consuming lust for power as any 20-years-in-the-game hack.
Speaking of 20-years-in-the-game hacks, Mr. Poilievre, too, has much to answer for. Calculating and obnoxious he may be, but the book on him was always that, underneath it all, he was a dyed-in-the-wool free-marketer, someone who, for better or worse, really would take a bracing Friedmanite approach to the economy based on prices, competition and incentives, rather than regulations, subsidies and free lunches.
Instead, what do we get from both party leaders? Scrapping the carbon tax, and unfunded tax giveaways. Truly this is an election for the ages, a historic choice between dull but unprincipled and nasty but opportunistic.
I’m surprised not to see anyone touch on it, but the 1% cut is ~$400/yr per person, and the 2.25% is ~$900 a year. That should be enough to offset the impact of the tariffs for the first little while, with more targeted help available still.
I’d like to see a balance of increasing tax rates on the upper brackets to balance the difference, but that might be a bit optimistic to hope for.
Neo lib regime whores doing neo lib bullshit
At least they haven’t totally sold out global capital and are opposing annexation
But holy shit is is not a W for the proles
The most unserious thing about this is that the author appears not to realize that Carney’s job as a candidate is to, duh, campaign. That means emphasizing planned policies that will appeal to voters. Unfortunately, the carbon tax has become political poison and scrapping it is the only sensible thing he could do in the context of appealing to the public.
I’d think I was reading the Beaverton instead of the Globe, except that this piece, while unserious, isn’t funny enough.
But with each day and each cynical policy proposal, Mr. Carney shows he’s more than willing to play the political game, with the same all-consuming lust for power as any 20-years-in-the-game hack.
“All-consuming lust for power,” or merely confidence he’s a far better option than PP coupled with the knowledge that undercutting the cons’ main talking points is practically a requirement to win enough swing voters to prevent Maple MAGA from winning the election?
What an idiotic fucking statement, clearly the author is as “unserious” as they claim this election is…
Well that’s where I think Carney’s tax cut is more rational. It’s just lowering the rate by 1% and Pierre is lowering it much more.
PM Carney is being serious.
Campaign Carney is less so, yes, but probably given the crash course in electoral politics he just received, he knows he has an election to win and a mandate to earn before we get down to business. He’s got a fine line to walk between these two personas for the next month and IMO he is handling it right so far.
He is completely undercutting the appeal of Poilievre’s platform. “He already cut the carbon tax and he’s going to lower taxes by 1%? Well I’ll cut the carbon tax harder and I’m lowering tax by 2.75%, take that sucker!” But if you asked Canadians how much that additional 1.75% would actually save them I bet you they couldn’t give you the number. (The most astute ones would say that the funding cuts to other programs would reduce the net benefit to them).
I make more than the first bracket so I qualify for the full benefit, but I would rather my taxes double if it meant that every person could have a roof over their head and access to adequate food and medical needs.
He is completely undercutting the appeal of Poilievre’s platform.
Most of Poilievre’s platform is “we need a change from the Liberals”. People who agree with that are unlikely to be swayed by anything Carney says or promises.
I would rather my taxes double if it meant that every person could have a roof over their head and access to adequate food and medical needs.
Agreed. Now is the time to make those arguments. We have a rare moment of national unity, and a tough four years ahead of us.
Like Coyne says: Canada faces a bunch of problems around productivity and infrastructure. Spending money to fix those problems, rather than tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich, makes more sense.
Most of Poilievre’s platform is “we need a change from the Liberals”.
So by Carney having done everything Poilievre was calling for (remove Trudeau, cut regulations, remove the carbon tax, cut income taxes), anyone (outside the ~30% of conservative blue no matter who voters) will see Poilievre’s campaign as being ineffective at its headline stated goal.
I’ve liked what Carney has said outside of the campaign - in his meetings with European leaders, he’s been talking about this new status quo we find ourselves in as a permanent change in the global order, rather than a four-year blip.
On the campaign trail? I can’t say that he’s been particularly inspiring so far.
Totally agreed. It is totally fair for anyone to call out my rationale as copium, but I do legitimately think that he is trying to avoid huge promises in the campaign during his caretaker rule - some will wonder why he doesn’t just do it since he’s PM right now.
I hope they’re a/b testing that headline. Unserious is an unserious word.
