Meaning no disrepsect, but I don’t think your math is right. First, the cut off is currently 12K not 7K. Second, the different would not be 3K. It would be 15% of 3K (the first income tax bracket is 15%). That comes to $450 per taxpayer.
It is possible I have it wrong too. I am playing Oxygen Not Included while writing this. 
The articles says $292 per Canadian. I’m not sure how they computed that.
Thanks for the correction Beep
That’s exactly the calculation I was about to post.
My pleasure. To answer your question, I don’t think we’ll see another carbon tax like the one that was just rolled out. It was poorly understood by the average Canadian. There may be some other kind of carbon pricing put out there, but even that I don’t think so. The carbon tax was obviously not popular. Taxes rarely are, and I think doing two carbon taxes in back to back terms would doom the Liberals in the next election.
Yep. Basic personal amount for federal taxes is currently $11,809. It goes up a bit every year. 2017 it was $11,635.
It was just your opinion then. OK.
Sort of like if I said that Scheer was going to pay for his proposed cut on the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 13.5% by cutting services for mental health and opiod overdoses. Just a wild guess based on… nothing.
(Note that I really do not believe Scheer would do any such thing - this is merely a hypothetical for argument’s sake)
I’ve been appreciating the generally apolitical points of view, even if I haven’t been very involved in the conversation of late. I’ve been feeling very… whelmed with my options at the leadership level, so I’m likely going to just ignore most everything and just vote for my MP.
That said, I want to apologize for the sudden fork in the conversation. I want to revisit something we were discussing much earlier, and that’s an implementation of proportional voting. What I felt was missing was a way of getting that local feeling, of voting in an MP that represented individual, localized areas that properly represented that riding. Of, as somebody else wrote, avoiding the feeling of MPs simply being appointed. And then the solution came to me that I want to experiment with.
To get that local feeling, we keep the ridings. Parties submit a list of candidates, one per riding, just as they do now, with funding limits per riding as before. The vote, however, is proportional. If a party gets 38% of the votes, they get 38% of the MPs. Just as we expect.
The twist is how those 38% are chosen: they’re chosen from the top 38% of the ridings where that party did best, as measured by vote percentage in that riding.
There’s two wrinkles, of course. The first is that it makes it possible for multiple parties to produce MPs from the same riding. (Green, NDP and Liberals can do well in poor urban ridings for instance). It’s also theoretically possible for a riding to produce no MPs whatsoever.
I’m planning on building a Canadian election simulator to test this out to see how pronounced this effect could be. To make the simulator as accurate as possible, I’d deeply appreciate getting projected polling percentages and eligible voter counts on a per riding basis. Any idea where I might find this data?
Thanks in advance.
If I’m following you correctly, that sounds similar to my proposal that n
Post 24?
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21850658&postcount=24
You can get polling data or projections at 338canada.com.
Do keep in mind that people would vote differently than they do now if this system were in place, while current polling tells you about how people vote with FPTP in place. I’m not sure how big the difference would be, but it would certainly have some impact.
Looking for polling data in every riding sounds rather hopeless. You’d be better off applying your model to past elections.
The electoral system change currently being proposed in Quebec, which is a mixed member proportional system, was originally supposed to be put into place without a referendum, given that three of the four parties with seats in the National Assembly (including the one currently forming government) got together before the last election to agree on it. The Liberals were the only party opposed, but even they seem to have softened their tone since then. However, it seems like a referendum will be held on it after all (concurrently with the next election in 2022), since there was some opposition from the government caucus and even the chief electoral officer said somewhat controversially that such a reform would require years to put in place. At least it seems that this referendum will be held using 50% + 1 vote as threshold, and not 60% in favour with a majority in 60% of the ridings as with the 2005 BC referendum.
I must say that I don’t think parties voting for what they think will benefit them is a very major objection to electoral reform, since almost by definition the governing party, which is the one that could put in place a reform, will tend to favour the current system that put it in power. Electoral reform is more likely to happen during times of minority government, which also forces the reform to be a multiparty consensus.
Of course, electoral reform at the federal level is much more difficult than at the provincial level, since there are issues of federalism to consider. I would strongly oppose a pure proportional system at the federal level, for example, and I expect most Canadians would as well.
I have to sincerely apologize for this. I had no idea on how it would affect people and how hurtful my words could be. I will en-devour to do better in the future and live up to Canadian’s expectations. If I have any excuse it was the lack of privilege when I was growing up. I had no access to world class universities to teach me the niceties of polite conversation or how to properly fade black shoe polish into a nappy wig. I was left to my own devices and ended up watching TV, for the most part. Shows like the Fifth Estate, W5, 60 Minutes, Nova, etc,. They could only teach me so much and for their failure, I ask forgiveness.
I note that the person who originated the picture is now in the spotlight for their ‘motivations’. Yes, their dastardly motivation in outing such a beloved Canadian figure. It’s obviously his fault that Trudeau is in this pickle. I’m still waiting on Trudeau’s motivation on prancing around in blackface.
165billion of barrels proven reserves in the oil sands. Oil sands facts and statistics | Alberta.ca
Current oil price is $63/bbl. Call it $50 and that is $8.2T USD worth of assets not being fully utilized before it become obsolete.
See above
See above. Money can help pay for peanuts and diversification.
The alternative is that these buggers get the money and use it to keep subjugating their people.
Our Ally Saudi Arabia Beheaded 10 People This Month (from 2017)
Scheer skipped the Climate Strike in Montreal. Thunberg criticizes Trudeau, Trudeau does not throw an angry tirade on Twitter. Trudeau, Singh, May were all at a climate protest. Bernier calls Thunberg “mentally unstable”. Wow. Frak Bernier and the PPC. What a basket of deplorables. I mean I’m not supportive of the direction the CPoC has taken, but they’re still a normative party (despite drifting too far to the right), but the PPC. Just wow. I find it so hard to believe there are even 4%ish Canadians who believe this crap.
So far, the campaign ads I’ve seen have been negative from the CPoC “Trudeau. He’s not as advertised.” and positive from the Liberals “Choose Forward”. I’ve not seen any ads from the Green or NDP. I’m not saying there aren’t any negative Liberals ads or positive CPoC ads, just that I’ve not seen them. I don’t watch a lot of TV so it might not be surprising that I won’t have seen too many ads. Have others been seeing a lot of ads? Generally negative (boo) or positive (yay!)?
And here it is again, you saying stupid crap about Trudeau that is clearly motivated by nothing more than personal animosity, and then following it up with this howler:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-oilsands-economics-analysis/canadas-oil-sands-survive-but-cant-thrive-in-a-50-oil-world-idUSKBN1CN0FD
Oil sands are probably the most expensive source of oil there is, and even Albertans acknowledge that a price of $60 per barrel is the bare minimum needed to break even.
Note, that’s “Break even”, NOT “make a profit”. At your suggested $50 price point, we’d lose $10 for every barrel we sell, turning your “$8.2T USD worth of assets” into a huge economic disaster.
I guess you really are a Trump fan after all, if you think that’s a good business plan.
It’s not surprising that Conservative fans know very little about the economics of the Canadian oil patch.
I know a lot of folks in Alberta who seem strangely positive that if you put Bitumen in one end of a pipeline, it comes out the other end as sweet, light crude. Or even refined gasoline!
I mean, I read crap all the time about how British Columbians won’t be able to drive their cars if more Alberta bitumen is not sent through the pipeline.
You’d think that people who live in a province dependent on petroleum resources would at least know a little bit about the industry.
Not a fan of the Conservative mailer we got this week. One side is a normal-looking Conservative ad, and the other is made up to look like an NDP mailer, with lines about “higher taxes” etc. Elections are so depressing.
Assume you can extract $10 on a barrel and that 80% of the reserves are really accessible and that it would take 50 years to exploit.
26 billion a year. That’s about 7% of the Alberta GDP which is nothing to laugh at. Except 50 years worth of exploitation at Alberta’s extraction rate of 1 billion barrels is only a third. So really it seems like 10 billion a year.
We should really apply the externalities of carbon but let’s leave that aside.
Profit is one portion of economic activity. 150,000 people directly involved in that production, paying taxes, supporting services, etc.:rolleyes: A large portion of that activity directly in Canada.
Production is becoming more efficient. No worries. Keep sending your money to prop up theocrats and dictators rather than supporting your fellow Canadians.