I said so many disparate things, I'm not regurgitating a blog I read, there is no single source.
Carney has already cut the capital gains tax, that we were told was created to create generational fairness. As well as the carbon tax, which we were told was a net benefit to the poor. Given the polls seemingly Canadians arent progressive, and they hate taxes on the rich.
I feel like the NDP and the conservatives are both better than the Liberals. The NDP will raise taxes to actually fund the programs, which will lead to higher average standards of living and less future austerity; where the Conservatives will cut and lead to greater productivity gains and greater foreign investment into Canada.
Whereas the Liberals seem to be low taxes, tighter regulation, more unfunded programs, and now using even more debt in an attempt to force capital formation as if it will be different from the last decade. They just seem to say whatever they have to to get elected at any given time with no static leanings left or right, a party of non-denominational opportunists.
Youre increasing asset holders, mainly the rich, drastically while taking it from everyone else. Things are getting signifigantly worse as housing prices rise, birth rates fall, and populism inevitably increases.
We treat future promises of money, mainly debt, the same as we value existing money. Every loan is new money supply, which favors the rich who hold collateral, and who benefit the most from the cantillon effect. They also generally benefit the most from bailouts, which is just another symptom of loose money.
Mass immigration wont help with that, which is something all left leaning parties support right now.
In the 70s they blamed unions for causing wage inflation, and created laws to prevent wage negotiations, now we just do mass immigration when the phillips curve inverts. Regardless of existing housing shortages.
Well the overton window has shifted so much I'm not sure where any party is. Republicans are the so called conservatives, who happen to love larger deficits than the democrats for economic stimulus, so I'm not sure where that puts any party on a map. I'm just going by the labels most people know them by.
I'd support a ban on advertising in public spaces, but in digital spaces its a bit nonsense given it funds a lot of things people then dont need to pay for.
Ah, that could very well be true, we really printed a lot of money during Covid. In Canada the government is already buying 50% of all mortgage bonds, inflating the debt people can take in order to juice home prices.
Its the crunchy nature that I find appealing, the flavor is only okay by itself.
I like them in salad rolls, with marinara dip, and deep fried.
Ah interesting, thanks for the correction. Though since treasuries are paid by the government is it not then still a ponzi scheme, in the fact the bonds must be redeemed to pay for shortfalls, in which case the government must tax the existing population to pay for the redeemed bond to fund the old?
If we are looking at our existing scenario with the baby boomers I'd assume we must be close to being forced to liquidate, and taxes will rise on the young for the bond repayment?
If they allowed people to opt out would it not be the case that as people opt out you'd need to raise taxes on the young as more people opted out, since none of the money actually still exists, cascading into an insolvent system just like how a standard ponzi scheme unwinds?
turnip
0 post score0 comment score
You're right, and that whole argument is sidestepping the fact what they really want is a separation between men and women so that they can attempt to force a safe space for women that appeals to their sensibilities of women being born weaker than men with lower bone density and testosterone while not allowing glaring loopholes. Which is how they really view women as an infantile subset of our species that needs protection from a minority of opportunists that would take advantage of them.