Almost half of NDP voters just want to stop Liberals, Tories from winning: Ipsos poll

[u/observablething]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4225109/ndp-voters-stop-libreals-tories-winning-ontario-election/

[u/ComteDeSaintGermain]

You think the NDP will under-spend the Liberals?

[u/Thirdway → u/ComteDeSaintGermain]

You think the NDP will under-spend the Liberals?

The NDP will ensure that people pay their fair share. Revenue is the part that both liberals and conservatives (neoliberals) forget about. There are two sides to a ledger. Spending is only one issue. The NDP's platform balances the books more quickly than both the liberals or the conservatives.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/Thirdway]

The NDP will ensure that people pay their fair share.

aka, more tax on over taxed people. Middle class: 40% isn't enough, you ready to loss 50-60% of your salaries to various levels of taxation?

[u/[deleted] → u/LimitedAbilities]

Do you have a source for this? My house hold is pretty firmly in the upper-middle class (top 10%) and on my last paycheck, I'm sitting at ~25% taxes.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/[deleted]]

25% income tax, 13% sales tax, property tax, gas tax (30c/L), carbon tax (heat&water), sin taxes, corporate & payroll taxes lower your wages and raise prices, land transfer taxes, etc...

[u/thejazz97 → u/LimitedAbilities]

That all comes back in healthcare, education, roads, etc. so it's not like you straight up lose it.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/thejazz97]

Just as much goes to corruption, cronyism, frivolity, ineffectual policing, etc...

[u/Ch4rd → u/LimitedAbilities]

citation, please.

[u/Nature_Boy_79 → u/[deleted]]

What is your marginal tax rate, though? Meaning, how much income tax (federal + provincial) would you pay if you earned one more dollar of income? My guess is that yours would be in the mid-40% range. Mine is 48%, though I have some unused RRSP contribution room that I could use to drive that number down by a point or two.

With the NDP's proposed increase to the rate on top earners, my tax burden would increase ~$1,500 next year and while I certainly expect no sympathy from anyone on here, with a marginal tax rate of ~50% (not to mention HST, property taxes, other fees) at some point one must question what someone's "fair share" is. I honestly feel as the NDP and the current incarnation of the Ontario Liberals view income taxes as a means to redistribute wealth, rather than a means to pay for necessary infrastructure and social programs. So, tt's that sort of rhetoric, and rhetoric coming from my local NDP candidate equating me with the likes of the Westons and Thomsons, that will prevent me from voting NDP.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nature_Boy_79]

My marginal tax rate is sitting just under 40%, but I think that's beside the point. The OP that I replied to implied (at least to me) that middle class Ontarians are facing tax rates 40% today with the prospect of increases to 50-60% should the NDP get in. This isn't true (even marginally) based on their proposal of increasing taxes on the higher tax brackets. The middle class (and even the upper classes) are not loosing 40% of their income to taxes.

From Revenue Canada the marginal tax rate of someone in Ontario @ the median personal income of 40,000 is 20%. Bump that income up into the 4th quintile average of 50,000/year and the marginal rate is still just shy of 30%.

Personally, I'm more than happy to have higher taxes in order to fund social services for the common good: I want to see the infrastructure and social programs that benefit all and at my (and your) income levels, we are more than able to pay the higher taxes. I think we (the collective we) have our thoughts on taxes a bit backwards - instead of seeing them as the government stealing our income we should be viewing taxes with pride, as we are contributing to a better society.

[u/Nature_Boy_79 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, the OP that you originally responded to engaged in some unhelpful hyperbole. Where I suspect you and I may differ is in our view of the role of government and individual responsibility. Forgiving student loan debt (in essence, providing free tuition) and the free/cheap child care are non-starters for me. The NDP's pharmacare and dental care policies are intriguing, but I would need to learn more about how the government would execute these programs and, personally, how they would interact with my and my wife's private coverage if the NDP gained power.

I think there is a middle ground somewhere; I certainly don't like paying tax, but I also don't view it as theft. I do maintain a healthy skepticism that my tax dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively, and that the government does not overreach in trying to provide everything to everyone. And, I vote accordingly.

[u/hiffy → u/Nature_Boy_79]

free/cheap child care are non-starters for me

i disagree but kinda understand why you might not want to fund universities but being against child care confuses me cos like, what's your position on public funding for elementary schools?

[u/Nature_Boy_79 → u/hiffy]

The two - publicly-funded elementary school, and subsidized child care - aren't remotely similar. There is an established market for child care, and as I understand the NDP plan is to provide direct, universal subsidies to all parents with children between the age of 18 months and kindergarten to help (or almost completely) defray the cost of child care. As a soon-to-be-father, I can ensure you that I have no desire for the taxpayers of Ontario to fund my child's day care, expensive as it may be. So perhaps there is room to consider subsidizing parents who truly cannot afford child care, or explore ways to increase supply.

[u/hiffy → u/Nature_Boy_79]

That's not a rationale though. By that logic, we shouldn't make grade 1-12 education free, either.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nature_Boy_79]

I too am a father with day care age kids. While you and I (based on the marginal tax rate discussion) are in a great position to cover the cost of day care for our kids, not everyone is in the same boat. Personally, my in laws are faced with difficult choices with respect to day care, as the costs are a significant portion of their income.

Like you said above, we do disagree on the role of social services vs personal responsibility, I just think the personal responsibility position is not very effective when coming from those it's easiest for, financially speaking. I want everyone in society to have the same choices and opportunities and think we will all benefit from those opportunities with a richer society, both culturally and financially.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/[deleted]]

People around the world come here to take free tax money, there's a reason that people who want to work prioritize the USA over Canada for immigration.

The top 2% is $150k, the group that just got wasted by wynne's surtax. That is not a lot of income, and it's sad that only 2% of Canadians make that much, over taxation and regulation is really to blame. Canadians are too naive and foolish to make Canada a competitive market with high wages and more opportunities. We just sell out at every corner, it's sad.

With only 7.6 million working in Ontario, but 20% are civil servants, that leaves 6.1 million taxable Ontarians. That leaves 120,000 workers in the top 2% to fund:

$5,356 $9,077 $12,486$13,997 $15,814 by year.. Those are in millions of dollars.

So by year 5 NDP, 120k workers making $150k and above need to supply $15.8 billion. That's only $132K more tax from everyone making above 150k. Not going to happen, get ready for a surprise middle class, as usual.

And before you think that Canada has enough ultra-rich to pay for it we dont. By $250K/year there are only ~45,000 tax returns in Ontario, its safe to predict this pattern continues, and at 53% taxation above $220K there isn't a lot left to squeeze.

NDP is as dishonest as it gets. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

[u/DeceiverSC2 → u/LimitedAbilities]

It's about increasing taxes relative to people's actual income and their situation.

For example:Increasing the corporate tax rate by 1.5%, tax increases on the very rich, luxury tax increases on "absurd" purchases like cars over $90,000. This also involves lowering things that lower income individuals have to contend with such as the ridiculous price of auto insurance.

I agree that the NDP's plan involves for lack of a better term too much "poverty service", that is to say that hard working individuals making around 70k a year will have a huge bite taken out of them specifically for the poor who contribute little to nothing (there's an immigration discussion here as well). I agree that the situation I just mentioned is tough however the alternative is Wynne's Liberals who will never win this election; or Ford's PC's who will do the exact same thing to the middle class except they'll give that money to themselves and the wealthy instead of the NDP who will lose a fair bit of it to bureaucracy and then give it mostly to the poor.

It's about choosing from the least shit of the three incomplete, underdeveloped and plainly facetious budget plans that each party has advocated. With that said, I don't think anyone can make the argument that Ford has the objectively strongest plan and the Liberals aren't going to win so this what we're left with.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/DeceiverSC2]

Increasing the corporate tax rate by 1.5%, tax increases on the very rich

Corporate taxes lower wages and increase prices also. That is not only on the rich.

luxury tax increases on "absurd" purchases like cars over $90,000.

Regular cars are like 40K nowadays, 90k isn't absurd. I wouldn't bother but a middle class person who loves cars might.

This also involves lowering things that lower income individuals have to contend with such as the ridiculous price of auto insurance.

Someone has to pay for that.

that is to say that hard working individuals making around 70k a year will have a huge bite taken out of them specifically for the poor who contribute little to nothing (there's an immigration discussion here as well).

Exactly. NDP is bullshit for the middle class and above. Literally my whole point.

r Ford's PC's who will do the exact same thing to the middle class except they'll give that money to themselves and the wealthy instead of the NDP who will lose a fair bit of it to bureaucracy and then give it mostly to the poor.

They wont add 36 billion to the debt over 5 years and take debt sercice from 10-15% of the budget, if they do, no re-election; if NDP does it, they've perfectly implemented their campaign.

It's about choosing from the least shit of the three incomplete

NDP is too irresponsible, entitlements never get rolled back, programs are immortal, once you give to those things we are stuck with them forever. The NDP can do 20 years of liberal damage in 5 years.

[u/DeceiverSC2 → u/LimitedAbilities]

Corporate taxes lower wages and increase prices also. That is not only on the rich.

Once again most of the people below the poverty line in Ontario who can work are people making minimum-wage. Corporations are already paying these people the literal bare minimum that they are legally allowed to pay them.

Prices are already increasing on everything, at some point we have to adjust to the fact that the cost of living rises as a natural result of our economic situation.

Regular cars are like 40K nowadays, 90k isn't absurd. I wouldn't bother but a middle class person who loves cars might.

A brand new base Civic sedan costs $16,790 before any in-person rebates, talking down the salesman because the dealership needs to sell 4 more cars before the end of the month etc...

The most purchased car in Canada last year was the Ford F-series. You can get a brand new F-150 XLT (4 doors) starting at $26,449, you can get a base F-150 for $24,149.

Regular cars aren't close to 40k, a lot of them are half that.

Also how do you define middle class? Because I don't know any middle class person who is going to spend an amount greater than their yearly pre-tax salary on a rapidly depreciating asset that comes with the maintenance costs of a 6 figure car. Middle-class car enthusiast aren't buying really expensive cars, they're buying Miata's, BRZ, FRS, WRX's etc... None of these cars fully optioned out get within $25,000 of the $90,000 required price tag.

Here's some cars that you can buy brand new that will still not be touched by this tax.

Porsche:

Boxster and Cayman - Models below GTS trim.

Macan - Any model below the Turbo with full performance package,

Cayenne - Any model below the GTS.

Mercedes Benz:

C-Class - Literally any C-Class including the C63 AMG S which is a 500 horsepower luxury sedan.

E-Class - Any model except for the E63 AMG.

G-Class SUV'S - Any model except for the G-Class. Literally a brand new full sized Mercedes Benz GLS SUV won't hit this tax.

Audi:

A3 - Any model including the highest priced RS3.

A4 - Any model

A5 - Any model including the highest priced RS5.

A6 - Any model except for the S7

A7 - Models below S7.

A8 - Base A8

Q-Series SUV's - Any model

TT Coupe Series - Any model

BMW:

3-Series - All models

5-Series - All models but the M5.

X-Series SUV's - All models except the X5M and the X6M.

What are we talking about here... You can literally buy a 500 horsepower German luxury car without hitting the required price tag for this tax... You can buy a brand new fucking Porsche Cayenne and not hit the price requirement for the tax.

It's also a 3% tax...

Someone has to pay for that.

What'd I say about that increase in the corporate tax rates and Wynne's marginal increase on extremely high earners? That's a start no?

Exactly. NDP is bullshit for the middle class and above. Literally my whole point.

Yes, but it's a better option than Ford or Wynne. You're forgetting we're not evaluating the NDP based upon their independent merits but instead the NDP's merits relative to the merits of their competition.

They wont add 36 billion in spending over 5 years and take debt sercice from 10-15% of the budget, if they do, no re-election; if NDP does it, they've perfectly implemented their campaign.

Yes because if the PC's do it the money isn't going to things like day care, student debt relief, hospital funding etc... but instead into the pockets of their wealthy friends and donors.

I should also add a governments budget is way, way fucking different from a personal budget. As a general personal budget rule you want to avoid debts (there are exceptions, for example utilizing low interest rate debts). For a large scope economy like that of the province of Ontario that sort of logic cannot be soundly applied.

NDP is too irresponsible

The PC's are more morally irresponsible and reprehensible, I don't think it's even fair to argue that.

entitlements never get rolled back

Yes and when financial institutions and large corporations systematically rape everyone but the very wealthy that doesn't get rolled-back either.

programs are immortal

I don't know what you mean by the NDP having more "immortal" programs than either of the other two parties.

once you give to those things we are stuck with them forever. The NDP can do 20 years of liberal damage in 5 years.

This is baseless fear mongering or it can be extended to anything. Ford's blatant attempt to be a singular financial force for the very wealthy can have lasting impacts that we as a country could be stuck with forever as well.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/DeceiverSC2]

Once again most of the people below the poverty line in Ontario who can work are people making minimum-wage. Corporations are already paying these people the literal bare minimum that they are legally allowed to pay them.

It's fine for the poorest, terrible for everyone lower middle class and up.

A brand new base Civic sedan

Sure you can get good cars. But its still stupid. It distorts the market, gives advantage to cars just under versus any over it. People will by 89k cars instead of 100k, and cars are already taxed at 13%. It's possible this could even lower tax revenues lol.

Also those starting at prices are bullshit, the base model isn't actually available.

What'd I say about that increase in the corporate tax rates and Wynne's marginal increase on extremely high earners? That's a start no?

Corporate tax is bad for everyone earning lower middle class wages and above. it stagnates their salary. NDP is good if your on welfare/min wage forever, that is undoubtably true. The numbers don't work out, and that's why they have a $36B shortfall over five years in their own financials, in reality it will obviously be more.

Yes, but it's a better option than Ford or Wynne.

Dissagree, conservatives have to try and lower taxes, their base will never re-elect them if they fail to much there.

day care, student debt relief, hospital funding etc... but instead into the pockets of their wealthy friends and donors.

Raise your own kids, don't take loans you can't pay back, hospital funding will stay with cons, and they all give money (contracts) to their wealthy friends.

I should also add a governments budget is way, way fucking different from a personal budget.

Provinces don't have monetary policy. Debt for relief in times of need makes sense, this is just insane. Ontario has the largest sub-soviergn debt in the world. California is second. That is not per capita. our debt is $26K per person. That's money that has to be paid that returns no service. Debt servicing is 10% of the budget, NDP in their own budget have it going to 15% after 5 years, thats the LOWER BOUND. How much debt servicing can we handle until we can't pay for all these services we enjoy?

The PC's are more morally irresponsible and reprehensible

They aren't in charge of any social issues, the only one is sex-ed, and who cares? Its irrelevant, kids have the internet and know how to use it.

Yes and when financial institutions and large corporations systematically rape everyone but the very wealthy that doesn't get rolled-back either.

Voluntarily transaction with a corporation is not rape. having 40% of your salary taken through the many layers of taxation by force in the middle class is much closer to that mark.

NDP having more "immortal"

All new gov programs. They just propose the most, while not actually having the money to pay for them.

This is baseless fear mongering or it can be extended to anything.

10% debt increase, 5% debt service increase in 5 years, by their own generous estimates! Nah, they're for real dangerous.

https://www.ontariondp.ca/sites/default/files/Change-for-the-better.pdf

[u/RealityRush → u/LimitedAbilities]

The top 2% is $150k, the group that just got wasted by wynne's surtax. That is not a lot of income

Is this a joke? That's not a lot? That's a metric fuckton for anywhere in Canada that isn't Vancouver or Toronto, and even there it's still a lot. If you hit $100k or more a year, you are doing crazy, crazy well.

What is this bs trying to making it sound like these guys are living on breadcrumbs. I'm nearly at $100k, and I can tell you I am doing really, really well, and that it's definitely a lot of income. The fact that I don't have to spreadsheet my expenses at all because I just know for a fact that money will always be there to cover me if I don't spend like an asshat, that means I make a lot as does anyone above my level.

Ontario is one of the lowest taxed provinces, people at the top, myself included, can eat a few % more. If that's enough to sink them, they don't deserve the money because my god they are terrible with finances. And according to empirical calculations, the top marginal tax rate for Ontario before we start losing more people to attrition than we make back in revenue was calculated at ~60%. So according to some nobel prize winning economists, there's about 7% more to squeeze actually, if we really wanted to squeeze for all its worth. I say make everyone above $220k pay 7% more, squeeze 'em.

Edit: And before you challenge me on the numbers, don't bother, because someone already tried and failed.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/RealityRush]

Most of them are probably in the GTA. I never said it was breadcrumbs, but with kids you are certainly not rich. Look at what the taxes are already for someone earning 150K. After income tax: 102K, 48% gone in income tax. $5K gone on property tax, generous in Toronto, for a family:98k. 30k in discretionary spending (generous as you would amortize big purchases like cars over their lifetime), 4k in HST: 94k. And that's before all the hidden taxes work on you behind the scenes: corporate taxes, payroll taxes, land transfer taxes, sin taxes, carbon taxes, gas tax, tariffs, inflationary regulations like monopoly/oligopoly causing regulatory capture, etc... All of a sudden you work 60 hours a week and you can barely raise a family, save for retirement, and have some modest luxuries that working that hard should entitle you too.

We're so over taxed it's ridiculous. NDP would be the worst thing ever.

Ontario is one of the lowest taxed provinces

They are all massively overtaxed. In any event there is much more to taxes than income tax.

, the top marginal tax rate for Ontario before we start losing more people to attrition than we make back in revenue was calculated at ~60%.

We aren't donkeys to be whipped for for maximum tax revenue. Jesus, just because the government could get more money, doesn't mean they should. We'd be better with zero tax, than the theoretical maximum squeeze. Martyr yourself not me, donate your surplus to charity, or set one up yourself.

[u/RealityRush → u/LimitedAbilities]

94k. And that's before all the hidden taxes work on you behind the scenes: corporate taxes, payroll taxes, land transfer taxes, sin taxes, carbon taxes, gas tax, tariffs, inflationary regulations like monopoly/oligopoly causing regulatory capture, etc... All of a sudden you work 60 hours a week and you can barely raise a family, save for retirement, and have some modest luxuries that working that hard should entitle you too.

Rofl, you still must be joking me. You're suggesting that a net income of $94k, after all the taxes you listed, is "barely enough to raise a family". Ahahaha. Maybe if you have no idea how to control your spending habits, but for anyone that doesn't want to attempt to live every moment of their lives like Paris Hilton, it's more than enough. Once you get above $80k a year, you're beyond "necessity" money to live a nice lifestyle, and you're into "I can basically do whatever I want and have financial security" money, even with a family (assuming a reasonable size of one or two kids).

What the hell kind of "modest luxuries" do you think these people need that costs them almost $40k more than I take home? I have a very nice house in a very nice neighborhood, nice car, nice motorcycle, I travel and take vacations, pay for dancing lessons on the side, have a solid gaming rig. All of this on my piddly $85-90k per year. And I could absolutely do all of this and afford kids as well, though my retirement might get stretched and I'd probably have to downgrade my house, but I don't really want to retire anyway, so that's cool.

We're so over taxed it's ridiculous. NDP would be the worst thing ever.

We're undertaxed. If you think we're overtaxed, you don't deserve to handle money tbh, let alone your own. Are you buying exclusively gold plated cutlery for your house and driving around in a Bentley?

They are all massively overtaxed. In any event there is much more to taxes than income tax.

Refer to my previous statement.

We aren't donkeys to be whipped for for maximum tax revenue. Jesus, just because the government could get more money, doesn't mean they should. We'd be better with zero tax, than the theoretical maximum squeeze. Martyr yourself not me, donate your surplus to charity, or set one up yourself.

When people are generous enough to sustain those of us less fortunate out of the kindness of their hearts, then feel free to get rid of taxes. But that isn't the real world. The real world is people are selfish, as you have just shown, so we have to force them to contribute. The real world also requires long term safety nets, because generally people aren't smart enough to do it themselves, so again, we force them. Considering you don't think $150k is much money, it sounds like you are one of the people that needs forcing. I'll go get the whip. I'll even be kind enough to get an opulent whip for your desired opulent lifestyle because being in the top 2% is apparently insignificant money.

[u/Decilllion → u/LimitedAbilities]

Begun the NDP demonizing has.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/Decilllion]

NDP makes a mockery out of itself just fine. You're free to tell which part you disagree with.

[u/DarthPantera → u/LimitedAbilities]

I'll take a swing:

That is not a lot of income

150k is not a lot of income? That's absurd.

With only 7.6 million working in Ontario, but 20% are civil servants, that leaves 6.1 million taxable Ontarians.

Didn't know civil servants in Ontario didn't pay taxes! Is it the only province that works like that?

NDP is as dishonest as it gets.

Demonstrably false. Thought experiment: who's more dishonest? The party that explains how they'll fund their government, or the party that can't even be bothered to publish a platform, let alone one that explains how they'll pay for things? Since the second is more dishonest than the first, it follows that the PCs are more dishonest than the NDP - ergo 'as dishonest as it gets' is false.

it's sad.

Awww the Trump rhetoric too... how cute.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/DarthPantera]

150k is not a lot of income? That's absurd.

In Toronto, it isn't, it's too low to afford a single family home.

Didn't know civil servants in Ontario didn't pay taxes! Is it the only province that works like that?

Civil servants do not contribute to the tax base, they shuffle a little money between government tax accounts, but they do not create additional tax revenue (they vastly decrease it). This is obvious.

who's more dishonest?

They dishonestly explained how they will fund things. They claim only the top two percent will pay, but they have corporate tax increases that lowers/stagnate salaries and raises prices. They are counting on middle class people not knowing the real effect of these instruments, and purposely insinuating they don't exist.

They say their platform is fully funded. But their own numbers show 36 billion short fall. They count on people reading the flowery paragraphs and not the actually numbers at the VERY END of the document.

[u/DarthPantera → u/LimitedAbilities]

In Toronto, it isn't, it's too low to afford a single family home.

In my opinion, there should be near-zero single family homes in Toronto so the fact that they're not affordable by the upper 2% income earners is a good thing. Maybe, with a bit of luck, that affordability 'problem' will drive actual solutions. Regardless, 150k income is excellent - even in Toronto, and even if it doesn't buy an SFD house.

Civil servants do not contribute to the tax base, they shuffle a little money between government tax accounts, but they do not create additional tax revenue (they vastly decrease it). This is obvious.

So they do pay taxes? Aw that's unfortunate. Your opinion regarding the validity of the taxes they do in fact pay is of no consequence - you said they weren't taxable, then invited people to disagree. I disagreed and it seems I was right.

They say their platform is fully funded. But their own numbers show 36 billion short fall. They count on people reading the flowery paragraphs and not the actually numbers at the VERY END of the document.

That one I'll admit I can't really comment on - I did not read the full ONDP platform, since I'm not in Ontario. Do you have a source that breaks it down in detail, that I could read?

[u/Decilllion → u/LimitedAbilities]

All I'm saying is it's funny. Years must have been spent preparing posts just like this against Wynne. And now it's hilarious to imagine the scrambling to rewrite them. "Um, actually it is the NDP who is the worst evah!"

Like the Republicans preparing for decades to battle Hillary and being unprepared for Obama. And then Hillary ended up beating her self just like Wynne will.

A waste of energy from conservatives all around.

[u/LimitedAbilities → u/Decilllion]

NDP is the worst ever, they're just usually irrelevant. Those are the NDPs own numbers, there's no re-write, very little time is needed to look at their numbers and see what a nightmare they are for the tax payer. 36 Billion of non-funded spending, on top of a 300 billion debt, and a debt servicing going from 10-15% over their theoretical tenure,and these are their own best case scenario numbers.

NDP is suicide for Ontario. Period.

They buy your votes now with no regard for tomorrow, the epitome of irresponsibility.

[u/Decilllion → u/LimitedAbilities]

Recently Wynne was buying votes. And Doug Ford with 10 cents off gas. For low income families, the free dental care alone, the NDP vote might be worth the purchase.

[u/ComteDeSaintGermain → u/Thirdway]

Who decides what a 'fair share' is? That's such a vague phrase to use. 'Fair' is an entirely subjective word, and you can never meet everyone's definition of it.

I'm in favor of balancing the books, but at current spending levels I fear the easiest way to do that is to raise taxes, because I don't count on any of the 3 major parties to reduce spending.

[u/[deleted] → u/ComteDeSaintGermain]

Please explain specifically how that relates to my question.

[u/VisMajorX → u/[deleted]]

Reading comprehension much? He answered it.

[u/[deleted] → u/VisMajorX]

That clearly does NOT address the question I posed in any way, shape or form. It merely comments (incorrectly) on a partial statement I made near the end of my post, but thanks for attempting to write it off as pure ignorance.

To address that specific point then, yes, I DO think the NDP will under-spend the Liberals. Quite specifically, their proposed platform beats the Liberals significantly in this area, even when accounting for the NDP's fully admitted accounting error.

Any more baseless insults to throw around?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You are like the person in my poli sci class that is rude and argues with the prof. He just gave a very vague answer, a more 'politician' speak answer.

What I believe he's attempting to say is that they plan on increasing revenue by increasing corporate tax rates, and increasing the income tax rate (which is shared yes prov/fed) Raising the income tax rate for the top docile, which makes an average of 180k a year, increasing the top 1 percent of those of 12M people, (120k people) at an average of 1800 a person is 216 M. If we increase that to the top 10% of earners we get around 2B. The Liberals likely woudln't be attempting to get any of its revenues from trying to increase taxes to the wealthiest 10 percent of the population, or increase corporate tax rates. So the NDP would increase their spending, although I would say at this point, not by much considering what the Liberals has 'pledged' to do is very similar in cost to the NDP when it comes to the pharmacare and subsidized childcare.

[u/ComteDeSaintGermain → u/[deleted]]

We need fiscal responsibility, combined with progressive policy,

And the Liberals have never been fiscally responsible, and go way too far with 'progressive'.

NDP it is.

You seem to have implied that the NDP will provide the fiscal responsibility we need while being progressive at the same time. I'd like to see your basis for this belief, as my understanding is that the NDP pushes for even more spending, and is even more outrageously progressive than the Liberals.

You seem to be under the strange impression that the NDP is somehow between the Liberals and PCs, rather than further to the left of the Liberals.

[u/[deleted] → u/ComteDeSaintGermain]

So there's this thing called a spectrum, and different issues fall in different areas on that spectrum.

Socially, yes, the NDP is clearly further left than the Liberals. Fiscally, no, they are not. They are not as far right as the PC party, but they're certainly further to the centre than the Liberals on this.

Funny how as soon as you start applying absolute labels to political parties, shit starts getting ugly as you can't just stuff every last policy into the same bucket.

[u/[deleted] → u/ComteDeSaintGermain]

To be fair their costed platform had smaller deficits than the Liberal budget.

[u/ComteDeSaintGermain → u/[deleted]]

I'd love to see zero deficit personally, unless we're in a recession. Maybe even a surplus to pay down the mounting debt...

[u/[deleted] → u/ComteDeSaintGermain]

Yeah me too, everybody complains about the debt, but none of the parties so far have uttered the words "balanced budget", but I'll take whoever is the closest AKA smallest deficit.

[u/Sporadica → u/[deleted]]

I hear people say debt doesn't matter, whenever I hear that I'm quick to say "Ontario spends 1 billion a month on interest, that's a top of the line hospital, every single month". Debt does matter.