I like the sound of that. Pharmacare seems like an obviously good policy.
Are there any decent arguments against it?
The only real argument is “it’s too expensive,” so no.
It kind of seems like the Liberals are freaking out about finances right now. They don’t want to keep running big deficits, but they’re also afraid to hike taxes while they’re already weak in the polls, so they’re resorting to things like cutting defence spending in a moment where the world is edging towards war.
In the end higher taxes are probably what needs to happen. The conservatives will razz them for it, but that’s much better even from a purely electoral standpoint then a snap election right now.
Harper crippled us long term by reducing the GST.
It’ll be political suicide to increase it for anyone, and now we all suffer.
It’s not where I’d go. In Canada right now, investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than income from actual work, and that seems messed up. I don’t know how much would be brought in by changing that, but it’s not nothing. And, of course, you could always do things with the upper tax brackets.
I think it makes sense for investments to be less though as you’re risking something vs just income. One is safe the other isn’t.
But messing with upper brackets does increase tax revenue from investments of the wealthy as well so it is probably the easiest of all spots.
I think it makes sense for investments to be less though as you’re risking something vs just income. One is safe the other isn’t.
You’re of course allowed to have that opinion, but I’d like to point out working for a living isn’t risk-free either. 10 million in a conservative ETF is probably less likely to fail than a job you could get laid off from.
Yes, some kind of income tax is probably best. Honestly if it was up to me I’d get rid of corporate taxes in favour of them too, although I think there’s treaty obligations not to do that right now.
What I’d also like to see, but would be difficult to implement is taxing the wealthy when they use assets for leverage / borrowing to avoid taxes.
They can defer taxes for decades this way, in some cases until they die.
Leave it for us small timers, but put a limit somewhere where it becomes taxed somehow.
I am fine with reducing CONSUMPTION tax which mostly impact the poor and the middle class. We should be raising the taxes on investment income.
If they tax the RICH like they promised they won’t be in that position. BUT their benefactors are the rich so they are afraid of offending their patrons.
I though pharmacare was one of those things that paid for itself with the single point of negotiation and reduced need for emergency care? I don’t really remember the numbers…
You don’t see those results immediately, so it’s easy to campaign against at first.
Well, emergency care is also a provincial responsibility, and a single point of negotiation is moot from a federal budget perspective if the alternative is to pay nothing and let people fend for themselves. To society I’m sure it’s the better, cheaper option, though.
My only concern is that they’ll have to get the provinces on-side, or face a prolonged uphill battle of challenges that will delay it for years.
Given how hard it was to get some of the provinces to agree to dental and child care (which still aren’t fully implemented yet), I can’t see this being any less painful.
Might be ok for Manitoba now…
Previously, all aid (covid, healthcare, etc) was just redirected to debt
This is the best summary I could come up with:
New Democrats have resoundingly urged their party to stand firm on negotiating pharmacare, even if it means ending their political agreement with the Liberals.
But it signals that the NDP caucus would have the backing of the party’s membership to walk away from the arrangement if the Liberals won’t agree to a public, universal, single-payer system.
The Liberal minority government relies on New Democrats’ votes to pass legislation through a formal agreement that both parties signed.
In addition to pushing for legislation on pharmacare, Davies is continuing to negotiate the expanded rollout of dental care for low-income Canadians.
Under the NDP-Liberal deal, both parties committed to providing government-subsidized dental coverage for children under 18, persons with disabilities and seniors over 65 by the end of 2023.
Instead of cutting cheques as it did when the plan first began covering children under 12, Davies said an enrolment program would launch offering dental coverage through the insurance company Sun Life in December.
The original article contains 649 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
