Living in the Future

Tag: Politics

Proposition 24: Wealth Tax
The only people who think that wealthy people should not pay more tax are wealthy people, and people who’ve been duped by wealthy people to believe that all tax is bad. Learning a little about marginal tax rates and seeing the amount of money that rich people have left over *after* paying would convert a lot of people I think, but we’re left with no information based on this question alone.
A wealth tax is a really obvious thing, and I ~~think~~ hope people will start to demand it soon.
Summary: This question is lacking some information, but I think it’s clear enough that this gets more of a pass on lacking sources than other questions.
Previous
Proposition 23: Violence Against Indigenous Women
Next
Proposition 25: Gender-Balanced Cabinet
Table of Contents
October 17, 2019
Proposition 23: Violence Against Indigenous Women
All they are asking for is recognition? Geez what a low bar, and a bad question. This one is a no-brainer.
Summary: Next!
Previous
Proposition 22: Employment Insurance
Next
Proposition 24: Wealth Tax
Table of Contents
October 17, 2019
Proposition 22: Employment Insurance
This is one of the worse questions of the bunch in that the VAST majority of people probably have no idea what is even required to qualify for Employment Insurance. Even just a list of the simplest stipulations of the program would help voters decide whether they think it should be easier.
Since what I would actually prefer is that everybody could qualify for employment insurance (a basic income, if you will), obviously I think it should be much easier, but I also spent about 6 months on EI about 4-5 years ago now. Having a work contract end and no job lined up immediately after, I was one of the ones who easily *qualified* for EI, but one of the worst aspects of the program is that any money you make while on EI needs to be reported, and you get correspondingly less from EI as you start to make money.
This is incredibly annoying because it literally gives you no incentive to work at all unless you’re making more money than the maximum you’re eligible for under EI, which when you’re trying to pick up work part time here and there, I can tell you is always less.
Summary: All in all, this question is missing a lot of information, especially for a commonly misunderstood program like EI.
Previous
Proposition 21: Single-Use Plastics
Next
Proposition 23: Violence Against Indigenous Women
Table of Contents
October 17, 2019
Proposition 21: Single-Use Plastics
This question is totally fine, as it’s basically an agree/disagree again, with no real ambiguity of the current state. However, the single-use plastics thing is still kind of weird because while of course throwing away plastic is bad for the environment, the blanket language of these kinds of laws means that there’s no real distinction between different kinds of plastics, especially the kinds of plastics which are currently being developed.
I think we can all agree that current replacements for single-use plastic items are worse in almost every way, and the only things we’re actually replacing only contribute very minimally to plastic waste. Instead, what I think we should actually be doing is doing research in one of a few things:
- Biodegradable plastics which otherwise have the same properties as non biodegradable plastics (this really should take that long if we put some thought in to it, and the profits this research would yield would surely be VERY high).
- Bacteria which break down commonly used plastics, so that these materials will break down normally in nature the same way trees do when bacteria evolved to break down wood pulp.
- New materials which are somehow easier to recycle or require less effort, to account for human nature/laziness.
Plastics were only developed in the 20th century, and science has come so far in the years since that I have no doubt that our best scientists working on this for a few years could crack it no problem.
Summary: This question is fine, but I think the policy itself is much more complicated than ‘ban single-use plastics’ if we can get biodegradable plastics.
Previous
Proposition 20: Military Spending
Next
Proposition 22: Employment Insurance
Table of Contents
October 17, 2019
Proposition 20: Military Spending
As I’ve said before, I don’t like war/violence, but I understand it’s necessary to a certain extent. I don’t know exactly how much Canada spends on its military each year, but I have no doubt it’s a lot. Canada has a lot of peace-keeping forces, and we have a lot of allies who we support in different battles around the world.
All of that being said, however, I think there is a lot of military spending that could probably be reduced over time, especially on things which are becoming or have become obsolete, like older jets or helicopters (I admit I have almost no knowledge in this area).
Summary: Once again, this question really makes me yearn for more information about the amount of money we spend (as a percentage of GDP, maybe) on the military, and what we get out of that. I think that information would go a long way towards informing people as to how they should feel about military spending.
Previous
Proposition 19: Immigration
Next
Proposition 21: Single-Use Plastics
Table of Contents
October 15, 2019
Proposition 19: Immigration
How many immigrants does Canada currently admit per year? Does that include refugees who are immigrating to Canada out of necessity? This is information I could really use to help answer this question. Many people like to say that “America is full” (North and Sound America), but if people are being honest, that’s just bullshit.
We learned in high school in Alberta that the average population density of Canada is about 3 people per sq/km. Considering that almost everybody in Canada is crammed within 100 km of the US border, I absolutely believe that’s still basically unchanged, regardless of the amount of immigration we have in Canada.
It’s been shown through research that immigration helps the economy, and getting exposed to new and different cultures from our own really broadens our horizons and makes us better people, something which is sorely needed in North America today.
We should honestly take it as a huge compliment that people want to live here, and given that we already have a system in place to make sure that the people immigrating here aren’t escaped criminals, or anything remotely like that, I think we should be open to letting even more people in every year than we currently do. Canada isn’t full, and the more people come here, the more work there is to be done, so we shouldn’t be afraid to have a few more helping hands.
Summary: I wish I had information about how much immigration Canada currently has while answering this question, and I would like to know the plans of each of the parties if elected, mostly to put the rhetoric of those parties in context.
Previous
Proposition 18: Deficit Reduction
Next
Proposition 20: Military Spending
Table of Contents
October 15, 2019
Proposition 18: Defecit Reduction
Another question that as a progressive just makes me upset. Ontarians of various walks of life have been feeling the effects of these public services cuts since Doug Ford took office, and the CPC finally released their budgeted platform last week.
I think a lot of people don’t really understand how government budgets work (I’m not saying I do understand), but while being ‘in debt’ is obviously not ideal, it is by no means impossible for a society to function that way.
Many counties (the US being a great example) have a massive national debt, but it’s not so bad because other countries also owe them money, and it all kinda/sorta balances out over time, as long as you don’t just keep spending more and more.
Based on no information, I assume the Canadian government works the same way, and it’s actually kind of good for international relations to borrow money from other countries and to loan them money as well. It keeps the world smaller and keeps us on good terms with allies.
I strongly believe that we should be finding other ways to reduce the deficit slowly and reasonably than through cutting public services *cough* TAXES *cough*. Paying for things we all benefit from is solid public policy, even if conservatives definitionally believe in their own self-interests over paying for services collectively (when it doesn’t benefit them not to).
Summary: I wish this question put the actual deficit in Canada in to perspective, because at the moment there is absolutely no reporting out there saying the deficit is too high and we’re heading towards catastrophe, but if our economy is strong, we should be investing that money in to our citizens’ wellbeing.
Previous
Proposition 17: Asylum Claims
Next
Proposition 19: Immigration
Table of Contents
October 15, 2019
Proposition 17: Asylum Claims
F off with this question. Some of these Vote Compass questions have nuance and are complicated, but not this one. Asylum claims are not something that should be taken lightly like it is in this question, and the fact that people would come in to our country looking for somewhere safe demonstrates to me that we should absolutely not be treating them like potential criminals or deport them at will, potentially right back to the dangerous place (home) they were escaping.
Summary: This question is the Maxime Bernier of the Vote Compass, in that making it political is xenophobic and racist. We should not tolerate this kind of hateful rhetoric as Canadians.
Previous
Proposition 16: Oil and Gas Subsidies
Next
Proposition 18: Deficit Reduction
Table of Contents
October 15, 2019
Proposition 16: Oil and Gas Subsidies
This question is a weird one for me, because it’s phrased like the industry definitely gets subsidies (which…why?!?!), but it doesn’t give any information about how much they receive (and whyyyyyyyy?).
Regardless of how much they receive, it kind of seems like there’s no reason for these companies to get any money from the government, seeing as how they’re already unbelievably profitable, and they’re in the middle of causing the wholesale destruction of our environment extracting fossil fuel from the ground to be burned.
If anything, I would say that these companies should need to pay more given what they’re doing, and that maybe they could apply for tax exemptions/credits if they’re doing research on things like developing biodegradable plastics or fuel systems that burn cleaner (no emissions, less harmful combustion byproducts).
It’s not going to be ‘easy’ to reduce human reliance on the current generation of plastics and combustion engines, but it’s been around a century that we’ve had either of those, and we can certainly get to a point where we’ve moved beyond single-use plastic and gas engines.
Summary: This question is not as bad as some others, but having information about how much oil and gas receive as subsidies (perhaps as a percentage of their profits?) to really put this question in context.
Previous
Proposition 15: Supervised Injection Sites
Next
Proposition 17: Asylum Claims
Table of Contents
October 15, 2019
Proposition 15: Supervised Injection Sites
I’m of the opinion that drugs are bad. However, addiction is a thing, and honestly, if somebody is taking drugs, I would rather they have the option to administer them in a safe way, and in an environment where nurses or doctors are available to help, in addition to clean and sterile needles.
I have read a fair bit of research to show that these sites not only help reduce things like the transmission of HIV and Hepatitis, but that they also lead to fewer overdoses, and even reduction in the numbers of drug users (in cases where using drugs is decriminalized, and doctors/nurses on staff can administer or at least suggest addiction therapies). Selling drugs is an entirely different issue, and I reserve the same level of disdain for drug dealers as I do for tobacco companies and pharma companies pushing stronger and stronger synthetic opioids.
Summary: This question is OK in that it’s mostly a yes/no, and in a society where many people still feel drug users should be ‘punished’ for their ‘sins’ and suffer the consequences of drug use, I fall on the side of compassionate support for users and think everybody should be able to work through (or even potentially indulge) their drug habits without having to suffer through other medical issues relating to their injection. This is true even while I also think using painkilling or hallucinogenic drugs for recreational purposes is not a good practice.
Previous
Proposition 14: Abortion Services
Next
Proposition 16: Oil and Gas Subsidies
Table of Contents
October 15, 2019