you have to realize that the ccpa and the liberal party are approaching this from different perspectives. the ccpa is looking at it as a way to reduce inequality (and perhaps debt), while the liberals are looking at it a a way to increase disposable income to get more money moving in the economy. when you realize that, the truth is that they’re both right. while the ccpa will correctly point out that this tax cut isn’t going to get anybody out of poverty, the liberals are equally correct in their logic that it’s spending by the upper middle class (or perhaps middle middle class) that is really what they’re aiming towards.

the reality is that if you give a big tax break to people on the lower end of the scale, it’s going to end up in the bank. it’s going to pay off credit card bills, go to downpayment on mortgages, pay down student loan debt and other things of the sort. this may help people’s finances, but there’s no economic benefit.

however, the thinking is that if you give a tax break in the middle of the scale then you get people buying cars and other big ticket items and that helps with a bit of stimulus spending. the next step here – and i’m using this language consciously – is that that money trickles down into the economy, creating service jobs.

the criticism of reaganomics is less in the idea and more in the implementation. if you give millionaires tax cuts, they don’t spend more money – because they already have more money than they can spend. if you give poor people tax cuts, they don’t spend more money either – because they’re in debt. this income range was targeted specifically under the thinking that it would maximize the amount of it getting spent, rather than saved or eaten by interest.

now, will that *actually* create jobs? not in an open economy, i don’t think. or, to put it another way – it might create jobs in asia or mexico, but perhaps not many here.

but, the ccpa’s analysis – while correct – is judging the policy on the basis of something it’s not intending to accomplish. it’s meant to give people that are in a position to spend more money to spend, not to tackle issues of inequality.

the truth is that everything about this makes sense, in terms of the textbook. we’ve got millionaires sitting on billions or trillions in the bank. the economy is stuttering because the rich aren’t spending their money. it’s entirely reasonable to take steps to get the money in circulation.

but, it’s a right-wing economic policy. you just don’t recognize it because it’s actually coherently constructed in order to actually work.

…or, if you want to play games with dynasties, to get a quick comparison in?

this is what the bush tax cuts should have looked like, and would have looked like if they were implemented intelligently.

www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-truth-about-justin-trudeaus-tax-cuts/