Canada's economy grew by a greater-than-expected 0.3% in May and looks set to turn in its best annualized quarterly performance for more than three years, official data indicated on Friday.

...

[The growth] indicates annualized second-quarter growth of 3.4%, significantly higher than the Bank of Canada's July 15 forecast of 2.5%, and the highest annualized quarterly increase since the 4.3% seen in the first three months of 2023.

The central bank left its benchmark overnight rate unchanged at 2.25% on July 15 and said growth would strengthen in the second half of the year as inflation pressures eased and firms continued to adapt to U.S. tariffs.

"The economy appears to have found ways to navigate the current cloud of uncertainty relating to trade with the United States," said Royce Mendes, managing director ‌and ⁠head of macro strategy at Desjardins.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Of course, but the services he needs will be more likely to be in place thanks to the increased tax revenue as the jobs market picks up.

It sounds like you're taking about a homeless person with a debilitating mental health issue, but there are many unemployed who have employable skills that would benefit from this news. The homeless people with these mental issues will never be employable regardless of the economy, so I think you need to figure out what you're trying to argue here.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Of course, but the services he needs will be more likely to be in place thanks to the increased tax revenue as the jobs market picks up.

Not true when services are being cut

The homeless people with these mental issues will never be employable regardless of the economy

Also not true for a lot of people if they were actually supported.

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Services are being cut for two reasons: we're in a recession and we need to triage, and people aren't so keen on the policies being cut as they are for those remaining in place. This means that essentials stay, and perks get dropped. Sadly, those perks usually most benefit the ill and downtrodden, as those resources/services are very cost intensive for the return to society.

You're right about my comment on unemployable. That wasn't said properly. If we were fully funded, warning signs would be caught earlier and supports would be put in place to keep the individual as a contributing member of society.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Cutting services isn't "triage" if it impacts the most vulnerable and poor. Triage would be cutting tax breaks for multi billion dollar oil corporations and raising taxes on the wealthiest people in the country.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fun fact, the class with the biggest share of the country's wealth, is also the one most on Lemmy.

Like, sure, that probably is the answer, but let's not pretend there's some kind of distant, invisible group of billionares that will be the only ones effected. And that's why it's hard for politicians to actually raise taxes.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wealth taxes are actually very popular. The reason they aren't implemented is because libs and Tories are captured by capital

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Really? Go to someone on the street and ask if they want to pay more taxes. You might get a yes, but you'll get a lot more nos.

Politicians are captured by middle or upper-middle class voters, yes.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Onviously if you ask a slanted question like that, you will get slanted answers, but we are just talking hypotheticals right now. While its a little dated, the data suggests you are quite wrong and wealth taxes are popular.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So, that puts the cutoff at 20 million. Most people don't know anyone that rich, but if you ask someone with just a few million, they might, and they'll probably be against it. And guess what, they're going to know a lot of people with just hundreds of thousands, and those are the white picket fence people who vote and donate the most.

It's slanted, not the original question, in that it passes the buck to some distant third party. Politicians don't have the luxury of just ignoring that they have one big interconnected populace to satisfy, and none of them are an island. They raise taxes, and the big narrative is that they raised taxes for no reason, and that can cost an election.

It has nothing to do with it being a good idea or not. It's just politically difficult, and not because of anything spooky. (And FWIW OP was about income taxes; wealth taxes have additional complications)

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

What argument are you making here? Government won't do it because raising any taxes is bad? Maybe if a government is shit at messaging, they could lose political capital through a wealth tax but its clearly popular policy.

I brought up a wealth tax because the OP said thay services needed to be cut because we dont have enough money coming in. My point is that services don't need to be cut if the country's wealthy actually paid their fair share and I dont understand why everyone acts like financial troubles means that poor people have to suffer rather than rich people paying more.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What argument are you making here? Government won’t do it because raising any taxes is bad?

Unpopular in practice is different from unpopular in concept (look at cutting emissions, for another great example), and both are different than bad. Other than that, pretty much: The government won't raise taxes because it's unpopular when they do. (Thank you for asking, by the way, It's hard to just insert "this is my thesis")

Sure, they might be forced to raise taxes eventually. Probably, even; it's happened before. Or, maybe some socialist firebrand will come in and make extremely progressive taxes their signature policy (meaning they have to go with the flow elsewhere). But, this is descriptively, factually, why hikes don't happen that much.

Now, normatively, you can make whatever you want of that.

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago

It is a popular policy, and I wholeheartedly agree with wealth taxes as they're the only way to get back income to get fully funded everything. If it were as popular as you claim, it'd be policy now. That's how politics works. Maybe we'll see the NDP rise to prominence once our economy is running better and we'll transition as a society to funding all of the great social programs to the fullest extent possible. I hope that day happens, but that's not out current Canadian priorities sadly.

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So, you're saying it'll trickle down any moment now?

[–] keyhoh@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I see. You're just trying to argue because you don't understand economics. To you, everything needs to be immediate, is that it? Have you ever built something?

It takes over a year to build a house. How long do you think it takes to build an industry? It starts tickles down when people show up to put the shovels in the ground and continues until the last coat of paint is on. You think all of those workers are going to be eating bush berries to survive as they work, or will they be buying up services as they work? Have some patience.

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

No, not at all. Some investments take hundreds of years.