you say that a lot when confronted with the facts of the matter
your concept of reasonable is very unreasonable.
still want to tax/ steal rich folks money at 95 to 99% ?
still favour state sponsor assassinations on Canadian soil ?
What facts of the matter did you confront me with? Here is what you said:
that not what you said,
so you did not use common sense
reality is not your friend
a multitude of potential causes for low density populations proves nothing
targets are not reality
there will be an election and policy change
your concept of unreasonable is very unreasonable.
still want to steal rich folks money at 95 to 99% ?
Read the post you are responding to, and read your response What facts have you presented here? None.
Your only point was that there is an election and possible policy change - okay. May be for 2026, but we dont know that for sure. We dont even know who will win. And your response to my question about why certain countries with lower population densities still had very low development, pretty much proved that POPULATION has nothing to do with living standards, which is the point I was making.
250K per year was the level for two decades before Trudeau came to power. And we didn't have the problems that we do now.
You need to commission a study? That 100 million target by 2100 that you tout is from McKinsey. They get paid for these studies. Not exactly unbiased.
Of course they're going to recommend increasing the population. It means more customers for them and their clients.
GDP goes up. Doesn't mean GDP per capita does. What about the standard of living? No one can afford a house. Healthcare wait times grow longer.
But what do you care?
Well, McKinsey is a great consulting firm. Their methods are robust. And how can you commission a study without paying someone?
How do we also know that going back to immigration numbers from 2 decades ago, will resolve current problems? I also brought up the point of doing a cost benefit/impact analysis of drastically cutting immigration on not just housing but everything else such as GDP, consumption, production, productivity, labor shortages, market size for all industries, tax revenue, funding social services etc.
For example, suddenly cutting huge numbers of immigrants, may result in builders actually stopping current projects because there will be no one to rent them to. What happens then? Your housing crisis still persists or gets worse. You and JL are making this assumption that the supply will remain steady, but they are impacted by market forces. You say hospital wait times are higher, but it is also true that we have a shortage of doctors and other healthcare staff to the extent that the express entry draws, have special draws these days focused on healthcare staff. So cutting immigration may actually make wait times even worse.
Further, are housing and healthcare wait times the
only problems? No. So it seems to me that a more thorough analysis needs to be done, in order to truly understand next steps.
Regardless of all this, the root causes of all these issues are that we are not building enough houses, and do not have enough hospitals doctors and other healthcare staff. It is a supply side issue and therefore I believe the focus needs to be on boosting supply rather than cutting immigrants who we desperately need.
If they are such a net positive, why are living standards and overall wealth going down?
Living standards and overall wealth, are NOT going down. They are infact going UP. So this statement is untrue.
But you know what it's not taxes that put people in the street. The poor hardly pay taxes. It's lack of a having a basic salary that could put a roof on their head.
