$230 high heels to present your budget? We wonder what message the Minister of Finance wanted to send.
Canada has the means to achieve its ambitions?
Cynics will see it as a symbol of liberal disconnection.
Still, these ambitions must be paid for. And in this regard, Chrystia Freeland is broke.
The signal is clear. The rich will switch to cash.
- Listen to the Latraverse-Bock-Côté meeting with Emmanuelle Latraverse via QUB :
Risk of haircut?
Canada is not on the verge of a decline. But it is particularly vulnerable, the Royal Bank recently noted.
It is therefore imperative that the Freeland budget conveys the appearance of fiscal responsibility.
What could be better than digging into the pockets of the rich and the “surplus profits” of big companies? No one is going to cry about their fate.
It remains to be seen how far the budget will go?
Tax increase or asset tax? We can already bet that the additional income will turn out to be lower than expected. This is without taking into account the real risk of capital flight, as we saw in France in 2012.
The NDP’s call to tax the “excess profits” of large corporations is attractive in such a context. It doesn’t matter if they pass the bill on to consumers.
Screenshot, Youtube CPAC
However, as populist as they may be, these measures will not be enough to balance the finances of a government which spends more than it brings in.
He will still have the solution to extend his billions in housing, dental insurance and other “investments” over time.
He would thus give the impression that he is acting for Canadians while eliminating any future room for maneuver for his Conservative opponent.
Therein lies the problem. Shoveling the spending and the headaches that come with it after the election will do nothing to solve the current problems in the economy.
Therein lies the challenge for liberals; convince that this budgetary exercise will be more than a political mirage.