The Bank of Canada will raise interest rates by a quarter-point for a second straight meeting to 5.00% on July 12 following a five-month pause earlier this year and then hold well into 2024, according to a majority of economists polled by Reuters.
I still don’t follow. The BoC cannot be given such powers without the people’s approval. If the people don’t want higher taxes, why would the very same people accept handing control to the BoC to raise taxes?
Do you foresee a small group of people at the BoC overthrowing our democracy? Like, how are they going to magically get this power? Will they swindle us under the guise of “Trust us. If we control taxes we will never raise them!” and the people will be none the wiser of their true intentions until it is too late?
Okay, so first of all, they currently have the power to raise and lower interest rates without the people’s approval. This isn’t some undemocratic seizure of power.
Secondly, I don’t think they should have carte blanche to raise and lower every tax. It could be within some range of the federally set tax rate, e.g 2.5 points above or below.
It’s merely an idea, as people often complain about the BoC only having “one lever”.
The BoC was created by the will of the people to be, just as it continues to be, a bank (to the banks). Of course it is going to raise and lower its interest rates, just like every other bank. That’s what banks do. There was no need to seize power because the public explicitly wanted this bank to exist and for it to function as such.
It is told that the public does not want taxes to be raised. Why would those same people then give power to the BoC to raise taxes? The wanted a bank. They do not want higher taxes.
Trying to loosen the direct influence of democratically elected officials from certain types of decisions isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Politicians run popularity contests, and often time politically popular positions aren’t actually very good.
For example, taxes are universally unpopular, and so even though often times targeted taxes are actually the best answer, politicians won’t because it may PERSONALLY cost them thier jobs.
It’s similar to why we have an independent judiciary. Mob justice and the court of public opinion would rule otherwise. Insulating judges from elections is good.
You can actually see an unfortunate bleed over between justice and democracy in US counties with elected sheriffs. Arresting ‘certain types’ of people is more popular among the electorate than others, and I’ll let you come to your own conclusions to what type of systemic issues that incentivized.
The BoC has a job, there are metrics to it’s success, and when they aren’t being met there are mechanics to shake it up.
I don’t see these types of bodies existing at arm’s reach from elected officials as a threat to democracy… I actually see them as protecting democracy from itself. It terrifies me that someone like Danielle Smith could ever have the official jurisdiction to direct a judge or central bank rates. We need adults who are prepared to make expert decisions in these positions who can make them, even when they’re unpopular, without fear of losing their jobs.
I still don’t follow. Again, what would compel the people to give these bodies power over taxes when you say that taxes are universally unpopular?
In a similar vein, murder is universally unpopular, but then to think that the people will give power to the police to kill whoever they want, no questions asked… Why would they do that?
It is not undemocratic when done democratically, but you have failed to fill in the missing link that explains why the democracy would approve of such a thing. Without that, it very much would require a undemocratic seizure of power to make happen.
I still don’t follow. The BoC cannot be given such powers without the people’s approval. If the people don’t want higher taxes, why would the very same people accept handing control to the BoC to raise taxes?
Do you foresee a small group of people at the BoC overthrowing our democracy? Like, how are they going to magically get this power? Will they swindle us under the guise of “Trust us. If we control taxes we will never raise them!” and the people will be none the wiser of their true intentions until it is too late?
Okay, so first of all, they currently have the power to raise and lower interest rates without the people’s approval. This isn’t some undemocratic seizure of power.
Secondly, I don’t think they should have carte blanche to raise and lower every tax. It could be within some range of the federally set tax rate, e.g 2.5 points above or below.
It’s merely an idea, as people often complain about the BoC only having “one lever”.
The BoC was created by the will of the people to be, just as it continues to be, a bank (to the banks). Of course it is going to raise and lower its interest rates, just like every other bank. That’s what banks do. There was no need to seize power because the public explicitly wanted this bank to exist and for it to function as such.
It is told that the public does not want taxes to be raised. Why would those same people then give power to the BoC to raise taxes? The wanted a bank. They do not want higher taxes.
Trying to loosen the direct influence of democratically elected officials from certain types of decisions isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Politicians run popularity contests, and often time politically popular positions aren’t actually very good.
For example, taxes are universally unpopular, and so even though often times targeted taxes are actually the best answer, politicians won’t because it may PERSONALLY cost them thier jobs.
It’s similar to why we have an independent judiciary. Mob justice and the court of public opinion would rule otherwise. Insulating judges from elections is good.
You can actually see an unfortunate bleed over between justice and democracy in US counties with elected sheriffs. Arresting ‘certain types’ of people is more popular among the electorate than others, and I’ll let you come to your own conclusions to what type of systemic issues that incentivized.
The BoC has a job, there are metrics to it’s success, and when they aren’t being met there are mechanics to shake it up.
I don’t see these types of bodies existing at arm’s reach from elected officials as a threat to democracy… I actually see them as protecting democracy from itself. It terrifies me that someone like Danielle Smith could ever have the official jurisdiction to direct a judge or central bank rates. We need adults who are prepared to make expert decisions in these positions who can make them, even when they’re unpopular, without fear of losing their jobs.
I still don’t follow. Again, what would compel the people to give these bodies power over taxes when you say that taxes are universally unpopular?
In a similar vein, murder is universally unpopular, but then to think that the people will give power to the police to kill whoever they want, no questions asked… Why would they do that?
It is not undemocratic when done democratically, but you have failed to fill in the missing link that explains why the democracy would approve of such a thing. Without that, it very much would require a undemocratic seizure of power to make happen.