Tax Cuts (For Tariffs)

On Poilievre’s Blithe Banality

“All those headlines they just bore me now/I’m deep inside myself but I’ll get out somehow”

I love On The Beach, and have ranted before about how it does not really belong in the Ditch Trilogy, the trio of Neil Young albums before his “return” to form with Rust Never Sleeps. Motion Pictures is a favourite, but I’ve always been fixated on that one word - somehow. There’s an assumption in Young’s work that things will work out, a blitheness to the reality of what the first two parts of the Ditch Trilogy had done. And it’s stuck with me since the first time I interrogated this part of Young’s discography, if only because it feels like nobody has bothered to.

In the same way, Pierre Poilievre’s answer on what the proceeds of tariffs would be for feels similar. His prescription, as the man who wants to be PM within the next two months, is that tax cuts can solve our economic ills. Tax cuts, a broad based measure that is ineffectual at targeting and would amount to a tax rise in response to America dropping said tariffs, is his answer. And it’s just fucking pathetic.

Poilievre showed on Sunday he doesn’t have the mettle to seriously engage with real issues. And it’s horrifying. As Conservatives try and claim Mark Carney will not meet the moment, rolling out tax cuts as the solution to problems is so unserious as to be laughable.

..

If Pierre Poilievre were to offer a first or second bracket tax cut with the money earned from tariffs, I’d be made better off. A lot of people would. The thing is, a lot of the people who would be made better off by that tax cut would face little or no pain from the tariffs.

If you give a broad tax cut with the money raised from tariffs, you’re in effect subsidizing the managerial class, the public service, and those in white collar professions with the pain of the blue collar workers who are about to get utterly fucked by this. I have friends who are Ministerial staffers, public servants, teachers, nurses, lawyers at Seven Sisters firms, and more, and if Poilievre passed broad based tax relief with the proceeds of tariffs they’d net out quite a lot of cash. The tax cut they’d get would be quite a lot more than the increased prices they pay, at least on essentials. But respectfully, with all the love in my heart, the guy making six figures at a Seven Sisters firm is not the priority now.

What we need to do with whatever money we raise from tariffs is protect two groups of people - the poor, who may face higher prices for essentials because of this, and those specifically fucked by tariffs. The moderately wealthy who already have a decent amount do not need more, but they would be big winners out of any tax cut. They have enough money to benefit from a tax cut without so much money tax rates become irrelevant. It’s a disaster of a policy.

If we have tariffs, we are going to need to shore up key industries, like lumber and steel. As much as my friends may feel worried, the imposition of tariffs on Tuesday would not lead to a round of layoffs at the Seven Sisters or in the public realm. It might in the steel industry. That fact should animate the tariff question.

What Poilievre is proposing is a massive wealth transfer from those getting fucked by Trump to those whose well being is irrelevant. The Conservatives are pitching this because they have one pitch, one answer, one solution to every problem. In a time when it seemed obvious to me the Tories would want to be showing they’re willing to solve problems this is one problem they're completely up their own ass about.

One thing that was interesting in the Ontario election last week was that Doug Ford did less well in traditionally NDP but working class areas than some, namely me, expected. Ford only flipped two seats NDP to PC, and the two that flipped was a vote split on the left (Hamilton Mountain) and a seat impacted considerably by the incumbent MP running again as an independent (Angola-Manitoulin). Ford underperformed any level of expectations last month, but it’s probably worth focusing on, even though of course he won and that’s all we often care about.

It’s interesting because Ford was trying to win those voters with a less traditionally Conservative pitch - he was supported by blue collar, private sector unions, and it barely mattered. These are many of the same voters Poilievre wants to win at this election - people who work with their hands, oftentimes who have culturally conservative views but who worry the Conservatives are soulless cretins who will fuck them over. If Poilievre’s answer to tariffs is tax cuts, it’s actually a a wealth transfer from Sudbury and the Soo to Spadina and the Seven Sisters. For a populist, that could undo a lot of the progress Poilievre has made. It could be, if they had a pulse, a path back to relevance for the NDP. It’s fucking bad.

What we need is a tariff response that matches the moment. We need to shore up key industries, introduce the Americans to targeted pain that makes them reconsider, and focus on reducing dependence on America. But we need a leader who is serious. If Pierre Poilievre is willing to propose such idiocy, then how can I take anything else he ever says seriously?

Tax cuts as the solution to this problem is self-evident nonsense. It’s about as nonsensical as the blithe way that Neil thinks that he’ll stand before us and bring a smile to our eyes “somehow”. It’s nonsense, but when it’s in a song it’s nothing. This is about our economy, our country, and our people - it couldn’t be more important. And yet, blithe banality in the face of a national crisis. It’d be pathetic if it wasn’t so predictable.