NDP wealth tax would raise $94.5B, pay for worker tax cut and health-care improvements

It honestly pains me that my values seem to match the NDP platform, but I'm forced to vote liberal because any other vote would benefit conservatives.

That's not true for every riding. Vote strategically using 338canada.com.
Based on current projections there is minimal risk of NDP winning enough seats to seriously hurt Liberals positions over Conservatives.
If your riding is leaning conservative but NDP is a close second, you should vote NDP, not Liberal (if that's consistent with your values).
A Liberal minority government is the best outcome of this election on my opinion. An unchecked Carney is a risk of over-privatization (though not nearly as dangerous as Conservatives).
- That domain does not load for me.
- Unfortunately, my riding sees conservatives as the likely winner with liberals a close second. I have to vote liberal, but I do agree with strategic voting.
- Because this election is seeing so much higher turnout than usual, this is not accurate.
  The 338 model ranks polling by how well pollsters predicted the last elections, which had low turnout. Those pollster ranks weigh the current seat projections for this election.
  With higher turnout this year that means previously unmotivated voters will be turning out and the current models don't know how they are represented in polls.
  For example we could see suppression of NDP voters and an increase in Gen Z conservatives voting, causing a sharp rightward swing vs forecasts. We also could see traditionally less active voters throw this election further left.
  My point is a 338/538 style poll aggregation will be less accurate this year than prior years. DO NOT take 338 as a given.
  I expect an outcome more in the tails of the distribution, meaning a swing even more conservative or liberal than even current forecasts.
If there is another minority, the NDP can (as they did over the last 4 years) have a role in promoting their policies while providing the balance of power.
- It only works when they are willing to call a vote when they don't get what was promised.
Is unfunded spending not future austerity?
Liberals seem to me to be the most reckless, increasing spending while not raising taxes. They already removed the capital gains tax, and we now spend more on interest than on health transfers, meanwhile we have a doctor shortage.
They just let the future to pay it off, then we suffer like under Chretien.
- No, unfunded spending isn't future austerity. It could be in some cases, but it rarely is. In fact unfunded spending could mean future prosperity. For example building high speed rail or doing R&D for vaccines. We should spend the money for both today as both produce much more in the future than what's spent. Austerity is usually ideologically driven, not by necessity. We've understood this since the Great Depression and we've battle tested the Keynes approach. The austerity periodically practiced since the 70s-80s required convincing a lot of people to believe in the free market fundamentalism preached by neoliberalism. It's time to relearn what we knew before that.
  We need to tax the rich, not to fund our government, but to decrease the drastic power they have over our economy, the state and our lives.

Some really great quality of life improvements for the working class if they could pull it off. It's a shame that we're essentially a 2 party system federally.

We need to pressure whichever party is elected to implement electoral reform.

Are they proposing it as a yearly tax? That seems like the proposal is just for show. We should be working on implementing an inheritance tax if we want to be serious about taxing wealth.

billionaires have a lifetime of 80+ years. At this rate, you're not gonna tax Zuckerberg or Bezos in their, or your, lifetime.
- Yeah, but just like capital gains, it doesn't make sense to tax wealth until it is changing hands.

FYI both Islam and Switzerland have a wealth tax.

Islam prescribes people must pay 2.5% of their wealth (above a certain exempt amount) as annual tax to the poor and needy. Wikipedia

Switzerland has a 0.5% wealth tax in most cantons, although the details vary. Link

You may use that knowledge to show that wealth tax does exist in some places already, and the idea isn't unheard of.

Carney has already cut the capital gains tax, that we were told was created to create generational fairness. As well as the carbon tax, which we were told was a net benefit to the poor. Given the polls seemingly Canadians arent progressive, and they hate taxes on the rich.

I feel like the NDP and the conservatives are both better than the Liberals. The NDP will raise taxes to actually fund the programs, which will lead to higher average standards of living and less future austerity; where the Conservatives will cut and lead to greater productivity gains and greater foreign investment into Canada.

Whereas the Liberals seem to be low taxes, tighter regulation, more unfunded programs, and now using even more debt in an attempt to force capital formation as if it will be different from the last decade. They just seem to say whatever they have to to get elected at any given time with no static leanings left or right, a party of non-denominational opportunists.