Can someone tell me why I'm wrong here - I think lots of people who don't have time might need to hear it if I'm wrong, as Emily's plans sound great, I suspect that it's the same as usual with the Green Party.
This is my general stereotype from what I understand of the green party, and their current platform in BC:
They have some feel good plan that sounds great "FIGHT THE OGLIGARCHS, FIGHT BACK CLIMATE CRISIS" but the plan is always so half baked and never gets enough confidence from voters, because it's really just some fantasy plan that doesn't make sense in the real world.
I don't have enough time to do research, so I'm hoping people who have had the time to learn this platform of her's, can educate me.
Personally, from the top of my mind, this is where I would start with a plan like this in my ideal low politically educated mind:
It has to be a multi-faceted approach that taxes businesses with land and property, and can be measured by PST/GST amounts - by sales. In doing this, businesses that need tax breaks who aren't making as much sales, get their breaks and others such as large chain stores, large conglomerates, get taxed appropriately. If the chain stores leave, then it balances out and brings more opportunity back to the smaller businesses trying to succeed.
That's just the earnings approach for taxable sales, and one area of business. This is where the other areas need their own systems, which is the multi-faceted approach.
For companies that just hold "net worth" taxing them just for holding networth here doesn't make any sense. This is where they just move it all around with fancy accountants/investors. It has to be more creative than this and federally unified, and ideally would be a multi-faceted plan with the EU.
The article they made on this matter, didn't really have any information that was foundational or structural to their actual plan here from what I found, just "nice to haves":
https://bcgreens.ca/fair-share-act-would-unlock-22-2b-for-childcare-transit-and-housing/