(reproduction of email message sent March 24, 2013)
I am writing with regard to your column in the Vancouver Sun, based
on yet another study by the Fraser Institute, apparently pointing
out the growing unfairness in the Canadian tax system.
These guys never give up do they? Even in this case, where,
ironically, apparently some Canadians are actually benefiting from
one of the Fraser Institute mantras of ensuring that Canadians pay a
minimum of tax.
I have to say that I was immediately troubled by the conclusions
echoed in your column, about the potentially problematic nature of
the percentages offered. Mostly, the very notion that up to 37% of
Canadian tax filers face no liability due to tax credits and
deductions. Up from 32% a decade previously. Clearly "takers" not
"payers". Ne'r-do-wells. Shirkers.
The interesting thing is that the report itself states even larger
ratios:
"The share of non-contributors to taxes as well as the increase in
the ratio over time is more stark for lower income groups. The ratio
of non-con tributors to total tax-filers for the lowest income group
($1–$10,000 in earnings) increased from 88.0% in 2000 to 99.2% in
2010. The lower-income groupwith the largest increase in its
non-contributor ratio was the group of those earning $20,000 to
$25,000 per year. From 2000 to 2010, the ratio of non-contributors
to total tax-filers increased 572.4%, from 5.2% of total tax-filers
in 2000 to 34.8% in 2010. The ratio increased from almost half
(48.8%) for those earning between $10,000 and $15,000 to 83.5%, an
increase of 70.9%. More markedly, the ratio of non-contributors to
total tax-filers increased from 14.1% to 64.9% for those earning
between $15,000 and $20,000, an increase of 359.9%."
These percentage increases look even more dramatic.
That is until we look at the income categories. We are talking
about tax brackets that top out at $25,000/year!
So, on the basis of the above data alone, a different kind of
headline might be:
"Employers have sufficiently beggared their employees that this
might be a serious issue for democracy. Canadians with lower or
stagnant levels of income increasingly depend on tax deductions
and credits in order to maintain a livable net income."
H-m-m-m. Who might be in these brackets:
Single parents forced to be employed part time, if they can work at
paid employment at all,
Seniors who have only basic, government-sponsored pension plans,
Students not yet fully in the employment field (and often paid
minimum wage)
Employees who can no longer find full-time work and have to work at
two or more minimum-wage jobs.
I don't do such research, but before I wanted to conclude that such
categories of income earners in Canada are "takers", I would want to
know a lot more about why more Canadians are finding themselves in
these lower tax bracket groups. And I am willing to bet that it has
a lot to do with policies that my friends at the Fraser Institute
actually prefer (such as being cranky about recent raises to the BC
minimum wage).
Aside from all that ideological stuff, I frankly would have a good
deal of trouble arguing that folks in the income bracket of
$25,000/year or less ought to have deductions clawed back or their
marginal tax rates raised so as to make their proportion of tax to
population numbers more in line with Canada's top 20% of income
earners who apparently earn about 47% of the income and apparently
pay a 'disproportionate' 54.3% of the taxes, "when the calculation
included only total federal taxes" (p.41 of the report).
I hope that people who earn a lot do, in fact, pay a lot of taxes.
I do not begrudge the taxes that I and my wife pay, and we are in a
tax bracket considerably higher than $25,000. I value the public
services I get and would actually like more. But I would not like
to get these additional services on the backs of most people taking
home less than $25,000/year.
What is missing from a report like this is full exploration of all
the tax loopholes that exist for that group in the top 20% of income
earners, like the CEO of Canadian Pacific, mentioned on the page
before your column.
Apparently in 2012 the CP CEO earned more than $49 million. At my
marginal tax rate, his tax return for this year would be about $13
million. Not to pick on him, but I would be very surprised if his
income tax return for 2012, shows a tax liability anywhere
approaching $13 million dollars. If it does, he ought to get a new
tax accountant. I just hope that he is paying more dollars than I
am. And all other considerations aside, I hope that his political
influence is exactly the same as mine -- one vote.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Taliban-Like Sensibilities in a Canadian Context
I am troubled by the move by the Canadian government to abandon a world-renowned, long-term research site known as the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) in Canada.
The suggestion is that the government is attempting to find a purchaser for the site, but this seems a disingenuous claim at best.
Now it seems that the decision makers have begun to dismantle the infrastructure for the site, even before anyone has an opportunity to attempt to make the case for preserving this one-of-a-kind outdoor, environmental research venue.
It has been clear for some time that the current Canadian government is less than enthusiastic about environmental concerns. More recently, it has become obvious that the government is undertaking moves to ensure that voices of scientists are silenced on topics that may offer data counter to what the government wishes. As the author of a recent article in The Globe and Mail newspaper indicates, the Canadian scientific community strongly suggests that the closure has more to do with ideology than economics.
In the face of this action on the part of the government, I cannot help but be reminded of a parallel dismantling that took place in Afghanistan more than a decade ago -- the destruction of Bamiyan statues by the Taliban.
Writing about patterns of human behaviour, K. Kris Hirst in describing the historical context of the destruction of the statues, points out that such destruction is an old story. Human history is replete with examples of conquerors destroying the remnants of a previous culture which may represent a threat to the newly dominant.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Lakes_Area
http://saveela.org/letters/
The suggestion is that the government is attempting to find a purchaser for the site, but this seems a disingenuous claim at best.
Now it seems that the decision makers have begun to dismantle the infrastructure for the site, even before anyone has an opportunity to attempt to make the case for preserving this one-of-a-kind outdoor, environmental research venue.
It has been clear for some time that the current Canadian government is less than enthusiastic about environmental concerns. More recently, it has become obvious that the government is undertaking moves to ensure that voices of scientists are silenced on topics that may offer data counter to what the government wishes. As the author of a recent article in The Globe and Mail newspaper indicates, the Canadian scientific community strongly suggests that the closure has more to do with ideology than economics.
In the face of this action on the part of the government, I cannot help but be reminded of a parallel dismantling that took place in Afghanistan more than a decade ago -- the destruction of Bamiyan statues by the Taliban.
Writing about patterns of human behaviour, K. Kris Hirst in describing the historical context of the destruction of the statues, points out that such destruction is an old story. Human history is replete with examples of conquerors destroying the remnants of a previous culture which may represent a threat to the newly dominant.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Lakes_Area
http://saveela.org/letters/
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The American Drifter - A Canadian Thinking Out Loud
This week I became aware for the first time of Townes Van Zandt and his music. On YouTube, in listening to a few of his songs, and after having seen a documentary film on his life, I was thinking about his place in American culture and sub culture.
It immediately struck me that in the American narrative, there is a strong mythic theme of the (male) loner drifter. Perhaps someone will enlighten me, but it seems like there is not similar recurrent archetype in the Canadian narrative. If I am correct in this regard, it might explain why, while I can appreciate the lyrics and ideas expressed in Van Zandt songs, they at the same time seem to come from a place and a sensibility different than my own. I listen with interest, but detachment.
Of course, there are all kinds of possible explanations for the fact that the songs apparently don't speak directly to my soul. It could be because I have never been a drifter -- at least not in the fashion of Van Zandt. Or that he sings mostly, it seems to me, from the basement of North American, while I live in the Attic. His southern accent while familiar, is not my own or of my place. And so on. But it struck me also that in the Canadian literature, film, music traditions, there are mostly not recurrent characters like Van Zandt, or who generate the kind of reaction to being on the margins and on the road. Canada, as far as I know, does not have a Jack Kerouac-like icon.
If I am correct in the above claim, let me hasten to add that I am not saying that Canada should have such an archetype as part of our collective narrative; the lack of celebration of such just struck me as I struggled to wonder why the music of Van Zandt did not immediately speak to me directly. My head can appreciate the ideas about which his songs talk, but they don't reduced me to tears -- at least not so far.
I know that Canadian literature contains such characters, such as "Go Boy" by Roger Caron, or "Waste Heritage" by Irene Baird. I am sure there are many others. Perhaps even the film "Goin' Down the Road" by Donald Shebib is of this ilk. But this nomadic sensibility does not seem to gain much of a foothold in the collective Canadian psyche.
If there was a Canadian equivalent, one certainly would not expect the Canadian soul-worn version to be as dust-caked and as southern-fried as a Townes Van Zandt; but the human parts of the experience likely would be very similar. I am just wondering out loud whether or not we do, in fact, have a Canadian equivalent. While I respect and celebrate Canadians musical artists such as Gordon Lightfoot, Leonard Cohen, Stan Rogers, folks such as these seem to me to most often reflect the Canadian archetype pointed out by Margaret Atwood in her book, "Survival". The Canadian struggle seems mostly against the background of the Canadian geography (with a gentle nod toward Cohen's issues around religion). Van Zandt's struggles seem to be related to the social world within which he drifted, and from which he was alienated.
I need to listen and think more......
It immediately struck me that in the American narrative, there is a strong mythic theme of the (male) loner drifter. Perhaps someone will enlighten me, but it seems like there is not similar recurrent archetype in the Canadian narrative. If I am correct in this regard, it might explain why, while I can appreciate the lyrics and ideas expressed in Van Zandt songs, they at the same time seem to come from a place and a sensibility different than my own. I listen with interest, but detachment.
Of course, there are all kinds of possible explanations for the fact that the songs apparently don't speak directly to my soul. It could be because I have never been a drifter -- at least not in the fashion of Van Zandt. Or that he sings mostly, it seems to me, from the basement of North American, while I live in the Attic. His southern accent while familiar, is not my own or of my place. And so on. But it struck me also that in the Canadian literature, film, music traditions, there are mostly not recurrent characters like Van Zandt, or who generate the kind of reaction to being on the margins and on the road. Canada, as far as I know, does not have a Jack Kerouac-like icon.
If I am correct in the above claim, let me hasten to add that I am not saying that Canada should have such an archetype as part of our collective narrative; the lack of celebration of such just struck me as I struggled to wonder why the music of Van Zandt did not immediately speak to me directly. My head can appreciate the ideas about which his songs talk, but they don't reduced me to tears -- at least not so far.
I know that Canadian literature contains such characters, such as "Go Boy" by Roger Caron, or "Waste Heritage" by Irene Baird. I am sure there are many others. Perhaps even the film "Goin' Down the Road" by Donald Shebib is of this ilk. But this nomadic sensibility does not seem to gain much of a foothold in the collective Canadian psyche.
If there was a Canadian equivalent, one certainly would not expect the Canadian soul-worn version to be as dust-caked and as southern-fried as a Townes Van Zandt; but the human parts of the experience likely would be very similar. I am just wondering out loud whether or not we do, in fact, have a Canadian equivalent. While I respect and celebrate Canadians musical artists such as Gordon Lightfoot, Leonard Cohen, Stan Rogers, folks such as these seem to me to most often reflect the Canadian archetype pointed out by Margaret Atwood in her book, "Survival". The Canadian struggle seems mostly against the background of the Canadian geography (with a gentle nod toward Cohen's issues around religion). Van Zandt's struggles seem to be related to the social world within which he drifted, and from which he was alienated.
I need to listen and think more......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)