“Outrageous proposals for new spending and reckless tax giveaways like these are unacceptable.” So says Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, in high dudgeon over the intention of NDP leader Andrea Horwath, and supported by Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak, to introduce a private member's bill to remove the provincial portion of the HST from home heating bills.
According to Duncan, the proposal would cut provincial revenues by nearly $350 million a year and that raising corporate taxes — as the NDP would like to do — is no answer to lost revenue.
Hmm... as I have mentioned before, the key to critical thinking is to have access to an extensive array of information and a willingness to digest and incorporate that information into one's worldview. Here is some information that is vital in assessing Duncan's denunciation:
Despite the fact that Ontario faces a very large deficit and debt, the following tax regimen attends to the business world:
Ontario Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2010 - 2013
General Corporate Income Tax Rate
2010 2011 2012 2013
Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1
Federal 18 16.5 15
Provincial 14 12 11.5 11 10
Combined 32 30 28.5 28 26.5 26 25
Corporate Income Tax Rate for Income from Manufacturing and Processing*
2010 2011 2012 2013
Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1
Federal 18 16.5 15
Provincial 12 10
Combined 30 28 26.5 25
* Also applies to income from farming, mining, logging and fishing
Small Business Corporate Income Tax Rate*
2010 2011 2012 2013
Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1 Jan 1 July 1
Federal 11
Provincial 5.5 4.5
Combined 16.5 15.5
You will note in the above chart, taken from the Ontario government's website, that despite Duncan's denunciation of a measure that would benefit untold numbers of ordinary citizens, he is more than willing to cut provincial revenues by as much as 2% to benefit the corporate world.
Oh, I know it would be easy to justify this ongoing and seemingly ineluctable drive to subsidize business as the price of remaining a competitive regime that is attractive to corporate entities, but the problem with that reasoning is that Ontario, as is Canada as a whole, is already very competitive in its rates vis a vis the United States, and offers singular advantages over the latter jurisdiction in terms of infrastructure, an educated workforce, and basic healthcare for all. According to KPMG's 2010 Competitive Alternatives study of international business costs confirmed it again in 2010: Canadian business costs are once again the lowest in the G7.
Perhaps one of the most telling and, from my perspective, damning detail is this one:
Ontario’s corporate income tax rate (provincial and federal combined) is lower than that of any U.S. state, Japan or France and will drop to 10% by 2013.
So, it seems to me that we have a real obligation to critically assess and, when warranted, challenge this government in all of its assertions. To do anything less is to allow a corporate-driven and influenced elected body to make a mockery of democratic principles.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
More on Iran's 'Nuclear Program'
Yesterday I wrote a post linking to an article by Gwynne Dyer that suggests the rush to judgement about Iran's alleged nuclear-weapons' program needs to include the facts and not just recycled data and hysteria.
In a similar vein, I recommend a piece called Another nuclear shell game, written by Ramesh Thakur, the director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament at Australian National University. Published in today's Toronto Star, like Dyer, Thakur warns that there is no new evidence of nuclear-weapons development in Iraq, despite what the International Atomic Energy Agency is warning.
Says Thakur:
The new report lists efforts by Iran’s military to procure nuclear-related and dual-use material and equipment; to develop ways and means of producing undeclared nuclear material; to tap into clandestine networks for obtaining weapons-related information and documentation; and to work on an indigenous nuclear weapons design.
Importantly, however, all these activities took place before 2003. There is no fresh revelation. Even the pre-2003 assessment referred to weapons-relevant research by Iranian scientists, not to constructing a bomb factory. Hence the startlingly wimpish conclusion: There are “indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.”
Of special significance for the critical thinker trying to objectively analyse the information is the fact that the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency has changed. Despite the fact that it is supposed to be a neutral agency, as it was under the leadership of Mohamed ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Hans Blix who, you may recall during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction there, the agency is now run by Yukio Amano, described in the article as Washington’s choice because he was “solidly in the U.S. court” on Iran, according to a U.S. diplomatic cable.
As if demonstrating his allegiance to his political master, Amano adds that there is no conclusive proof that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and he “has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”
How do you prove a negative? For U.S. and Israeli forces, the answer is a convenient, "You can't."
In a similar vein, I recommend a piece called Another nuclear shell game, written by Ramesh Thakur, the director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament at Australian National University. Published in today's Toronto Star, like Dyer, Thakur warns that there is no new evidence of nuclear-weapons development in Iraq, despite what the International Atomic Energy Agency is warning.
Says Thakur:
The new report lists efforts by Iran’s military to procure nuclear-related and dual-use material and equipment; to develop ways and means of producing undeclared nuclear material; to tap into clandestine networks for obtaining weapons-related information and documentation; and to work on an indigenous nuclear weapons design.
Importantly, however, all these activities took place before 2003. There is no fresh revelation. Even the pre-2003 assessment referred to weapons-relevant research by Iranian scientists, not to constructing a bomb factory. Hence the startlingly wimpish conclusion: There are “indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.”
Of special significance for the critical thinker trying to objectively analyse the information is the fact that the leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency has changed. Despite the fact that it is supposed to be a neutral agency, as it was under the leadership of Mohamed ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Hans Blix who, you may recall during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction there, the agency is now run by Yukio Amano, described in the article as Washington’s choice because he was “solidly in the U.S. court” on Iran, according to a U.S. diplomatic cable.
As if demonstrating his allegiance to his political master, Amano adds that there is no conclusive proof that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and he “has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”
How do you prove a negative? For U.S. and Israeli forces, the answer is a convenient, "You can't."
Sunday, November 13, 2011
A Timely Warning From Gwynne Dyer
Author, historian and journalist Gwynne Dyer is offering a timely warning as the world seems to be going down the same uncritical path to bombing Iran as it did with Iraq and its non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Says Dyer, in an article entitled Iran: Here We Go Again?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The same intelligence agencies are producing the same sort of reports about Iran that we heard eight years ago about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, and interpreting the information in the same highly prejudiced way.
Critical thinking is possible only with extensive access to information and the willingness to digest that information, something the popular media either refuse to do or are incapable of. I recommend a perusal of Dyer's article to those who want more than propaganda to guide their thinking.
Says Dyer, in an article entitled Iran: Here We Go Again?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The same intelligence agencies are producing the same sort of reports about Iran that we heard eight years ago about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, and interpreting the information in the same highly prejudiced way.
Critical thinking is possible only with extensive access to information and the willingness to digest that information, something the popular media either refuse to do or are incapable of. I recommend a perusal of Dyer's article to those who want more than propaganda to guide their thinking.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Occupy Movement and Christianity's Core Message
Gene Robinson, the ninth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, addresses the relationship between the Occupy Movement and the central message of Christianity:
Friday, November 11, 2011
A Blow Against Public Morality
Despite the conviction of the Conservative Party of Canada for the illegal financing of its 2006 campaign that brought it to power, a blow has been struck against, not for, public morality.
As reported in The Star, the sophisticated in-and-out scheme, masterminded by the likes of now-Senator Doug Findley, saw the Conservatives shifting "national advertising money, through wire transfers into and immediately out of local riding campaign accounts, in order to claim national ad spending as local." This illegal tactic allowed the party to far exceed legal limits on campaign spending, probably a factor in its electoral victory.
The public immorality resides not just in the act, but also in the punishment, the reason for the punishment, and the spin being placed on that sanction by Conservative Party operatives.
First, the punishment - a mere $52,000 fine.
The reason for that paltry punishment, which made no effort to hold the architects of the fraud, Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein, then-party director Michael Donison, and then-chief financial officer Susan Kehoe. criminally responsible, was explained by Crown attorney Richard Roy. He suggested to Judge Célynne Dorval that it was in the “public interest” to strike the deal that withdrew charges against them. The judge agreed, saying that an expected six-month trial “would not have made any difference” even if there had been convictions because the fines amounted to the maximum penalties that could have been imposed.
Legally, what the judge said may be true, but that failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime allows for the following, the spin being placed on the results by the Conservative Party apparatus, who call it a “big victory.”
“Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today,” said spokesman Fred DeLorey, in a written statement afterwards.
Conservative party lawyer Mark Sandler said the party’s guilty plea is only an admission of “inadvertent negligence” and not an outright or deliberate attempt to flout the law.
The hubris of the Conservatives is such that even this judicial slap on the wrist is contentious as the Conservative party and the Crown still disagree on the exact amount that was involved. The Crown says the national party failed to report $1.24 million spent, while the Conservatives admit only to $680,000.
The biggest victim in all of this sordid mess is the Canadian public, once more being shown by example that immorality and illegality aren't really immorality and illegality, as long as you remain truculent and defiant in legal defeat.
As reported in The Star, the sophisticated in-and-out scheme, masterminded by the likes of now-Senator Doug Findley, saw the Conservatives shifting "national advertising money, through wire transfers into and immediately out of local riding campaign accounts, in order to claim national ad spending as local." This illegal tactic allowed the party to far exceed legal limits on campaign spending, probably a factor in its electoral victory.
The public immorality resides not just in the act, but also in the punishment, the reason for the punishment, and the spin being placed on that sanction by Conservative Party operatives.
First, the punishment - a mere $52,000 fine.
The reason for that paltry punishment, which made no effort to hold the architects of the fraud, Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein, then-party director Michael Donison, and then-chief financial officer Susan Kehoe. criminally responsible, was explained by Crown attorney Richard Roy. He suggested to Judge Célynne Dorval that it was in the “public interest” to strike the deal that withdrew charges against them. The judge agreed, saying that an expected six-month trial “would not have made any difference” even if there had been convictions because the fines amounted to the maximum penalties that could have been imposed.
Legally, what the judge said may be true, but that failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime allows for the following, the spin being placed on the results by the Conservative Party apparatus, who call it a “big victory.”
“Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today,” said spokesman Fred DeLorey, in a written statement afterwards.
Conservative party lawyer Mark Sandler said the party’s guilty plea is only an admission of “inadvertent negligence” and not an outright or deliberate attempt to flout the law.
The hubris of the Conservatives is such that even this judicial slap on the wrist is contentious as the Conservative party and the Crown still disagree on the exact amount that was involved. The Crown says the national party failed to report $1.24 million spent, while the Conservatives admit only to $680,000.
The biggest victim in all of this sordid mess is the Canadian public, once more being shown by example that immorality and illegality aren't really immorality and illegality, as long as you remain truculent and defiant in legal defeat.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Are Canadians as Fed Up as the People in Ohio?
This past Tuesday, the voters in Ohio told their state legislature that they have had enough. In response to a law enacted with the help of the wealthy Koch Brothers that essentially stripped all collective bargaining rights from public-sector workers, and despite efforts by the wealthy right to suppress their voice, citizens got busy collecting signatures to put [that law] to the test of the ballot box. On Tuesday night, the people defeated the anti-worker law, Senate Bill 5, by a resounding 61 percent majority.
You can read the full story here, but the question I can't help asking myself is whether or not Canadians would have been so vigorous in their defense of workers' rights here. We seem to place as our highest priority our own convenience, and when labour disruptions loom, as they did last summer with the the postal workers and more recently with Air Canada flight attendants, there is nary a word of protest from the general public when the government acts unethically by either imposing a settlement, as it did with the posties, or prevents the attendants from striking a private company by referring the dispute to the Industrial Relations Board (on the flimsy pretext of health and safety concerns) that ultimately led to a binding arbitration contract, the same contract, by the way, that the attendants had already rejected.
Given the ability of our own government to stir up envy and resentment amongst those who are struggling, I don't doubt that we will see a broadening of the definition of 'essential service' in the future.
And that, despite the demagogic rhetoric of our government, will ultimately serve the interests of only a very narrow band of Canadians.
You can read the full story here, but the question I can't help asking myself is whether or not Canadians would have been so vigorous in their defense of workers' rights here. We seem to place as our highest priority our own convenience, and when labour disruptions loom, as they did last summer with the the postal workers and more recently with Air Canada flight attendants, there is nary a word of protest from the general public when the government acts unethically by either imposing a settlement, as it did with the posties, or prevents the attendants from striking a private company by referring the dispute to the Industrial Relations Board (on the flimsy pretext of health and safety concerns) that ultimately led to a binding arbitration contract, the same contract, by the way, that the attendants had already rejected.
Given the ability of our own government to stir up envy and resentment amongst those who are struggling, I don't doubt that we will see a broadening of the definition of 'essential service' in the future.
And that, despite the demagogic rhetoric of our government, will ultimately serve the interests of only a very narrow band of Canadians.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Trial of Goldman Sachs
Even if you only have time to watch the opening statements by Chris Hedges and philosopher, activist and professor Cornell West, this video, a mock trial of Goldman Sachs by members of Occupy Wall Street, is well-worth watching. The array of 'crimes' committed by the investment banker and the absence of any meaningful penalty for those crimes are an ample illustration of the core truth being promoted by the Occupy Movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)