Sensible Taxation

If we lived in Dr. Pangloss's "best of all possible worlds," I suspect that I would be a fairly conservative fellow. After all, in such a world those who worked hard would always get ahead; poverty, other than the self-induced kind, would be non-existent, and we would all be well on the road to self-perfection.

Yet, with all due respect to the eternal optimists of this world, life is not like that for countless millions of people, a fact that, thanks to our wealth of news sources, most of us are well-aware of. However, thanks to the unrelenting propaganda of the far right, many of us, I suspect, are largely ignorant of the inequities built into our tax system.

Of course, most of us would like to keep more of our money, but the question ultimately becomes, "At what cost?" Is it a fair trade for us to have more tax breaks thanks to our station in life at the expense, say, of the working poor? Should our individualistic impulses trump the collective good?

A story in today's Star highlights a problem faced by many. Entitled Campaign 2000 urges Ottawa to eliminate child tax credits and use money to fight poverty, it discusses a campaign by a coalition called Campaign 2000:

On the 23rd anniversary of a unanimous House of Commons pledge to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000, the national coalition is once again calling for a federal plan with goals and timelines to get the job done.

With one in seven Canadian children — including one in four in First Nations communities — still living in poverty, this year’s progress report goes after Ottawa’s “inefficient” tax system

Among other things, the group calls for the elimination of certain tax credits and benefits that tend to favour the middle (or at least what's left of it) and upper classes, with the resources saved going toward boosting the National Child Benefit to a maximum of $5,400 a year, up from the current maximum of $3,485:

At $5,400, a single parent with one child who is working full-time at $11 an hour would be able to escape poverty.

More broadly, it would cut Canada’s child poverty rate by 15 per cent and lift 174,000 children out of poverty.

While people are so busy accumulating more 'stuff', it is easy to forget the struggles that define the day-to-day existences of far too many. Campaign 2000 at least has a plan to ease those burdens.

A Progressive Voice In The Mainstream Media

Although her views are not radically different from those found at alternative news sites such as The Raw Story, Truthdig or Alternet, jounalist Linda McQuaig is always a treat to read, if for no other reason than the fact that her views make it into the mainstream media, so often the mere repository and purveyor of 'establishment' views.'

In today's Star, where she writes a monthly column, this former Globe and Mail writer b.p (before the purges) points out a truth that concerned citizens may be very much aware of, but which rarely sees print. Entitled Fight against climate change blocked by Luddites at Big Oil, McQuaig explores why Big Oil stoutly resists and fights efforts to combat climate change, despite the tremendous environmental, human, social and economic costs that are becoming increasingly evident with each passing season.

Her piece is yet one more arrow in the quiver of knowledge all of us need if things are ever going to improve.

Some Questions Leadership Aspirants Need To Answer

I have recently written some posts bemoaning the paucity of policy undergirding the campaigns of those who would become the next leader of the Liberal Party, both on the provincial (Ontario) and federal level. Substituting for substance are tired bromides and platitudes that, in an earlier, less cynical age might have been sufficient to inspire, but now fill the seasoned observer with ennui and suspicion.

I was pleased to see Martin Regg Cohn addressing the issue in this morning's Toronto Star. Lamenting the lack of substance in the provincial leadership race, his piece lists six questions he says aspirants need to answer:

1. With unemployment hovering at 8.3 per cent, what’s your concrete plan to not just create but keep well-paying jobs?

2. Should motorists pay for driving on congested roadways? (road tolls, congestion fees, etc.)

3. Can you make future pensions a present-day priority?

4. Do you have the political stamina to tackle welfare reform?

5. As a rookie premier, will you stay green?

6. How do you persuade people to back you, while you’re cutting back on what you give them?

While these are all excellent questions, I hope Mr. Cohn remembers that it is the responsibility of journalists not only to ask these questions, but also to ensure the politicos don't simply fob off non-answers in response.

Nothing New Here

In a valiant effort to not be forgotten by a fickle public, Tim Hudak is at it again, advocating a policy that is guaranteed to find favour with the public: going after the pension plans of civil servants.

Unfortunately for young Tim, this repetition of his rather tiresome refrain is also an implicit indictment of the paucity of thought, imagination, and policy infecting the Conservative Party at both the provincial and federal level.

Perhaps public floggings for those who are paid from the public purse might capture greater attention?

From Platitude Central - Part 3

Well, it would be nice to report that things are progressing well in terms of specific policy announcements in both the Ontario and federal Liberal leadership campaigns, but sadly, that is not the case. As has been previously reported, the great parade of platitudes continues unabated.

For today's installment, I offer Gerard Kennedy's You Tube appeal for support of his candidacy. While I suspect you will need no help from me in isolating his 'sweet nothings,' allow me to 'prime the pump' (sorry, I can't listen to this stuff without falling into cliches myself) by identifying just one:

"Like many of you, I believe public service is a privilege."

It deteriorates from that 'high point'.

A New Warning About CETA

While much has already been written about the economic threats to Canada inherent in the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement currently being negotiated in secret by the Harper regime, a new development in those negotiations has come to light that will cost all of us dearly.

In a piece entitled Harper government caves in to Big Pharma, Michael McBane reports the following:

Ottawa is prepared to give the Europeans, and the pharmaceutical industry, at least part of what they asked for on drug patents – a move that could cost Canadians up to $1 billion a year.

As McBane points out, thanks to a deal brokered by Brian Mulroney in the 1980's, Canada already pays 15 to 20 per cent more than the international average for new brand name drugs; at the time, the justification was the promise by the pharmaceuticals to invest 10 per cent of R&D (Research and Development)-to-sales in Canada, a figure that has never been realized. In fact, it currently stands at only 5.6 per cent of R&D-to-sales.

Yet despite pharma's betrayal of its undertaking, Canada is once more preparing to give away more of the shop through CETA; reports indicate

Canada will extend monopoly drug patents from 20 to 21 years. This patent extension will come without any conditions. In other words, we get nothing in return for this major concession. No jobs, no research, no innovation, no benefits whatsoever – only higher drug bills.

Prime Minister Harper is found of promoting the message that Canada is open for business. What he doesn't tell us is that it is the business of plundering and pillaging, hardly the basis for a domestic economic revival.

Why Do Those With So Little Prize Democracy So Much?

As I am sure is the case with most passionate political observers, our increasingly dismal turnout at electoral polls is a source of great personal dismay. While our political 'leaders' are busy taking us down an increasingly dark path that promotes the corporate agenda at the expense of the people and the environment, more and more people seem to be opting out of the political process entirely, justifying their non-choices with feeble excuses that include "All politicians lie" and "I'm just not interested in politics."

Perhaps they should take a lesson from the people of Sierra Leone, who recognize that however faint, the hope for a better society can come only from democratic participation.

After enduring a devastating civil war that took place from 1991–2002 at a cost of over 50,000 lives and the recruitment of untold numbers of child soldiers, the country has gradually been resurrecting itself. A good part of that resurrection is attributable to its return to democracy; although the road ahead is still fraught with obstacles, it seems that the the people's faith and participation in that democracy is playing a crucial role.

The Star reports a large turnout in yesterday's election, where people lined up as early as 2 a.m. to ensure that they get the opportunity to vote, the choice being between an incumbent president who has expanded health care and paved roads or an opposition candidate to lead this war-scarred nation still recovering a decade later despite its mineral riches.

Despite the fact that they have so little, the people of Sierra Leone are compelling examples of the richness of a society that takes its politics seriously and holds its representatives to account.