Tax Increases

Increases in taxes are a fact of life. They are coming due to the demographic time bomb that ticks every day as those boomers head to their retirements. The upside is we are going to see lower unemployment and higher wages, somewhat negating tax increases. What we really need is an honest politician who can come out and say it and do the right thing.

Harper is 100% responsible for our huge deficits. Cutting the GST was totally boneheaded and benefited high income earners far more than lower income groups. He burned through the contingency fund the Liberals left him and raised programme spending faster than any other government Canadian history. We could have had a stimulus package without a deficit!

Really, it is time to wake up and boot this populist fool out before he returns us to the debt levels that crippled Canada in the early 1990s.

Austerity

If we're lucky, this is the worst that will happen to us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/04/economic-growth-government-borrowing

The new Canadian Elites

In the Victorian era, when there was a massive rift between poor and rich, the wealthy built great and much needed projects, the vast majority of them for the social good. Our Carnegie Library is just but one example.

Today, the wealthy ignore the lower orders and play with their wealth. There are no great public works, no construction for the public goos, rather, tax exemptions and projects named after them.

Our 'public projects' are for spreading taxpayer's money on overpriced edifices and have little or nothing to do for the future of this province and country.

So are sen the seeds of revolution, where the ruling elites become so disengaged with the public, they no not what the public needs or wants. The wealthy class has become omnipotent and as such, become an open target for the wrath of the lower orders.

Wealth can not be created,

Wealth can not be created, only taken from others, the environment and the future.

What people should realize is the simple fact those obscene, multimillion yearly salaries of executives are coming out of their pockets in the forms of low wages and high prices in the stores.

In short, they're nothing more than taxation without representation, otherwise known as common theft.

Ed Deak.

I had an uncle who grew up

I had an uncle who grew up in the praries during the depression. This uncle became very rich but he also paid very high taxes. He told me that he didn't mind paying his taxes cuz he didn't want to see or experience what happened to society during the 'depression' again. I guess we now have an elite who have never experienced or seen any hardship at all.

Let's not forget...

...about the large corporations. They have been getting their taxes reduced at the expense of the middle and lower classes for years. Their tax rate now is lower than that of the US. They should pay their fair share too. (And don't give me any BS about losing jobs, uncompetitiveness, etc. When Canada's economy was booming, the situation was the same, and they didn't do anything then, either.)

Good one Murray.

I do remember John Manley being interviewed on the CBC recently and justifying the high CEO salaries with some comment on how that was the going rate. I wondered how the going rate was set if it was not set by the CEO's themselves. I did think his comment was a bit "less than honest". Pay them the amounts but claw back a greater percentage as the amounts get larger. They might then pay their fair share.

what? me worry?

“Are the corporate and political elite finally getting it? Or are they worried about potential social unrest?”

The wealthy are worried, and have been for some time. In the past the easiest way to protect the rich from the poor was to build more prisons, but it soon became obvious that they couldn’t build them large enough or fast enough. So rather than waste time and money trying to restrain unhappy folks with iron bars, concrete and barbed wire, they moved to the next logical step: increase public security measures.

Take prison conditions to the street and tell folks the cameras and cops are for nationally security and the prevention of terrorist attacks from outside. And it’s working; we now live in a world where every move … physical, financial, politcal … is electronically monitored or recorded. And most are only too willing to comply. After all, as the saying goes, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why be concerned about cameras and cops on every street corner?

KWD

They tried buying the Media first. That worked until the internet came along.

Not that it really matters but......

where did the "others" get it from?

Who cares if you can't create it as long as it can be accumulated that's all that will ever really matter.

Skywalker

Let's hope social media ... the internet,cellphones and the like ... will not only keep tabs on the rich and the super-rich, it will let them know we are watching and we're not happy.

BTW, unless I'm mistaken, I think they're doing their best to regulate and restrict the 'net'.

Cronies of Government!

How else do you explain how the politicians have forgotten that the rich also should be payingv taxes!

KWD

"BTW, unless I'm mistaken, I think they're doing their best to regulate and restrict the 'net'"

You better believe they already know all about every "non-conformist" posting on a site like this!

If you believe there is privacy anywhere in any form, then you are dreaming.

Make one false move when in public, and you will be amazed at how fast they can move.

Der Fuhrer ist vatchingk.

Jawohl!

KWD and Alive are both right. What we call everyday life is looking more and more like a cell block security arrangement... as unobrustive as they MAY attempt to keep it all appearing.

But like the Rabid Right says, why should it bother you if you aren't doing anything wrong?

Or anything to change and challenge The System.

And still, it's partly true, most folks are not doing anything, except as they are told. Dey ist, most, schtill being gut Germans. So they hardly know it's there. This is a democrcy afterall. Nicht wahr?

Which still doesn't mean Der Fuhrer isn't watching what you do

So, "Seig Heil!

You are on candid camera.

(A good story for someone at Tyee actually. :-)

Skywalker said....

"Pay them the amounts but claw back a greater percentage as the amounts get larger. They might then pay their fair share."

This will never happen. Bascially because there are so many hiding places in the world where you can off-shore your ill-gotten gains. The Americans have tried to get Switzerland to open up all the hidden bank accounts of corporate execs, but are meeting a wall of steel--stainless steel, as those of you who have ever visited a Swiss bank will remember. Hongkong, Taiwan, Singapore--you name them--will take anyone's money and never reveal the source or the amount. The Bilderburgers have their annual meeting to discuss ways and means of hiding their geld. Meanwhile it is left to the rest of us to try and make ends meet, and work for 6 or 7 months of the year just to pay our taxes.

Last I heard..

...there were limits to how much money you could transfer out of the country. If that's changed close them.

You don't have to transfer

You don't have to transfer any money out of the country, just get paid for exports to a tax haven and there's no way any government can find out, or do anything to stop it.

Even the NAFTA has no rules to open the books in either of the 3 countries, therefore anything that goes to the USA, can be declared whatever the company feels like and get the rest paid into a tax haven account.

I spoke to chartered accountants about this and they agreed that the system is out of control and
the governments have no idea how much is paid and where, because the money exists only as computer figures and can not be traced.

This is what the main purpose of globalization is about.

Ed Deak.

Robin Hood Rides Again

http://www.youtube.com/user/RobinHoodTax

The tax previously known as Tobin.
But not for the hapless Harper:
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=2583353

And let's not forget the Carter commission:
http://tinyurl.com/RedToryTaxation

When 'a buck is a buck'; every dollar of un-earned income would have been taxed at the same rate as a dollar of earned income.

Brits have the same problems

This is a wonderfully seditious look at the same problem of high exec pay and hiding the money. Do look:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/02/22/bleak-havens/

Math Error

While i agree with the sentiment of this article, I believe it contains an error.

The following statistic is cited as proof of inequality:

"In 1949, PIT [personal income tax] rates ranged from 15 to 84 percent and there were 17 brackets. In 1994, the range was 26.35 to 46.4 percent and there were 3 brackets." In 2009, there were four federal brackets: 15 percent, 22 percent, 26 percent, and 29 percent on an income over $126,264."

While this may support the assertion that income taxes have become less progressive since 1949 (which I assume is being used because it was a high point for progressive taxation), it indicates the reverse between 1994 and the present. The taxation amount for the lowest bracket (26.35) is 59% of the current lowest bracket. Whereas the highest bracket's current rate is 62.5% of its 1994 level. This indicates that while everyone's taxes have been cut, taxes have been cut more for low incomes than for high.

comparisons

While there may be a math error, the problem with confining comparisons to “taxable incomes” is that it avoids looking at the significant differences between gross income and taxable income, across all tax levels.

At the end of the day those at the lower end of the income scale have significanlty less cash that can be sheltered to reduce their taxable income.

the science around inequality

2009 book by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, reviews the science around impacts of inequality - if we want evidence based policy making, this is the place to start for making the case for greater economic equality as a public policy objective.

Here's their summary of findings:

"We've examined the effects of income inequality among the rich developed societies and then, to provide a separate test, among the 50 states of the USA. Looking at a wide range of health and social problems in both settings, the evidence shows that a "broken society" results from too much inequality. More unequal societies seem to become socially dysfunctional, doing worse on almost all health and social problems.

When we write about more equal societies, we're not describing an imaginary utopia. Instead, we're analysing the effects of existing inequalities among the rich, market economies. At the more equal end of the spectrum are countries like Sweden, Norway and Japan, where the incomes of the top 20 per cent are three to four times as big as the incomes of the poorest 20 per cent. At the more unequal end of the spectrum are countries like the USA, Portugal and, of course, the UK where the richest 20 per cent are up to nine times as rich as the poorest 20 per cent.

One of the most important findings is that the benefits of greater equality are not confined to the poor and those living in deprived areas. Instead, the vast majority of the population do better in more equal societies. Even well educated, middle class people with good incomes will be likely to live longer, enjoy better health, and will be less likely to suffer violence. "

Amy Fox

You're ignoring the Provincial Tax and the 8 provincial tax brackets. In fact, the top marginal rate of tax in this province (2010) (on earned income - we won't even bring up the joke of dividend tax credits and capital gains tax) in B.C. is: 43.70 percent for incomes over $127,021.

Furthermore, those who cry uncle about the fictitious weight of taxes on the rich always fail to mention how much greater the burden of payroll taxes is upon the working poor and the middle class.

Adding in the unpleasant facts about how certain 'other' kinds of income, which never make an impact on the lives of the working middle class and the poor but play a huge part in the prosperity of the wealthy, gives a much truer picture of how well the rich in this country are doing relative to their neighbours - you know, the ones who actually 'work' for a living!

vembree - thanks for bringing up THE SPIRIT LEVEL - it should be required reading for anyone who argues that 'socialism' and equality are dirty words.

You can reserve it at the library and get hold of it almost a once - it's not as popular as it ought to be.

Taxes for what?

To pay for more of the same?

No thanks, the 'same' is not sustainable.

usual rightwing nuts

I se the usual crowd of rightwing nuts is not here, ready to pounce upon anyone who suggests that the world's wealth and resources may only be borrowed and shared (at best) or squandered (at worst).

This article does not venture into the increase of user fees and the other regressive taxes (GST, HST and PST), effectively giving the wealthy even more money than they "earn" through low tax dividends and unrecorded off-shore "investments/sales" transactions conducted in the Caimen Islands etc.

The only fair way for an economy to work:

1. is for private enterprise workers to have shares in the company/businesses for which they work;

2. there should be a minimum standard of housing, health care, and food maintained for all citizens before a penny is spent on anything remotely like a highway to Whistler or an Olympic torch run;

3. education for all people entering health care, childcare, education and other occupations related to services performed by the government on behalf of its citizens is free to those who are capable, complete their degree(s) and work for the government for 2 years for every year that they received tuition;

4. post-secondary training equivalent to the number of years required by the median worker/occupation is free.

5. Taxes are progressive and a CEO/manager can never earn more than 5 times the median wage nor 7 times the starting wage for company employees. Venture capital can never earn money faster than triple the annual inflation rate and is to be considered paid out when share prices triple at which time the the venture capitalist may be paid out at double their original investment - if the shareholder-workers have decided this is what they want.

(6. the above 5 points are just a start.)

It is beyond my understanding that there exist people who are but one of 7 billion of their kind, live on this planet a mere 80 years and yet think that they are entitled to hoard for themselves and consume great quatities of the world's resources and energy. Further, it is beyond my understanding that the rest of us let them get away with it. We truly are fools for letting greed and individualism usurp sharing and community.

Van Isle

I believe Pierre Burton in his book The Great Depression, made reference to one of the Eaton offspring heard to utter something like, "Depression? What Depression?"

The GST

would not be considered a regressive tax if it was "graduated" and applied to goods only and not labour; goods are consumed eventually, but labour is not. No one can dispute the difference between milk and cookies, beer and pretzels, champagne and caviar. Those differences apply to everything - food, clothing, cars.

Income tax reform would also recognize that there are three kinds of income - windfall or one-off lucky strikes, income earned by the individual's work (including pension), and income earned by money (investment, interest). Each category would be taxed differently, but each in a graduated way.

Property tax would be reserved for local municipal levy, but also graduated according to use (commercial/industrial, residential, public) and location,location, location (urban, suburban, rural).

But that will never happen because politics is always about who can be bought and what do I get out of it.

Schizophrenic Too?

I liked this article by Murray Dobbin. He does good work.

This sentence is amusing: "The primary role they see for government is to protect their property rights against all incursions by an activist state." It's correct, of course. But you could put it another way and say that elites want good governments to monitor the bad governments. Except that they are the same governments!

There's another way to look at it. The elites, including powerful players like John Manley's Canadian Council of Chief Executives, are simply telling governments ('their' governments) to "Watch it!" Those governments know what is meant.

I didn't know John Manley had taken over the reins from Thomas d'Aquino. Interesting. I guess it would be too much to hope for to expect to see him go off to a quiet (very) life of fishing, drinking beer on the back porch and watching sports on tv-?

When it comes to the CCCE, I just will not hold my breath waiting for it to remember the majority of Canadians who have been chafing under neoliberal policies of successive, BCNI-influenced governments, one or two sane, considerate statements by the CCCE about taxes notwithstanding (The CCCE was once the BCNI, for Business Council on National Issues). Tony Clarke said it well in his book, "Silent Coup," and there's no reason to suppose that this body of Canadian 'and' American top executives, representing enormous assets and economic power, have all changed their minds about things and are about switch their loyalty from the corporatocracy to Canada (meaning primarily it's citizens), including those who don't use tax havens, don't have cottages in Florida, don't own 3 car garages and don't have memberships in fancy clubs.

"...the BCNI was not organized so that big business could simply be consulted more regularly by government. Its intention has been to write and direct public policy in key areas affecting Canada's economy and society. Nor does it simply want to influence and change specific policies or pieces of legislation. Its ultimate aim has been to redesign the state itself. Here, the BCNI has certainly not been alone. Its counterparts elsewhere in the global economy have also been moving rapidly in the same direction." -pg 37 of "Silent Coup"

I think the BCNI, and it's neoliberal counterparts, have fairly succeeded in their major goals. I like to keep things simple - until I have to be corrected. I'm probably very alone in thinking we have lost, if not the ability, then the fight itself against the corporatocracy.

I also very much appreciated Murray's mention of tax havens. North American (major) media maintains an info and news blackout on that subject. (I think alternative media could do better as well.) Have a look at the anti-tax haven/ anti-banking secrecy work of UK-based researchers Richard Murphy and John Christensen. It's well worth it.

Taxes

Look up the Carter Commission Report on Canadian Taxation.

Here’s a link to the archived copy:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pco-bcp/commissions-ef/carter1966-eng/carter1966-eng.htm

An inquiry started by the Diefenbaker Government which, had Carter's report been adopted, would have made this country the decent place it should be and not the miserable, drunken, selfish place it is.

This is old old stuff. And the stupidity that one even has to point out what's wrong with the tax system and who it favours in this day and age is pathetic.

Almost as pathetic that anyone would actually 'read' Rand's execrable prose, except, as Sharing points out, to understand the pathology of the people who believe and idolize her...people like Allan Greenspan and Rush Limbaugh and, in all likelihood, Pee Wee Rambo.