The recent Ontario budget provisions and the introduction of legislation in the US congress to tax the rich (the so-called Buffet tax) begs the question. If one has an income of $500,000 or more the extra $3,000 in tax won't break the bank. A minimum tax of $30% on $1 million in income is more serious. But not much more. Recent report from the US indicate that, on average, those who make more than $1 million or more pay an average tax of 26%. So the Buffet tax is much like the Ontario surtax--about 4% increase. The same report indicates that the tax would affect .3% of the taxpaying public. A recent report from Ottawa indicates that the ontario tax would affect about .1% of the taxpaying public. The amount that this tax would raise in Ontario is estimated by the Liberal government to be about $400 million. The best estimate by outside economists is that the tax would raise somewhat half of that estimate. The Ontario provisions were hastily made in order to gain the support (or the "abstain" vote) from the New Democrats in a bid to avoid yet another dreary election. Good politics. Bad policy.
Most of those who read this blog know that I am in favour of a VAT or HST tax as a primary tool in tax reform. Corporate taxes are, properly, coming down. Personal taxes are not. The devil in the tax system is not the rates but the definition of the tax base. Just what is "income". For those who are lucky enough to have investments much of their "income" is in the form of capital gains that are taxed at half the personal rate. Since one can assume that those who have investments are more economically better off than the average working joe the benefit given to the "rich" adds to the economic disparity between the rich and the poor. For example if one taxpayer has income from employment and one has "income" from capital gains, the latter will pay, on average, half the tax than the wage earner. If one is lucky enough to have dividend income the tax on dividends from taxable Canadian corporation on about $50,000 is nil. Yes, nil. So, if I have a family corporation through which I do business I will pay the corporate tax of about 15% and pay no tax on about $60,000 of income earned by me and my wife (the dividend tax credit for small business corporations are less than on corporations who are basically investment corporations). If my wife and I have 4 children and I have established a family trust I can "distribute" $180,000 (6x30,000) at a rate of about 15%. The tax savings is significant. On $180,000 of income I would pay about $65,000 in tax if I lived in Ontario. By using the dividend tax credit I pay corporation tax at $27,000, a savings of $38,000 by my arithmetic. If I am engaged in research and development the government pays me (through a SRED program).
You get the picture now. Capital gains were introduced to reward those who take risk. Dividend tax credits were introduced to refund the tax paid by a corporation to its shareholders. The theory is that there should not be double taxation: one at the corporate level and one at the personal level. It's called integration. However, the dividend tax credit and the capital gains rate have had unintended negative consequences. And no one is in a rush to change the rules. Good for the rich and self employed and very bad for the working joe.
Those of my age recall the upheaval that occurred in 1971. We started again. At the direction of PE Trudeau we threw out the old income tax legislation and brought in a new piece of legislation. There was considerable turmoil for a number of years but when the dust settled much of the inequities of the old legislation were remedied. Nothing less is needed now. What I propose is a simplified definition of income, no capital gains tax, a resolution of the dividend tax credit anomaly, reduction of the vast number of allowances and inducements in the tax legislation that are no longer needed, a resolution of the tax inequity between the self employed and the wage earner, and, lastly a tax at the top rate of about 15%. The balance of the revenue would be made up by a harmonized sales tax. Unfortunately there is no political will, either in Canada or the US to do so.
Bernie.
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Monday, 9 April 2012
The Long Hard Talk
I recently saw a Facebook post from a young friend whose uncle was dying. Unlike most of us who know that we are going to die but, thankfully don't know when, my friend's uncle knows (and everyone around him knows) that death is quite imminent. My friend has disclosed that he has had long meaningful talks with his uncle. He will cherish these moments and will carry away a memory of his uncle that will endure forever.
My first reaction to his post was "why do we wait so long to have these talks"? Whether a relative or a friend we allow our lives to go on thinking that both we and those who surround us will live forever. My friend avows that these talks are difficult--not so much because of the content, I suspect, but because both who are engaged in the talk know the imminent finality that will engulf these talks. There is an old Talmudic saying that we should comport ourselves as if we were going to die tomorrow. When challenged that we don't know when we are going to die, the Rabbi said "exactly right". So many things unsaid, so many deeds undone, so many hurts unrepressed, so many thanks not given--or received. When we are confronted with the inevitable we make hasten to "make things right". We say our "goodbyes" without having said our "hellos".
I make this post from the perspective of being well into my 70th decade of life. The mere effluxion of time gives me a rather limited future. My perspective on life when I was 30 was that I was going to live forever. At my present age I know that my future is closer to the ultimate than the past. If I have learned anything during these past 70+ years is that words are dangerous. I own a book of Jewish curses. While the content is not very exciting the title has been with me for years: Words Like Arrows. I can remember a slight that was delivered to me when I was about 6 years old. I say this because I am not that fragile but because words have a lasting effect on both the deliverer and and the person to whom they are delivered. If left unattended harsh words grow like thorns that keep stabbing the psyche. If dealt with, the hurt may linger but the redress blunts the hurt. I have seen many families (not mine, thank goodness) where words have cleaved them asunder and the members have died without rapprochement. While the deceased may no longer feel the hurt I have seen many family survivors who regretted not putting things right. When seen in the perspective of the ultimate a family quarrel seems quite insignificant.
The lesson that I learned is to have the long hard talk when you can. Many of us don't really know our parents. Many of us don't really know our relatives. Many of us don't really know our friends. We go through the motions and exchange banalities. These long hard talks should not await someone's demise where the talks are accompanied by sadness but should be undertaken as a positive and cathartic exercise.
Bernie.
My first reaction to his post was "why do we wait so long to have these talks"? Whether a relative or a friend we allow our lives to go on thinking that both we and those who surround us will live forever. My friend avows that these talks are difficult--not so much because of the content, I suspect, but because both who are engaged in the talk know the imminent finality that will engulf these talks. There is an old Talmudic saying that we should comport ourselves as if we were going to die tomorrow. When challenged that we don't know when we are going to die, the Rabbi said "exactly right". So many things unsaid, so many deeds undone, so many hurts unrepressed, so many thanks not given--or received. When we are confronted with the inevitable we make hasten to "make things right". We say our "goodbyes" without having said our "hellos".
I make this post from the perspective of being well into my 70th decade of life. The mere effluxion of time gives me a rather limited future. My perspective on life when I was 30 was that I was going to live forever. At my present age I know that my future is closer to the ultimate than the past. If I have learned anything during these past 70+ years is that words are dangerous. I own a book of Jewish curses. While the content is not very exciting the title has been with me for years: Words Like Arrows. I can remember a slight that was delivered to me when I was about 6 years old. I say this because I am not that fragile but because words have a lasting effect on both the deliverer and and the person to whom they are delivered. If left unattended harsh words grow like thorns that keep stabbing the psyche. If dealt with, the hurt may linger but the redress blunts the hurt. I have seen many families (not mine, thank goodness) where words have cleaved them asunder and the members have died without rapprochement. While the deceased may no longer feel the hurt I have seen many family survivors who regretted not putting things right. When seen in the perspective of the ultimate a family quarrel seems quite insignificant.
The lesson that I learned is to have the long hard talk when you can. Many of us don't really know our parents. Many of us don't really know our relatives. Many of us don't really know our friends. We go through the motions and exchange banalities. These long hard talks should not await someone's demise where the talks are accompanied by sadness but should be undertaken as a positive and cathartic exercise.
Bernie.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
On The Passover/Easter Connection
Every few years the Jewish and secular calendars collide and the first night of Passover coincides with Good Friday. When this happens I am taken with the Jewish/Christian connection. The Last Supper was, of course, a Seder--a Jewish dinner at which the exodus from Egypt by the Jews is commemorated and discussed. Christ--then known as Yehoshua--was first and foremost a Jew. Not only a Jew but a Jewish rabbi or teacher. The Temple, and consequently the Jewish religion was being run by bureaucrats who had a vested interest in the status quo. Yehoshua was, as were many of his Jewish compatriots, no fan of the Temple leaders. He was of the view that these leaders had strayed far from the basic principles of Judaism. Thus did Yehoshua became a liability to the status quo. While certainly killed by the Romans I am certain that there were no Temple tears shed over Yehoshua's untimely demise. Yehoshua's followers were Jews as well and had no thought of breaking away from the mainstream religion of the day. Christianity's foundlings as a separate religion was many years away.
The fact that Passover and Christianity are so closely related is no accident. Passover is completely interwoven in the founding of Christianity and, for Jews, Yehoshua's participation in a Passover Seder is completely normal. There are other common factors as well. Passover is well known as a festival of freedom. It commemorates the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt after 400 years of slavery. The teachings surrounding Passover seem to indicate that, since the time of Joseph when Israelites first settled in Egypt, they were a separate and distinct people who observed their own customers and circumcised their male children. The fact that this "nation within a nation" had to be liberated so that they could settle in Israel is not lost on modern day Zionism. The fact that Pharaoh would not let them go is also curious. It appears to me that Egypt relied on slave labour to make bricks and the Jew's departure would have resulted in an economic loss to Egypt. Whatever the reason the withdrawal from Egypt of the Jewish slaves has been a clarion call to every enslaved people. Negro spiritual songs are replete with references to Moses and the sales--and their eventual emancipation. Teaching Negro slaves Christianity imparted Jewish values to the converts that created a backlash resulting in eventual emancipation. When African Americans were politically emancipated in the early 1960s Jewish leaders walked beside Martin Luther King in solidarity with a people who craved real emancipation.
And yet the early Christians could not let go of Passover as one of the events that contributed to the founding of the breakaway religion. Whether this link was necessary to persuade Jews to join the new religion will probably never been known. Paul, when founding the Roman Christian religion. still hangs on the the Passover link. It could just have been deleted as one of the arcane historical facts but it was not.
For me it is the link between Jews and Christians that will never be broken. As a festival of freedom I can see that the emergence of Yehoshua was a break with the oppressiveness of the Temple hierarchy. As a festival of freedom it gave millions a new way to communicate with God. We have much to celebrate together.
Bernie.
The fact that Passover and Christianity are so closely related is no accident. Passover is completely interwoven in the founding of Christianity and, for Jews, Yehoshua's participation in a Passover Seder is completely normal. There are other common factors as well. Passover is well known as a festival of freedom. It commemorates the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt after 400 years of slavery. The teachings surrounding Passover seem to indicate that, since the time of Joseph when Israelites first settled in Egypt, they were a separate and distinct people who observed their own customers and circumcised their male children. The fact that this "nation within a nation" had to be liberated so that they could settle in Israel is not lost on modern day Zionism. The fact that Pharaoh would not let them go is also curious. It appears to me that Egypt relied on slave labour to make bricks and the Jew's departure would have resulted in an economic loss to Egypt. Whatever the reason the withdrawal from Egypt of the Jewish slaves has been a clarion call to every enslaved people. Negro spiritual songs are replete with references to Moses and the sales--and their eventual emancipation. Teaching Negro slaves Christianity imparted Jewish values to the converts that created a backlash resulting in eventual emancipation. When African Americans were politically emancipated in the early 1960s Jewish leaders walked beside Martin Luther King in solidarity with a people who craved real emancipation.
And yet the early Christians could not let go of Passover as one of the events that contributed to the founding of the breakaway religion. Whether this link was necessary to persuade Jews to join the new religion will probably never been known. Paul, when founding the Roman Christian religion. still hangs on the the Passover link. It could just have been deleted as one of the arcane historical facts but it was not.
For me it is the link between Jews and Christians that will never be broken. As a festival of freedom I can see that the emergence of Yehoshua was a break with the oppressiveness of the Temple hierarchy. As a festival of freedom it gave millions a new way to communicate with God. We have much to celebrate together.
Bernie.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
The Hidden Agenda Is Not So Hidden
It is no exaggeration that I am not a fan of either Conservative politics or their leaders. I was born into a family that was both liberal and Liberal. I have no doubt that excessive behaviour by politicians are not confined to either conservatives or Conservatives. I remember well the governments headed by Diefenbaker, Clark and Mulroney--although the latter prime minister was found to be either disingenuous or outright crooked. The Liberals, too have had their scandals not the least of which involved spurious payments to Quebecers that were, to say the least, just short of criminal. My rant goes to a rather fundamental issue that seems to occur and reoccur in current Canadian politics.
It is now a well proven fact that, at best, Parliament was misled about the purchase of a modern jet aircraft. My military friends assure me that the purchase of a modern jet aircraft is absolutely necessary if Canada is to participate in NATO functions. Our current airplanes can't carry the armament that is being used by other, more current and sophisticated, airplanes. Whether Canada should participate in these diversions is yet another question. But, assuming that the answer is 'yes" we need a more up to date fighter jet. So, why the kafuffel? It appears that the best jet to buy was not an open and shut question. The candidate for purchase was rife with problems. The price was a moving target. There was a serious question as to whether the performance deficiencies could ever by remedied. And yet we Canadians were told that all was well and that the cost of the airplanes would not exceed a number that everyone knew was fictitious. It has taken the Auditor General to tell us that the king has no clothes.
In any ordinary government the resignation of the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff of the armed forces would be a foregone conclusion. Such incompetence reflects badly on the Prime Minister so that, in some countries like Japan, the prime minister would also be a casualty. Not in Canada. The Prime Minister is going to tough it out. To date the Minister of Defence (of pick me up in a government helicopter at my fishing camp fame) is still at his desk. The Prime Minister, with a straight face, says that the Auditor General has done his job well and that the purchase of the plane is now being thoroughly investigated by Public Works--a department that has had its own measure of political interference. What about all those statements made during the election? Who misspoke? Who lied?
It is the style of this government to face down any criticism of how it does business with answers that do not accept responsibility and deflect the problem on the questioner. For example, what appears to be egregious tampering with a riding election by directing voters to a non existent voting station is said to be "smear tactics" by the questioner. When asked if the Minister of Defence should step down the Prime Minister (and not the minister in question) answers that the matter is now properly sent to Public Works. What is everyone yammering about? See, we didn't buy the airplanes. Forged changes in documents did not claim yet another minister. These answers are worthy of Vladimir Putin. This is the government that has sold off the Wheat Board without consultation of farmers. This is the government that has dismantled Katimivik, Canada's organization closest to the Peace Corp in the United States. The arts have been pilloried. The CBC has been gutted (because, I hear, that the Prime Minister does not like its liberal bent). In my years of following politics I have never seen such a blatant exercise of power by a Prime Minister.
Many forms of government force collaboration between the administrative and legislative arms. Neither the US congress nor any of its arms such as the House of Representatives or the Senate can pass legislation without the concurrence of the other house and the President. The President can propose but can't pass legislation and can only veto bills that he does not like. While such a system can produce stalemate--particularly when there are serious divergences of political philosophies between the parties, there can be no tyranny of any one party except where, in the unlikely circumstances, all three bodies are of the same party. Even then, there is a wide range of political philosophies within each party so that no one can be assured that any measure can make it into law without significant compromise.
In the parliamentary system of government there can be a tyranny of the majority party. That tyranny is deflected by the fact that voters vote for their constituency representative rather than for a party leader. The party leader must have the confidence of his own caucus and of the house. There have been circumstances where strong leaders wreaked havoc with the system. Diefenbaker single handedly denuded Canada of its aeronautics industry with cancellation of the Avro Arrow. Trudeau bludgeoned the country into bilingualism and the national energy party. Both paid with defeat at the polls. However, almost any other leader that I can think of has at least played the game of being politically sensitive to how the rest of the country perceives government action: until Harper. With the exception of the Minister of Finance and possibly the Foreign Minister he has surrounded himself with weak ministers. He has, in fact, taken charge of government on a unprecedentedl level. Senior civil servants with whom I have spoken tell me that the very essence of Canada's civil service as unbiased advisors is a serious risk.
So, the hidden agenda is not so hidden. Harper has become the autocratic leader of Canada. For ill or for good. Those who criticize him are pilloried. He intends to lead Canada well to the right of any Conservative leader. And watch out when he does.
Bernie.
It is now a well proven fact that, at best, Parliament was misled about the purchase of a modern jet aircraft. My military friends assure me that the purchase of a modern jet aircraft is absolutely necessary if Canada is to participate in NATO functions. Our current airplanes can't carry the armament that is being used by other, more current and sophisticated, airplanes. Whether Canada should participate in these diversions is yet another question. But, assuming that the answer is 'yes" we need a more up to date fighter jet. So, why the kafuffel? It appears that the best jet to buy was not an open and shut question. The candidate for purchase was rife with problems. The price was a moving target. There was a serious question as to whether the performance deficiencies could ever by remedied. And yet we Canadians were told that all was well and that the cost of the airplanes would not exceed a number that everyone knew was fictitious. It has taken the Auditor General to tell us that the king has no clothes.
In any ordinary government the resignation of the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff of the armed forces would be a foregone conclusion. Such incompetence reflects badly on the Prime Minister so that, in some countries like Japan, the prime minister would also be a casualty. Not in Canada. The Prime Minister is going to tough it out. To date the Minister of Defence (of pick me up in a government helicopter at my fishing camp fame) is still at his desk. The Prime Minister, with a straight face, says that the Auditor General has done his job well and that the purchase of the plane is now being thoroughly investigated by Public Works--a department that has had its own measure of political interference. What about all those statements made during the election? Who misspoke? Who lied?
It is the style of this government to face down any criticism of how it does business with answers that do not accept responsibility and deflect the problem on the questioner. For example, what appears to be egregious tampering with a riding election by directing voters to a non existent voting station is said to be "smear tactics" by the questioner. When asked if the Minister of Defence should step down the Prime Minister (and not the minister in question) answers that the matter is now properly sent to Public Works. What is everyone yammering about? See, we didn't buy the airplanes. Forged changes in documents did not claim yet another minister. These answers are worthy of Vladimir Putin. This is the government that has sold off the Wheat Board without consultation of farmers. This is the government that has dismantled Katimivik, Canada's organization closest to the Peace Corp in the United States. The arts have been pilloried. The CBC has been gutted (because, I hear, that the Prime Minister does not like its liberal bent). In my years of following politics I have never seen such a blatant exercise of power by a Prime Minister.
Many forms of government force collaboration between the administrative and legislative arms. Neither the US congress nor any of its arms such as the House of Representatives or the Senate can pass legislation without the concurrence of the other house and the President. The President can propose but can't pass legislation and can only veto bills that he does not like. While such a system can produce stalemate--particularly when there are serious divergences of political philosophies between the parties, there can be no tyranny of any one party except where, in the unlikely circumstances, all three bodies are of the same party. Even then, there is a wide range of political philosophies within each party so that no one can be assured that any measure can make it into law without significant compromise.
In the parliamentary system of government there can be a tyranny of the majority party. That tyranny is deflected by the fact that voters vote for their constituency representative rather than for a party leader. The party leader must have the confidence of his own caucus and of the house. There have been circumstances where strong leaders wreaked havoc with the system. Diefenbaker single handedly denuded Canada of its aeronautics industry with cancellation of the Avro Arrow. Trudeau bludgeoned the country into bilingualism and the national energy party. Both paid with defeat at the polls. However, almost any other leader that I can think of has at least played the game of being politically sensitive to how the rest of the country perceives government action: until Harper. With the exception of the Minister of Finance and possibly the Foreign Minister he has surrounded himself with weak ministers. He has, in fact, taken charge of government on a unprecedentedl level. Senior civil servants with whom I have spoken tell me that the very essence of Canada's civil service as unbiased advisors is a serious risk.
So, the hidden agenda is not so hidden. Harper has become the autocratic leader of Canada. For ill or for good. Those who criticize him are pilloried. He intends to lead Canada well to the right of any Conservative leader. And watch out when he does.
Bernie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)