The Toronto Star's Universe

[a_majoor]

This piece is important, since it stakes out the ground of much of the current "Liberalverse". (This includes the NDP and Greens, based on many of their pronouncements as well). The electorate is force fed this mush by the Star and many hangers on, and of course re-verbs in the various political parties, special interest groups and so on in a positive feedback loop. Their complete inability to grasp elementary economics (the latest campaign to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr will wipe out many of the jobs and economic niches that poorly trained or educated people could inhabit, throwing them onto welfare and charity) and their stand(s) on current Canadian foreign policy should tell you everything you need to know.

Like some exotic theories in physics, however, this loop seems to exist with only the most tenuous of connections to the observable universe around us, but has enough "energy" to attract and contain public discourse and even policy to some extent. How we ended up in this situation is worth exploring, and how to break out of the loop is even more important (the Blogoverse is one step in the right direction, but can't be considered the only step).

http://edwardmichaelgeorge.blogspot.com/2006/11/world-according-to.html

The World According to...

Much as I would love to take the Toronto Star seriously as a left wing newspaper--and I am not incapable of taking some left wing newspapers seriously--I can't. Not the Star. It's bumwad.

The matter's well past being one of determining at what point the Star and I part ways to pursue our respective courses. There can be no parting of ways between bodies, respectively, in different universes. The world the Star describes is unrecognizable to me at the most fundamental level. Indeed, and what amazes me more: while Toronto Starland is a quite fantastical place, it is somehow also entirely devoid of a sense of romance; it is a place of shrill, awkwardly and toothily grinning busybodies--relentlessly chattering away in their native tongue, Pedantian, in spite of the absence upon their heads of ears--stuck in a never ending bid to outsuccour the other members of their überclass for the grunting approbation of the masses over which they have absolute charge. Savage, irreligious, slavering elephant-men to a man, these masses ...

Today, it (the Star, I mean) makes its case against income splitting:

At first blush, income splitting seems to bring more fairness to the system. Where someone who earns $80,000 and has a stay-at-home spouse now pays about $3,500 more tax than a working couple each making $40,000, income splitting would leave both couples paying the same.

But one person's fairness is another's pain. Consider a single, divorced parent who also makes $80,000 and pays child support for four children to a former spouse. That person would pay $3,500 more in tax than either of the income-splitting couples, even if they have no kids. Income-splitting sure wouldn't strike the divorced parent as fair.

Um, okay ... Except that under the present system the given divorced parent is no better off anyway. To say, then, that "one person's fairness is another's pain" with respect to this particular inequity is to suggest a causal relationship between the two that doesn't, I'm afraid, exist. So ... erm ... what was your argument again, Mr. Star? That my neighbour--Javier--and I both used to get screwed, but only I get screwed now, does not make Javier responsible for my ongoing, and certainly not increased, screwedness.* I'm supposed to be ticked off that he, a father of two, gets a tiny bit of a break from the grind of making ends meet because I don't? Could I ask you perhaps, for the sake of my dignity and lest my neighbour think considerably less of me, to mind your own goddam business?

But this concern for divorced parents making eighty grand a year paying former spouses four children's worth of child support strikes me as a bit of a blind. Given, that is, that the Star would prefer that both Javier and I continue to be screwed under the old system, and that all of our tax dollars go to the "1.2 million children [who] live in poverty" in this country. Never mind what exactly constitutes "poverty" in a nation with a robust welfare system and universal health care--the implicit suggestion being that these people, daily, undergo hardships of a Dickensian magnitude**--let's just focus on the fact that the Star believes that the responsibility of a democratically elected government, so elected (I hasten to remind you) on the basis of a platform promising that the specific interests of a majority of the electorate be dealt with in exchange for their votes, is to ignore, entirely, those interests once elected.

Such is either the insultingly low estimation the Star has of the average intelligence of its readership, or such is the extraordinary stupidity of its editorial staff that not only do its arguments hinge largely on such embarrassingly transparent logical fallacies (i.e. If married people receive an advantage over divorced people then it must follow that the difference be payed entirely to a third party, who do not, dare I mention it, have the lion's share of interest in the national wellbeing as do the first two types) but they reflect a fundamentally anti-democratic--so, anti-Canadian presumably--expectation of how the nation should work.

Mr. Star: ignoring a mandate from the masses--the majority shareholder in the nation's stock--to ease their tax-burden cannot be the behaviour of a responsible government. Even, and this is important, even if it is the moral thing to do (which, I hasten to add, this wouldn't be). Privileging the interests of the few--even if they are those adorable, 1.2 million cockney-accented rascals, driven to a life of chimney-sweeping to keep a regular supply of porridge on their tables--over the interests of the many is, I'm so very sorry to tell you this Mr. Star, a tyranny.

How is it that Canada's "largest daily newspaper" doesn't actually grasp this?

__________________
*I leave it to Andrew Coyne to explain the elementary and obvious fairness--given the relativity of that term (which the Star itself (somewhat bizarrely) concedes, i.e. "The fact is, no tax system can be considered fair to all people. There is always some arbitrariness built in.")--of income splitting.

**I don't pretend that real hardship doesn't exist in this country, but the idea that all 1.2 million children (3% of our population apparently) are poverty stricken for the same reason--i.e. the diabolical machinations of the privileged (erm ... the middle, that is) classes--does strike me as being a trifle hyperbolic.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am sorry but I disagree, The TS would not make good bumwad, my bum is worth more than that!  ;D

 

[Long in the tooth]

I'm pretty open minded, so I read the Op/Ed peices of several newspapers daily, about 12 from all across Canada.  The Star is the only one I do not waste my time on.

 

[couchcommander]

Not that I support the Star (its tripe), or that I have anything particularly against income splitting (if it was already in place, I wouldn't have any issues, as its fine), but this seems like another bad step by the Conservative government.

We all remember back to when they brought in their budget, and rather than further reduce the rate on the lowest tax bracket and raise the exemption, effectively giving a tax break to all Canadians, they actually raised taxes for many Canadians. The simple result of this was that rather than all Canadian's enjoying a tax break, they have taken money away from the people who do indeed need it most.

Even after that, rather than, say, reducing the rate on the lowest tax bracket and raising the exemption, benefiting, once again, ALL Canadians, they lowered the GST. This may play well with the press, however if one remembers, it was soundly rejected by most respected economists. They almost completely agreed that an income tax cut would be better for our economy.

Now once again we see another move coming around. Rather than quite simply once again reducing the lowest tax bracket and increasing the exemption, saving ALL Canadians money, they are further complicating our tax system, and once again introducing a break that will drastically reduce taxes for only a select number of Canadians.

Single men and women, with or without children, or working couples will not benefit in the slightest. They could have benefitted, WE ALL could have, if the Conservatives had simply elected to lower income tax rather then pursuing their ill-advised, not very well thought out cuts.

Think how low that tax bracket could be if all of these changes, the corporate income tax cuts, the GST, the child care allowance, etc. etc. etc. were put towards lowering all of our taxes? Not only would you and I be paying A LOT less taxes, but remember those social programs we all hate to put money towards?

That's right. By allowing low-income earners to take home more of what little they do make, we will actually be attacking our budget from the other end as well, by reducing reliance upon expensive social programs.

Not only would giving people the ability to support themselves result in our tax burden going DOWN, it will give them the ability to improve their own situation by themselves.

Its like raising the minimum wage to $10/hr. Some people, for whatever reason, do not seem to catch on that raising the minimum wage <a href="http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebrief201">is actually good for the economy despite, rhetoric that is not supported by observation, or for that matter even sound theory.</a> It is a pure and simple myth that raising minimum wage drives companies away; the economy actually ends up doing better, and so do the people who, despite working more than 40 hours a week, are unable to earn enough money to buy basic things like food, clothing, and shelter for their families. Like lowering taxes for all Canadians, we ALL benefit from helping the working poor become more indepedant. In the end, our tax burden will decrease, and our economy will do better.

Now as I said, I have nothing against income splitting... if had been already in place. However, this is a new measure, and the Conversative government is electing, yet again, to benefit a small, targetted portion of our society DESPITE the fact it has yet ANOTHER opportunity to benefit all of Canada, you and I, poor and rich, together. It is choosing, like it frequently does, to play politics rather than government by sending a good sounding message that actually ends up hurting everyone.

The Star sucks, but so do a lot of other things...

*edit* and I should add, that no longer being a full time student I am actually one of the small minorty of people who did benefit from all the tax changes, and stand to pay a lot less if income splitting is brought in, considering my, oh what is designation now in alberta? female adult interdepdant relationship partner? whatever. She is still a full time student and doesn't even make enough to warrant filing taxes. I, however, realize that in the long run it'll only serve to take away from me.

 

[a_majoor]

Not that I support the Star (its tripe), or that I have anything particularly against income splitting (if it was already in place, I wouldn't have any issues, as its fine), but this seems like another bad step by the Conservative government.

Classic liberalverse argument: it's bad because the Conservatives did it, otherwise it would be just fine!

As for minimum wages, the results of observation, study and empirical evidence is always there for those who care to look. In Ontario, the government implicitly understands the argument since the minimum wage for students is less than the "official" minimum wage.

 

[couchcommander]

Classic liberalverse argument: it's bad because the Conservatives did it, otherwise it would be just fine!

No, not in the slighest. If it had already been in place, then alright so be it, it makes sense - a family unit should be evaluated as a whole. Since it isn't however, and we have limited resources to try and accomplish our goals, the money spent on bringing this in would be much better used elsewhere, namely on a general cut.

As for minimum wages, the results of observation, study and empirical evidence is always there for those who care to look.

Indeed they are.

 

[a_majoor]

No, not in the slighest. If it had already been in place, then alright so be it, it makes sense - a family unit should be evaluated as a whole. Since it isn't however, and we have limited resources to try and accomplish our goals, the money spent on bringing this in would be much better used elsewhere, namely on a general cut.

The argument is either valid or it is not. Since you are arguing that it does make sense, then it makes sense regardless of who or what government institutes this change. To say it does make sense but then argue against it is not only a logical fallacy, but rather amusing as well. The mathematics department will be happy to assist you in untying the logical knots and contortions.

WRT accomplishing "our" goals, since the government is in a very slim minority position, they are to be commended in attempting to advance what parts of the program which are doable in this parliament, rather than setting lofty "targets" and then failing to act upon them (seems a former government was quite good at that). Politics is, after all, the means of allocating scarce resources. A program has been proposed which is doable and will have an immediate effect, so lets take advantage of that fact.

 

[couchcommander]

The argument is either valid or it is not. Since you are arguing that it does make sense, then it makes sense regardless of who or what government institutes this change. To say it does make sense but then argue against it is not only a logical fallacy, but rather amusing as well. The mathematics department will be happy to assist you in untying the logical knots and contortions.

lol, you missed my point. Its not about which government is in power, I don't care whether it was the purple dinosaur party.

We have limited resources to accomplish our goals. Income splitting isn't a bad idea, neither was a GST cut... neither is a bad idea on its own, but the point that the conservatives fail to get, is priorities. A GST cut right now is inappropriate given the level of our consumption taxes vis a vis the rest of the world, not to mention the rather heavy tax burden Canadian individuals experience directly.

The real question is, what can we do, within our limited resources, that will have the greatest positive effect upon the country? Rather utilitarian I know, but its a question they should be asking themselves, however don't appear to be.

The answer to that question, in regards to tax cuts, falls far away from income splitting. There are other areas where that money could be put to better use right now. That, the last sentance, is the point.

An example to illustrate my point is that I have an entire wall of white boards with "good ideas" that "make sense". Very few of them, however, will ever see the light of day due to the age old constraints of time and money. I'm forced to go through these ideas, and pick out the ones that firstly, I can accomplish, and secondly, are most beneficial, then put a nice little "p1" in front of it. The others, unfortunately, get "p2", "p3", or a damning "p4".

Perhaps we should send some whiteboards to Mr. Flatherly?

 

[Edward Campbell]

But, couchcommander remember the lessons of The Curious Republic of Gondour (that’s Twain’s Gondour not Tolkien’s Gondor).

While the GST cut may be less than great tax policy and income splitting may not be the best possible tax policy both are good politics.

I suspect that Mr. Flaherty is not wanting for expert tax advice.  No doubt he is, daily, surrounded by white boards full of it.  I also suspect that he is leavening his politics with a healthy dose of pretty good – at least not too bad – economic advice.  At bottom, however, Messers Flaherty and Harper and their colleagues need to present Canadians with a package of fiscal policies which will, both:

• Attract voters’ support; and

• At worst, do little harm to the nation’s economy.

Real, working politicians inhabit the benches in the Parliament of Canada, not philosopher kings or the ‘immortal’ intellectual grandees of Gondour.  Thank heavens for that!

 

[couchcommander]

Well then we agree.

A) Its not the best tax cut they could make in terms of our economy

B) They are introducing this particular cut because it will play well with their supporters, while not being *bad* for the country.

The funny thing to me, is that by our own admission, we've got Liberals playing to a different voter base!

...all the more reason to do away with these "popularity contests" IMO, nothing ever really changes...

 

[a_majoor]

Edward, this seems to be the next set of tax ideas which will be both effective and attract voter support:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=92dca614-ab6b-40e4-af1a-463a3f478a2f&k=25611

Tax relief coming for all, Flaherty promises

Eric Beauchesne
CanWest News Service

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

CREDIT: CP
In the Advantage Canada plan, released with his budget update, Flaherty noted a single parent with one child who takes a low income job can lose up to 80 cents of every dollar earned to taxes and reduced income support, plus other benefits, such as subsidized housing or drugs.

OTTAWA -- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty hinted Wednesday his upcoming budget will have tax relief for Canadians at both the bottom and the top of the income ladder.

The plan would allow individuals to earn more before their incomes are pushed into the top tax bracket, while reducing the tax hit on people when they move off welfare and into a job.

“In terms of attracting highly skilled people in Canada, we have a tax deterrent in that people hit the top marginal rate quite quickly relative to other countries,” he said, adding his department is looking at how to address that problem.

The comments followed a speech in which he also said next year’s budget will eliminate the “welfare wall” facing people moving into the workforce from social security, which acts as a disincentive for them to take a job.

“We have a welfare wall in Canada and we are discouraging people who are on social assistance, who are capable of working, from going to work,” he said.

In the Advantage Canada plan, released with his budget update, Flaherty noted a single parent with one child who takes a low income job can lose up to 80 cents of every dollar earned to taxes and reduced income support, plus other benefits, such as subsidized housing or drugs.

“We need to fix that,” he said, adding he’s committed to doing so in the next budget. “We have to make it pay to work.”

The minister reiterated that his government is also guaranteeing all Canadians will get an income tax cut each year equal to the interest savings from the reduction in debt that will result from the promise to use all future government surpluses to pay down debt.

“It’ll be personal income tax reductions in the year following the year in which we reduce the public debt and have the savings at hand,” he said.

However, a report by an economic think-tank Wednesday warned Flaherty’s ability to deliver the promised tax relief will be severely limited by the Conservatives’ costly election campaign promises.

“By the time Minister Flaherty moved into his finance post last February, his party had exhausted most of the fiscal discretion that would become available to him for many years,” said the report by Global Insight chief economist Dale Orr, which pointed to promises to cut the GST, increase the basic personal deduction, and restore the fiscal balance between Ottawa and the provinces.

“There is reason to believe the government’s political will to pursue tax reduction and the many policy commitments of the Advantage Canada agenda is quite limited,” warned the report.

“The overall tax burden of personal income tax will be about the same in 2011 as it is today … even if most of the fiscal room remaining is used for personal income tax reduction.”

Flaherty, meanwhile, said he will not retreat from the tax on trusts.

All that remains to be decided is what new limits will be placed on the expansion of existing trusts, which remain tax-free for four years, he suggested.

“That’s what we’re consulting about now,” he said, noting he’d had three meetings with income trust industry representatives over the previous 48 hours. “Those will be in the guidelines in the implementation part of the plan.”

Income trusts, which were recovering from a big hit on stock markets following Flaherty’s Oct. 31 announcement, suffered another setback later when the government indicated it would also impose limits on their ability to go to the market for new financing to expand.
© CanWest News Service 2006

What the critics never seem to remember is that tax cuts spur economic growth bringing in new revenues, so the idea there will not be economic room is directly contradicted by evidence from many times and places. Now the government needs to make some pretty steep spending cuts as well and we will move smartly ahead.