Death and Taxes. How Did We Get it So Wrong?

The old adage that nothing is certain but death and taxes, was first used by author Daniel Defoe, but in a different context.

In his The Political History of the Devil (1726), Defoe dismisses the popular notion that the Devil has a cloven foot, or any other characteristic bestowed on him by humans.

He suggests that the Devil himself must laugh at "... the frightful shapes and figures we dress him up in ... especially to see how willingly we are first to paint him as black, and make him as ugly as we can, and then start at the spectrum of our own making."

By believing in this spectrum so infallibly, they refused to see the Devil working in anyone not fitting the description. Thus, the cloven foot et al, became as certain as death and taxes.

This week I attended a Canadian Club luncheon, where Kevin Page, former Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer, was speaking. I have a lot more to say about his address later, and thank my friend Norma for inviting me to be her guest.

I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Page personally and asked him how we get governments to take raising taxes seriously, when tax is now a four letter word. He said that it was funny I asked, because in fact, there was a book published recently, Tax Is Not a Four-Letter Word, that addresses that very topic.

In the introduction, editors Alex and Jordan Himelfarb, ask how paying taxes went from ".. being an irritant to a four-letter-word, not to be uttered in public or spoken of favourably in politics".

The problem of course is in the counter revolution of Neoconservatism and Libertarianism, with their message of personal freedom and reduction of "government control". Government is bad, so why should we be giving them our money?

And because of the enormous benefits to corporations, and the wealthiest citizens due to this new philosophy; they had a lot of money to sell their platform to those who would be hurt the most by its implementation.

Taxes became dark and ugly with cloven feet, and that notion has become so embedded in our thinking that we now gravitate to those promising to free us from them, without seeing how devilish the whole thing is.

The idea that reducing corporate taxes as a way to create jobs is nonsense. Research has shown that corporations are hoarding their money and headlines of "record profits" have become the norm. Jobs are still being outsourced overseas, and as we have seen recently, corporations are depending more and more on Temporary Foreign Workers.

As Alex Himelfarb states in his book promotion for the Star, we need to ask what we will have to give up to pay for those tax cuts. They'll tell you that they'll only get rid of the gravy, but all that gravy was sopped up long ago, in the name of austerity.

But What of that Cloven Hoof?

The upcoming provincial election in Ontario, is a good place to start questioning the logic of further tax cuts.

Tim Hudak is promising an additional 30% reduction in corporate taxes. (10% for us but only if he balances the budget).

We need to ask him what we will have to give up, setting aside the ridiculous notion of firing 100,000 public servants, wiping out the, albeit fictitious, jobs created through his cuts.

When he was with the Mike Harris government, their 30% tax cut had to be borrowed, increasing our debt by 40%. Cost of borrowing for taxpayers was 800,000,000 a year.

Yet 57% of those tax cuts went to the top 10%' income earners, while only the top 25% saw any gain at all. The average household actually lost ground because of increased user fees and the downloading of services to municipalities, which increased our property taxes.

Harris came to power at the end of a damaging recession. We were already rebounding by 1995. But during the eight year PC reign, from 1995-2003, wages stagnated, especially for lower income. According to the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, the minimum wage in Ontario was the highest in Canada in 1995. By 2003 we had dropped to 5th place.

Instead of the minimum wage going up, the number of those earning minimum wage skyrocketed, as privatization swelled the ranks of the working poor. And while Harris refused to raise the minimum wage, the buying power of the $7.89 per hour, was reduced to $6.85 by 2003, due to inflation.

So what did that 30% gift to the wealthy cost us?

Remember when a political platform includes cuts to Public Service - WE ARE THE PUBLIC!

The Ontario Liberals plan to raise taxes for those earning $150,000 a year. A small step in the right direction. However, we need to make this an election priority for all parties challenging the Neocon Revolution.

NDP leader Andrea Horvath, after quoting George Bush's "job creators", is suggesting that taxpayers need to be respected. Part of showing us respect is treating us like adults.

We're not stupid. We know the deficit has to be dealt with and as with any budget, that means increasing our revenue. That's the conversation that has to take place. Lowering the HST at this point will be just as damaging as lowering the GST was.

We have to decide what kind of province, and indeed country, we want to live in. One where the rich keep getting richer or one where we all reap the rewards from our vast natural resources.

We don't need lower taxes, we need fairer ones, so that everyone can prosper.

Defoe wanted his readers to remove the imagery of the cloven hoof or they might not recognize the Devil when he appeared. We need to remove the image of the Devil in taxes, or we might not recognize their good.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" Oliver Wendall Holmes

To All Media Out There Trying to Spin the Tax Issue: A Pox on Your Houses!

I think that many in the media have now outlived their usefulness. They would do much better hosting a reality show, because clearly few have the ability to think and speak, or think and write; at the same time.

Smarten Up!

There's a reason that the National Post went bankrupt, because they became nothing more than a PR firm for the Reform movement.

This is not about partisan politics. This is about Canadians. We are smart. We know that while we hate to pay taxes, they are the price we pay for the life we have.

If you don't get that, step aside. Consider yourselves prorogued.

Glenn Pearson wrote several months ago, about our current media and their fixation on sensationalism.

I recall when Ignatieff came to London following a visit to Cambridge, in which he stated no leader would be worthy of the name if he or she didn’t place the possibility of raising taxes on a long list of future considerations if a deficit couldn’t be brought under control.

Political staffers mulled around, worried that it would be taken out of context, which it inevitably was. Media had a field day with it. Ignatieff, suffering from a gruelling cold, sat in a chair prior to the event in London and wondered what became of honesty in the public space. The very next day in the House, Conservative members used every possible occasion to ridicule Ignatieff, calling him just another “tax and spend” Liberal. The media ate it up.

Well this week, the same thing happened. Gerard Kennedy was commenting on a poll suggesting that Canadians would support a hike in the GST, and holy cow. The media went nuts. 'Janie no brainie' on CTV is even running an entire segment on it.

She's got guests, including opposition members who are in some kind of trance. Their eyes are rolling in the back of their heads and they're frothing at the mouth.

She's got reporters on the ground with sobbing citizens and Jim Bob who swore he saw a UFO. She's even got a 99 year old man who thought the show was about stepping on tacks, so he peeled off his socks and showed her his scar.

Poor little Janie fainted from the excitement.

GROW UP!

This is what really happened. And Janie if you are having trouble with the big words, please let me know. Fortunately, most Canadians are smarter than this so you can ask any one of us.

What Gerard Kennedy actually said
January 28, 2010 11:19 AM
Robert Silver

It is amazing what some creative YouTube editing, the maturity of a 12-year old and a strong disregard for intellectual honesty can do for you these days.

Tim says Gerard Kennedy, the Liberal infrastructure critic supports tax hikes. But it was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that released a poll last week showing 70 per cent of Canadians would support a 1 per cent GST increase dedicated to local infrastructure repairs and upgrades with 43 per cent of Canadians strongly supporting the increase. ...

Michael Ignatieff on Taxes and Getting Canada Back on Track

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Looking back at that Joe Canadian video I'm reminded of just how much Canada has changed since 2006.

There is not the same sense of pride that we once felt sewing that flag to our backpack. Then Europeans looked up to Canadians. We were leaders. Our distinct rights culture set us above the pack. We were welcoming, accepting and not the melting pot in Jason Kenney's vision. The recent announcement that we will be accepting even fewer refugees doesn't even raise my ire like it should. At one time it would have shocked. Now it's business as usual.

The country that Joe speaks of, with two official languages, diversity not assimilation, peace not policing; is slowly evaporating. Our gun laws are being repealed and our diversity denounced by a government that does not believe in Canada. We could never imagine Stephen Harper making a speech like that.

The media used to know that. They joked about Harper’s inability - or refusal - to utter the words "I love Canada." In a 1997 CBC interview, Harper was asked "Is there a Canadian culture?" To which he replied: "Yes, in a very loose sense. It consists of regional cultures within Canada, regional cultures that cross borders with the US. We’re part of a worldwide Anglo-American culture. And there is a continental culture." Joe would never have given that answer because he knew that Canadians did indeed have a culture ... a wonderful multicultural identity with an immense pride in our diversity.

To Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status... " "A northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term ..." A nation that needs to be dismantled, not united.

Canadians understood that taxes were the price we paid for a civilized society and the price we paid to live in the best country in the world. We knew that. We accepted that.

But now the Reform Conservatives are telling us that taxes are ugly. They are the enemy. We must track them down and crush them with our heels. We must abandon all notions of society, universality, multiculturalism, compassion and pride. Those things cost money and can no longer define us.

We must push for individualism, not collectivism. We can't think of ourselves as part of a Canadian society, but must keep our own society. If our neighbour needs something we've got, we must crush them too. Survival of the fittest ... natural selection. Personal wealth as the key to salvation. That's who we are now and Joe Canadian no longer makes the grade.

"Reform is somewhat un-Canadian. It's about tidy numbers, self-righteous sanctimoniousness and western grievances. It cannot talk about the sea or about our reluctant fondness for Quebec, about our sorrow at the way our aboriginal people live, about the geographically diverse, bilingual, multicultural mess of a great country we are." (Vancouver Sun, April 8, 1994)

Michael Ignatieff on Taxes

A recent piece in the Toronto Star opened with the statement: "At the risk of insulting a generation of 4-year-olds, it's time we had an adult conversation in Canada about taxes and public services." An adult conversation. How is this possible?

Glen Pearson once noted media reaction to any mention of the "t" word:

"Opposition parties would immediately pounce and all manner of bloggers, pundits and columnists would discuss the scary ramifications of such a daredevil proposition. I recall when Ignatieff came to London following a visit to Cambridge, in which he stated no leader would be worthy of the name if he or she didn’t place the possibility of raising taxes on a long list of future considerations if a deficit couldn’t be brought under control.

Political staffers mulled around, worried that it would be taken out of context, which it inevitably was. Media had a field day with it. Ignatieff, suffering from a gruelling cold, sat in a chair prior to the event in London and wondered what became of honesty in the public space. The very next day in the House, Conservative members used every possible occasion to ridicule Ignatieff, calling him just another “tax and spend” Liberal. The media ate it up."

How many tax dollars were wasted on ten per centers telling us that Ignatieff wanted to raise our taxes, even citing quotes from decades ago? Apparently, Canadians no longer want honesty. 'Taxes bad. Ugh, scratch, scratch.' We've been dummied down and we don't even know it.

I thought that Michael Ignatieff put it quite well in a recent speech to the Toronto board of trade:

"You can’t have an honest debate with a government that only plays games. All of this brings me to the fundamental distinction between Stephen Harper and the Liberal Party.

Back in July, after the G8 Summit in Italy, Mr. Harper gave an interview to The Globe and Mail, in which he said, and I quote:“I don’t believe that any taxes are good taxes.”

Think about that for a moment. It’s an astonishing statement for a prime minister to make.

We pay taxes, Mr. Harper, so that premature infants get nursing care when they’re born; so that policemen will be there to keep our streets safe; so that we have teachers to give our kids a good education.

We pay taxes, Mr. Harper, because we’re all in this together. It costs us something, but it makes Canada the place it is: a place where we look out for each other. But Stephen Harper doesn’t think that way.

Stephen Harper thinks no taxes are good taxes because he believes that the only good government is no government at all."

So put that in an attack ad Stephen Harper. Your ignorant masses will lap it up.

"I like to Pay Taxes. With Them I Buy Civilization"

That quote was from Oliver Wendell Holmes and kind of sums up how I feel about taxes. They are inevitable and the price we pay for living in a progressive country.

But every election campaign, candidates will focus on lowering taxes, like they are driving out the devil himself.

Most ignore the promises once elected, or worse fulfill them, like Jim Flaherty did with the GST, and look at the mess it made.

And speaking of messes, how about the promises of his counterpart, George W. Bush. "The Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I'll say no, and they'll push and I'll say no, and they'll push again. And all I can say to them is read my lips: No New Taxes."

Enough said.

CBC News online ran a great opinion piece recently, written by someone with a lot of common sense.

Why I should be paying more taxes
June 19, 2009
By Robert Smol

Last month, the hard reality of my growing professional success struck me, yet again, in the wallet as I proceeded to pay the government that which I still owed on my already high tax bill.

Am I frustrated? Absolutely. But not for the same reasons that many of my fellow grumpy, overworked middle-aged cohorts are frustrated with what they have to hand over to the public purse.

I am frustrated about not having the chance to pay more taxes.

Now, I am no government lapdog, as my earlier columns on this site would indicate. 'Let me tell you how it will be, cause I'm the taxman.' (Canadian Press)

More often than not, I can be found in full complaint over any number of issues, from health care in our hospitals to teaching standards and the size of our military. But it has dawned on me as I have documented these shortcomings that nothing will change if I as a citizen am not prepared to put my money where my mouth is.

We are us

At school, I repeatedly tell my business students that the best quality goods or services come at a cost. As an entrepreneur, if I want the best quality employee, or shipping or internet service, then I must be prepared to pay. Why then am I made to seem like I have grown a horn when I suggest that the same business-like mantra apply to our government services?

Of course, just like in the so-called real world, taxpayers should insist that what governments provide be efficient and cost effective.

But if we want top quality nurses, doctors, teachers, police and soldiers — and in the numbers we feel we need — we are simply going to have to come up with the cash.

We are not a desperate have-not nation. Nobody is going to turn to the philanthropic CEO or rock star when a real pandemic, earthquake or military/terrorist attack comes our way.

Instead, we will have to turn to whatever we, as a society, have collectively managed to store up to help us in a time of need. It is a reality I saw first hand when my military unit was deployed to Eastern Ontario in 1998 to assist during the famous ice storm.

While we scrambled through our relatively meagre military supplies to muster every available tool — chainsaws and generators — to help the local population, we discovered some local merchants were inflating the price considerably to rent or buy these items.

Because we hadn't set aside enough public resources in the first place, we ended up paying quite a bit more when the call went out for help. It is a parallel I can't help seeing being replayed in our current economic situation, with the federal deficit now shooting up so dramatically as Ottawa tries to plug holes everywhere it can.

Being selfish

So, with this in mind, here are the reasons why I feel I personally deserve to pay more into the public purse. I will try to leave the rest of you out of this. It is not my intention to pick and choose who should be ponying up. Rather it is simply for selfish reasons that I want to pay more.

I want to pay more taxes because I want to be assured of the services that will ransom me and those who might one day take care of me from the harsh realities that life will inevitably leave on my doorstep, whether it be sickness, old age, natural disaster or economic meltdown.

Come desperate times, I do not want to put my trust in those whose sole purpose is to turn a profit from my fears or my pain and suffering.

These are collective anxieties we all share and I'd like to be assured there are enough public resources set aside to deal with them, as there was during my parents' and grandparents' eras.

We boomers are going to be making extra demands on our social safety net as we age, everyone tells us. It behooves us to start contributing more now to pay for those needs.

Not a bottomless pit

Obviously, the public purse is not a bottomless pit and future governments will have to make some unpopular decisions on the allocation of scarce resources. But surely there is more at stake here than just decisions about the allocation of future government services.

Doesn't the equilibrium between the right of individuals and corporations, like the car companies and others, to draw from the public purse come with a corresponding obligation to keep it full?

I for one feel I should pay more. I don't want to point fingers everywhere but it is hard to see how those corporate entities with their hands out now shouldn't be prepared to pay more later, particularly if we don't want to mortgage the cost of maintaining government programs on future generations.

I frequently hear successful managers and CEOs say that their employees are their greatest resource. A productive, healthy and well-educated work force is, I believe, what makes a company, and ultimately the economy, successful.

I also believe that a modern, accessible and efficient infrastructure is needed to make the economy attract and grow businesses.

The last places then where we should be making any cuts are health care, education and security as well as the infrastructure that makes for a highly mobile and efficiently telecommunicating society.

Call me selfish but I feel I deserve to live the twilight phase in my life in a progressive and caring society where I am taken care of through a generous and financially solvent public health-care system and social safety network supported by the taxes of a highly skilled and educated workforce.

It is a model that has worked for me so far. And I'm happy to pay more to keep it going.

Now that I'm a grandparent, I'm more concerned with the kind of Canada my grandchildren grow up in. I don't want them paying in the future for services I'm receiving today.

I want a politician to tell me how they will make better use of the taxes I pay, not just threaten to reduce government revenue, when I know that vital government services will no doubt suffer.
Be courageous, be smart and be fair. That's all I ask.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are none of the above.