(with Marc Lee and Iglika Ivanova)

Most British Columbians would agree that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. And most assume that the wealthy pay more, not only in straight dollars, but also a higher tax rate as a share of their income.

So most would probably be shocked to learn that, in reality, that is no longer how our provincial tax system works.

There has recently been a renewed interest in the question of whether the ecological crisis means we need to see (or plan for) a stabilization or even a decline in economic growth. This week there is a major conference on degrowth in Montreal. York University's Peter Victor has made important contributions to this debate in his book Managing Without Growth, as has Tim Jackson in his report for the U.K.'s Sustainable Development Commission entitled Prosperity Without Growth?. There is a burgeoning literature on this topic.

This week, federal Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan released a disheartening report, slamming the Harper government for having no plan to meet its own 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets (targets that are already completely inadequate). It's not surprising news, but adds to the feelings of desperation harboured by many.

With Alison Redford's big re-election as Alberta premier last week, Alberta will now join the ranks of provinces with a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. This will leave B.C. and Saskatchewan as the only jurisdictions in Canada without a provincial or territorial plan.

The Alberta plan may prove to be the most ambitious to date. On April 11, the Alberta Progressive Conservatives issued a news release that read:

2011 was the year rising inequality finally exploded into the mainstream discourse.

A few year-end reading recommendations: Victoria Times-Colonist editorial writer Paul Willcocks wrote a terrific piece on the subject (you can find it here); and similarly, a group of UBC economists (including CCPA research associate David Green) authored a series on inequality for the Vancouver Sun (which you can find here).

If this past year -- marked by the Arab Spring and the fall arrival of the Occupy movement -- has taught us anything, it is that we never know when historic moments come. And when they do, that which seemed political impossible is suddenly in play.

Occupy Wall Street has shone new light on the growing gap between the richest 1 per cent and the rest of us (the 99 per centers).

But that's the U.S. right? Surely, our reality is different, eh? As the occupy movement comes to Canada in the coming week, we don't really have reason to copy these American troublemakers, do we?

Think again.

While inequality in Canada is not as great as in the U.S., in recent years it has been growing faster here (as noted in a recent report from the Conference Board of Canada).

This is no way to make tax policy. Last Wednesday's proposed reforms to the HST provide yet more evidence that what we really need is a Fair Tax Commission -- a full public engagement exercise in which the entire tax regime is on the table, and people can deliberate on how we want to raise the revenues we need.

There are elements of the latest reform package I like (which I'll get to below), but overall the government's proposed "bold fix" is a classic case of politics trumping good policy.

What's my beef with the "fix"?

If the 492 Tamil asylum-seekers who recently arrived by boat on B.C.'s shores are "queue-jumpers," then I guess my parents were too. See, they came as Vietnam War draft dodgers from the U.S. in 1967. Like a couple of the Tamil women just arrived, my mom was pregnant with me. My parents did not seek advance permission from the Canadian government to immigrate. They did not fill out any paperwork before arriving. And they could no more seek permission to leave from their home government than these Tamils could, for what they were doing was, as far as the U.S. was concerned, illegal and would result in my father's arrest.