How ironic is it that Stephen Harper has assigned Tony Clement to identify opportunities for federal budget cutbacks? Yes, that would be the same Tony Clement whose riding received $50 million in G20 "legacy infrastructure funds," part of a spending spree that MP Pat Martin called "flagrant...hog-troughing of the highest order."
Are you ready for the upcoming press conferences where Tony lectures Canadians on the need for belt-tightening and "cutting the fat," while his axe chops through the muscle and bone of our public programs and services?
In recent decades, the management of public financial resources has been largely driven by the neo-liberal obsession with cutting taxes and shrinking government. Most of our political leaders, either in agreement or because of electoral fear, have played along. Taxes were cut, more loopholes added and -- surprise -- we were then told of the dire lack of public funds to cover existing or new public services. Underfunded services were derided as ineffective or inefficient, and then targeted for more cuts or outsourcing to the private sector.
But the dirty little secret that most government leaders will not admit -- the potential for additional public revenue is immense. A more fair and balanced tax system could generate tens of billions of dollars in new public revenue.
The numbers are truly breathtaking.
Let's look at some of the figures provided by the 2011 Alternative Federal Budget prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The Alternative Federal Budget provides three-year projections, so the following figures refer to potential revenue and expenses for the years 2011 through 2014.
For starters, we could pull the plug on the outrageous and unnecessary tax cuts for corporations. Reinstating the 2007 corporate tax rate would produce $30 billion over the next three years.
Advertising
Salary and wages are fully taxed, but capital gains from investments are taxed at only half the rate. While this break is supposed to encourage investment, it mostly rewards stock market speculation. Fully taxing personal and corporate capital gains, and eliminating the stock options deduction, would produce another $19.3 billion.
Introducing a financial activities tax of five per cent on profits and remuneration in the financial sector, as advocated by the International Monetary Fund, would generate another $14.4 billion.
Canada's highest income tax tier is only $128,800. If we added two higher tiers at $250,000 and $750,000, with modestly higher rates, that could bring in another $12 billion.
Plus the Alternative Federal Budget identified a number of other tax adjustments producing another $8.7 billion in revenue.
Introducing those tax reforms -- essentially gaining a more fair and balanced tax contribution from the wealthiest individuals and corporations -- could produce more than $84 billion in new public revenue over the next three years, or about $28 billion per year.
If we collected that additional tax revenue, would it make a noticeable difference?
Here are some more examples from the Alternative Federal Budget on what could be done with that revenue over the same three-year period.
Healthcare
• Initiate a national PharmaCare program ($11.2 billion)
• Significantly boost continuing care services, such as nursing home and residential care ($8.7 billion)
Families
• Launch an affordable national childcare program ($4.9 billion)
• Provide safe drinking water for First Nations ($3.0 billion)
Education
• Reduce post-secondary tuition to 1992 levels ($4.8 billion)
• Create new income tested education grants ($4.2 billion)
Municipalities
• Launch an environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure building program ($13.5 billion)
Poverty reduction
• Significantly boost the Canada Child Tax Benefit to $5,400 ($14.3 billion)
• Double the refundable GST credit ($11.2 billion)
• Increase poverty reduction transfers to provinces ($5.4 billion)
In other words, $84 billion over three years could fund a host of incredibly important programs that would touch the lives of most households in Canada. Important programs and services that governments have told us are unaffordable could be funded because, in reality, the creation of more public revenue through a fair and balanced tax system is really a matter of political choice.
These examples are just that -- an illustration of potential sources of new public revenue and potential uses of those funds. What specific tax reforms and expenditures should actually be introduced, and when, are decisions that should emerge from an informed public discussion and political debate.
So in the coming months, when Tony Clement begins chopping away at the Canada we love, and tells us we cannot afford the Canada we need, remember we have a choice. Tony's axe or fair tax.
Larry Gordon is co-ordinator of Canadians for Tax Fairness.
Thank you for choosing rabble.ca as an independent media source. We're a reader-supported site -- visited by over 315,000 unique visitors during the election campaign! But we need money to grow. Support us as a paying member (click here) or in making a one-off donation (click here).
"For starters, we could pull the plug on the outrageous and unnecessary tax cuts for corporations. Reinstating the 2007 corporate tax rate would produce $30 billion over the next three years."
Of course you realize that this would raise the price of every good and service from those companies that are having their taxes raised.
"Canada's highest income tax tier is only $128,800. If we added two higher tiers at $250,000 and $750,000, with modestly higher rates, that could bring in another $12 billion."
The top federal and provincial rate is 46% on income over approximately $127,000 in Ontario. You want to take that to over 50%? More than half of each dollar earned is taken by the government. This has been tried before many times and fails every time. Each time those that produce stop producing. They know when they are being ripped off. Everyone loses.
Why does every left wing scheme involve taking money away from a group of people and giving it to another group with a very inefficient middle man (the government) taking a substantial portion?
If you take more money away from those that work and give more money to those that don't work do you think you get more work out of this equation?
RDP's comments are for outsiders looking in, because caring rabble regulars have no use for the uncaring "Make us care and we'll not care twice as hard" attitude.
If it doesn't work for everyone - RDP is suggesting we can't make such a system - then it doesn't work. But the author is right. The harshness is not natural, irresistable law at work. It's political choice at work. Always was. Governments can care and so can citizens.
Corporations want to create jobs? Then why do the stats show that they aren't doing r&d, even though they are making money? Mafia capitalists - the shoes fit - don't invest beyond setting up their criminal, (offshore tax havens that rob the poor). They cost cut, and that includes wages and job security and health and environmental regulation in their factories. Give the corporations to socialists. They couldn't do worse. They might find the integrity at least to quit shifting the burden of paying taxes to those who have already pulled their weight and the weight of rich corporations for some time. They might think to leave the stock market to it's own outlived usefulness. They might think to care about fellow citizens by giving up the ferreting of money into offshore tax havens. It's disgusting, Jack Mintz's propaganda notwithstanding, to see that our big banks use something like 87 different offshore tax havens! Nice example of law and order guys! As for our banks being heroes, lt's only accidental that they aren't more villainous, since they pushed to get the same freedom as American banks and just happened to not get it. Had they succeeded, Canadian society be in worse shape today.
Why do (some) rightwingers not get that many of us get that when propaganda that tells us that government is the enemy succeeds, Canadians who don't examine things critically abandon government while corporations who supposedly are anti-government tighten their grip on it? Oh yes, It's because they serve power. And much of that power resides in corporations. Sin and survive. Get in the market and sell your soul for a decent price. Give your neighbors hell and don't think of the fact that you will feel some of the heat. You are breathing polluted air, while all manner of pharmaceutical products from too free pharmaceutical companies are reaching you via your tap water as other too free companies drain 'our' precious aquifers while corporatocracy governments sit back and let them do it at no cost to them, while the earth heats up (with all kinds of weather happening locally), while our imperial governments are busy stealing countries for their capitalist classes and making terrorists in the process.... Then there's your health care system. Private is better? Maybe if you want to look better via plastic surgery. But why do doctors in the private sector go to public sector hospitals for their own medical needs? Not to mention the mistakes they make ending up going there to be fixed. Education? If you don't want to fear your neighbors, then get to know them - through public education that mixes our children together and brings all of us together in understanding.
Darkness is it's own reward and idiocracy has arrived. You were clever in getting a good price for your soul. But you're also out of your mind.
He is the rock legend dubbed 'Saint Bono' for his long-running campaign against global poverty.
But when Bono's band U2 perform at Glastonbury later this month, protesters are planning to accuse them of avoiding taxes which could have helped exactly the sort of people the singer cares about so dearly.
Members of activist group Art Uncut will hoist a massive inflatable sign with the message 'Bono Pay Up' spelt out in lights during the Irish band's headline performance.
They will also parade bundles of oversized fake cash in front of the singer.
The protest has been provoked by U2's decision to move their multi-million-pound music and publishing business away from Ireland - thus allegedly avoiding taxes on record sales.
A spokesman for Art Uncut, an off-shoot of controversial group UK Uncut, said the protest would not be violent or disrupt U2's set - but would be 'highly visible'.
He said: 'Bono claims to care about the developing world, but U2 greedily indulges in the very kind of tax avoidance that is crippling poor nations.
'We will be showing the very real impact of U2's tax avoidance on hospitals and schools in Ireland. Anyone watching will be made very aware that Bono needs to pay up.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394422/Saint-Bono-facing-huge-G...
This is what happens when you jack up tax rates to stratospheric levels. People and corporations leave for more friendly regimes. This is a fact and it is a consequence of tax increases. There are two components when determining government revenue from taxation: the tax rate and the tax base. When you hike rates your base declines. On the margin, people will substitute leisure for work or leave when rates ries. Bono has chosen to leave Ireland. Ireland not only does not get the revenue from the rate increase on Bono's income, now they lose what they were getting before the rate increase. The winner in this is the government that welcomes Bono.
Economics operates on the margins. One more small rate increase caused this. This small increase was the final straw.
Bono can afford to pay. But, like me and Toronto Maple Leafs tickets (I can afford to go some Leafs games but won't because I know I am getting ripped off), he knows when he is getting ripped off.
"Canada's highest income tax tier is only $128,800. If we added two higher tiers at $250,000 and $750,000, with modestly higher rates, that could bring in another $12 billion."
The author wants to introduce to more tiers. Folks in Ontario earning over the $128,000 already pay close to 50% on the next dollar earned. What rates do you want to charge on the two new tiers and what do you think that will do to the our tax base? In 1971 Ontario's top marginal tax rate was reduced from 82% to 59% because the tax base was evaporating. It was lowered again in 1982. We had 30 years of decent economic progress (inspite of Rae) and rising government revenue due to an expanding tax base (an example of how a tax cut can lead to greater revenue).
The author's suggestions are not new nor innovative. They have been tried many times and have failed every time.