Taxing questions: Fifteen years ago, journalist Linda McQuaig published Behind Closed Doors, on Canada’s tax system. What a prescient choice. So little known, yet a brilliant way in to the deep politics of our society. The tax system is about power, democracy, dishonesty — yet, we rarely hear of it beyond shrill demands to cut rates. What was refreshing is that her book asked how the tax system works, and for whom, instead of merely whether or how much to cut. There is still no more revealing route.

In the U.S., President George W. Bush has no economic policy beside tax cuts — wait, alter that: tax cuts for the rich. No one denies it; they simply argue the results will filter down. The crash of the Enrons, September 11 and soaring security costs made no difference. The government is larded with former students of Harvard prof Martin Feldstein, who taught them to marvel over the way “high marginal tax rates . . . distort behaviour.” How did this get to be the norm? Why doesn’t paying nothing, as many corporations do, distort behaviour? The Globe and Mail>’s John Ibbitson gets cranky about individuals willing to let governments choose how to spend their money rather than deciding themselves. As if a person can’t choose to pool money with her fellow beings for goods such as schools or health care rather than go shopping for them on her own.

Talk about filtering and distortion — the President just replaced the top members of his economic team with two guys who don’t even believe, says The New York Times, that big cuts for the rich will do the sagging U.S. economy any good. But they’ll leave the cuts in place anyway. Why? Because cuts “control the size of government by depriving it of the money needed to create new programs.” Such as, oh, health care for the fourty million without it, or greenhouse gases. Why is this a good thing? The Times’s “analysis” doesn’t say. Can it be that such programs could impede the ability to sell products and make profits by the very firms from which the new guys hail? What a way to “control” the actions a society takes. Every time someone proposes a new program to improve people’s lives, you render it impracticable with another tax cut. Has anyone explained this trick to the Americans, or is it too complicated?

Up here, the tax issue has begun to stymie the popular consensus on the Romanow report. Now the Prime Minister says the money isn’t there. What does that mean? It’s there in some form; people will pay for what they need to survive, if at all possible. Whether it’s there in public form depends on revenues raised through taxes. Uh oh, did I say “raised”? Will that cause a panic on Bay Street? The funny thing is that money is always there when it’s “needed” — for a flood, a war or a boondoggle such as the gun registry, in which case it’s suddenly no big deal. The other odd thing is that the topic of increasing taxes, as Senator Michael Kirby suggested in his health report, doesn’t seem to frazzle most average Canadians. Yet it’s barely broachable in elite circles.

I raise, whoops, all this since Christmas is coming. As everyone knows, it had to do with taxes. The Romans ordered a census, the purpose of which was to update the tax records, so Joseph and Mary had to return home to Bethlehem. At least according to one of the gospels. Others don’t mention the census, though some extrabiblical sources do, but those tend to raise other doubts about Jesus’s birth. So, in fact, the event may have had something to do with taxes, and it may not. But based on our own experience of what’s always lurking back there, I’m guessing it did.

Fulminations of the season: I don’t really get the fury of Rex Murphy, who says “they” aren’t just taking the Christ out of Christmas but the Christmas, too. Or The National Post’s, “Do they know it’s Christmas?” series on outrages such as Toronto City Council’s having a “holiday tree.” My question is: Haven’t these practices always evolved? Christmas grew out of previous winter solstice and feast-of-light celebrations. Easter is a barely concealed Passover, as Passover itself was a typical rite of spring renewal. Even that tree — early nature religions venerated evergreens for their ability to survive when leafy trees couldn’t; they cut them down and decorated them with metal, fruit, candles, holly and mistletoe. Gimme a break. Fervent Puritans like Oliver Cromwell fought the introduction of fir trees as a “heathen” practice, then it became “traditional.” So if a society like ours evolves beyond its massively Christian base, why shouldn’t its symbols and celebrations do so, too, as they always have?

Bethlehem, by the way, will be effectively closed for business this Christmas, due to the occupation and curfew. No procession, no tree in Manger Square, no problems with terminology. Merry whatever.

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.