Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Lookalike
Sharp eyed corgis noticed the resemblance between the recent failure of the Zenit 3SL Sea Launch vehicle and André Boisclair, leader of the Parti Quebecois.
Income Splitting : The Time Has Come
As promised, some reflections on the recent Parliament Hill meeting on income-splitting, arranged by Sara Landriault, Beverley Smith and Garth Turner. This was the first time I'd been on Parliament Hill - first impressions were of a building that inherently demands respect - corridors and hallways with imposing wooden doors that caused everyone to speak in hushed tones as they walked or huddled. I could see where the expression 'corridors of power' came from, although the corridor in question was more a corridor of the opposition, to judge by the MP's names on the doors I passed.
Anyway, after 40 minutes or so of scrambling to find a large enough room, things got underway with an introduction by Garth Turner. He spoke of income-splitting as an idea whose time has come; he introduced the various MPs who were in attendance at the meeting at that point and also highlighted that both Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Senate leader Marjory Lebreton had staffed the meeting.
Sara Landriault gave a brief introduction, then Beverley Smith spoke, about her long-time fight for recognition of unpaid labour. She pointed out how in the past families and households comprised true partnerships in which all roles were valued, but with the introduction of a money-based economy there has been a progressive devaluation of the roles of caregiver, parent, etc. - roles traditionally filled by women. Much of the work that women perform therefore goes unpaid, unvalued and unrecognized. Income-splitting would for the first time place a value on this work. She also pointed out that the equivalent-to-spouse tax credit, which was perhaps intended to address this, has fallen from around 1/3 of an average income to 1/7. In addition, of course, this credit still treats women as 'dependents' rather than according them the respect they deserve.
The Financial Panel followed, with presentations by Dr. David Murell of UNB, John Williamson of the CTF and Dr. Philip Merrigan of UQAM. David Murell highlighted the inequity built into the current tax system and how income-splitting would restore equity. He also pointed out the severe decline in population that Canada can expect to experience as couples put off having children later and later - or in many cases decide against altogether. This is particularly a problem in rural Canada. Against the argument that income-splitting is a regressive tax measure, he showed how an alternative scheme could be implemented that would cap the income-splitting benefit for the top tier of earners, and redistribute the money saved to the lower income brackets. This would enable the measure to be implemented while retaining a progressive tax system.
Anyway, after 40 minutes or so of scrambling to find a large enough room, things got underway with an introduction by Garth Turner. He spoke of income-splitting as an idea whose time has come; he introduced the various MPs who were in attendance at the meeting at that point and also highlighted that both Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Senate leader Marjory Lebreton had staffed the meeting.
Sara Landriault gave a brief introduction, then Beverley Smith spoke, about her long-time fight for recognition of unpaid labour. She pointed out how in the past families and households comprised true partnerships in which all roles were valued, but with the introduction of a money-based economy there has been a progressive devaluation of the roles of caregiver, parent, etc. - roles traditionally filled by women. Much of the work that women perform therefore goes unpaid, unvalued and unrecognized. Income-splitting would for the first time place a value on this work. She also pointed out that the equivalent-to-spouse tax credit, which was perhaps intended to address this, has fallen from around 1/3 of an average income to 1/7. In addition, of course, this credit still treats women as 'dependents' rather than according them the respect they deserve.
The Financial Panel followed, with presentations by Dr. David Murell of UNB, John Williamson of the CTF and Dr. Philip Merrigan of UQAM. David Murell highlighted the inequity built into the current tax system and how income-splitting would restore equity. He also pointed out the severe decline in population that Canada can expect to experience as couples put off having children later and later - or in many cases decide against altogether. This is particularly a problem in rural Canada. Against the argument that income-splitting is a regressive tax measure, he showed how an alternative scheme could be implemented that would cap the income-splitting benefit for the top tier of earners, and redistribute the money saved to the lower income brackets. This would enable the measure to be implemented while retaining a progressive tax system.
John Williamson gave a polished presentation, highlighting the fact that the top 10% of earners in Canada pay for 50% of the country. That, by anybody's interpretation has to be considered a pretty progressive (I would say punitive) tax system. That 10% begins, not at $200,000... or $150,000... or at $100,000. No, if you make $64,500 or more, you're in the richest 10% of all Canadians and your tax burder, on average, is equivalent to that of 9 lower income Canadians. Only 2% of Canadians make more than $100,000 a year. Against the argument that income-splitting gives a bigger benefit to the wealthier, he showed how, although absolute dollars might be greater, the largest percentage benefit is gained by middle-income families.
Philip Merrigan gave a highly informative presentation on the French model of family taxation, after which I think most of us would have moved to France at the drop of a hat. There, a family splits income according to the quotient familiale. A couple count as one part each. The first two children count as 1/2 part each and the third child as another full part. Income is split for tax purposes among the parts; therefore a family with three children splits their income four ways before tax. The idea (and result) is that families enjoy a similar standard of living regardless of whether they have children or not - and France is the only country in the western world with a birthrate sufficient to maintain its population. He also introduced me to the terms 'vertical' and 'horizontal' in relation to taxation equity. Vertical equity relates to the progressive model - those who earn more pay a greater proportion of taxes. This is where Canada's tax policy is focused. Horizontal equity refers to the idea of like earners paying like taxes - and this has been neglected in Canada in favour of a blind pursuit of vertical equity.
As examples, he showed how much benefit various families in Quebec derive from government transfers. A family earning $15,000 a year receives government benefits worth approximately $23,000. A family earning $100,000 a year receives $3,000 while paying $40,000 in taxes. The progressive model has the one family completely subsidising the life of the other.
The next panel was the caregivers panel, which opened my eyes to the various other scenarios in which income splitting would support families. Frank Toft spoke of the needs of parents caring for disabled adult children; Caroline Tapp-McDougall spoke of the needs of those caring for elders or sick family members. In all these scenarios, when someone has to give up work and give up income to care for someone in their family, income-splitting would support and above all, value, that caregiving work.
In the Political Panel, Elizabeth May spoke of the Green Party's interest in income-splitting as a tool to support the family, which they see as a fundamental pillar of society. It is government's role to create conditions that support families - income-splitting is one measure that can relieve the stress that families face today. Law school teacher Rebecca Bromwich described how divorce law has finally recognized the value of unpaid caregiving work - it's time for the rest of the legal system to catch up
The day was very enjoyable and informative. For me, it opened my eyes to so many benefits of income-splitting that take the debate way beyond the 'mommy-wars' that it's been hyped as. Income-splitting is about equal treatment for equal households. It's about valuing caregiving and other unpaid labour. It's about respecting and valuing women. It's about supporting all caregiving choices for children, the elderly, the sick and the disabled.
Income-splitting: It's about time.
Philip Merrigan gave a highly informative presentation on the French model of family taxation, after which I think most of us would have moved to France at the drop of a hat. There, a family splits income according to the quotient familiale. A couple count as one part each. The first two children count as 1/2 part each and the third child as another full part. Income is split for tax purposes among the parts; therefore a family with three children splits their income four ways before tax. The idea (and result) is that families enjoy a similar standard of living regardless of whether they have children or not - and France is the only country in the western world with a birthrate sufficient to maintain its population. He also introduced me to the terms 'vertical' and 'horizontal' in relation to taxation equity. Vertical equity relates to the progressive model - those who earn more pay a greater proportion of taxes. This is where Canada's tax policy is focused. Horizontal equity refers to the idea of like earners paying like taxes - and this has been neglected in Canada in favour of a blind pursuit of vertical equity.
As examples, he showed how much benefit various families in Quebec derive from government transfers. A family earning $15,000 a year receives government benefits worth approximately $23,000. A family earning $100,000 a year receives $3,000 while paying $40,000 in taxes. The progressive model has the one family completely subsidising the life of the other.
The next panel was the caregivers panel, which opened my eyes to the various other scenarios in which income splitting would support families. Frank Toft spoke of the needs of parents caring for disabled adult children; Caroline Tapp-McDougall spoke of the needs of those caring for elders or sick family members. In all these scenarios, when someone has to give up work and give up income to care for someone in their family, income-splitting would support and above all, value, that caregiving work.
In the Political Panel, Elizabeth May spoke of the Green Party's interest in income-splitting as a tool to support the family, which they see as a fundamental pillar of society. It is government's role to create conditions that support families - income-splitting is one measure that can relieve the stress that families face today. Law school teacher Rebecca Bromwich described how divorce law has finally recognized the value of unpaid caregiving work - it's time for the rest of the legal system to catch up
The day was very enjoyable and informative. For me, it opened my eyes to so many benefits of income-splitting that take the debate way beyond the 'mommy-wars' that it's been hyped as. Income-splitting is about equal treatment for equal households. It's about valuing caregiving and other unpaid labour. It's about respecting and valuing women. It's about supporting all caregiving choices for children, the elderly, the sick and the disabled.
Income-splitting: It's about time.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Income Splitting Conference : A Great Success
Today's conference on income-splitting was a great success; very informative, thought-provoking and I would think effective at getting this debate into Jim Flaherty's office and the PMO ahead of the budget. I took a bunch of notes and will write a proper post on the conference tomorrow; for now, congratulations and thanks to Sara, Bev Smith and Garth Turner for making it happen.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Attack Ads : The Wrong Enemy
I like the new ads, really I do. But I can't help but feel that they're going after the wrong enemy. The breathtaking width and depth of liberal and Liberal media bias in this country has been all too evident in the last two weeks; I've just been too busy to pick it apart - not that the rest of the Blogging Tories aren't doing a great job anyway.
In particular, what I've really noticed in the last two weeks is an upping of the ante in the war between the liberal media and the government. In the beginning, the media used to spin their stories, but a lot of the facts still came through. These days, the media seems to be anticipating where the government is going and moving creatively to head them off before they even get there.
Examples: The income-splitting initiative has had a lot of media recently, thanks to Sara and others. The portrayal in the media has been pretty much unanimous; this is a tax cut for 'the wealthy' and is designed to pit 'barefoot and pregnant' social conservatives against the daycare lobby. The Ottawa Citizen carried a major article on this on Saturday; the headlines making the points just listed, and a box showing likely tax savings highlighting those earning over $100,000 as saving the most - without pointing out that this would simply mean families with like income paying like taxes.
Then CTV announces that the Conservative Government is running the 'attack' ads - clearly implying that taxpayers money is paying for them.
These are just examples. What they have in common is that the bias is creeping higher up the story; it's not just media spin on the story, it's media framing the whole story in spin before they even begin to tell it. Many people only read the headline, or the box of figures - the media's making sure those people are getting the anti-Conservative message now, without having to read the whole story.
That's why, although I like the ads, I think they're going after the wrong enemy. We are more and more seeing the CBC, CanWest and CTV setting themselves up as the official opposition. It's going to be a tough fight next election, with four Liberal parties out there instead of just one.
In particular, what I've really noticed in the last two weeks is an upping of the ante in the war between the liberal media and the government. In the beginning, the media used to spin their stories, but a lot of the facts still came through. These days, the media seems to be anticipating where the government is going and moving creatively to head them off before they even get there.
Examples: The income-splitting initiative has had a lot of media recently, thanks to Sara and others. The portrayal in the media has been pretty much unanimous; this is a tax cut for 'the wealthy' and is designed to pit 'barefoot and pregnant' social conservatives against the daycare lobby. The Ottawa Citizen carried a major article on this on Saturday; the headlines making the points just listed, and a box showing likely tax savings highlighting those earning over $100,000 as saving the most - without pointing out that this would simply mean families with like income paying like taxes.
Then CTV announces that the Conservative Government is running the 'attack' ads - clearly implying that taxpayers money is paying for them.
These are just examples. What they have in common is that the bias is creeping higher up the story; it's not just media spin on the story, it's media framing the whole story in spin before they even begin to tell it. Many people only read the headline, or the box of figures - the media's making sure those people are getting the anti-Conservative message now, without having to read the whole story.
That's why, although I like the ads, I think they're going after the wrong enemy. We are more and more seeing the CBC, CanWest and CTV setting themselves up as the official opposition. It's going to be a tough fight next election, with four Liberal parties out there instead of just one.
Two Fire Halls Are Better Cheaper Than One
Sharp-eyed reader My Puny Brain points out that residents of Montague stand to gain on their home insurance premiums as a result of the new satellite fire hall. Homes are placed into different bands depending upon their distance from a fire hall. Being within 5 km of a firehall, vs. 6 km or more, can save well over $100 a year in insurance. Spread across the township, this saving will add up.
Note: To any councillors who may be reading, this is not a suggestion that you raise our taxes in order to compensate! :)
Note: To any councillors who may be reading, this is not a suggestion that you raise our taxes in order to compensate! :)
Friday, January 26, 2007
Invisible Children
Couldn't say it better myself. A masterful post on the insidious, hard-left Liberal party's dreams for Canada's children.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
There Is A Free Lunch, And You're Paying
If you live in Ontario and buy hydro, that is.
From a reader:
TDPC encourages Ontario Hydro customers to get vocal about this misuse of their money.
From a reader:
Ontario residents currently pay a debt retirement charge, "a charge per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed that is added to electricity bills to help pay down the stranded debt of the former Ontario Hydro". This $0.0070 per kilowatt-hour surcharge is added to every customer's monthly utility bill.
In his annual report delivered on December 5, 2006, Ontario A auditor General Jim McCarter announced that among a number of questionable expenditures was $127 million worth of goods and services using corporate charge cards, but with few slips or receipts to justify the charges.
A petition has been created requesting that the Ontario Ministry of Energy make a $127 million adjustment to compensate consumers for this unapproved use of taxpayer money, either by directly removing it from the current outstanding residual stranded debt or by a reduction of the monthly debt retirement charge.To sign this petition go to http://www.petitiononline.com/ohdrc/petition.html.
TDPC encourages Ontario Hydro customers to get vocal about this misuse of their money.
Income Splitting : Support Families, Not Social Engineering
The conference on income-splitting organized by Sara and supported by Garth Turner is coming up on January 30th. This will be the first real-life political event I attend, and I'm pretty excited. Despite living in Ottawa for 5 years and near Ottawa for 5 more, I have (shame on me) never been on The Hill. So it will be an experience in lots of ways, I'm sure.
However, the real point is that as I posted here, Canadian tax policy is currently an instrument of social engineering that pushes people into the paid labour force, often against their will. Current policy fails to recognise the family (or the household, if 'family' is too last-century for you) as the basic unit of society. In real life, people live as families, and make decisions and arrangements as families - including their childcare arrangements. Equitable taxation that treated the family equally, regardless of their choices, is clearly fairer than the present system that forces many parents into low-paying jobs outside the home because they can't afford to stay home.
So, please support this conference even if you can't attend.
Here's the details:
What does Ottawa think of Caregiving?
Join us to discuss how to recognize it throughIncome Splitting
(Open to Public/Free admission)
Conference Room, West Block, Parliament Hill Ottawa
Tuesday, Jan 30 2007 10am to 2pm
http://sharingincome.tripod.com
online petition http://www.petitiononline.com/share/petition.html
Contacts:Beverly Smith 403-283-2400
Garth Turner 613-996-7046
Please RSVP:
Sara Landriault 613-720-6609 sara.landriault@gmail.com
However, the real point is that as I posted here, Canadian tax policy is currently an instrument of social engineering that pushes people into the paid labour force, often against their will. Current policy fails to recognise the family (or the household, if 'family' is too last-century for you) as the basic unit of society. In real life, people live as families, and make decisions and arrangements as families - including their childcare arrangements. Equitable taxation that treated the family equally, regardless of their choices, is clearly fairer than the present system that forces many parents into low-paying jobs outside the home because they can't afford to stay home.
So, please support this conference even if you can't attend.
Here's the details:
What does Ottawa think of Caregiving?
Join us to discuss how to recognize it throughIncome Splitting
(Open to Public/Free admission)
Conference Room, West Block, Parliament Hill Ottawa
Tuesday, Jan 30 2007 10am to 2pm
http://sharingincome.tripod.com
online petition http://www.petitiononline.com/share/petition.html
Contacts:Beverly Smith 403-283-2400
Garth Turner 613-996-7046
Please RSVP:
Sara Landriault 613-720-6609 sara.landriault@gmail.com
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Wanted: Home Heating Oil Supplier
This post is for anyone in Montague or surrounding areas who (a) works for a local oil supplier, (b) knows someone who does or (c) knows a good, reliable company.
When we moved to Montague, we inherited a heating oil supply arrangement with Ultramar HomEnergy, along with an old oil furnace, an even older tank and a rented water heater. So far, so good.
Things weren't too bad at first; we ran out of oil occasionally in the first three years or so. Ultramar didn't really start to get interesting until about two years ago. Firstly, in accordance with the new fuel handling codes in Ontario, they red-tagged our old, rusty oil tank. No more deliveries until it was replaced. That was fine; we ordered the new tank. Would it be delivered before we ran out of oil? Sure, they said. No problem. Every couple of weeks we'd call for an update. Still no tank after about 8 weeks. Sure enough, the new tank didn't arrive until we ran out of oil - it was minus 25, early January, and we were in a situation where it was illegal for them to supply us with oil. My daughter was six months old at the time. We'll gloss over how we got over that situation.
Finally New Tank Day dawned. They brought the tank. They installed it. They couldn't get the old one out of the basement. They left. The next day, they came back with a circular saw and sawed the old tank in half. They left again. The old tank stayed (in two halves) in the basement, for around another four weeks. Any idea what a severed oil tank smells like? Yummy. It would have stayed there for ever but for some more insistent phoning on our part.
Last season, there were no red tags; they just managed to let us run out of oil at least twice, maybe three times.
This August, the furnace was red-tagged. We ordered a new furnace and for good measure a new water heater. We paid in cash before the units were even delivered. Installation was smooth this time around. For a while everything was rosy. Then the hot water started coming out of the faucet at 170 degrees Fahrenheit. They came and replaced the aquastat on the brand new water heater.
After all the effort of delivering a new furnace, it seemed Ultramar were exhausted, and couldn't manage to deliver oil as well. November 28, we ran out of oil again. This time, the call centre operator promised to put us on a 28 day delivery schedule. Guess when our last delivery was? That's right. In the Ultramar calendar, late January is only 28 days after 28 November. The oil tank is again reading empty tonight, meaning that there's a high chance we'll run out before the next delivery. We called; they don't do oil delivery on the weekend. Only if you actually have no heat. Ultramar would rather you ran out of oil and froze for a while before they want to actually bring fuel.
And also tonight, the hot water is again at 170 degrees. Ultramar doesn't do that on weekends either. "Just dilute it," is the advice, or "Power it off". Yep, cos in a house with two young children, scalding hot water in the faucets is just what you want. To say nothing of what it does to appliances, pipes, etc.
So..... we need a reliable, friendly, helpful oil supplier in the Lanark county area. We need a company that actually does what they say. We need a company that will assume the warranty on the new appliances, since Ultramar cunningly voids their warranties if you change suppliers. And we need a company that won't mind collecting the best part of $4,000 each year. We spent nearly $12,000 with Ultramar in the last 12 months and it's given us nothing but headaches.
All offers, tips or help will be gratefully received.
When we moved to Montague, we inherited a heating oil supply arrangement with Ultramar HomEnergy, along with an old oil furnace, an even older tank and a rented water heater. So far, so good.
Things weren't too bad at first; we ran out of oil occasionally in the first three years or so. Ultramar didn't really start to get interesting until about two years ago. Firstly, in accordance with the new fuel handling codes in Ontario, they red-tagged our old, rusty oil tank. No more deliveries until it was replaced. That was fine; we ordered the new tank. Would it be delivered before we ran out of oil? Sure, they said. No problem. Every couple of weeks we'd call for an update. Still no tank after about 8 weeks. Sure enough, the new tank didn't arrive until we ran out of oil - it was minus 25, early January, and we were in a situation where it was illegal for them to supply us with oil. My daughter was six months old at the time. We'll gloss over how we got over that situation.
Finally New Tank Day dawned. They brought the tank. They installed it. They couldn't get the old one out of the basement. They left. The next day, they came back with a circular saw and sawed the old tank in half. They left again. The old tank stayed (in two halves) in the basement, for around another four weeks. Any idea what a severed oil tank smells like? Yummy. It would have stayed there for ever but for some more insistent phoning on our part.
Last season, there were no red tags; they just managed to let us run out of oil at least twice, maybe three times.
This August, the furnace was red-tagged. We ordered a new furnace and for good measure a new water heater. We paid in cash before the units were even delivered. Installation was smooth this time around. For a while everything was rosy. Then the hot water started coming out of the faucet at 170 degrees Fahrenheit. They came and replaced the aquastat on the brand new water heater.
After all the effort of delivering a new furnace, it seemed Ultramar were exhausted, and couldn't manage to deliver oil as well. November 28, we ran out of oil again. This time, the call centre operator promised to put us on a 28 day delivery schedule. Guess when our last delivery was? That's right. In the Ultramar calendar, late January is only 28 days after 28 November. The oil tank is again reading empty tonight, meaning that there's a high chance we'll run out before the next delivery. We called; they don't do oil delivery on the weekend. Only if you actually have no heat. Ultramar would rather you ran out of oil and froze for a while before they want to actually bring fuel.
And also tonight, the hot water is again at 170 degrees. Ultramar doesn't do that on weekends either. "Just dilute it," is the advice, or "Power it off". Yep, cos in a house with two young children, scalding hot water in the faucets is just what you want. To say nothing of what it does to appliances, pipes, etc.
So..... we need a reliable, friendly, helpful oil supplier in the Lanark county area. We need a company that actually does what they say. We need a company that will assume the warranty on the new appliances, since Ultramar cunningly voids their warranties if you change suppliers. And we need a company that won't mind collecting the best part of $4,000 each year. We spent nearly $12,000 with Ultramar in the last 12 months and it's given us nothing but headaches.
All offers, tips or help will be gratefully received.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)