Canadian taxpayers are being burdened with too many issues to bear
By Lethbridge Herald on July 15, 2023.
Editor:
The debate over how much government is the “right” amount is as old as the first tribal camping party.
In today’s world, where the Three Bears of local, provincial, and federal governments seem intent on milking the tax-paying herd for all it’s worth, a certain level of discomfort has settled in.
Whether the issue is crumbling infrastructure, failing health care, or skyrocketing crime, everyone has a favourite overlord to blame.
Basically, there are simply too many issues being faced by beleaguered taxpayers who feel they have no milk left to give. This should be a concern for every elected official in the country.
Only, it’s not.
All you need to do is witness the amount of gas-lighting going on to get the impression that “all is well, nothing to see here folks, now move along before we up the parking rates.”
I respectfully submit that the problem is a combination of education and communication.
With a vested interest in adding more staff, and an insatiable appetite to use taxpayers’ money to offer services that can be effectively provided by the private sector, perhaps government is not the objective arbiter of public spending we have been led to believe.
Nowhere do I see anyone arguing credibly that we need more government because they are the most economical, timely or efficient of public service providers.
Instead of debating whether government should be measured by the pound, or even by the dollar, here is a novel concept:
How about government by independent assessment for performance?
That way, beleaguered taxpayers could decide objectively if they are getting full value for money. I know, this sounds radical but if anyone can show me another way taxpayers can be assured more government spending is genuinely beneficial, rather than self-interested, then we have no need. Until then, I don’t see any prospect of a place of comfort for Goldilocks and her over-taxed and underwhelmed parents.
Dale Leier
Lethbridge
16-15
Latest Fraser institute reports that all except two provinces, AB and SASK, have marginal tax rates north of 50%. The tank is dry, the problems exist, and the answer, strike another committee, fund some more useless programs and above all hire more staff to your empire. In reality the answer is not the government.
Let’s consider some other countries here – France, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Germany. Want to guess how they are taxed relative to Canada? It’s higher. In most cases much higher, especially for those who aren’t at the lower end of the income scale. They’re also happier and healthier than we are.
How about another comparison? Canada and the US in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, with top tax rates north of 60%, at some points 90%? How do you remember those years? Among the most prosperous in our history. The times people are talking about when they say “Make America Great Again”. Seems like it worked out alright.
Turns out that what our parents taught us was true – caring for each other works. Selfishness doesn’t. You’re welcome to keep carrying water for rich elites who have convinced you to fight their battles so they don’t have to pay their fair share… I’m going to remember how I was raised and pay my tax bill happily, knowing that I’m taking care of those around me.
Well said, Dude.
And a nine hundred square foot box wasn’t 500 k and coffee was 10 cents a cup. To compare the eras is a red herring.
Why should we care what the tax rates are in other countries. Are we in some kind of competition.
I said: “Well said, Dude”
But if you want me to engage, first, your Fraser Institute ‘facts’ are hard to believe, since the median salary in Canada is about $40k (2020 Statista.com) and the marginal tax rate is 25% in Alberta. Even if I converted 100% of this into purchases that include a GST, I’m up to 30% … don’t you think 50% per FI is a bit, well, unbelievable? Maybe even manipulative of those inclined to gullibility?
As for YQLDude, his main point is that during periods where the income tax was much higher for high-salary earners the quality of life was MAGA. This is partially due to the fact the middle class wasn’t being squeezed so hard. But, unfortunately, people like you embraced the notion that rich people having more money (i.e., taxed less) would somehow make you richer. Didn’t work out that way, for obvious reasons.
The Dude’s other point, is that we all do better working together. Another concept that possessive individualists we call the radical libertarian right (er, you) have abandoned in favour of some imaginary Clint Eastwood persona, bootstraps and all.
And, finally, we care about the experiences in other countries because that is how we ‘learn’ using ‘evidence’.
In other words: ‘Well said, YQLDude.’
Typical shoot the messenger babble from Sophie R. How’s that clean up job you applied for at the College going.
You asked, bucky. There seems to be a lot of cleaning up required when dealing with the nonsense you and the old Victimizing-the-Vulnerable men write. I gather you work at the college. I am on my threadbare knees praying you are not a teacher there.
“To compare the eras is a red herring.” A pretty rich comment from someone whose views on a range of issues are firmly entrenched in the 1950s and 1960s.
Like I said. Different eras. Happy you see that.
This:
“Explainer: What are Canada’s Worst Tax Loopholes? The Canadian Government loses 40 billion dollars every year because of tax loopholes.”
http://www.taxfairness.ca/en/resources/explainers/explainer-what-are-canadas-worst-tax-loopholes
Of course many Alberta seniors just don’t get it. It doesn’t matter how many facts you present them with they have been brainwashed into believing it’s all Trudeau’s fault, and as my friends state you can’t change Stupid.
Yes and its the politicians you elect that establishes “the loopholes”.
So what do Albertans expect when they continually support these phoney conservatives, Reformers , who are only interested in slashing corporate taxes and royalties to benefit the rich in an effort to buy votes? You don’t give away $975 billion of taxpayers money, treat doctors, nurses, teachers and students like third class citizens without it causing major problems like a $260 billion orphan well cleanup mess, and a $137 billion debt, while the rich fill their pockets with your money. Yes taxes are much higher in other countries but the benefits they receive and massive savings accounts being created to benefit their families down the road are huge and it’s a well known fact that Albertans should have been in a similar situation, but allowed themselves to be screwed out of their wealth. Where is the intelligence in that?
Well we gave Notley et al four years to clean up what you have been howling about for years. Just added 50 billion to the debt and you call everyone who disagrees with you a stupid senior. If you’re a smart one I’ll pass.
It’s unfortunate the underlying issue and motivation for this letter wasn’t well articulated. The intention was to highlight the importance of getting good governent for the money. In reality, there does not seem to be a direct correlation between how much taxpayers contribute and what we are served up for our involuntary donations.
Once again, how many people are prepared to suggest more government is the solution to ANYTHING?
In the weeks ahead, I will be proposing solutions to some of our fiscal problems that do not involve relying on government to solve problems they themselves created.
Over the long term, it should be in EVERY taxpayers interest to demand accountabilty instead of simply taking Management’s word all the time. We deserve accountability and the only way to ensure we are getting full VALUE FOR MONEY is through indendent auditors who are paid to tell the truth.
Who exaclty is opposed to that?
“Once again, how many people are prepared to suggest more government is the solution to ANYTHING?”
I am. Along with anyone else informed about other countries or the history of our own country. We’ve been trying libertarian trickle down lies for decades and all we’ve learned is that our parents were right all along – selfishness is a terrible way to run a society.
What you (and the transparency council) fail to understand is that the ‘value’ you speak of varies across class and stage of life. It is a failure in objectivitity to believe that what old white men ‘value’ should represent what all citizens of Lethbridge value.
This notion alone supports the idea of democracy where we elect a group of citizens to engage in the process of determining what is to be valued. This may shock you LearJet, but it’s not all about you.
As a case in point, I remember when the Nicholas Sheran spray park was proposed. The outpouring of opposition in the Letters to the Editor in the Herald was remarkable. “The facility is a waste of tax dollars and will attract unsavory criminal elements”, was the rallying cry of the white-belt-white-shoe crowd. And yet, every time I drive by that facility on summer afternoon, I see nothing but young families trying to beat the heat.
“The transparency council”? Is that really what these jokers are calling themselves? Frustrating. I can’t think of a word more abused in municipal politics than transparency. On the surface, who doesn’t want more transparency? We all want to, and deserve to be able to, know what’s going on in our community and how our shared resources are being used.
Unfortunately the way people like this use it tends to be “I should be able to hold up any project I don’t like with endless assessments, evaluations, and speeches on libertarianism until the project is dead.” It’s a polite way of saying they think the city should be ruled by the people who have the most free time to spend ranting to councillors – i.e. old white men.
It works when it comes to landuse, Riverstone,Tudor. You know where a lot of the SACPA crowd live. Oh and Sunset acres.
You are right. This has nothing to do with me. I am simply advocating on behalf of ALL taxpayers that elected officials have a responsibility to ensure that beleagured taxpayers are getting full value for their hard earned money. What confuses me is how this is a partisan issue. Why would anyone favor wasteful use of taxpayers money regardless of their views on various social issues.
Not only was the central point poorly articulated, but it is also poorly conceptualized. The letter conflated getting good value for the services provided by governments, with the question of what services governments ought to provide. Separating the issues, at least initially, would be bring some welcome clarity to this conversation.
The first point – getting the biggest bang for our tax dollars — is an expectation that is unlikely to generate much opposition. But the second consideration — what is the appropriate role of government? — is not nearly as cut and dry as many believe. That question has been a matter of debate since the dawn of civilization. It was deliberated upon by Greek scholars, captured the attention of some of the finest philosophical minds of the Enlightenment, and has been addressed more recently by thinkers such as John Rawls and Michael Sandel. I have my doubts that you will be able to contribute much of substance to that discussion, but I will keep an open mind. I do ask, however, is that as you set out to “educate” us, you avoid relying on theoretically and substantively hollow libertarian rhetoric.
Well, you can be as perjorative as you like instead of relying on logic to make your point, so please allow me to share some radical ideas: Most citizens in democratic countries rely on their elected government to legislate, regulate and educate. Providing social serivces is generally limited to areas where no private enteprise is willing to step forward because it is not an efficient use of capital, i.e makes no sense from a business perspective.
At one time, governments operated a range of services deemed by socialists to be “natural monopolies” as unsuitable for competition. That included everything from a merchant marine service to railways, telephone companies, television networks, parcel delivery, liquor stores, airlines, airports and more. Eventually, even regulated monopolies and crown corporations were phased out.
If governments are so good at providing services, why is our healtcare system such a mess? How to private parcel services thrive? Why did Transport Canada get out of the aviation business? Why is BC Ferries unable to keep up with demand?
The fact is, governmetns are not very effective providers of goods and services for a very simple reason: There are no performance metrics. In the private sector, if a company does a lousy job they deserve to go broke except when senseless reguations force companies to fail On the other hand, corporate welare is a race for the bottom and it is not motivated by good intentions. If anyone believes the massive subsidies being paid to Stellantis and VW are sound public policy and not a sop to unions then you haven’t been paying attenition.
The reality is that the money for public spending needs to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the private sector. After all, if your pensions were strictly funded by future premiums rather than investments in business and infrastructure, that ponzi scheme would collapse overnight. Of course, the fact that your CPP, EI and Superannuation premiums are siphoned off into general revenue instead of being vested as per sound actuarial policy is a topic for another day.
So, yes, Virginia, just because the government tax and spend schemes have cost that exceed benefits is why we don’t allow the government to undertake even more than avaricious bureacrats desire. We don’t let governments do a lot of activities because they would be lousy at it. How else do you explain outsourcing?
One thing governments can do that doesn’t cost money is generate so much red tape that capital goes elsewhere to fnd a receptive marketplace. Prime Minister Trudeau mislead Canadians when he said “Deficts balance themselves. Unfortunatlely basic economics does not seem to be a feature of our modern education system as the many emotional commments demonstrate so clearly.
So, let me say it again: We can’t tax and spend our way to greatness. Without a healthy private sector to pay taxes and generate postive returns on investment there is no money for health, education, police, military or sustainabilty.
“you avoid relying on theoretically and substantively hollow libertarian rhetoric.”
It would have been polite for you to let us know you did not plan to avoid such rhetoric before expecting anyone to read your Ayn Rand fanfiction.
Let’s focus on this statement: “If governments are so good at providing services, why is our healtcare (sic) system such a mess?”
Here are two points for you to consider. First, how do you explain that health care in the US accounts for a greater share of GDP than it does in Canada? Second despite that fact, racial minorities have considerably less access to quality health care as compared with the white population. As a case in point, the infant mortality rate for black infants is more than twice the infant mortality rate for white infants. Is that the private sector doing a great job?
It is the case that health outcomes for minorities in Canada, especially Indigenous Peoples, are poorer than the general population also, but the margin of difference is not as great as in the US.
I would argue that the Alberta Government has for at least the past 30 years underfunded the healthcare system in order to hobble it so that more private delivery is seen as the “answer”.
Governments are great, Learjet. They probably hired an arrogant professor for life ,didn’t they? He just repeated a point (in his own words)that Dale Lear made in his letter to the editor and he thought it was brilliant.
It would be interesting to know what his students think of him? I’ve seen the remarks about some arrogant professors, “He is great if you are a female student”. And, “As long as you stroke his ego,your fine”.
Sorry, I’m not a university professor, but I am well educated and I am well read. I just have perspectives on some matters that you obviously don’t agree with.
Returning to my original point, Mr. Learjet conflates (and thus confuses) two questions. The first is the how of government — who would argue against the expectation that government should be as efficient as possible tax payers get the biggest bang for the buck? The second is the what of government. In other words what things should governments provide? On that question, well meaning people can have good faith disagreements.
Government employee, perhaps? I think Dale Leir has done a fair bit of research on the subject. I’m looking forward to hearing more. It is difficult in 350 words.
As he said and you just repeated in your own words,,”The debate over how much government is the “right” amount is as old as the first tribal camping party”. Anything original to say, the dude?
We have paid for independent auditors and the city/ council do what they want anyhow.