Pat Coghlan

I think it all boils down to numbers. Public sector jobs make up slightly more than 20% of all jobs in Canada (~3M). When the private sector was healthy (e.g. prior to 2000), there wasn't a lot of interest in getting a public sector job. These days, however, with a looming financial crisis and possible recession/depression, many people are seeking the relative good benefits and job security of a government job. Unfortunately, they're now waking up to the fact that most of these jobs are out of reach for anglophones. With 40% of the public sector jobs coming available in the next 5 years or more due to baby boomer retirements, I suspect job seekers will turn this into an election issue.

Hiring managers should have to certify in writing the number of hours that the minority language must be used before being permitted to classify a job as bilingual. This would accomplish two things: 1) A metric - subject to challenges by employees - to demonstrate why the minority language requirement is required (currently, there is NO scrutiny of such decisions by hiring managers) and 2) A reduction in the number of positions currently classified as bilingual, since a metric below, say 1 hour per week, is not sufficient justification for the requirement, nor is it sufficient to RETAIN the minority language.

I'm not saying everyone needs to be equal. Those that work harder should have more, of course. However, the billionaires of the world didn't get their through their own physical/mental efforts. Bill Gates would have maybe 1% of his current $50B fortune, if it weren't for the thousands of Microsoft employees out creating/selling/supporting Microsoft products. The CEO of Exxon was paid $650M (yes, million) in 2006, a compensation package that he and the board (consisting of people he put there) worked out. You're damn right I'm against letting the foxes pay only 10% on the profits from the hen houses they're guarding. Those that own assets have a huge advantage over those who can only provide labour...at least for 20-30 years when the latter accumulate significant assets. Your first million is the hardest. Perhaps you'd like to live in a country like Indonesia, where the Suhartos own a piece of just about everything (they tried to get a big piece of BreX when they thought there was a fortune to be made...too bad it didn't work out). The US have an estate tax, which requires assets above $2M-$3M to be taxed at 30-40% when you die. Various special interests are trying very hard to have the estate tax repealed, mostly billionaire families. If you have a chance, take a look at who occupies the top 10 positions of the 100 wealthiest people in the US. They , of course, want their heirs to stay there, and a flat tax would virtually guarantee it...forever.

You're comparing apples to oranges, in this case co-habitating couples (under one roof) to two single persons living in separate domiciles. In the apples-to-apples case, two persons have higher expenses than singles (energy, food, size of residence, transportation...you name it), especially if they have kids.

You need progressive taxation to ensure that all wealth doesn't end up in the hands of just a few. If I have $100M in stock and $10M in dividends each year, my tax rate is going to be something like half the rate you pay on, say, a $50K salary.

Family A also got to keep 90% of gross earnings back in the 50s/60s when it was raising its children. I'm not asking Family A to give Family B its money, just that family A doesn't pay thousands less in taxes because it alone is permitted to split income. Under a progressive system, you pay more if you have ability to pay more. A family of 5 with the same income as you doesn't have the same ability to pay. Singles will always pay more than families in pretty much ANY tax jurisdiction on the planet, so I hope you're not holding out for one flat tax for all families, regardless of the number of members.

Makes perfect sense, but as with making public sector jobs available to more white, unilingual males, governments won't do it unless they are forced to promise it in an election campaign. For example, they've had 40 *&^%$#@ years since the 1960s Carter Royal Commission recommended taxing family - vs individual - income, and have made ZERO meaningful reforms/simplifications to the tax system in all that time...except one. The 2007 tax form contains the first real reform in over 40 years: pension-splitting. This, more than anything, will be a catalyst for meaningful tax reform in future years, IMHO. Just imagine two families living next door to one another. Family A, a retired couple, have a family income of $100K, consisting mostly of the husband's pension from his former employer (Bell Canada, federal gov't etc.). Family B, a couple and their 3 children, also have a $100K income, consisting mostly of the husband's (or the wife's, take your pick) income. Family A have considerable assets but zero debt. Family B have a house with a big mortgage, a car loan and no other significant assets. In spite of the fact that the couple with children are living paycheque-to-paycheque, their income tax burden will be many thousands of dollars more per year than the retired couple, since the retired couple can now split their income 50/50 to achieve the lowest possible tax liability. Personally, I don't think this situation is going to be tolerated very long by the Family B's of Canada. They will start screaming discrimination, and politicians will be forced to extend this long-overdue reform to everyone.

Not just inflation, but job losses and falling home prices too. The global financial system is like a gambler at a crap table. As long as his bankroll keeps getting refilled, he can keep going. When the bankroll runs out (or is capitalized with slugs) then the party ends.

There has been a huge impact in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars printed by central banks to keep the world banking system afloat...and the credit crunch is just getting started. Don't worry. You will fee the effects before too long. There's no escaping this one. Have a listen: http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html http://www.europac.net/radioshow_archives.asp

They'll just print more money, so they can't really go bankrupt. That said, their currency could become greatly devalued...which is sort of what is happening now with $900 gold and $100 oil prices.

I would agree that there is too much wealth concentration happening. When I see things like John Roth walking away from Nortel with $100M and the CEO of Exxon pulling in $650M 2 years ago, I see a problem. Below is one of the best descriptions I've seen over the years about what is going on. It was posted by Mike O'Brien in the late 90's: All is fair in love and war.... we are at war! Maybe you should consider the reason why these people are forced to take such measures: there is an all out assault being conducted by Liberals/Liberals voters against the upper middle class. If they didn't defend themselves these people would likely fork over around $50K a year. It is thier money! Other people have ganged up and passed laws oppresive to the minority of tax payers! You assume that because our current tax system is law, that it is right. Unfortunately the upper middle are too civilized (inert??) to really make the point. Would the point be clearer if the upper middle class blocked the roads to parlaimnent with logs and dirt and guns? Despite the fact that almost everyone in this group feels oppressed, to point of fleeing thier homeland by the thousands and the fact that they are spending fortunes on accountants and lawyers and complaining bitterly seems to be of no avail in getting the point accross that this prosperity taxation is unjust and very unfair. In almost every other case where a policy more severly affects one particular minority group the cries of injustice and oppression are deafening. What if this group of people didn't share the common trait of prosperity, but something else... like skin colour, hieght, weigth, language, disability, gender, age, etc. Would a law that singles out this group of people be OK just because the majority felt so... or would the cries of oppresion of the minority hold some weight? If yes, why is it OK to single out people who make X $ and enact legislation that only affects them? As far as the purchases, most of these people wouldn't even make those purchases if not for the tax system. If they don't spend the money, they will loose half of it. Our system is designed to prevent people from accumulating wealth. People end up spending money on consumer goods (not investments) that they may not really want or need, because it is better than forking that cash over to the same force that oppresses them. In this way, our ecomony is artificially stimulated for the sake of jobs. This is one of the reasons why these loop holes exist.... the goverment essentially say to people "save for the future and we will punish you, spend now on some useless item and you can keep that item tax free." --- "Work & Spend, good; Save & invest, bad. The dramatic irony is that those in favour of our tax system often claim that it is good because if it wasn't this way we would have a permanent underclass. The reality is that this system, while discouraging it through lack of incentive, does allow people to rise from the lower classes up to the middle class. Unfortunately the excessive taxes on accumulation of wealth against the upper middle class makes that barrier nearly impossible to break. So instead a "permanent class line" is entrenched by law. Guess who supports these laws? You guessed it, the lower class and the extreme upper class who have already surpased this boundary line. The upper class have convinced the lower class to go after the upper middle class. In the end, it only serves to solidify the position of the upper class as untouchable. Of course this doesn't even get into the real heart of the issue: that close to half of each tax dollar goes in interest on the debt. This is what people paying big taxes are truly most upset about. This is an obvious manifestation of exactly what I am talking about.... the upper class, via their political parties (Tory and Liberal, which ever is in power at time) have managed to convince the lower 50% of the population that it is OK to borrow money to give those same 50% a better life. In the end, it is the upper middle class who bear the brunt of the debt. By directly taking cash rom the upper middle class and giving it to the upper class, the upper class get that much richer and that many more upper middle class are prevented from rising into a position of wealth and power. Instead of creating a country where everyone has the opportunity to rise to the top, we have created a country where a handful of very rich individuals and families are ensured their power grip. A curious problem with this is that most of these people/families were quite rich along time ago, so they have not accumulated wealth by savy in the modren world; they are carry overs from a time long gone. Does it seem any wonder that we have no Bill Gates sort of characters in Canada? Of course not, anyone who might become rich in modern times is stopped. Instead, our captains of industry are pro-government croonies still stuck in the old ecomony. Again... is it any wonder that we are being taken over by American business? Look around you... McDonalds, Burger King, Wall Mart, AT&T, Sprint, Microsoft, etc., etc., etc. Those with money in our country simly lack the foresight to create business in 1998. Those with forsight are stopped from making money. A message to all in the lower classes: this tax system is NOT about helping you... It is totally about the rich! Don't fall for the Ministry Of Truth's (Ooops, I mean the CBC) propoganda. As Derek so accuractly calls them, these people are "poverty pimps". > Then WHY the hell DO YOU NOT CONTACT REVENUE CANADA AND spell out the > details of these suspected tax evaders? I sure as hell would. The more tax > evasion reported, the better for the rest of us. You are attacking the wrong enemy. Our country is under seige by bankers and other big money lenders.... most of whom are liberal supporters personally and who's corporations give millions to the liberal party. The people who you want to blow the wistle on are your neighbours trying to defend themselves against this oppresion. For Gods sake man, help your neigbour, not the *&^%$#@ bankers who are enslaving us all!!!!!! Imagine yourself as that person... maybe you came from a modest background and worked yourself through school doing hard labour. In your professional career you have spent a decade working late nights learning new technology and job techniques. You often work more than 70 hours a week in the name of producing a product that will bring millions of dollars into the Canadian economy from abroad. To get here you assumed personal risk by taking years out of the workforce, accruing student debts, which you so diligently paid off. The tax sheet say that you will pay $50-$60K in taxes unless you do something. So you come up with some extra purchases and get your tax *down* (sic) to $40K. Then your neighbour who isn't even looking for work calls you an ingrate and a cheat and blows the wistle on you. Or the tax man calls you up and says "we got your payment of $35K, but you still owe us $5K - WHEN WILL IT BE IN.... IF YOU DON"T PAY SOON WE WILL ACT AGAINST YOU BY SIEZING YOUR BANK ACCOUNT AND HOUSE". Do you feel appeciated for your $40K contribution making other people's lives easier? Do you feel like all those thousands of extra hours you have worked over the years are worth it? Do you feel oppresed? Many thousands of Canadians have fled or in the process of fleeing the country leaving behind about 40% of thier assets. Is this OK to you? Does it smell like a problem? These are doctors, scientists, engineers, business leaders. They are being replaced by (no offense to them) immigrants with considerably lesser skills to create wealth and show leadership in our economy and society. But they mostly vote liberal... and those that are leaving clearly do not vote liberal. What is happening? The Canadian demographics are changing before our eyes. We are becoming (on average) poorer and more liberal. I predict we are soon to see those new jobs the liberals promised: they will be large American companies setting up labour shops paying cheap Canadian dollars for low skilled Canadian labour, just like in Brandon, Manitoba. The real big business will be going on in the US. Do the liberals not care about Canada's demise? Not really... because even as a second world country, at least it will be their country. Besides, even the finace minister shelters his cash offshore. If I was planning a devaluation of my own countries money, I'd get my money out too! My advice is to start showing a bit of appreciation and respect for the people of this country who are working damn hard trying to get ahead. It is attitudes like yours... believing the crap the CBC throws at us... that is driving the prosperous out of this country. Would you rather let them keep alittle bit more of their money.... or loose them and all thier tax and business they create completely? Think about and get back to us.

You forgot the biggest problem - retiring baby boomers - which was going to happen BEFORE all these other problems got added into the mix. It's gonna be nasty.

What help? It's been mismanaged for too long and too much manufacturing has been allowed to be shifted to China. The horses have left the barn. We are in for *severe* economic pain which cannot be avoided. We were headed for a very long slowdown simply due to demographics. Now, with the US subprime crisis, China outsourcing etc., things are going to be even worse. And now the government wants to act??? The one ace up Canada's sleeve is that the global economy is doing all right and there is high demand for what Canada's economy has long been based on - resources. This means that things will not be as bad here as in the US, but they will be bad.

We need income tax reform, not just more cuts. There is no explainable logic as to why we have tax brackets of $37,179 (22% rate), $74,357 (26% rate) and $120,887 (29% rate). After meaningful exemptions, there should be just one rate on all family income needed for basic necessities, and a second on all income above this threshold - which should vary according to family size. A significant reform was introduced in '07 in the form of pension splitting for retirees. This was a step in the right direction in that all retired couples with the same combined income now have the same tax liability. What a concept! Wealthy families have been orgainizing their affairs this way for generations. Now, middle-class retiress can enjoy this benefit as well. The flaw with pension-splitting is that it created tax brackets which are 200% as wide for couples as those for singles. This is unfair, IMHO. They need to be wider (see above), but not double. I'm so &^%$#@ tired of governments tweaking the brackets, the GST etc. by a percent here and there in yearly budgets. At least Martin finally indexed the brackets to inflation, which was another useful reform. The GST cut means my haircuts cost $0.20 less, but I'm still paying THOUSANDS more in taxes each year than families with the same income that by luck of the draw have a nice 50/50 split between the spouses. BTW, my wife works, but she only earns a fraction of my income...anticipating the "well, your wife chose to stay at home" attacks.

Perhaps now, but a few years ago this was not the case. As I just pointed out, the clawback has been reduced from 5% to 4%. I think the basic benefit per child is higher now as well.

I guess they reduced the benefit reduction from 5% of family income over $40K (actually, the amount is $37,178) to 4%, so rather than all amounts being clawed back for 2 kids at $80K, it's actually all clawed back at $37,178 + $31,375 + $31,375 = $99,928. A few years ago, with 5 kids and a stay-at-home spouse and my salary slightly over $100K, we were getting some ridiculous amount like $20/month. While all other families with the same combined income also received $20/month, because we were a single-income family (SIF), our tax bill was something like $8,000 more than a family with each spouse earning half my salary (i.e. same total). That difference pays for the lease on a BMW, a carribean vacation etc. If the benefits are to be identical, so too should the tax liability be.

And yet, out of the blue, Flaherty introduced pension-splitting, just like that. If ANY study had been done, they would have realized that a down-the-middle pension splitting scheme gives a huge advantage to couples vs singles; essentially tax brackets that are double. Couples shouldn't pay the same taxes as singles, since they have less ability to pay (higher food/shelter expenses etc.), but they don't need tax brackets that are twice as wide. When a government introduces THAT kind of tax change, what can we hope for in terms of well though out reform? No, my guess is that somebody like Dion who is desparate to win an election will pledge something like a joint tax return before too long, especially now that pensioners have it.

Will never happen. There's too much money sloshing around that never makes its way into the pockets of working people. Governments will be taxing income - in all forms - forever.

There are too many brackets and they are meaningless. You lose the equivalent of the CCTB for one child for each $20K of family income above $40K. A family with a $60K income and one child has all of its CCTB clawed back. Ditto for an $80K family with 2 kids, a $100K family with 3 kids etc. I predicted many years ago that the same 2-income families that argue for keeping the current system would be screaming about unfairness once they retire and realize they only have (typically) one good pension income. This is exactly what happened in 2007 with pension-splitting. I suspect that it won't be possible to keep this benefit for pensioners exclusively. I would replace the current pension-splitting provision with a joint tax return which would reduce the HUGE benefit that married pensioners now have over singles with equivalent incomes.

Probably, but I didn't specify exactly. I would define different family classes (singles, couples, couples with children) and create a set of tax brackets that make sense for each class. There would be an exempt amount which would be different for families with children vs singles, and the higher tax rate would kick in at a higher income level for the former as well. Well, I shouldn't have to do the job of the finance department...unless they'd like to hire me :-) What I do know is that our system is broken. We use family income as the criteria for clawing back benefits, and a family with two kids and an $80K aggregate income can find itself receiving zero benefits. They are essentially treated like a single person, with almost equal tax liability. I don't know if you have kids, but a family with children and $X/year in income has much less disposable income than a single person with the same income.

First, CRA doesn't develop tax policy. That's the job of finance and HDRC. CRA is responsible for the implementation of tax policy. The info in that report is BS. It gives the impression that if a stay-at-home spouse returns to the workforce, her (or his) income is added to his/her spouse's and taxed at the individual rate. As I've pointed out, with a joint return a couple has joint tax brackets, which are much wider than for singles so, yes, her (pardon the assumption) income is supposed to be added to the family total. The article somehow argues that it's better for the higher-income spouse to pay a high (almost 50% in Canada) tax rate so the lower-income spouse pays (for example) the lowest rate on the lower income. The last major study by a Canadian government on the issue was the Carter Royal Commission, which recommended taxing family - not individual - income. In France, they take the family income, divide it by the number of family members, and calculate the tax owed as if each person earned <total>/<# family members>. All families with the same income and number of family members pay the same taxes. They don't do that in the US, but at least all families with the same income pay the same taxes.

No, the way I envision it working is: No tax on the amount exempt from tax (lower) Tax rate A on non-luxury income (i.e. housing) (higher) Tax rate B on luxury income (i.e. for that BMW) The examptions and tax brackets are dependent on family class (one for singles, another for couples, another for couples with <n> children etc.).

If I had my way, I'd have just 2 tax rates and an exemption (based on number of family members), with the 2nd tax rate kicking in at the income level deemed to be above what is needed for basics like food and shelter. The current 3-4 brackets are meaningless, and have nothing to do with ability to pay, especially when it comes to families.

The spouse's rate is the joint rate, which is 175% as wide as the single filer rate. I don't see a problem here. It's just more income taxed at the rate which has been set for joint filers. Looked at and abandoned, by who? I haven't seen any changes proposed since the Carter Royal Commission in 1969 which said that "a buck is a buck" and that the economic unit should be taxed, not the individual, with the unit being the family. Since benefits are clawed back by the current system, you end up with a professional (e.g. engineer) supporting a spouse and 2-3 kids and paying essentially the same taxes as a single person with no dependents. Basically, if the government considers you to be wealthy, you don't receive any benefits. If you want to keep pushing the individual approach, I'm all for it, provided we let each spouse claim 50% of all available benefits based solely on his/her income. There is something like $1,400/child in CCTB and supplements available, so if you agree that a stay-at-home spouse with 4 kids should be entitled to 50% of $5,600 (i.e. a cheque for $2,800) based on his/her income of $0, I'd view this as a reasonable compromise. Just FYI, family income is used just about everywhere (qualifying for student loans, applying for a mortgage etc.) except tax liability. As the previous poster pointed out, the government is not being consistent in its tax+benefit treatment of individuals. They tie each spouse to the family income for benefits, but separate the individuals for tax purposes.

The US system has a joint tax return. Same income, same taxes, regardless of who earns it. They're the biggest industrialized country. In Canada we have a system of same income, same benefits, regardless of who earns it. We either need to do the same for taxes, or let each spouse claim 50% of available benefits based solely on his/her income, wouldn't you agree. Personally, I like the US joint return vs simple income-splitting which, as you indicated, gives much more of a benefit to higher income couples. Income-splitting essentially creates tax brackets which are 200% as wide as those for singles. In the US system, joint-filers have tax brackets which are 175% as wide.