Thursday, February 28, 2008 — Oops! I Missed That Angle

Skye Sepp points out to me that the Con­ser­v­a­tive bud­get is not as innocu­ous as I believed. I find his objec­tion entire­ly con­vinc­ing, and here­by change my mind. He focus­es on the “tax-free $5,000 account” pro­gram, which looks very attrac­tive on the sur­face. But, on clos­er exam­i­na­tion, it turns out to be a swin­dle, aimed at neu­tral­iz­ing the pro­gres­sive income tax sys­tem, so that the rich pay less while the poor and aver­age Cana­di­ans pay more. In the pro­gram, Indi­vid­u­als will be able to put only $5,000 a year into accounts to earn tax-free inter­est and/or cap­i­tal gains. In their first full year of oper­a­tion, this will cost the fed­er­al trea­sury only $50 mil­lion in lost tax rev­enue. That’s why it did­n’t leap out of the bud­get with glar­ing warn­ing lights. In fact, it looked rather warm and fuzzy. The small ini­tial sum makes it look like a mea­sure aimed at Cana­di­ans with mod­est sav­ings. The Con­ser­v­a­tives keep repeat­ing that it would “help some­one buy a car” — which is non­sense on the face of it, as you would have to have very large amounts in sav­ings for it to be use­ful for that.

But, on clos­er exam­i­na­tion, the con­tri­bu­tion lim­its are cumu­la­tive and indexed to infla­tion. With­in 20 years, it will cost the trea­sury $3 bil­lion annu­al­ly, in infla­tion-adjust­ed dol­lars. Only the rich will have the mon­ey avail­able to take advan­tage of this in any sig­nif­i­cant way. It amounts to a tax shel­ter that will hand back large chunks of tax rev­enue from the wealthy, with­out even offer­ing the advan­tages of exist­ing tax shel­ters (which at least ben­e­fit char­i­ties, muse­ums, and edu­ca­tion). That short­fall will have to be made up by — I’ll give you a sec­ond to guess .…. yup, the ordi­nary, mid­dle-income tax­pay­er who car­ries the bur­den of the cost of gov­ern­ment. These will have the illu­sion that they are gain­ing some­thing, but will ulti­mate­ly have it taxed back from them, with an extra burden.

It shows you what the real Con­ser­v­a­tive ide­ol­o­gy is: Keep a tiny aris­toc­ra­cy rich, for ever and ever, prefer­ably with­out hav­ing to work for it. Make the ordi­nary Cana­di­an pay for every­thing, through the nose, whether it ben­e­fits them or not, for ever and ever. In oth­er words, the eco­nom­ic ide­ol­o­gy of Vladimir Lenin. The Repub­li­cans used the same kind of slick, bait-and-switch, ball-under-the-cups shenani­gans to stick the Amer­i­can pub­lic with a “reform” of the inher­i­tance tax that ben­e­fit­ed the .01% rich­est Amer­i­cans and stuck ordi­nary Amer­i­cans with the hid­den costs. Noth­ing could more clear­ly illus­trate the “elites as con-artists” the­sis I put for­ward in the Med­i­ta­tions On Democ­ra­cy. It also shows that when it looks like a good deal, you bet­ter damn well read the fine print.

Wednes­day, Feb­ru­ary 27, 2008 — A Cor­rect Lib­er­al Call on the Budget

In Cana­da, the his­tor­i­cal record is clear: the Lib­er­al Par­ty has estab­lished a tra­di­tion of respon­si­ble fis­cal man­age­ment. The Con­ser­v­a­tive Par­ty are incom­pe­tent yahoos who will spend us into a night­mare of debt.

When the Lib­er­als came into pow­er in 1993, the Con­ser­v­a­tives had left us with crip­pling deficits. The Lib­er­al Par­ty over­saw near­ly a decade of extreme­ly painful fis­cal mea­sures, many of them extreme­ly unpop­u­lar. But we entered the new mil­len­ni­um with sur­plus­es, and by the time the par­ty was defeat­ed on minor, eco­nom­i­cal­ly irrel­e­vant issues (it was most­ly just bore­dom with a par­ty too long in the sad­dle) in 2006, had been pay­ing down its debts for a decade and hefty bud­get sur­plus­es were the norm. Despite many things I strong­ly object­ed to in the Par­ty’s poli­cies, every time I spoke to a fed­er­al Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment, it was obvi­ous that keep­ing out of debt was always the num­ber one issue on their mind.

Now we have had only two years of Con­ser­v­a­tive gov­ern­ment, and the huge sur­plus we had in the bank has erod­ed to a small nest-egg. What most Cana­di­ans don’t under­stand is that even that nest-egg only reflects cur­rent account. Future com­mit­ments and new­ly embed­ded poli­cies tell a fright­en­ing tale: we are only a minor cri­sis or a reces­sion away from going back into debt. And guess what? The reces­sion is here. Ontario and Que­bec are already tee­ter­ing on reces­sion. In oth­er words, typ­i­cal­ly reck­less, irre­spon­si­ble Con­ser­v­a­tive eco­nom­ic mis­man­age­ment has screwed us. Vast wel­fare hand­outs to the rich, the Alber­ta ener­gy indus­tries, and the Con­ser­v­a­tives’ coterie of cor­po­rate friends (which does not include the mod­ern tech­nol­o­gy and man­u­fac­tur­ing sec­tors), as well as unbe­liev­ably expen­sive mil­i­tary adven­tures under­tak­en as trib­ute to Wash­ing­ton, have turned our fat deficits into a time-bomb of self-destruction.

When will peo­ple learn that it is Con­ser­v­a­tives who are the chron­ic mis-man­agers of economies? Can’t they see what thir­ty years of Con­ser­v­a­tive eco­nom­ic quack­ery (prac­ticed as much by Democ­rats as by Repub­li­cans) has done to our neigh­bours to the south? There, it has reduced the world’s wealth­i­est nation to a pathet­ic glob­al laugh­ing-stock of debt and incompetence.

Leave a Comment