Small is No Excuse

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." - Mark Twain

Having thought of the upcoming election as of late, I am forced to wonder how we can ever get a small government, liberty minded candidate in as MP, never mind Prime Minister.  I think the ramifications of even just 1 libertarian in Parliament as MP would have great effect (look at Ron Paul in congress). 

It’s just hard to imagine ever getting the support we need to get a libertarian politician into Parliament.  The libertarian sect of the country is just too small and too many people vote for who they think will win, or for the lesser of 3 evils (or more depending where you are in the country). 

Then I think of some other movements and how they started.  Now don’t get all uptight about my example here, it’s just to show how even seemingly harmless and insignificant beginnings can turn into country changing revolutions. 

Believe it or not, the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) of Germany started from very humble beginnings.  Since I have great interest in reading about WW2 history I have some fine books and many of them discuss the humble beginnings.  In one book, which includes a multitude of pictures, it has a picture of an early meeting of Nazi members.  It is a small group, and from the photo it looks like they are meeting in a plain basement room, not the large palaces they were know for later.  The picture was from 1933 I believe, and seven years later they were in control of nearly ½ of Europe.

Now I obviously don’t approve of the palaces, the policy, the conquering or the message but the point is they did it, from humble beginnings and seemingly insurmountable odds.  They rallied millions of citizens behind their message and they changed the political landscape in Germany during a very difficult time (due to the treaty of Versailles after WW1).

If a political party can rally that many people behind them on a message of fear and hate, how many more should be rallied on a freedom message.  People from multiple walks of life, different religions, ethnic groups and economic backgrounds should understand the freedom message, because it speaks to all of us.  Small government, sound money, lower taxes and liberty should unify all citizens, not just one or two interest groups.

I think it can be done.  I just don’t know how yet.  I am talking to more people, giving my views on issues to many people who just think things are they way they are and we have to accept it.  I say “no”, it is unacceptable, to live in a free country but not have proper control of your financial well-being due to government control of business, taxes and run away spending.

We have a lot going for this country, but we can’t stop there.  This is my home, my land, my country, my well-being and I will do what I can to fight for it.   

<<<p.s. I love Courage Wolf

The Mice Come out to Play

It looks like we are headed towards a spring election.  It looks like the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP did not enjoy the budget presentation earlier this week.  They will not support it and if that is the end of it, then an election will follow.
From the CBC.ca news website:

"We find that the priorities of this government are not the priorities of ordinary Canadians," Ignatieff said. The Liberal leader, who has been demanding a cancellation of corporate tax cuts and didn't get it, cited the lack of support in the budget for affordable housing and child care as other reasons why his party will not vote in favour of the budget.  "This is a government that doesn't seem to be listening to what Canadian families are telling us," he said. "We're forced to reject this budget."

Let me read this correctly; The conservative government has not provided a large sum of money to be handed out to people that want more affordable housing and parents who want government to help pay for their child care?  Am I reading that right?  This is a bad thing?
Once again, a political party (in this case 3 of them) believe it is their job to STEAL our money and hand it to people they feel deserve it.  The service they want to provide is quite fundamental; housing and child care (clearly the responsibility of the parents). 

While reading this I could feel my temperature rise.  I am, by far, not an overwhelming supporter the Conservative party but at least they don't buy votes by handing out money to everyone that believes they are entitled to it through nanny state initiatves (they do it by other means however).  

This is just a move towards statism.  The government will take care of us from cradle to grave if they feel it's warranted.  I find it reprehensible that political parties want to run our lives like this and its disgusting that private citizens expect, and will for vote for, political parties who are willing to transfer large amounts of income from certain segments of the population to others that clamour for it.  What is wrong with people these days?  Why must we continually plunder from others to get by?

More excerpts from CBC.ca:

The NDP leader said nothing in the budget persuaded him that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is willing to "change his ways" and work with the other parties to introduce measures Layton said would help Canadian families and seniors living in poverty.
"Mr. Harper had an opportunity to address the needs of hard-working, middle class Canadians and families, and he missed that opportunity. He just doesn't get it," said Layton. "New Democrats will not support the budget as presented."

Once again, it falls on government to provide for our needs?  Where do they get this drivel?  Worse yet, where do they get the authority?

While you read the next few lines, read them as if I’m yelling into your face:

We have a nanny state here in Canada that has been growing for years!  Government has perpetually increased their roll in our lives and guess what?  The poverty issue is STILL here!  How can we ever expect it to go away just by throwing more money at the problem?  It hasn’t worked, it won’t work and it’s time we all admit it…

There is an underlying problem to the poverty issue that can be attributed to many things; lack of government support and spending isn't one of them.  Some very smart people have tagged the increase in poverty, especially at the senior level, to problems with high taxation and inflation which causes our un-backed money to lose value and a host of other factors.

Rest assured these underlying factors will never reach the debate floor or make it onto a major political party platform because it's easier to buy votes (through programs and subsidies) with the promise that government cares for us and believes strongly in "people before profit".  It's government spending that hurts us and I am trying hard to get people to see this so that more people can wake up one day and say, "there is something not right about this system we live under".

Sounds Nice, Smells Bad

Since becoming a little bit more interested in our nations’ politics I thought I would look up some info on my local MLA.  He has advertisements up around the community and is a member of the NDP party.  Many people consider the NDP party to be quite liberal, and a party that love unions and are probably quite interested in a services type government at both the provincial and federal level.  As we should all be aware by now, that means stealing money from someone and giving it to others that you don’t know. 

I went to his local website (the MLA) and he seems genuine.  I will trust that he truly cares about the community as it appears he has spent a fair bit of time in it and on different community committees.  He graduated with a degree in economics so I thought it would be nice to have someone with that educational background.

I read their agenda which was written in 2010.  Now for my American reader’s, 2009 was a tough year in Canada.  We had a bad recession which obviously followed yours.  In this “state of the union” address, he proudly commented that other provinces, faced with budget shortfalls were often ending particular services (he didn’t say what kind of services but said they were important) and even selling off provincial assets to make up the shortfall.

He went on that the NDP government would not follow suit.  They would keep providing the services that Manitobans expected and that they would not sell off provincial owned assets (namely Manitoba Hydro) during this downturn and recovery period.  In other words, some provinces were cutting back, either reducing spending or selling assets to reduce their deficit.  The NDP would not fall into that trap.

It got me thinking; that sounds great when you quickly glance at it….but there is a glaring problem.

If I hit a downturn, where my salary was reduced and I was headed to a budget shortfall, I would have to take drastic steps.  I might have to sell a car, or even my house, I might buy more generic food, what ever it took to make ends meet.  I think almost everyone would take those measures.

Apparently the NDP government doesn’t need to do that.  They’ll keep spending to make sure they get your vote.  The other provinces were doing what they had to so that the deficits could be as small as possible.  But the NDP would tell us this is unacceptable. 

Deficits can be dealt with later I suppose?  I would like to know when being financially responsible went out of style.    

Remember Remember the 5th of November

Good evening, London.  Allow me first to apologize for this interruption.

I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke.

But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way.

Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?

Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.

How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory.

His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.


-V for Vendetta-
Emergency Broadcast Channel Speech

The C.F'n.I.A.: Part Two

I have one particular story that best describes my dislike for the CFIA.  As mentioned in part one, the CFIA has control over what you can say in regards to product benefits.  They also have the ability to take a product off the market or not renew product registrations if they believe the product exhibits drug or medication type properties. 

In their minds, if a product is used on an animal only a few times, even if it just contains a mixture of different single ingredients, then it must be correcting a metabolic problem.  “Feed” is given over a long period of time not over the short term.  Therefore, any product used for the short term is used to correct a metabolic problem and is therefore a drug…kaboom!...there goes your registration.  Since they don’t oversee drug and medication use, you now have to go through Health Canada to get a drug number attached to your product.  This is both costly and very, very lengthy. 

When we register products with the CFIA we are not allowed to advertise any claims that may exist with the product unless we have demonstrated the results through trials done in Canada.  Trials completed by the manufacturer do no count.  We sell many protein ingredients where we believe the protein quality is high and has improved digestibility over competitive products but we can’t say that without spending a whole bunch of time and money on trial work.  My company is small, we don’t have the resources to complete expensive trial work that larger companies can afford.  It’s a barrier to trade that punishes small business and helps larger companies.

In fact, we can properly register a product in Canada and advertise properly but the CFIA may find that the U.S. manufacturer’s website makes too many claims on the product and they will take it off the market.

My example consists of a product that the CFIA had already registered and they gave it the "OK" for use in Canada.  It was a product used for dairy cows and it was given to them just once after birthing a calf.  Dairy cows can be tricky after calving and do no always eat enough afterwards.  Our product consisted of energy, vitamins and minerals, nothing more.  It simply tied them over until their appetite came back.  Thats how we registered it and promoted it. 

When it came time to re-register the product, the CFIA went onto the U.S. manufacturer's website, who makes a lot more claims on the product than we did, and the CFIA would not re-register it.  They didn't like the claims the company made on their website (from a different country!) and even though they had already registered the product once they said NO to the re-registration and said if we wanted to sell it, we had to consider it a drug and go through Health Canada (which takes years and lots of money).  All the time and money and effort we had spent selling the product was out the window.  Six years later, we still get calls from dairy farmers asking if the product is available.  The producers want it, we want to sell it but a government agency has said we can't trade this product on themarket without going through a ridiculous drug registration process.   

My problem with this mess is two-fold: first it’s a barrier to trade and second it undermines local producers who want to make choices for themselves.  The market can decide so many of these things.

The CFIA, in regulating our ability to advertise and make some claims, has essentially told the rest of the industry that they are not able to take care of themselves.  When we have an ingredient to sell, we distribute the product to feed companies who incorporate the product into the final feed and then they sell it directly to the farmer.  We have to go to the feed company and convince the nutritionist, who is trained for this, that our product performs and will do what it is supposed to do.

Instead the CFIA wants to disallow products from entering the market first before anyone can even try it for its intended purpose.  Why can the market not deal with it and why does the CFIA feel the need to protect consumers?  If I come to a producer with a bag of wheat bran and tell him that it will triple his productivity, the producer will find out for himself if I’m full of it or not.  We don’t need a government agency spending everybody’s tax money for something that can be dealt with easily within the industry itself.

It’s just one instance in this country where government spends our money to protect or serve only a small sample of citizens.  Add this up over a number of industries and you can see how a centralized government can quickly and inefficiently burn up millions of OUR dollars taking care of issues that the average person does not care about.  It’s time to let freedom work.

The C.F'n.I.A: Part One

I am happily employed in the livestock feed industry.  I work for a small but successful feed ingredient distributor that imports livestock feed ingredients from around the world and distributes them across Canada.  During my almost 9 year run with the company I have seen first hand some of the government involvement with our business.

The CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) is the regulatory body responsible for overseeing the food and animal feed industries.  There objectives, taken from the CFIA website are as follows; 

“Our strategic outcomes

•Public health risks associated with the food supply and transmission of animal disease to humans are minimized and managed

•A safe and sustainable plant and animal resource base

•Contributes to consumer protection and market access based on the application of science and standards”

Through a number of different acts they have the ability to act as a regulatory body over the industries associated with food and food manufacturing.  The resulting bureaucracy can be very far-reaching and at times a detriment to the livestock feed industry.  I have some experience in dealing with the CFIA and it usually deals with the following;

The CFIA has created a list of single ingredients that can be used in livestock feed.  The list is large and encompasses proteins, vitamins, minerals, energy ingredients etc…Any new products for use in the livestock feed industry that contain a mixture of ingredients must only contain ingredients found in that list.  When we import feed ingredients, the product is a mixture of single ingredients and we have to register the product with the CFIA before we can import the product. 

After the registration process we can then sell it for 3 years, and then we have to renew the registration.  We essentially have to tell the CFIA what is in the product, in what quantities, what species it’s for and how to use it.  The CFIA will come back to us with questions or give us the ok to use it.  The purpose of this is to ensure that the ingredients used are safe for the animals and for the end consumer purchasing meat, eggs or milk. 

Another purpose of the CFIA that we run into, and the most troubling, is the part of the CFIA that controls what you are allowed to advertise and claim for your product as a benefit.  For the purpose of my blog, I won’t debate if the CFIA is necessary for maintaining a safe food supply (I would argue it isn’t necessary in a free society).

In part two, I will go into detail of why I think the CFIA is both unnecessary and a detriment to free market opportunities in the livestock feed business.  Their over-reaching functions creates waste through compliance, acts as a barrier to trade and reduces the choices available to producers, something that is undesirable in a free market of private business owners.   

...Entangling Alliances With None

It’s hard to watch parts of Africa and the Middle East burn itself near to the ground and not think about intervening in some way.  Foreign intervention seems to be thought of as a right and a necessity by all democratic countries. 

It’s hard not to argue in some cases.  I still remember Somalia and Rwanda and I still sometimes think “we have a responsibility to send troops in there and take care of business”.  When you watch people suffer atrocities at the hands of a ruling class or power, you can’t help but think we should help out with the use of military power.  We can intervene, and help those who are oppressed and defeat those that would harm others.  It is a hard point for me to argue.  It’s hard to not call on us to police the world.

Over the years there have been many who have called for us and especially the USA to stand down, and carry on a non-interventionist foreign policy.  It’s alright to voice opinions, but sending in troops or slapping on sanctions will often make matters worse down the road.

I believe that one of the major job descriptions for federal government is to keep its people safe and free.  There are many who will argue, that an aggressive foreign policy will decrease the safety of citizens domestically.  There are many instances where we can see that this is true.  Intervention, by the USA, in the Middle East over the last 50 years has resulted in numerous problems.

Numerous military operations in the Middle East area were given as one of the major reasons for 9/11.  The USA has had a military presence in the Middle East for over 50 years.  The result is that their military personnel are put in harms way and their citizens at home are less safe. 

It’s becoming accepted that the constant foreign intervention by the USA in the Middle East is giving rise to nationalism and more importantly radicalism abroad.  This gives the incentives needed to recruit citizens who are willing to commit acts of terror.  This doesn’t make people at home any safer.

I am starting to believe that military power is appropriate only if our safety and liberty has been threatened directly by another county.  Pre-emptive operations are not a sufficient means to secure safety.  I no longer question if we should be in Afghanistan.  I stand by the USA for what they endured with the attacks of September 11^th, but we were not attacked.  Therefore, we should not be sending our troops into harms way for a fight that doesn’t involve our safety.  If anything, we are less safe now.

It’s not cowardice to act in ways that make us safer.  Empathy must be a consideration when planning foreign involvement.  The notion; “what would our citizens say or do if another country did this to us?” is important to consider.  I loved Ron Paul’s answers during the GOP nomination debates; “What would we say if China was over here in our hemisphere doing what we do in the East?  We need to look at what we would do if someone was doing it to us.” 

I know as I learn more about this area I will have more to say and hopefully more constructive comments.       

 

      

Til Death do us Part

“We don’t get our rights because we are gay or women or minorities.  We get our rights, from our creator so every person should be treated the same way” – Ron Paul, 2008 GOP debates

This is another opinion in my life that has changed since looking into more libertarian ideas.  The marriage question has been on many peoples’ mind for years and looks like it won’t end any time soon.  Married couples are granted special privileges as well as common law couples.  It’s same sex couples that do not receive the same treatment and benefits from government.

The issue has been debated ad nauseum.  Perhaps its time to debate a new statement; perhaps government shouldn’t have any say in the marriage question.  Marriage is an agreement between couples.  It is a religious ceremony.  Since we should fully expect the church and state to remain separated, it follows that this topic should remain off limits to government as well.

They have no right or reason to tell us what an official married couple is.  That is for the couple and possibly a church to decide.  Frankly, no married couple should receive special benefits in the form of tax incentives (another social engineering attempt).  Marriage remains an agreement between two people who are joined together in a religious ceremony; it should not need the approval of a federal government to call it as such. 

My view is of the following; if a couple wants to come together in an agreement and get married, and a church is willing to hold the ceremony to announce the marriage, then they are married.  It doesn’t require the government to tell us what it takes. 

I can take it one step further; in a free society, I don’t see why two people can’t come together, without signing a registry, or having a religious ceremony and declare them married.  Let us remember that there are a lot of people who have no religious affiliation. 

History is full of incidences where marriage occurred to secure royalty, to secure a better class, for convenience and through parental matching.  Let’s not go off and think that these were matches made in heaven.  So if we move away from state acknowledged marriages, are we really moving away from long standing traditions? 

Is it really going to tear the country apart if we allow people to have freedom in this area?  I think it is the population with strong religious based convictions that will find it hard to accept; but their displeasure, based solely on church principles, doesn’t make a case for less freedom for others.  It is another example for the need to separate the church and state.        

If I Spare a Dime can I make it my Business?

Social engineering; where government provides some sort of incentive, or roadblock to change your behavior.  Apparently it’s their business to encourage us to live a certain way.  We get encouraged to become greener through homeowner renovation rebates, we get encouraged to take the bus through tax deductions on our passes, we get encouraged to get married and have children through income tax breaks.  The list goes on and on. 

Whether they intend it or not it doesn’t matter; government has no business encouraging us in our life choices by giving financial incentives or by putting up financial roadblocks.  I don’t smoke and I think it’s bad for you.  So does the government, so they will encourage you to quit by taxing cigarettes and make some profit on the side.  Sounds like a sweet idea; Take the moral stance on health, knowing you will make a bundle in profit. 

When I watched a special on income taxes, an activist summed it up pretty well in regards to the incentives; “It’s none of the governments business what I do in life, I have a wife and a mother for that!”

I think what is worse though is that yet again the government is taking money from group A and giving it to group B, simply because group B meets some special criteria.  That is what I have a problem with.  Free people can and should be able to live however they want, as long as they don’t intrude on the lives of others.

When Freedom Hurts

Alright, this is an emergency broadcast.

Many of us have seen pictures of these signs.  It is a group of "god-fearing, bible believing, love your neighbour unless they're gay" Christians.  Recently, they were sued by a father who's son's funeral was picketed by this church group.  They claim that soldiers are dying and will continue to die because of America's acceptance of homosexuality.  This is news to me since I was under the impression that soldier's were dying because there is a war going on which the USA is a part of.  So they go to soldier's funerals, among other events and protest.  The father won in court but the decision was over-turned by the state supreme court.

The father made a plea on TV that common sense should have prevailed, and that the judge should have ruled against them.  His argument is that they should know better and not protest at a funeral where their speech and message will hurt others in mourning.

That's a tough argument to refute simply because I have never lost a family member as a casualty of war.  I find this church group deplorable as they have taken a few select verses, twisted it into a bigoted, hateful message and have thrown everything out the window that has anything to do with respect for the individual (which is found throughout the new testament).  A smile would reach my face if I ever heard that one of the church leaders died in a grease fire.

That brings me to the ruling of the supreme court.  I agree with it.  As much as I hate seeing these t-shirt, sign making f*#k-tards protest and make asses of themselves, their country and their god, I have to agree with the ruling the court handed down.  When you defend freedom you have to be prepared for individuals to use it unwisely.  I am a parent so I feel for this father, but one of the beautiful things about the USA and Canada is that you can make your thoughts public without interference from our government as long as you are not inciting hatred and encouraging violence on groups.  That includes the ability to speak and protest about the most crazy, stupid and ignorant ideas.  The reason for free speech laws is that if you allow "common sense" to rule over even one hurtful case, it sets a dangerous precedent.

The freedom to dissent against what our government does is one of the most important laws we have to keep a nation free.  Allowing any ruling against free speech is a dangerous road that sets a country up for tyranny.  If the supreme court ruled in favour of the father in this case, what stops it from ruling against citizens who protest during times of war or during other times where we question government.  

I truly hope that this father is in some way allowed to grieve without being reminded about this protest group, but we can't lose sight of how important free speech is to the country as a whole.  When you provide, and demand freedom, you have to be ready for others to use it unwisely.   

Sales vs Income Tax

In part 1; I looked at the progressive vs. flat income tax scenario where I by far approved of the flat tax.  Here, in part 2, I will discuss the notion of replacing the income tax with just a sales tax (which we already have).  Either of which will be used to finance the federal government.

The benefit of the flat income tax I already spoke of previously.  It taxes all citizens on their salary, in a fair manner.  There is no segment of the population that gets soaked because they happen to make more.

The problem I have with an income tax is what I view as a loss of privacy.  You must divulge information regarding where you work and how much you make.  I view this as an invasion of privacy.  It shouldn’t be their business where you work.  Then there is the audit. 

If you agree that the government knowing where you work and how much you make is an invasion of privacy, then lets start talking about the audit.  If Revenue Canada finds it necessary to audit you, then prepare to divulge information…year’s worth of financial information.  Every drawer of your personal and financial life becomes open and available for their scrutiny.  I find that pretty gross especially considering how confusing our tax laws are…can you really ever be sure that you did not ever in the last 5 years deduct something that maybe shouldn’t have been deducted?

For a while now I have wondered if a sales tax would be a better, less intrusive way to finance a properly sized government.  I imagine it would essentially be what we have now with the GST but I would apply it to all items that are purchased for consumption and also include services or a product sold to the end user that is not quickly consumed (like a couch). 

What I like about this approach is that in a small way, it remains a little bit voluntary.  As in, you can buy the 60 inch TV and pay tax on it, or buy a 42 inch TV and pay less tax.  You can limit your spending and therefore limit the amount of tax you must pay.  It also removes the intrusive manner that Revenue Canada imposes its tax laws. 

However, there are negatives.  The sales tax approach dictates that the more you spend on goods and services, the more you are required to finance the services the government provides.  Just because you buy more products, doesn’t necessarily imply that you use government services more than others.  But the same can be said for the flat tax.  Even though the rate would be same across the board, citizens earning more money would therefore spend more on taxes.  I don’t see a big difference.

The next argument is one that I never considered, and I don’t really have a rebuttal for.  After visiting the Libertarian Party of Canada’s website, it looks as if many of them are opposed the to the GST tax for one important reason: it transforms ordinary citizens and business owners into tax collectors.  I have never thought of that, and indeed it sounds wrong to put that responsibility on ordinary citizens.

Whatever the answer, I won’t claim to know it.  I just know that we as Canadians are taxed more than we should, to finance a federal government that is larger than it should be.  A sales tax or a flat tax of a respectable rate should be enough to keep the government afloat so that we can rid ourselves of the other cash grabs Ottawa has in place to make money.   

Progressive vs. Flat

This is kind of a part one of two where I look at taxes and their different forms.  I want to consider 3 types of general taxes that government can take from the public for revenue and discuss my opinions and preferences; flat income tax, progressive income tax and a sales tax.

For many years I have had a problem with the progressive tax system we have.  I do know people that purposely made less so that their income tax level would remain lower than if they raised their income level.  I don’t know if the difference in tax level really decreases their net salary but regardless; it doesn’t sound like a good way to promote productivity in any country.

I have never understood why a person who makes more, and probably relies on government the least for services, is expected to pay a larger percent share of their income.  I always thought of this as a tactic to soak the rich.  I am not rich.  I do not live in the nicest area of the city but I am fortunate to not have to worry about shelter or food for myself and my family.

Since so many of us work, and just get by from cheque to cheque, there is and will almost always be a general grudge held by the average working class against the wealthy.  I remember in university that there was a large socialist/anti-corporate movement among students.  For some reason, as soon as someone becomes wealthy, we assume they did it through cheating, stripping the environment of resources or through government protection in the marketplace for a return of campaign money.    

We hold this attitude, and then bitch even more when working class jobs get shipped overseas.  I try to take the stance that if a person, through respectable employment, becomes wealthy we should then commend them.  Chances are, they own a business or run a business and they employ Canadians.  This is the exact benefit we want.  We want wealthy business owners to flourish and expand so that they need to hire even more skilled Canadian workers. 

So why, just because a person is wealthy does the government have the legal right to force them to do a greater part in financing the state?  It sounds respectable enough; if you have more then more is expected of you and we want to make things “fair”.  However, a forced transfer of wealth isn’t fair, no matter how much icing you coat it with.  Poor or not, nobody has the right to take money from a wealthy person just because that person makes more, end of story in my book.  I need food to eat and I have a right to eat, but I’m still required to either buy it or grow it myself.

That brings me to the flat tax which is simple enough; all Canadians pay the same percentage of their income.  The percentage should be a heck of a lot less than what it is now for any income bracket, but it should be flat nonetheless. 

This encourages Canadians to increase their salaries without worrying about increased taxation levels.  It also promotes a true, fair and balanced method where we don’t extort more money from those who have happened to earn it.  Jealousy is not a good enough reason to expect the wealthy to bail the country out of its fiscal problems. 

The lone problem is that the flat tax would not finance the government enough at its present expenditure level, so here’s an idea; quit spending so much of our hard earned money on small, selected pockets of the population.  Frankly, the progressive tax method isn’t enough either at them moment.

I think you can guess which type of tax I approve of.  In part 2, I will look at replacing income tax with a basic sales tax which means your level of tax will increase based on your consumption.

T-Day (Tax Freedom Day)

I just recently finished my taxes so I felt compelled to write about tax freedom day.  I don't know how they calculate it but it sounds like its pretty well accepted in many circles.  I believe the Frasier Institute even has a calculator that you can use to calculate family specific scenarios.

Tax freedom day is essentially the last day that you work for free.  In Canada, the date is estimated in early June.  That means we work a complete 5 months for nothing...
All of that money gets taken up by some form of taxation : federal, provincial, gst, pst, hst, you name it.  Anything you make after that is yours to keep. 

At first it seems absurd, but then when you consider how much of a nanny state we have, I think it makes perfect sense and isn't all that unbelievable.  But just because I'm not surprised, doesn't mean I don't think it is completely grotesque.  I would love to know how much of our taxes goes towards obligations such as old age security and welfare (something government shouldn't be involved in).  We know government spends poorly, it's essentially a given.  The principle of the matter is even worse though; Government shouldn't take what is yours to give to others, however "just" it may seem.  Freedom requires a voluntary transfer of money, not a forced transfer through taxation.    

I know there are some services that are more essential in the provinces such as police, snow removal and highway maintenance, but I have a hard time believing it takes nearly 50% of my earnings to pay for the essential services that I require.  I would love to sit down with a list of the services the federal and provincial government provide me or others and see how many are actually essential.  Let me pay for as many of them as possible on the free market as I need them.

I have many problems with our tax code that I will use future posts for; such as the aspects of social engineering; flat vs progressive rate, and the expenditures on the nanny state. 

The problem with taxes is that the government essentially owns our salary, we are allowed to keep a portion of it, and they will spend our taxed portion as they see fit.  We should own the fruits of our labour.