At The Risk Of Repeating Myself: We Pay Too Much Tax

On the heels of my previous post about how we’re actually paying more taxes than we think we are, comes a report that in 2009 our taxes will rise again by up to $188 in payroll taxes. The worst part of it is that the payroll tax increases will be going to the involuntary socialist programs of Canadian Pension Plan and Employment Insurance, the latter having a very checkered history indeed. Although the media has been deafeningly silent about E.I. overpayments on what amounts to little more than a slush fund for the Liberals, there is something almost obscene about payroll taxes increasing for E.I., which now stands at a staggering $54 billion surplus.

In recent years, while Canada or Quebec pension plan contribution limits have been raised annually, employment Insurance premiums have been lowered, making the overall increase to payroll taxes very small, it said. However, in 2009, both EI premiums and CPP contribution limits will increase.

Canadians earning $42,800 or more, and their employers, will pay an additional $188 in payroll taxes, it said.

“This is the largest single hike in payroll taxes since 2002,” it noted.

The maximum payroll tax, including both CPP and EI premiums, will rise by $90 to $2,850 for employees and by $98 to $3,143 per employee for employers.

The worst thing about paying more taxes for something like this is that there is nothing optional about it whatsoever. You cannot opt out of paying Employment Insurance any more than you can politely deny the need for a pension you never signed up for. And for those who say that these programs are an integral part of our social security, then I suggest you consider the concept that I might be more skilled than the government at socking away rainy day money. Or I may not. The point is that I want that choice. Instead, the government will be stealing $3.75 more off every pay cheque I receive in 2009.

The article cites the fact that federal basic and spousal exemptions rise in 2009 to $10,100, which is a $260 increase above the automatic annual indexation adjustment. Not that it will affect me, since my wife’s income remains the same: zero. One positive implementation of the Conservative government is the new tax-free savings account, which isn’t exactly “tax-free”, but avoids the dreaded “double tax” of capital gains on after-tax income. No doubt the opposition will be pleased with any idea of raising payroll taxes for their theory on economic stimulus is based on increasing social security programs, although I doubt Mr.Harper will have gone far enough for their liking. But as I say, the idea of raising payroll taxes on E.I. continues to be obscene and repugnant. E.I. payroll deductions should be eliminated entirely until the fund is depleted of the $54 billion surplus, and then run on a completely break-even basis, and apply only to those who apply for it on their personal income tax returns every year.

I want the right to say no! I demand the right to say no to socialism!

[Too Much] Free [Time] Palestine [On Their Hands]

One of the benefits of working in downtown Vancouver is that you see some truly interesting things. I once saw a long line of bicycles go sailing by on Cordova Street heading East. A few weeks ago I saw another line of skateboarders heading west, one replete in full Santa Claus costume. I was also able to witness the “coalition” rally in which unionized trucks did a few loops around waterfront station whilst leaning on the horns. Today, in miserably cold and rainy weather, pro-Hamas Palestinian supporters took the time to stand in front of the U.S. Embassy and chant slogans about Harper, Bush, the Intifada, and “freeing Palestine”. Leading the charge was the woman in the video, a person so shrill that I don’t think she really required voice amplification at all.

My co-workers and I, standing on the edge of the 31st floor across the street, watched in bemusement as brightly coloured Palestinians flags and assorted umbrellas [pro-Hamas supporters don't like to get wet, apparently] gathered to screech for about a half hour before they marched off to the south and out of sight. While the woman screamed “FREE FREE PALESTINE”, my apolitical co-worker who doesn’t actually know who, or what a Palestine is, shouted back “GET GET A JOB” in return. It was his way of saying that while some people have the luxury of taking a Monday morning off work to go and shout at an American Embassy in Vancouver, [neither of which having anything to do with affecting the sovereign decisions made by Israeli forces defending their nation from terrorist attacks] we were stuck shivering a hundred feet above them. Unfortunately, they didn’t wait around long enough for the wind storm to interrupt their pity party, although to be fair to the pro-Hamas supporters, we didn’t enjoy the wind storm that threatened to blow us off our perch either.

Jonathon Narvey attended the rally in support of Israel, and obtained the above video [and thanks for that]. He also posted up his thoughts on the experience of standing next to pro-Hamas supporters, and his views on the current Mid East crisis.

It’s Not The Time For Opening The Abortion Debate

I don’t say that as someone who more or less supports the concept of limited abortion rights, nor do I deny there is a strong socially conservative movement that has been waging battle for a chance to open the abortion debate for years. It is certainly within the constitutional freedoms of Canadians to seek out the kind of laws and legislation that they believe in, even when, in this case, it happens to impinge upon the personal freedom of other Canadians. But this is not the time to open the abortion debate again. In fact it’s not even remotely appropriate for a myriad of reasons.

The first reason is obvious. Stephen Harper. This isn’t a man who has governed under the banner of ideological conservatism, either socially or fiscally, and he hasn’t shown any signs of changing that attitude. Some people, on both sides, believe he has an underlying belief system that will come to the fore when, or if the Party receives a majority mandate. I don’t actually believe Stephen Harper is an ideological man, but I concede that a majority government would likely garner a more conservative styled government. But the painfully evident fact that Stephen Harper’s grasp on power is tenuous at best, as a little thing called “prorogation” should remind us of, should tell us that the last thing the party needs right now is to start scaring up support for the coalition with talk about opening the abortion debate.

So can and will the M.P.’s in Parliament ignore the will of their leader on this issue and attempt to create a wedge of their own principled accord? That remains to be seen. Quasi-abortion bills, like C-484 [which I supported], shows that it can be done. But even C-484 was explained in a very delicate manner that insisted the rights of women to choose would not be compromised, and it still met with fierce opposition from critics. And now that Conservative for Winnipeg South, Rod Bruinooge, has come out with an article that seeks to bring the abortion issue into the light, it would seem that Stephen Harper will certainly have his hands full on damage control. Rod Bruinooge has been elected chair of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, which is supposed to be a multi-partisan campaign to bring about a pro-life wedge in the House of Commons. I acknowledge this is a perfectly legitimate and democratic attempt to bring about discussion on the issue.

But aside from the fact that it will damage the Conservatives politically, strengthen the near-dead coalition, and alienate Stephen Harper from a party that usually tows the line, there are other reasons, provided by a Conservative, to reconsider this at present:

As a partisan and strategic move, the last thing the Tories need is to embrace this suggestion. The Conservatives’ platform explicitly refused to support any law which would limit the right to an abortion, and Harper seemed fine with that. Not only would moving on this issue constitute an actual breaking of a promise to add on to what everyone only thinks are broken promises (e.g. election dates), but it would reinforce this idea that the Tories are “mean” and “ideological” governors right when those criticisms are gaining traction.

There is a very strong, and that may be an understatement, pro-life movement among conservative bloggers, and for evidence of this you need look no further than today’s article by Joanne. I have every respect for her views, and those of her contributors, and she is merely expounding on a firm belief that a great deal of Canadians want to have a frank and honest and open discussion about abortion. And one day, so will I. But what I, as a non-partisan blogger who did happen to vote Conservative last election do not understand, is why Joanne and her many avidly partisan Conservative readers would want to jeopardize what seems to me a very tenuous grasp on power that the government currently enjoys. If I were a partisan who believed in victory at any cost, and I think Mr.Harper very much fits that bill to a “T”, the last thing I should want right now is my supporters carrying the torch [and pitchforks] on this clearly very divisive wedge issue.

CLARIFICATION-DATE

I wanted to clarify that Joanne’s readers are not all avidly partisan, nor are they all pro-life, and I did not intend to characterize her blog in that manner. Reading through the comments just now I can spot about four or five of her regulars who think broaching this issue would be a mistake.

Also see: Warren Kinsella, an open supporter of Michael Ignatieff, has the long knives out for the Conservatives [Link]

And from Trusty Tory: Keep the Wingnuts Quiet

“Brian Mulroney allowed this sucker to die for a reason. It’s political suicide and opens a pandora’s box of technicalities.”