Health issues more important than Finances for boomers

As they approach retirement, Canada's younger boomers (aged 50-59) are focusing on health concerns over finances, with 70 per cent ranking changes to their physical health highest on the list of top challenges they expect to face as retirees, according to the 2013 RBC Retirement Myths & Realities Poll (PDF file).  What this means for the Federal government is that they need to pay attention to issues around Health Care.

In Canada Health Care is a provincial responsibility but the Federal government gives funds to help maintain National Standards.  It is clear that the way forward and on issues is through partnership and collaboration between the provinces and the Federal Governments.

On the one hand, you have the federal government saying problems with health care are because of how it is being delivered by the provinces; the provinces say it is because they are not getting enough money. No matter what the jurisdiction, the parties will have to work together

"Younger boomers are more health-conscious as they near and enter retirement. Watching their older relatives and friend’s age has made this generation more aware that good health is not something to take for granted," said Amalia Costa, head of Retirement Strategies & Successful Aging, RBC. "What they aren't yet as aware of, however, is that health issues of their loved ones may have an impact on their retirement plans - not only on their finances, but also in terms of time commitment and emotional stress. It's important to work with a financial advisor to take all aspects of aging into account when making future plans."

Finances ranked a distant second, with 57 per cent expecting changes to income to be a challenge during retirement. Within these rankings, men (73 per cent) are particularly concerned about changes to their health, compared to women (66 per cent).

The RBC poll, now in its fourth year, continues to underline how expectations do not always match realities. For example, while four-in-10 younger boomers (40 per cent) do not expect health or disability constraints to ever change their lifestyle or independence, almost three-in-10 (27 per cent) report that a significant health issue or decline has affected them or someone in their family within the past year.

At the same time, 42 per cent of these younger boomers responded that being a caregiver to another adult was a support role they had already performed, were doing now or expected to do in future. Some of the impact of that caregiving, already experienced or expected by younger boomers, include:

• Significant increase in stress levels (50 per cent)
• Significant out-of-pocket expenses (24 per cent)
• Moving/making accommodation changes (18 per cent)
• Reducing number of paid hours worked (15 per cent)

Narratives work, political parties in Canada pay attention to your story

 As we move into an election year in Canada, our political parties would be well advised to read and heed the following white paper, “On the Road to a New Effectiveness Model,” (you can purchase it from the ARF here) put out in 2007 by the The Advertising Research Foundation

The upshot of the ARF et al. study was that advertisements which tell a convincing or engaging story more effectively make a positive impression on viewers than those that focus on positioning a product in terms of its benefits. Max Kalehoff insists that the real lesson here is not about advertising effectiveness but about brand effectiveness. Specifically, he says, brands need compelling foundation narratives that connect with people by distilling and embodying that brand’s essence. So the party that pays attention to the idea that their brand is best for Canada, will have a good shot at winning the next election. 

The main findings were:

• Ads that tell a branding story (e.g. a Mastercard ad showing a father taking his son to a baseball game) work better than ads that focus on product positioning.
• Not all narrative ads work.
• Ads where the narrative is unimaginative and boring don’t work (e.g. A United Airlines spot that showed an emotional story of a businessman returning home)
• Ads where the narrative ties in with the brand work better than ads that don’t.
• Narrative ads where the audience got involved in the story (e.g. Budweiser's "Whassup" campaign) worked better than ads where the audience remained passive, (e.g. Miller Lite low-carb ads that essentially just said, "We're better than the other guys.)
• Narrative humor could be effective. Eighty-four percent of respondents said the humor worked well in Southwest Airlines' "Want to get away" ads such as a woman accidentally destroying a man's medicine cabinet while snooping.
• Ads where the narrative is distracting don’t work. For instance, a Nissan didn’t work: at the outset, it seems as though a couple is talking about sex, but in fact they are talking about the car. The audience however never made the transition, having reacted negatively to the conversation about sex.

Ultimately story-telling ads generate effectiveness by engagement, rather than by repetition or tonnage

I wonder how many will pay attention, very few I imagine. Bad habits die hard, even in the face of strong analytic evidence to the contrary.  Studies by themselves don’t lead to action. Action will only happen when the findings of the study are communicated in a story

Steven Harper is very good at  telling a story that ties into his message. The story right now is Canada is at war and we need a Warrior to save us from the enemy. We need to give the Warrior the tools he needs to defeat the enemy and we need to trust him to do this without taking away our freedom. 

The problem is that we are not at war, our warriors have the tools they need to defeat the enemy now, but they do not have the money to pay for those tools, due to budget cuts by Mr. Harper and his party. The problem is that the Canadian people have bought into the idea that we are at war, with this new enemy. 

The opposition needs to create its own story and move away from the story of war and move us into the story of the economy and how they can give us hope. People don't vote for a party to replace the ruling party easily. They need a reason and the party that creates a story that gives us hope for a better future will win the hearts and the minds of the public.

The Appeal of Middle Class Economics

Hennessy’s Index is a monthly listing of numbers, written by the CCPA's Trish Hennessy, about Canada and its place in the world. For other months, visit: http://policyalternatives.ca/index

• 52% is the percentage of Canadians who self-identify as middle class when asked to describe their “social and financial place in society”, according to a November 2014 Pollara poll. 

• 73%  is the Percentage of Quebecers who said they were middle class – the province most likely to do so, followed by Alberta (57%), the Prairies (47%), B.C. (46%), Atlantic provinces (44%), and Ontario (43%). 

• 57% is the Percentage of men who said they think of themselves as middle class, compared to 47% of women.

• 67%  is the Percentage of Canadians earning between $60,000-$100,000 who said they’re middle class. For context, the 2012 after-tax median income of all families consisting of two or more people was $71,700. 

• 3%  is the Percentage of Canadians who considered themselves upper class, thank you very much. 

• 36%   is the Percentage of Canadians who said they’re working class, not middle class. 

• 9%  is the Percentage of Canadians who considered themselves poor. For context, Statistics Canada said 16.3 per cent of children under 17 lived in low-income households in 2012.

• 82%  is the Percentage of self-described middle class Canadians who own their home: home ownership is a very middle class symbol in Canada. 

• 49%  is the Percentage of Canadians who said they feel confident that they can move up the socio-economic ladder through hard work, though the answer differs greatly depending on where you sit along the income ladder.

• 20%  is the Percentage of self-ascribed poor Canadians who said they are confident in merit-based social mobility, compared to 47% of the working class, 53% of the middle class, and 73% of the very confident upper class. 

• 45%  is thePercentage of Canadians who are optimistic about the future of Canada’s middle class. 

• 90%  is the Percentage of Canadians who don’t feel financially secure.

Sources for all factoids: Only one-in-ten Canadians feels financially secure (The Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy);  In Search of “The Middle Class”: Canadians Under Financial (The Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy); and Poverty In Canada: 1 In 7 Lived In Low-Income Families In 2012, StatsCan Says (The Canadian Press).

AUTHOR(S): Trish Hennessy

FEBRUARY 1, 2015

My vote doesn't count does it?

This story written by Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press  speaks to the issue of why and how young people can be involved in and persuaded to vote.  I think the issues directed at young people can and should be considered for all voters. As the story says only 60% of Canadians vote, that number needs to be higher

It's a common refrain among those who don't bother to cast ballots in Canadian elections.

But a new analysis of young non-voters in the last federal election suggests they should think again.

If young people had turned out to vote in the same numbers as the population overall in 2011, pollster Nik Nanos says his research suggests they would have changed not just the outcome of the election but the tone and content of the political debate.

Just over 60 per cent of eligible voters actually cast ballots in 2011. Among those under 30, fewer than 40 per cent bothered to vote.

Working with Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer, on a project aimed at engaging youth in the political process, Nanos has mined data from his daily polling during the 2011 campaign as well as research done for the Institute for Research on Public Policy to answer the question: What if 60 per cent of young people had voted?

His answer: Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives likely wouldn't have won a majority.

More importantly, he says the political debate would have been more hopeful and would have revolved around a broader range of issues if young people had been more engaged in the process.

"What we find is that their concerns are much more diverse than older Canadians who are fixated on jobs and health care," Nanos said in an interview. "So if you're a younger Canadian, you're twice as likely to say that the environment is a top national issue of concern. You're twice as likely to say that education is a top national issue of concern."

His analysis also suggests older Canadians "are very cynical, they have less confidence in finding solutions" whereas younger people "are actually much more hopeful, have a higher level of confidence in finding solutions."

From that Nanos concludes: "Just the mere act of engaging them could reshape the tone of the dialogue."

Much of the efforts to improve turnout among young voters have focused on making it easier for them to vote, with polling stations on university campuses and more advance polls, among other initiatives.

But while the mechanics of voting are important, Nanos said his research suggests political leaders could do more to engage young people simply by talking about the issues that concern youth and adopting a more hopeful, can-do manner.

"If we had the perfect voting system that was completely accessible, why do we think that more Canadians would vote if the content sucked?"

He likens the current political dialogue to a buffet that serves only chicken and mashed potatoes — a diet that appeals to older Canadians who are most likely to vote. A buffet that offered a more diverse menu would attract more diverse voters, Nanos argues.

Therein lies the Catch 22, however. Politicians necessarily target their messages at those who do vote and as long as the majority of young people don't vote, their tastes are not going to be catered to.

"I think maybe we need to get our political leaders to change the dial on the policy agenda," says Page, who is now research chair at the University of Ottawa's school of political studies.

At the same time, he adds: "I think in the case of students, when they see their own (turnout) numbers ... and they don't see the policy content on the political leaders' agenda, they're culpable."

Page is attempting to change behaviour on both sides of the equation, inviting political leaders to come and meet with students to discuss ways to improve political engagement.

He has organized an event Tuesday at UOttawa, featuring NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Green Leader Elizabeth May and Conservative MP Michael Chong, author of a private member's bill aimed at empowering backbenchers.

Some of his students, meanwhile, have launched an online "I vote/je vote" campaign, aimed at mobilizing young voters through peer pressure.

The disconnect between taxes and services

Many would see me as a tax eccentric. I like paying taxes  (but not more than I legally have to pay) and frequently rejoice at what they give me: highways, air traffic control, emergency rooms, , abortion rights, traffic lights, schools, food safety, policing, regulating, licensing, autopsies, compassion, all the things that make us an organized and rational nation that is a pleasure to live in. I don’t trip over small corpses on the way home. It’s rather nice. 

Fiscal Conservatives, on the other hand, enjoy these services while abusing taxes as the necrotizing flesh disease of Canadian life.

I came across this recently and thought it was important to share. Alex Himelfarb has had an impressive career in public service. A former professor, author and diplomat, he is probably best known for his service as clerk of the Privy Council for Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and, briefly, Stephen Harper.

His most recent accomplishment is “Tax is Not a Four Letter Word”, a collection of essays by various authors including the CCPA’s Trish Hennessy, Jim Stanford and Hugh Mackenzie. Alex co-edited the book with his son Jordan, Opinion Editor for the Toronto Star.

Taxing is more complicated than that, as essayist Jim Stanford says. “Governments decide, in the context of the conflicting and contradictory political pressures they face, what programs they will provide. Then they figure out how to fund those programs.” 

Neo-liberals cut taxes first, Stanford says, while the programs exist, thus creating a deficit that is used to justify further cuts. We are manipulated. For example, we are told that we can’t afford pensions. Neither can we raise payroll taxes to raise CPP benefits for the future. 

But we can pay them if we choose to.

We are more than just consumers and taxpayers. We are citizens with responsibilities for one another; we undertake to do some things together, things that we could never do alone or that we can do much better collectively. Taxes are the way we pay for those things. They’re the price of living in Canada and the opportunities that provides. Indeed, those opportunities exist because of the sacrifices and taxes of previous generations to build the Canada we inherited.

We demand of our leaders to explain how they are going to pay for new services but, equally, we need to demand that they explain the COSTS of their promised tax cuts ­–­­­ to our quality of life, to our democracy, to our economy.  Would we be so pleased with the next tax cuts if we knew they came with worsening traffic congestion, increased risks to food safety, longer wait times for health care, less help for the jobless and needy, rising inequality and environmental degradation?

We seem only to talk about what government costs and not about what it gives.  Too much is at stake to let our identities as “consumers” and “taxpayers” supplant our citizenship and commitment to the common good.

It’s become a political truism that politicians would have to be nuts to talk about taxes unless they’re promising more cuts. But that fear of taxes is limiting, dangerous. We need to shift the conversation, to recognize that the public services and goods we value have to be paid for and that tax cuts are not free. We cannot have Swedish levels of service and American levels of tax

Of course, a minority will never be convinced, and we will always have legitimate disputes about the right amount and mix of taxes. But the majority does value what their taxes buy. Nonetheless, they worry about how government spends, inevitably  circling back to the problem of waste. Why would I want to pay taxes when so much is wasted?

Yet perceptions of wasteful spending persist. In part, concern about government waste is a proxy for differences in values.  What we call waste is often spending we don’t much like  (say, the arts from the right, or military spending from the left).  That’s the stuff of elections as we try to choose a government that reflects our priorities.

In Canada, austerity has been implemented in the slowest of motion and so the consequences are less visible than, say, in parts of Europe.  But they are real nonetheless,  felt first by women and youth, and the most vulnerable. Austerity, it seems, makes us meaner.

Next in line are the politically easy targets – civil service, teachers, unions. It seems that bashing bureaucrats is always good politics whatever the consequences.

But of course in the end we all pay the price in rising inequality and the erosion of essential institutions, infrastructure and the environment. This erosion happens so slowly it’s hard to attribute to the tax cuts.  Government just slowly gets worse.  Ironically this is used to justify further tax cuts.  Witness recent proposals to eliminate EI because it now serves so few people so badly. The Post Office. What next?  When we lose trust we can’t solve problems together. We look at gridlock and instead of saying, ‘let’s build transit solutions’, we conclude, ‘government doesn’t work’.

Extreme inequality further undermines trust – those at the very top become increasingly effective at convincing us of the dangers of taxes – after all they don’t need many of the public services the rest depend on – and those at the bottom won’t want to pay if they think the game is rigged. Extreme inequality erodes our ability to come to a common view, to build a shared sense of the common good.

Perhaps the most enduring consequence of austerity is that it stunts the political imagination. Previous generations could imagine universal public health care, public pensions, the National Child Benefit.  But now our first response to the dreamers is ‘ya, but how would we ever pay for it?’  This breeds a kind of fatalism, declinism –growing doubt that we could make things better together, that we could ever hope to solve the big problems, inequality or climate change.

If I track the last fifteen years, all the tax cuts, federal taxes as percentage of GDP are four points lower, each point worth about $20 billion. Imagine what we could do with that, or even a portion.

The two cents of GST that the Conservative government cut in its first couple of years cost about $14 billion per year, slightly more than the surplus they inherited. Think about how much more resilient we would have been without those cuts when the recession hit, how much more we could have helped those hardest hit, without so much added debt and without turning to austerity as though it were inevitable.

We chose the path we are on.  We can choose something better.

Source: Saying no to the conjurers’ trick of tax cuts

The Budget

Here is a wonderful post by PressProgress


Top 5 howlers in Jim Flaherty's budget speech

Here are the top 5 howlers in Jim Flaherty's budget speech, delivered in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon after the 2014-15 budget was tabled.

1. Great job creator?

"Since the depths of the recession Canada has led the G-7 in job creation."

It sounds good, but there’s a reason Flaherty doesn’t talk about a more fulsome measurement: real GDP per capita growth since the trough of the recession. 

By that barometer, Canada finds itself in the middle of the pack among the G-7, behind Germany, Japan and the United States. And among 34 OECD countries, Canada stands in 16th spot in real per capita growth.

Bonus stat from the federal budget: Canada’s employment rate remains lower today than pre-recession levels, standing at 66.5% compared to 68.3% in 2008.

2. Household debt problem?

"Here at home, household debt is still higher than we’d like to see."
That’s an understatement. Check out this debt to GDP chart from the Alternative Federal Budget, and see where household debt sits compared to government debt. 



3. Balance budget afficiendos?

As trustees for the public, "we are so committed to balancing the budget and returning Canada to a position of fiscal strength."

Let’s set aside the massive deficits (totaling $135 billion) Flaherty has run up since 2009-10. But what is so magical about balancing the books in 2015-16, after another projected deficit of $2.9 billion this upcoming fiscal year (with a $3 billion contingency cushion)?

The International Monetary Fund, for one, doesn’t care that the Conservatives want to campaign on a balanced budget in 2015. A recent IMF report warns that rigid plans aren't always wise, especially if recovery is wobbly. 

"Fiscal policy should strike the right balance between supporting growth and rebuilding fiscal buffers," said the report, released last month. "If significant downside risks to growth materialize, the federal government has room to slow its planned return to a balanced budget."

Don't tell that to Flaherty, whose austerity budget locks in aggressive spending cuts. The projected cumulative "savings" (read cuts) since 2010-11 are slotted to jump from $12.76 billion last year to nearly $17.86 billion this year. There's also an estimated $7.4 billion in savings over six years from cutting public-service compensation.

4. Bragging about these employment stats? 

"Since the depths of the economic recession, employment has increased by more than 1 million. These jobs are overwhelmingly full-time and in the private sector."
Nice try – boasting about job creation since the depths of the recession. But to judge how well we're really doing, you should look at the Conservative record since the beginning of the recession in September 2008 rather than from the extreme low point.

This perspective, informed by data from the labour force survey of Statistics Canada's key socioeconomic database, tells us how far we still are from a full recovery.

Between September 2008 and September 2013, 653,400 jobs were added to the economy. But more than half of those new jobs (53.4%) were in sales and services, the lowest-paid occupational category, with an average pay of just $16.47 per hour. Further, 40.6% of these new jobs were in temporary, rather than permanent, positions. 

And with youth unemployment standing at 13.9%, the Canadian Federation of Students says the "miniscule" paid-internship funding in the budget for up to 4,000 positions is "simply not enough for the 384,000 unemployed youth." Check out this chart from the Alternative Federal Budget to see how poorly youth are doing. 

Youth employment rate



5. Committed to the environment... how exactly?

"Our Government is committed to protecting Canada’s environment. That’s why our Government is promoting safe, responsible resource development that is not bogged down by unnecessary red tape."

Set aside the fact that the Conservatives have yet to table regulations for the oil and gas sector to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The budget contains "no investment in energy efficiency or renewable energy and fails to mention climate change a single time in 427 pages." 

But what the budget does do is eliminate permanently a tariff as way to provide incentives to offshore oil and gas exploration while taking a pass at eliminating costly fossil fuel subsidies. See how Canada fares with other countries, courtesy of The Climate Institute of Australia, using data from the IMF.

Moore vs Scrooge

Charles Dickens, meet your modern day Scrooge. The difference is your Scrooge was able to understand the spirit of Christmas, our MP  (James Moore to my shame, represents my riding in the House of Commons in Canada until 2015 when I hope we through him out of office) and his conservative minded government will never understand the spirit of Xmas. Thanks to Colleen for this

Shame on my MP James Moore for his uncharitable comments

My thanks to Ross at the Gazetteer for the following story. 

I support the food bank and I want and ask others to do the same, especially around this time of year. To hear a Minister of the Crown, come out and deny that it is his personal responsibility to help feed children is sickening. I can understand how a heartless government like Steven Harpers  can pass the buck on poverty to others (Public Policy on poverty is a provincial not a Federal responsibility in Canada). 

But most of us have some empathy and want to help out, and many thousands support our neighbours who are hungry. james moore has been touted by some to be a successor to harper when he finally leaves. From Mr. moore's statement below he will be worse than harper.


First, there was this story from CKWX'  Sara Norman:

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – It appears the federal government won’t be helping BC get out of the top spot when it comes to child poverty.

“Is it my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so.” That from Federal Minister of Industry James Moore who is also the Member of Parliament for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam. He says it’s the responsibility of the provinces to deal with child poverty, and Ottawa has no plans to step in....

Then, there was this response from Mr. Moore via that Newswatchy aggregatorish-type guy.
where he says the quote is out of context. 

While thanks to the magic of technology here is the actual quote. or you can go here (I suspect that the quote link will be taken down by the radio station very soon, (they are supporters of the Federal Government and will not want this quote to stay up long) Notice how moore laughs at the idea of helping feed children. (His comments are at the end of the tape which is about 1: 10 seconds lon)

The mainstream media is reporting that moore has apologized and is accepting that apology. I do not. Here is the apology from the press:

But on Monday, he issued a statement that backtracked categorically.

"Caring for each other is a Canadian ethic that I strongly believe in — always have and always will. Of course poverty is an issue that concerns me, and concerns all Canadians," he said.

Moore said that "all levels of government, indeed all members of our society" need to show compassion for those in need.

"Great work has been done to tackle poverty and the challenges associated with poverty. And while more work is needed, I know the cause of fighting poverty is not helped by comments like those I made last week.

"For that, I am sorry."

A careful reading of his comment is that he is still feels he is not responsible for helping others in need, His comment reflects that he believes governments need to show compassion, but it does not reflect that he personally needs to show compassion (conservatives seem to like to pass the buck, rather than take personal responsibility, moore is no exception in this regard.) 

His comments also reflect that he is sorry that his comment made the cause of fighting poverty harder (I suspect he has only apologized since the press picked up the original story otherwise he would not have attacked the reporter when she broke the story to say that she had taken the quote out of context.) james moore is another conservative politician who would not know the truth if it was starring him in the face . I believe that he is still heartless and does not deserve to be an MP representing me.

Ten things Stephen Harper hopes you forget by 2015

As we move closer to 2015 this article posted in June is important to Federal Politics, what else would Harper want us to forget, the list is longer and keeps growing. Canadian voters are not as stupid as Harper thinks, I hope.

Ten things Stephen Harper hopes you forget by 2015 Posted on Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 5:05 am by Michael Harris

Tyranny, the arbitrary exercise of power by a government, usually pads up behind you in stocking feet. It has to. In a democracy, stealth is the only way it can succeed.

But in Canada these days, it pokes you in the chest with an index finger while shoving you backwards with the other hand. As it turns out, Blaise Pascal might have been right: mankind can get used to anything, including the breathless loss of democratic freedoms when the usurping party masquerades as strong, competent government. Six years in to Harper rule, blue eyes and mascara

1. Bill C-38 is the first thing Stephen Harper hopes you forget in time for the next election. It is passing through parliament like an institutional kidney stone the size of the Ritz. Wags in Ottawa who briefly portrayed it for what it is, the demise of parliament, are already slipping into discount mode. There have been omnibus bills before, they say; all’s fair in love, war and politics, they say; why, it’s just Elizabeth May’s slumber party, that’s all. Bottom of Form

2. The PM also hopes Canadians will forget 20,000 police on Canadian streets during the obscenely expensive G-8 and G-20 meetings of 2010. In Toronto, the guys in the riot gear would have done Hosni Mubarak proud. The security arrangements included kettling, beatings, unlawful arrests, and other examples of excessive force not normally associated with Canada.  According to the Office of the Independent Police Review (the sort of office Harper has done away with at CSIS) there was no legal justification for arbitrary searches by police and the debacle ended with the largest mass arrests in Canadian history. And now we find out that one of the threats to national security identified by Canadian Forces was “embarrassment to the Government.”

3. Mr. Harper hopes you forget the F-35, an unprecedented fiscal, military, and political fiasco brought to you by a corrupt military procurement system in the U.S. and a rogue DND in this country unchecked by the civilian side. Too many zeros on the cheque is the government’s best defense; that, and the availability of robots like Julian Fantino, who will apparently read anything that is put in his hands. The public money about to be wasted is unimaginably staggering and on that account meaningless – or so the government hopes. But lying about the program’s costs to the tune of at least $10-billion, as the Harper government has done, is different. It offends the stuff they taught in Sunday School. People get that.

4. The Harper government would like you to forget that the Liberals in Canada haven’t been the only fiscal drunken sailors of Confederation. Only once in the 20th century did a Conservative government balance the budget – Robert Borden in 1912, thanks to a surplus handed to him by Sir Wilfred Laurier. By the next year, Borden was back into deficit. So far, the Conservatives have repeated the feat once again in the 21st century, in 2006. This time the surplus was inherited from Paul Martin. Within a year, the government was back at the job of building the largest deficit in our history.

5. It would also be convenient for you to forget that Stephen Harper once promised that he would not change the Old Age Security system to fight the deficit. He did just that. Stephen Harper doesn’t want to meet his Solange Denis, but certainly not because he has any idea of backing down the way Mulroney did. He’d rather you just forgot about it.

6. As he would like you to forget about the Accountability Act, that dress rehearsal for better Tory governance that never went into production. Other politicians give you their word, Stephen Harper gives wording. His gift as a rhetorical trickster has rarely been more in evidence than in the voluminous charade known as the Accountability Act. Duff Conacher, the founder of Democracy Watch, has graded this piece of legislation appropriately – a belly-flop from the high-diving board of political BS. It features a commitment to language and an aversion to acting on the language that conjures up the PM’s greasy undermining of the Atlantic Accord. Best forgotten.

7. It would also be appreciated by the Harper government if you took a nice long drink from the Lethe on the subject of what used to be called federal/provincial relations. The prime minister has eschewed a meeting with the premiers like a man making a detour around a leper colony. In Mulroney’s day, the view was that consensus was the only way for the country to compete and prosper. That’s what his National Economic Conference and fourteen First Ministers’ gatherings were all about. Stephen Harper’s idea of a meeting of the minds is his mind and a lot of stenographers. Just ask Jim Flaherty’s provincial counterparts on the matter of health transfers.

8. It would also be nice if you could forget that the Harper government’s first instinct on regulating the Internet was giving police the right to snoop into the private lives of Canadians without warrants. This they called law and order. Government, the hapless Vic Toews assured us, has business in the computers of the nation. And if you didn’t see it that way, you stood with the child pornographers. Yes, exactly the way that you were a subversive radical if you had misgivings about the government’s lust to build pipelines, leaky or otherwise, while paying lip service to environmental issues.
9. The government would be especially grateful if you could just let slip into oblivion that whole unfortunate incident about the beautification of Tony Clement’s cottage-country riding, that exercise in rural renewal that came at the small price of misleading parliament and misappropriating money – from the Border Patrol Agency to the Conservative Party of Canada. And if you are good enough to forget that slushy little fact, the government would be doubly grateful: that way you might not wonder before marking your ballot the next time how this particular fox could have then been put in charge of all those chickens over at Treasury Board
10. Finally, Stephen Harper would really like you to forget that he is a niche prime minister who has consistently served the wealthy and the corporate while “managing” the great unwashed as the problem children of society – the ones who go on strike, who dare to disagree, who expect too much, who cost rather than contribute to the treasury – even if they have spent a life-time doing just that. There is little patience, tolerance, proportional thinking or moral imagination in his government. What there is, spun out of a weird amalgam of Austrian economics and American neo-conservatism

The metamorphosis of democracy into something else begins with forgetfulness and ends with an eerie silence where once there was a multitude of voices.

Inheritance to supplement your pension?

A sad comment on the state of pension planning.


One in six adults relies on inheritance to fund old age By James Hall, Consumer Affairs Editor, The Telegraph, posted 7:00AM GMT 17 Mar 2012


More and more people seem to be banking on the death of a loved one to help get them through their old age. That’s risky, because the high costs of elderly care can erode someone’s savings in their final few years, and an inheritance might shrink as a result,” said Joanne Segars, the NAPF’s (National Association of Pension Funds) chief executive.


The NAPF survey, which was carried out by Populus and based on a group of 2,000 adults, found that people aged between 45 and 54 are the most reliant on inheritance.


A fifth of this age group said that they are banking on a windfall from their parents.


Ms Segars said: “Those a decade or so away from retirement seem to be putting greater store in what might get left to them in a family will, perhaps because their own savings are inadequate. Sadly less than half the workforce is putting anything into a pension, so most people are in for a deep shock and a fall in living standards come retirement.”


She said that regular payments into a workplace pension can make a big difference to retirement pots, “especially with the help of employer contributions and tax breaks”. However she added that a “simpler, more generous state pension should be top of the Government’s to-do list”.


The survey also found that 8 per cent of people are relying winning the lottery to fund their retirement.


Meanwhile, almost one in seven people who is already a member of a workplace scheme said that they are not confident that they will have enough money to live off in retirement.


When there are very little options people rely on chasing the rainbow. If governments wanted to help they would make access to Old Age Pension and Canada Pension easier, not harder. Steven Harper vision of Canada is not one that most Canadians agree with, but that fact only makes his determination stronger.


He,  I think, believes that Canadians are not smart enough to know what is in their best interest so it is his job to provide for us. Religious Zealots are dangerous. Most Canadians do not trust his government.


A poll taken before the budget found that 49 per cent of Canadians are preparing for a "bad news" budget from federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and that 57 per cent do not "trust" Harper and the Conservatives to make the "right choices" to ensure the budget is "fair and reasonable."


As well, more than two-thirds of Canadians oppose the view that the country needs to "sacrifice" pensions to keep taxes down or increase the retirement age to control rising pension system costs.


"If he moves on pensions, it's going to get nasty," Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker said in an interview Friday.


Bricker said it's clear the government has "conditioned" the public for a tough budget and that Canadians won't be expecting tax cuts or a message of "sunshine and celebration" from Flaherty.


But it has failed to prepare the public for the political time bomb - on pension cuts - that seems ready to explode.


The issue was unexpectedly catapulted to the top of the country's political agenda in January when Harper announced in a speech in Davos, Switzerland, that the future costs of the pension system would be scaled back to keep it affordable.


Since then, the government has increased the eligibility age for Old Age Security (OAS), which provides benefits for people once they turn 65. and the OAS eligibility will be increased gradually to 67.



Still, the poll shows Canadians have not been persuaded by Harper. Among the highlights:

• 70 per cent of Canadians disagree with the statement that "social programs, seniors' pensions, and other benefits in Canada are more generous than we can afford to pay for."
• 70 per cent also disagree with the statement that "we need to keep taxes down, even if it means we have to sacrifice in terms of seniors' pensions and other social benefits."
• 68 per cent disagree with the statement that "given the financial pressures on Canada's public pension system, it is necessary to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67."

The telephone poll of 1,012 adults occurred Feb. 13-20. It has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.




Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Canadians+want+pension+changes+poll/6318290/story.html#ixzz1pQuZltSp

Silence is not an option

Taxes filed feeling blue

So Income Tax has just been paid or you are thinking you will have to pay it by the end of the day. I found the following interesting and a sad commentary about the spread between the rich and the rest of us in Canada.


If Romney were filing Canadian taxes, we estimate he would have paid even less, even though Canada’s tax rates are generally considered to be substantially higher than the U.S. Running the U.S. numbers on a Canadian return, assuming no foreign currency adjustment and assuming his dividends would be Canadian dividends had he lived in Canada, Romney would have paid $2,973,021 of Canadian federal tax in 2011 on his $20.9-million of income, which translates to an effective federal tax rate of only 14.2%, more than a percentage off the 15.4% he is forecast to pay.


Romney and other rich Americans and Canadians are able to pay a lower tax rate because of how investment income is taxed as well as the value of the charitable donation tax credit.


In Canada, dividend income is eligible for a dividend tax credit while capital gains are only half taxable. In other words, for a top income earner, Canadian dividends are taxed a top federal rate of only 17.72% (2011) while capital gains for a high income earner would be taxed at half the top marginal tax rate or 14.5% (i.e. 50% X 29%). Charitable donations above $200 are eligible for a 29% federal donation tax credit.


When we consider that Romney’s 2011 income was made up of US$3.1-million in dividends and $10.7-million worth of capital gains, combined with $4-million of charitable gifts, it’s possible to see how Romney or, for that matter, anyone who earns the bulk of their income from investments, ends up paying very little tax.


The Romney story also serves as an important reminder of the difference between your marginal tax rate, which is the amount of tax you pay on each additional (“marginal”) dollar of income above a certain level and your effective tax rate, calculated by dividing your tax liability by your income.

For most Canadians, your average tax rate is significantly lower than your marginal tax rate, especially if the bulk of your income comes from tax-preferred investments. (My thoughts, most Canadians I know, do not have the bulk of their income coming from tax-referred investments so I suspect that the marginal and the effecting tax rate is not as low as the rich in Canada.)


But the last word goes to Romney himself. As he said in Monday’s debate on the eve of releasing his tax returns, “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more … Will there be discussion? Sure. Will it be an article? Yeah. But is it entirely legal and fair? Absolutely.”

(Sorry, but I  have to disagree, yes it is legal, but this system is very far away from being fair. Perhaps the bankers and others, think this system is fair, but they are wrong as the system penalizes the poor because they cannot use the taxloopholes the rich uses and makes a mockery out of the idea of a progressive tax system.)

Jamie Golombek, CA, CPA, CFP, CLU, TEP is the Managing Director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Private Wealth Management in Toronto Source:  Financial Post

Criminalizing Abortion--Motion 312 Action Alert!

While the F35 debate takes up the small minds of the main stream media, the cons continue to move Canadians back to a different time. The cons talk abot Canadian values being important, while at the same time, they distort and continue to try and destroy and reshape our values to fit their image of Canada. One of the core Canadian values is the right of a person to choose.

So while the main stream media dance around the F35 debate as the press fight to stay one step ahead in the fight to win the 24 hour news cycle, the cons and their supporters have opened the abortion debate and try to reframe this issue.

Some progressives believe that it is ok to engage in the discussion about abortion, the cons are proposing,  they are wrong. Those who think that by having this conversation they are being open minded and supporting the right of free speech, don't be fooled, this is part of a long term strategy to outlaw abortion in Canada. Having the convesation allows the right to start to re-frame the discussion in the way they want to frame it, and that reframing cannot be allowed.

We have laws that limit free speech for a reason and we are not allowed to yell fire in a theater or a closed space if there is not a fire. There are times in a democratic society when we limit free speech, this is one of those times.

Others have written on this topic and I urge you to read them (links are included here. First start by reading the following which is from the abortion rights coalition of Canada website. Their message is important for all of us to listen to and to act upon.

The Woodshed, Dammit Janet, Creative Revoluton, Dr. Dawg along with many others, all have great posts on the issue of choice and abortion, which I found interesting and useful. .  

A dangerous motion has been accepted for debate in Parliament. Motion 312 (see full wording on Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's website) calls for a Parliamentary Committee to examine whether the Criminal Code definition of "human being" should be expanded to include fetuses. This threatens to give legal personhood to fetuses and allow the re-criminalization of abortion, as well as deny the constitutional rights of all pregnant women.

The motion is scheduled for one hour of debate on April 26, with a further debate and vote in June or possibly the fall. We must ensure this motion is defeated! Please sign our petition, send a letter to your MP, knit a uterus or vulva for your MP, or start or join an action.

• Petition, Sample Letters, Postcards
• Counter Arguments and Commentary
• Actions
• The Anti-choice Agenda

The bloggers at Creative Revolution and Dammit Janet present compelling reasons for us to take action. Their words are from the heart, please read them and once you have take action to stop this insanity.
Creative Revolution said on April 5th:
Harper has sworn, up and down. Sideways. That the abortion debate will not be opened again in Canada.

But his MP's, members of his party that he has such control over in everything else have other ideas.

It's time to pay up the debt to the religious right, the fanatics who have helped them get into power.

And part of that would be criminalizing abortion.

Dammit Janet said on April 4th:
Wanna fight back?

Here is ARCC's action page opposing Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion to Strip Women of Hard-Won Rights, with everything you need to fight back.

There's a link to the petition, which has just zoomed past 6900 signatures.

Link to downloadable and printable postcards to send to MPs, complete with link to an MP finder.

And there's a link to a Facebook page called 'Wombswarm Parliament' (that I can't get into because I hate Facebook), based on this US website that we blogged about here.

I also agree with Cathie from Canada  and Orwell's Bastard who said on April 5th:
I am not going to "debate" about the notion of fetal rights or when life begins or whether or not women have the right to control their own bodies. That's done. Anything that purports to "reopen" such a question needs to be seen for exactly what it is: a transparent attempt to reassert patriarchal control over women's sexuality and reproductive autonomy.

Anyone who wants to have that "conversation" can go fuck themselves.

The Woodshed said on April 7th:
As my esteemed colleague Dr. Dawg has put it, there are can be nuances in the abortion debate - things like the role of public funding in a private health care system and parental notification for underage girls come to mind - , but there are no grey areas in a woman's right to choose. Not to get all philosophical on you dear reader, but She either has it or She doesn't, and I defy you to prove any human does not have the right to make a choice, even, or perhaps especially, if the choice is between life and death.

Forget about abortion for a moment and consider the principle of choice more generally. We may not have a legal right to choose what we choose, whether it is the choice to drive over the speed limit, smoke marijuana or machine-gun a bus load of nuns, but we can make a choice to break the law. Some people make a choice to give up their own lives to save others (we call them heroes), others make the choice to defy or obey the law for all sorts of reasons.

We know that women will make a choice about abortion whether the law allows it or not. When it comes to abortion, other than providing an iron-clad absolute legal recognition of this right to make a choice (and thereby rendering the consequences of the choice legally valid), the only possible role any law can take is to restrict the innate right of choice.

In the case of abortion, we know that choice will be made - one way or another - by women every day. So to recognize reality and mitigate possible harm and generally promote the common good, I would argue that the progressive position should be that the state must support the right to choose -- and recognize that it is an absolute right.

Simply put if you have a moral objection to abortion - and I recognize that many do - then by all means don't have an abortion. That is your choice.