What would play better with British Columbians, after all the obvious problems alluded to above have finally been admitted to exist, is how any of those who are contending to govern us are going to deal with them.

If we were to demand an answer to that, I think it would very quickly be revealed that the ‘policy’ of ALL the current contenders is exactly the same. And the only difference amongst them is in the ‘method’ by which it will be imposed on us.

Put simply, that ‘policy’ is:-

1. A ‘balanced budget’. Which perpetuates the myth that we are going to be fully paying FOR what we’re doing FROM what we’re doing in any same fiscal period, and the provincial debt isn’t growing larger at all, let alone exponentially larger. A look at the ‘figures’ is all it should take to explode that myth. Which should cause us to ask just what does a ‘balanced budget’ REALLY mean anyways? And why, if our material progress and wealth therefrom is indeed advancing, why do we not have a proper set of government books that shows this? Why do we see only the ‘Liabilities’ (provincial debt) and never the ‘Assets’ and OUR growing ‘Equity’. (On which, in a private business, we would be receiving dividends.)?

2. The obfuscation of ‘jobs’ and ‘incomes’, with emphasis placed on having “full employment” as the great cure-all to every economic woe.

Any country that NEEDS to have 100% of its available workforce working to provide for 100% of the goods and services its citizens need and desire is a hopelessly inefficient country.

Any country that says this workforce must work harder and longer and be more productive, when we can’t even SELL all it produces now ~ and would only glut markets even further by making ‘more’, (because even though the cost per item may be reduced, there are now ‘more’ items to sell, and it is the TOTAL cost of ALL of them that still has to be liquidated.)

3. The continual fallacy that ‘higher prices’ is a sign of ‘prosperity’, and everything and anything that induces them is wonderful. It is wonderful, for politicians. Because it divides one segment of the community against the other, as each fights for a greater share of an artificial scarcity (of ‘money’)needed to maintain a standard of living for themselves. A standard quite physically attainable to even a higher level than now, but one whose costs can’t be ever currently sustainably met from the incomes, or profits, they are getting.

And for the voters, stop being so gullible and believing that we can have a full service government which takes care of everyone from cradle to grave while at the same time having low taxes and/or no tax increases to pay for it.

If voters want low taxes, it’s time to expect a lot less from the Government. But I can’t see that happening any time soon.

With respect to number 5 above comes this data from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

A Decade of Diminishing Tax Fairness, 2000 to 2010

• In 2000, most BC households paid about the same total tax rate, with households in the top 10% and top 1% paying a little more.
• By 2010, however, the tax system had become regressive, with the richest 20% of households paying a lower total tax rate than the rest of us.

This regressive tax shift was driven by the following:
• Large income tax cuts primarily benefited upper-income earners, both in dollar terms and as a share of income.
• Combined, tax cuts delivered an average of over $9,200 per year to the richest 10% of BC households, and more than $41,000 to the top 1%. In contrast, lower income households received an average tax cut of $200 per year, and those in middle got just over $1,200.

BC’s Regressive Tax Shift
• As a share of income, this translates into a 3.6% savings for the richest 10%, and a 5.1% savings for the top 1%. For the bottom half of households, in contrast, the tax cut benefit was about 1% of income.
• BC now relies more heavily on regressive taxes: MSP premiums, the carbon tax, and sales taxes. These taxes hit lower- and middle-income households harder.

Changes in tax policy have shifted the provincial revenue mix:
• Between 2000 and 2010, the share of provincial government revenues coming from personal income taxes dropped by nearly one third.
• The province now collects more revenues from sales taxes (28% of revenues) than from personal income taxes (27% of revenues).
• BC families now contribute more in MSP premiums than businesses contribute in corporate income taxes. British Columbians pay for tax cuts in reduced public services:
• Between 2000 and 2010, BC’s tax revenues fell by 1.7% of GDP (the size of the province’s economy). That may sound like a small change, but it’s equivalent to $3.4 billion. Meaning, if we’d kept our tax system the same, we’d have $3.4 billion more to spend on needed public services today.

“If voters want low taxes, it’s time to expect a lot less from the Government”

I am not sure whether voters want lower taxes. I think voters want fairer taxes. By that I mean taxes more akin to the way the tax burden was distributed in the past.

There is a very valid reason why the general perception is that the government is in the pocket of the corporations. The statistical facts seem to reflect the intuitive feeling of the general public.

Has it created more jobs? I doubt it.

Are more jobs necessary? I doubt it. Here I side with some of Socredible’s line of thinking. In fact, countreis like Germany have not necessarily created MORE jobs, they have created BETTER COMPENSATED jobs and taxing in such a way to support those who have no jobs since not everyone has the same capacity to work in some of the high reliability, knowledge and skilled positions.

JB states; “And for the voters, stop being so gullible and believing that we can have a full service government which takes care of everyone from cradle to grave while at the same time having low taxes and/or no tax increases to pay for it.”

With a child poverty rate at 18.6%, I don’t think we are living in a nanny state JB, and that should make you happy?

Aren’t resolutions suppose to be positive? These resolutions all start with a negative: “don’t”, “avoid” and “stop”. A sure recipe for failure.

The report on child poverty was prepared by the child and youth advocacy group First Call. According to them, the child poverty rate rose from 14.3 per cent in 2010 to 18.6 per cent in 2011. It used the agency’s low-income cutoffs before tax as a measure of poverty.

However, when the calculation is based on after-tax income, First Call’s report for 2011 puts B.C.’s child poverty rate at 11.3 per cent.

It is true that no matter what the rate, 1%, 10%, 20%, the child poverty rate in BC is the highest or second highest in the country, depending on the year it was measured.

From page 7 of the report:
“In 2011, British Columbia continued to have a dismal record in its child poverty rate and its poverty rate for all persons, using data from the annual Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID).

“The child poverty rate rose from 14.3 per cent in 2010 to 18.6 per cent in 2011, using Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-Offs (LICOs) before tax as a measure of poverty. On this measure one in five BC children were poor — the highest rate of any province.

“The number of poor children in BC was 153,000 — enough children to fill the Canucks’ stadium over eight times.

“The child poverty rate using Statistics Canada’s LICOs after income taxes rose from 10.5 per cent in 2010 to 11.3 per cent in 2011. On this measure, BC was tied with Manitoba for the worst record among provinces.

“The number of poor BC children in 2011 using the after-tax rate was 93,000.”

So, the after tax rate is the more important one since every province has different tax rates plus rebates which may be given. It is also true that every province has different sales tax rates. I understand that there are local indexes which reflect the impact of other costs such as housing, transportation, etc.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/reality-check-b-c-s-child-poverty-rate-1.1307393

From the above link: “Montani of First Call says B.C.’s child poverty rate was also high under the NDP in the 1990s.
“I don’t question motivations. Everybody says they care about child poverty. But nobody has made substantial progress,” Montani said.

“The policy changes, the income support, the supports for working families, like childcare — the things that would make a difference, and lift people out of poverty, have not been implemented.”

For those who are not shy to see not only how we are doing in BC and in Canada, and want to look at the USA, for instance, here is a quick look at the Philadelphia region.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-11-27/news/44490133_1_child-poverty-rate-deep-poverty-bernardine-center

Deleware County child-poverty rate of 16.7 percent

In Philadelphia, the child-poverty rate in 2012 was 36.8 percent

Then there is this one from the entire USA:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-kids/by-the-numbers-childhood-poverty-in-the-u-s

Only three other countries in the developed world have a higher child poverty rate than the U.S., according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Mexico leads all nations with a rate of 25.79,
followed by Chile (23.95),
Turkey (23.46), and the U.S. (21.63).

To me, throwing out a figure means nothing. To me, one has to understand the reasons for FAMILY poverty, young, middle years as well as seniors. There are international differences among the developed countries, there are provincial differences within Canada, and there are urban and regional differences within BC.

The issue has not been tackled in BC for decades. It is time more people understood the issues and that more people who can do something about it understood how to provide help as well as help themselves.

It is time to de-politicize the issue and make some decisions of how to reverse the trend. In my mind a good start would be to remove sales taxes for those who have after tax incomes below the poverty line.

According to UNICEF the poverty rates are much higher than reported by First Call.

Words from UNICEF Canada site:

“Canada’s investments in child benefits have had a significant impact.

“Canada’s child poverty rate is 26 per cent before taxes and transfers. Only 6 of 35 countries had higher pre-tax poverty rates.

“After taxes and transfers, child poverty in Canada is cut by about half, to 14 percent.

“Canada’s tax and transfer policies are moderately effective in contrast to other affluent countries.”

http://www.unicef.ca/en/discover/article/unicef-report-card-10

With such a huge difference between UNICEF and First Call, it indicates to me that we need a consistent measurement methodology or the methodology has to be identified clearly before one can even deal with solutions.

I have 3 children at home, I make less than the ‘poverty line’ so my dependents are part of those measured in the child poverty index. Because we are self employed my partner makes a substantial amount more on paper. The kids are definitely not poverty stricken unless not getting those 150 dollar shoes is considered living in poverty, they get driven to school and back and don’t even rife the bus.

The question would be how much of those child poverty cases are not actually living in ‘poverty’? Everyone on welfare who has kids are part of the child poverty equation, including those on disability.

Don’t get me wrong, there are real cases of poverty, but some of those kids are better taken care of then mine no doubt. A lot of it boils down to parental priorities imo

ride not rife (is rife a word? doesn’t come up red…?)

I think your are on the right track. curmudgeonscurse

Here is the way I am used to approaching it.

Motions of a committee, board, council, etc. should be framed in the affirmative.

There are no principles for personal resolutions such as New Year’s resolutions that I am aware of. The main thing is that there is an action word and that it is measurable. Words such as “stop” are action words and are measurable.

Example, “stop ad hominem attacks”. That is measurable. So is “avoid ad hominem attacks”

The problem is with action words such as “try”. All one has to show that one tried to get a positive measure as a result. “try to stop ad hominem attacks” us a weasel resolution. ;-)

Taxes that attempt to re-distribute incomes are bound to fail, since what’s being attempted is still the re-distribution of an overall ‘insufficiency’. Of ‘money’ itself still in the hands of the general public.

And no matter how you try to do that, an overall ‘insufficiency’ cannot ever make an overall ‘sufficiency’ long term. Not through taxation.

The child poverty rates in the USA are about right gus, and they are high because of inequitable income and wealth distribution.

This is a Youtube video about wealth distribution in the USA, which Canada is rapidly following.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Insanity is the only word that describes the current situation, supported as evidence by the growing number of children in poverty!

Interesting video, People#1. I notice it stops short of just how to achieve the ‘ideal’ distribution of wealth, and once achieved, maintain it.

But the inference seems to be that we should have some ‘authority’ that plays Robin Hood, and takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

Overlooking the fact that even Robin and his Merrie Men had overheads, and more was always taken from the rich than was given to the poor, it also begs a few other questions.

The video seems to promote the idea that ‘money’ and ‘wealth’ are one and the same. Are they? Just because some multi-billionaire has Assets that are ‘valued’ at some obscenely gross dollar amount, he must have that much in actual ‘money’. Does he?

Has he a tangible pile of cash somewhere, like Disney’s Scrooge McDuck and his Money Bin, perhaps? Or at very least a bank account with that much on deposit? One that the relevant ‘authority’ could simply make a withdrawal from, through the medium of taxation, and apportion out to those in need.

But is that scenario, however superficially desirable it may seem to most people, at least those not in the upper strata of possessiveness, an accurate picture of the reality?

Billionaire H. Ross Perot, back a couple of decades ago when he was an independent contender for US President, (briefly ~ he chickened out before the election), mentioned in one of his televised addresses that if the total wealth of all the US billionaires were taken from them, (if it could be, if they actually held it in ‘money’, not Assets ‘valued’ in money), and was re-distributed amongst all Americans equally, it would amount to a one time payment to every American of around $ 20,000.

Nice to receive, no doubt, but would THAT cure poverty?

I hardly think so. And that’s an equal distribution of the ‘capital’.

Any equal distribution of the ‘income’ therefrom is going to be way, way, smaller. And hardly likely to lift the population classed as poor much beyond the present miserable financial status they’re stuck in to any great or lasting degree.

Of course many could no doubt get some solace in seeing the ‘wealthy’ laid low ~ misery does like company ~ but universalising it does not end poverty.

There is a solution to the pernicious problem of poverty. That can be applied in any country where poverty is primarily ‘financial’, and only secondarily ‘physical’. Which is, in essence, any modern industrial country which has the actual capacity to ‘produce’ more than it needs or desires to ‘consume’. We certainly qualify here in Canada, as does the USA. And it’s a solution that DOESN’T involve the RE-distribution of ‘money’ through taxation.

‘Wealth’ itself would be virtually impossible to re-distribute equally in any meaningful manner, since most of it constitutes physical assets comprising the ‘means of production’. Whereas what is desired is the ‘production’ itself.

What is more important to your actual ‘well-being’ ~ co-owning an equal portion of an oil well, or an auto-factory with all your fellow citizens, ala some socialist worker’s paradise, or actually having a car and the gasoline to run it? What did most people have in those socialist worker’s paradises?

Any practical solution will involve dropping the inane notion of ‘equality’, and replacing it with an entirely realisable one of ‘sufficiency’. For all. Which will vary broadly, because we are NOT, nor ever could be, (other than before the law, ideally), all physically ‘equal’. We each have different needs and desires.

Stripped down to its basics, it would remove a great deal of the presently perceived necessity to always have ‘more’ than one actually needs in order to have a sense of economic security. Which is the underlying driving force behind such distorted wealth distribution.

This is the same phenomenon that causes people to flock to the ticket counters when 6/49 or Super Lotto has an unusually high jackpot. Most would have some difficulty actually spending all of a $ 10 million prize, let alone a $ 100 million one. But the idea is that with $ 100 million, you could spend $ 10 million and not even miss it, and still have absolute economic security. Whereas with $ 10 million you can’t quite “have your cake and eat it too.” We have, or could easily create, enough ‘wealth’ to give everyone absolute economic security. Why we don’t is mostly ‘financial’ ~ and all the laws governing ‘finance’ are man-made ones, readily changeable with the knowledge and will to do so.

“Any practical solution will involve dropping the inane notion of ‘equality’, and replacing it with an entirely realisable one of ‘sufficiency’”.

You preach that over and over again socredible but you never tell us where this has been achieved or how it can be achieved.

You are quite right, people should be and quite likely most would be quite content if they knew that they were secure in their life. No thirst, no hunger, protection from the elements, no wars, no unwarranted arrest, bullying of seniors, etc.

So, since I like to apply the maxim of adopt, adapt or develop, I ask you:

1.Where is there a system like that which works perfectly so that we can adopt it;
2.Barring perfection or adoptability to our social setting, how can we adapt it to make it work perfectly for us; or

3.How could we develop it if it does not exist in some state of perfection or semi-perfection?

You need to get out of a philosophy of personal well-being and move to the realm of applying the theory to the practical world.

I suspect the system existed here when people from other parts of the world came looking for spices from the far east to preserve their unrefrigerated foods or make the food on the verge of spoiling taste better.

Then again, there was no real sufficiency then either, was there? There were times of famine, times of poor protection from the elements, times of territorial disputes, times of insecurity of person, etc.

Just as then, it continues to be a concern of many. In relative terms, it is a fact of life. Then it was food, today it is having the latest smart phone. If you do not have one, you are in utter poverty.

BTW, the graph in the video is missing one major element, that threshold of sufficiency.

I picture it as both a horizontal line depicting basic human needs as well as a curved line depicting increasing human wants based, in a large part, on social status.

I believe the fallacy is in measuring the middle class or any class in economic terms alone. As with any system, it has to be fully integrated, and in the human case it needs to include the three legs of the stool – economic, social, and environmental.

Socredible wrote:

“if the total wealth of all the US billionaires were taken from them …. and was re-distributed amongst all Americans equally, it would amount to a one-time payment to every American of around $ 20,000.

Nice to receive, no doubt, but would THAT cure poverty?”

I think we throw the word poverty around like it was one common condition. It is not. Especially if we wish to include the notion of sufficiency.

Here is some further clarification of the nature of poverty I think we have to keep in mind when speaking about poverty:

1.Poverty = a range from extreme want of necessities to an absence of material comforts

2.Indigence = seriously distressed circumstances

3.Destitution = extreme poverty that threatens life itself through starvation or exposure.

The absence of poverty is what? Wealth? Affluence? Prosperity? Fortune?

Does the absence of poverty provide sufficiency? How about happiness?

For those living in the USA, they are used to the phrase which was born out of the oppression of living under a British governance:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.”

There is no guarantee of wealth, nor of the absence of poverty. In fact, there is not even the guarantee of happiness …. just that one has the freedom to pursue it.