The Gospel of Luke tells us that
Zacchaeus was a tax collector. A Jew, he had become wealthy by
performing the tax-collection role . . . and probably by inflating
the amount owed and pocketing the difference. Romans administered
Palestine; paying soldiers, repairing roads and aqueducts cost money,
taxes had to be paid.
Resistance to paying taxes and
animosity toward those that collect it aren't new by any means. Most
of our other expenditures are accompanied by personal choice whereas
taxes are forced upon us by law and the penalties for avoidance can
be severe. Personal expenditures bring tangible benefits: food,
clothing, shelter and any number of gadgets, gizmos and services that
make our lives demonstrably better; tax money provides benefits, of
course, but the relationship between our paying and government
purchasing is far from obvious.
Knowing when we've personally spent
foolishly becomes obvious rather quickly, but certainty about whether
or not our tax dollars are being wisely managed is not easily
reached. Conjecture, rumour, political propaganda and the complexity
of government these days all conspire to muddy the water.
In Canada today, we're taxed on three
levels and the entities that demand that we pay up compete with each
other for their share. What is each level's fair share isn't
obvious: municipal governments have to create and repair streets and
roads, water and sewer services, etc.; provincial governments tax for
highways, education and health care, etc.; and the federal government
is responsible—theoretically—for all the stuff that we have in
common from coast to coast to coast, like defence, international
relations, trade, etc. Imagine sorting out the “fairness” aspect
of who is responsible for what, where the margins of jurisdiction
ought to be and, by extension, what makes for a fair taxation regime
for each.
And then there are the questions of
fairness in the collection of taxes: how much tax should be assigned
to consumption (GST, PST), how much to production (corporate taxes,
resource exploitation taxes), how much to wealth (property, for instance), how much to incomes (personal income
tax), and in the case of the latter, how much weight should be given
to ability to pay. Should every person pay the same amount (as was
likely the case when Zacchaeus made his collection rounds) or should
only those who earn enough to have money left over when basic needs
are met be required to pay income tax?
It's no wonder that the debate about
taxes degenerates into a simplistic “which party promises the
lowest taxes.” It's not about low or high taxation, it's about
judicious, fair taxation that provides the benefits we deem necessary
for reasonable levels of security, health and infrastructure from time
to time. If a federal party promises $15 daycare, do we or don't we
agree that early childhood care of that kind is critical enough to
add the cost of it to the tax bill? Do we believe that bombing ISIS
positions is a good use of tax dollars? Should education be paid for
by taxes or by individuals, and if the former, should taxes pay for
education all the way up to doctorate degrees? In a time of
burgeoning pensioner numbers, is it fair to tax the income earners
higher and higher in order to ensure seniors' well-being? Should
health care respond to need only and not to ability to pay,
especially when recognizing that universal health care adds a humongous amount to the tax burden? These are the kinds of debates
that need to be had before any conclusion about fair taxation can be
settled.
And then there's the deficit/balanced
budget question. Estimates of Canada's current debt load run from 700
billion to 1.2 trillion. Taking the low number and dividing that by
the population, that works out to about $20,000 per person, or
$80,000 per family of four. Only elementary school arithmetic is
required to determine that if debt is mounting, taxation is not
keeping up to spending. To remedy this, spending must be decreased or
taxation raised. If we agree that we're getting the right amount of
services from our governments, it follows that Canada and the
provinces have been under-taxing their citizens and corporations for
years. Low taxation levels may be job-creators, but they may at the
same time be country, province, city or rural municipality cripplers.
It's a wise party indeed that can
judiciously balance the right level of services with taxation, and it
needs an informed and thoughtful public to choose that party to run
the country. Promises of low taxes don't constitute policy, they are
electioneering shibboleths. It's discussion around what-services-and-at-what-level that need to happen. The willingness to pay for
them under—grant you—a fair taxation regime is really where
it's at.
No comments:
Post a Comment