Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau has been in more hot water recently than a dishwasher in a restaurant.

            First he promised to close income tax “loopholes” that seemed to give some self-employed and professional taxpayers an unfair advantage. Then his own financial portfolio turned out to have more loopholes than a crocheted doily.

            Face with a well-orchestrated storm of protest, Morneau first refused to back off. Then he offered lower taxes. Then he retreated, while giving away more money.

            I remember when I first started earning enough to pay income tax. I figured out my tax returns myself. They took, as I recall, three pages.

            Then my job moved me to a city where we had to live in an apartment. We rented our house out. We had to pay income tax on the rent we received, but couldn’t deduct the rent we had to pay so that we could receive rent from someone else. When we eventually sold the house, which was no longer a primary residence, it took about two years of meetings and letters to reach a settlement on capital gains.

            Later in life, when I added some freelance income, I still tried to do my own income tax returns. Now they required a dozen pages. I had to hire an accountant to check my work.

            Then the government introduced RRSPs, RESPs, RRIFs, RDSPS, PRPPs, tax-free savings accounts… I haven’t counted the number of pages in my current tax returns, but they make a stapled stack almost a centimetre thick.

            I’m not convinced that even professional accountants fully understand all the 2700 pages of ifs, ands, and maybes in Canadian tax law.

A buck is a buck

            Half a century ago, in 1967, the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation recommended a simple formula: “A buck is a buck.”

            Kenneth Carter, a Toronto accountant, was appointed by the John Diefenbaker government in 1962 to study Canada’s income tax mess. Business leaders argued that the Canadian tax system was “unfair and needed reform” – even though it was vastly simpler then than it is now.

            Five years later, in February of Canada’s Centennial year, Carter presented the government with a revolutionary report.

            It said, basically, that it shouldn’t matter how you earned your income -- hourly wages, salaries, stock market, or real estate speculation. It could be from gambling, or even crime. If you made money, you paid tax on it. Period.

            No exemptions for special interests. And abolition of all the tax privileges the wealthy had accumulated over the years

Inconsistent policies

            Of course, the people – and corporations – who enjoyed those privileges fought back. Diefenbaker chickened out. So did Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.

            Instead, they kept applying patches to an already thread-bare garment.

            Vern Krishna, a professor with the University of Ottawa Law School, says that present federal rules divide income into five sources: office, employment, business, property, and capital gains. “Each is taxed at different rates, according to different rules… determined according to complex rules that apply only to that source.”

            He cites examples: “In 2015, Ontario’s top rate on dividends was 33.82 per cent, whereas interest income was 49.53 per cent [and] capital gains [only] 24.77 per cent, but some capital gains are completely exempt…”

            The present system offers the biggest exemption for crime, which is not taxed at all.

Back to Square 1

            I suggest that the whole system resembles a skyscraper tacked together out of scrap lumber. It needs to be knocked down and rebuilt from fresh blueprints.

            Let’s go back to Carter’s central thesis – a buck is a buck, no matter where it comes from. You calculate your income; you pay a percentage of it to the government.

            And let’s add a further thesis – a person is a person. If a corporation is considered a person under the law, it should also be a person under tax laws, and pay taxes at the same rates that real persons do. If that means corporations have to distribute profits to shareholders, well and good. And if those shareholders are not willing to loan their earnings back to the corporation as working capital, that would suggest to me that the corporation has not earned their confidence.

            Yes, a simpler system might put a lot of accountants out of business. But if they exist solely to help numerically challenged people navigate the shoals and sandbars of government policies, they are just as reliant on government welfare as any street-dweller.

            If Justin Trudeau really wants to level the playing field, I suggest he should re-read the Carter Report.

*******************************************************

Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.

            To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca

********************************************************

YOUR TURN

Last week I sounded off about the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal.

Bob Rollwagen liked the column: “I would give you ‘10 out of 10’ for this commentary, however the TWIT recently altered the understood meaning of this phrase so I can’t use it.  He is one of these creatures that has been totally corrupted by power for decades and brags about it.

            “Power is the basis of the capitalist market system, power through bigger market share rules. A bully can gain market share, but usually only for a short period. In a public space, the consumer can rule by supporting the best supplier and the bully is exposed. 

            “Consent only applies when the choice is balanced between equals. The one with the higher level of power must create balance before exercising a leadership process.”

Isabel Gibson disagreed with my argument that the Weinstein mess wasn’t primarily about sex. “It is about sex,” she wrote, “to the extent that that's the domain in which he exercised his power. After all, he might have gone for money or other favours.

            “But I agree that his power, and that of countless people like him, is the root enabler. This reminds me a bit of a conversation I had with a guy who had operated several fast food joints. He talked about the pervasive stealing by the employees. I took issue and said I had never seen any theft when I worked in that environment. Certainly I never stole anything. He just laughed and said that someone else had gotten my share. So with respect to power, I wonder if it's a fixed amount. If I don't take the power I could, maybe someone else gets my share.”

Stephanie McClellan objected to one part of my criticism: “I am a United Church minister; I love the width and breadth of diversity, thought, dialogue and theology. What continues to disturb me is the way that liberal Christians refuse to be boxed into one category or opinion, and yet box others into theirs. We pride ourselves on being liberated from the sin of prejudice as we stand on the margins with those who are traditionally excluded from typical dialogue and acceptance. However, Liberal Christians continue to promote stereotypes about and denigrate their brothers and sisters of a more conservative or evangelical perspective. That upsets me. 

            “I may have a more conservative theology, or not, but having writers like yourself, who make me think, assume that I would rather get upset about Trump’s pants instead of being upset over a nuclear war -- really? Do we really need to put each other down when there is more than enough in the world to comment on without calling those on a different place in the theological spectrum names? Do we really need to poke and prod each other while we attempt to seek God together?”

            Comments like Stephanie’s help pull me back when I get carried away….

Tom Watson picked up on the same issue: “Isn't it the case that, even though he might not have been caught with his pants down, there have been enough allegations of his using his power in sexual ways against women...yet, the most conservative Christian forces still back him to the hilt? Why is that?

            “Are conservative Christians not mainly supporting him because they exercise power by so doing? And, if they can still presume to decide what a woman should do with her body, through keeping men such as Trump in office irrespective of what he does, isn't that in itself an abuse of power?”

Bruce McGillis takes a different view, that I rather expect will generate some letters of its own: “He used blackmail force – power, a promise of modeling, nice gown, or other. The adult women used blackmail force -- power by participating, to hopefully garner a modeling, gown or other

            “Unless a woman is in high sexual heat, unwittingly drugged, or somehow threatened or possibly tied up, it is nigh impossible to rape her. [So] I would say it was consensual. I suspect these were experienced women and knew what they doing. Women, like men, play sexual power games.”

Steve Lawson: “I was with you almost until the end when you mentioned 'intention'. Then I began to question, not you, but myself, and my understanding of both intention and good power, if there is such a thing. I had just finished reading Teilhard de Chardin's comments about intention, and I quote: ‘A good intention is of paramount importance -- you must let the clear spring-water of purity of intention flow into your work.....cleanse your intention, and the least of your actions will be filled with God.’ This, for me, is good power, as is the power of love and compassion.”

Dave Buckna challenged my claim that if Jesus had supernatural power, he didn’t use it: “What??? There are several examples in the New Testament where Jesus used his supernatural power. E.g. healing a man of leprosy, healing the blind, raising Lazarus from the dead, and even raising his own body from the dead!”

Bev Ireland tried to respond about the previous week’s column on the Las Vegas shooting, but got blocked by our technical malfunction: “I just wanted to point out that many animals do kill for reasons other than for food. My cat likes to torment mice and enjoys watching them suffer. My dog sought out garter snakes and shook the daylights out of them. There have been reported attacks by big cats on little dogs and even humans. Perhaps we are more like animals than we would like to admit.”

********************************************

TECHNICAL STUFF

If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the ‘Reply’ button.

            To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.

            My webpage is up and running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca

            I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca

********************************************

PROMOTION STUFF…

To use the links in this section, you’ll have to insert the necessary symbols.

            Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at wwwDOTsinghallelujahDOTca

            Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://wwwDOThymnsightDOTca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)

            Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://wwwDOTchurchwebcanadaDOTca>

            I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, wwwDOTtraditionaliconoclastDOTcom

            Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawoodATgmailDOTcom to get onto her mailing list.

            Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatsoATgmailDOTcom or twatsonATsentexDOTnet