Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED -- The “middle class” concept is worthy of our raspberries, sneers and snorts


The prospect of any government catering to a specific class of Canadians is an affront to our social principles of fairness and equality. Our Charter holds that we are all equal before, and under, the law ... and tax laws are not excluded.

The current Income Tax Act (ITA), last amended June 21st, 2019 runs to 3,281 pages. That is insane. The last major revision to the ITA was in 1985. In the 34 years since, there have been countless amendments resulting in a volume of law far too lengthy -- and complex -- for any person to read and interpret accurately.
 

“Middle Class” is a deliberately vague euphemism intended to deflect criticism of government policy. The government cannot be accused of failing to ensure prosperity for a group that cannot be defined. Since we have a government Minister to oversee an intangible, we can surmise that her real role is to pump out propaganda telling us how well we are treated by her government.

The “middle class” concept is worthy of our raspberries, sneers and snorts. We need to boo and jeer loudly every time the topic is raised. What counts for us is the “net” line on a pay stub; how much is left after taxes and other deductions. That is what we must live on until the next paystub arrives.

Government efforts to manage our incomes are a disaster.

We don’t need bureaucrats to decide that we need a tax rebate because we have children. They grab our money at the pay window, sit on it for a year, reluctantly let us have a little back and expect us to be grateful!

Cut the crap and increase personal deductions for all taxpayers, and increase the tax deduction for children. Don’t confiscate our funds to begin with and allow us to decide how we will spend the funds on our kids.


Government attempts to manage our personal incomes is an outrageous insult. There isn’t a more poorly disciplined fiscal squanderer than governments. If we all spent and borrowed like our governments, we would be bankrupt in short order.

Stop the insanity.

Governments highly tax alcohol and tobacco products as they are not required to sustain life, and are referred to as “sin taxes”. No product should be taxes higher than the federal and provincial sales taxes. Anything more is social engineering and our government has no authority to tax us to change our habits.

Carbon taxes fall into the same category. Government cannot tax petroleum products in an attempt to regulate their use. Governments have no constitutional authority to tax us for anything other than services they deliver and the actual costs of running the government.

We need much less government in our lives and much more of government paying attention to its constitutional responsibilities. Doing their duty is not a lot of fun, but they cannot continue to spend time, energy and public funds on frivolous nonsense ... and things we don’t need and retain our respect.

They won’t catch on until we tell them, and on occasion, they need a hit on the side of the head with a 2 by 4 just to get their attention. Politicians are not listening to the people.

That must change if we value democracy.


John Feldsted
Political Commentator, Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...

Labels

Show more