Monday, June 22, 2009
While this is clearly and American book, David Johnston's Perfectly Legal is quite an enlightening read. Mr. Johnston, writing firmly from within a market-based philosophy, asks the question, who pays the taxes? Using his investigative reporter skills, what he finds is that while token gestures are made toward the poor, the vast majority of so-called "tax cuts," accrue to the super-rich - the top 1% and the top 1% of the top 1%. In order to recover some of these lost revenues, taxes are actually increased on middle and upper income families. Repeated calls by the public for "tax breaks," and "tax relief" from our "excessive tax burden" only serve to compound the problem. Assuming his figures are correct, the American government is missing out on collecting between $300-$500 BILLION annually. For a more detailed review from an entrepreneurial/business perspective, visit here.
Sadly, even though Perfectly Legal was published in 2003, it has become dated. Moreover, it highlights problems in the American tax system. Linda McQuaig's 1987 book, Behind Closed Doors: How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System ... And Ended Up Richer is a Canadian account of our tax system. I can't find a more recent Canadian book on the market. Perhaps governments should appoint an investigative reporter to provide an annual public report on the state of our tax system.
This CBC story might also interest you if you are interested in the issue of taxes.
Finally, a wee bit of editorial. The Fraser Institute, with its large media-and-marketing budget has recently issued notice that we've reached "tax freedom day." The idiocy of this phrase bothers me to no end. Here are a few alternative names we can celebrate the day by (can you think of more?):
Freedom from Literacy Day
Vetran Support Freedom Day
Freedom from Firefighting Day
Freedom from Public Education Day
Freedom from Environmental Monitoring Day
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Not a book, but a "think tank" with an associated journal, the CCPA is an excellent point to look for critique of the mainstream. The focus is almost always based on grounded research as compared to ideological bent (which is much more prevalent in the "research" produced by the Fraser Institute and the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, and to a lesser degree the CD Howe Institute). When you come across a "news item" that cites any of these last three sources, and the reporter/journalist fails to state "right wing think tank," then I humbly suggest you visit the CCPA to see what they have to say about the topic. For fairness and balance, I recommend everyone bookmark the CCPA website and refer to it to see a different take on the news. For those who are more devoted, I strongly recommend becoming a member.
Bill McKibben's Deep Economy is a must-read in my opinion. It presents a straightforward critique of the way we've come to organize our lives today and then continues to suggest how we might fix things by investing in communities and building local economies. My only complaint was that on occasion, he fails to critique the GDP-measurement issue strongly enough. But to me, all is forgiven because he ultimately provides a sense of hope which is something I feel we're going to need a lot of in the future.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
While not specifically on environmental or social justice issues, Dan Ariely's book, Predictably Irrational, is a very interesting read. I like it for a number of reasons, not the least of which is it is an easy way for people to see what sort of stuff I specialize in as an economist.
More germain to this site, I recommend reading his chapter 4 on social versus market norms. I firmly believe that the neo-liberal agenda is to have us all working in the sphere of market norms in all that we do. It would be a sad world if this were successful. Rage against the machine.
George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant is an excellent read in the use of language to frame debates and craft arguments. Just admit it, you've already been thinking about an elephant in the process of trying not to think of one. Lakoff point out that similar techniques have been used by the (American) Right to frame debates (e.g., tax cuts / tax relief / tax-and-spend). Who can be against "tax-relief" especially when we suffer from such a "tax-burden" that it takes the better part of the year to get past "tax freedom day"? (Do you recall hearing this language, not just from our friends at AIMS and the Fraser Institute, but increasingly in the day-to-day news reports, in newspapers, and popular magazines?)
In this very short book, Lakoff raises awareness, and calls us to action. We have to take back the language, get rid of this "truthiness" and engage people in meaningful debate.
Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine is well-researched and well-written. I can't say I found it to be a fun read, because the issues she raises are quite disturbing, but sometimes the truth hurts. For instance, her chapter on torture techniques is stomach-churning (how can people do that to each other?). However, she crafts her argument to show the evolution of the implementation of neo-liberal policy ideals (market-based policy solutions free from all those stupid government regulations) from torture, to funded-revolt, to the (bland-in-comparison) manufactured crisis.
The hardest part about reading this book is the slow dawning of realization that she's writing about New Brunswick today. Not to say that she actually writes about New Brunswick, but her argument is very applicable to current events in our province. Our governments seem less interested in regulating for the people, and more interested in regulating for industry. In fact, we may just be at the height of our own manufactured crisis.
Using the current global recession as a backdrop, Shawn Graham's Liberals have passsed a budget with a $700+ million dollar deficit. They've disguised this as a fiscal stimulus package, failing to point out that with all of this stimulus, there will need to be significant austerity measures (i.e., cutbacks on crazy social spending like literacy and poverty-reduction). Moreover, the new and flatter income tax structure, which primarily benefits the richest of the rich in New Brunswick, accounts for half-or-more of this deficit (between $300-500 million in lost revenues).
With a Libreal majority and a Progressive Conservative opposition (who are sympathetic to tax decreases) and not an NDP MLA in legislature, barely a peep has been made. Of course, turning to our newspapers is a joke (although I'll give it a try) because they are owned by the very people who most-benefit from both income and corporate tax cuts - the Irvings. Some economists in this province believe this may very-well be the end of public healthcare for us in New Brunswick, and the thin-edge-of-the-wedge for the rest of Canada.