Sunday, February 1, 2009, 11:27 AM - Economy
CHP: Conservative Budget is "Disappointing"
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Jan. 28, 2009) - Christian Heritage Party Leader, Jim Hnatiuk, describes the Conservative Budget as "disappointing".
Hnatiuk, speaking from Halifax, applauds the fact that the Conservatives have heard the message that Canadians expect them to work together with the opposition parties.
Hnatiuk also applauded the use of the 'sunset clause' on programs, "which has been a staple of our CHP policy for 20 years" and approved of Ignatieff's announcement to support the budget, providing the government be held accountable via periodic reports on its implementation.
While an economic stimulus will certainly provide some relief in this economic downturn, it is always questionable whether it will pull Canada out of this current recession.
Deficit spending-anything that increases the National Debt-is stealing from future generations; it is theft! "Our government would have solved the liquidity crisis by creating the needed money, interest free, through the Bank of Canada, instead of borrowing it from the chartered banks. We wouldn't have had to steal the "stimulus" money from our children and their children," Hnatiuk said.
Canada has faced similar challenges before and successfully overcome them without borrowing money. In 1945, with the prospect of two million soldiers returning from overseas, the Liberal government of MacKenzie King was concerned about the economic stability of our nation. Unlike yesterday's budget, King's government made a bold move. He instructed the Bank of Canada to create money to make loans that were virtually interest-free to provinces, municipalities and other local public authorities, for infrastructure projects. This bold move kicked off an unprecedented economic boom.
Hnatiuk said, "The CHP would have used this proven and successful plan... because it works! It doesn't cause a deficit and thus does not increase our national debt.
"We're disappointed but we will continue to promote successful policies in Canada."
| permalink
Thursday, October 9, 2008, 04:26 PM - Economy
Question for all the party leaders
Preamble to the question
From 1975 to1994 Canadian tax payers paid $777- billion in interest on public debt, and from 1995 to 2005 paid an additional $788-billion in interest. Had the Bank of Canada been used to finance public debt, governments at all levels would currently save over $60-billion every year. One year's interest is
600 times more than what the sponsorship scandal cost Canadians. Public debt interest costs every Canadian worker, on average, about $4,000 a year.
By 1974 (100 years after Confederation) federal government debt had reached $18-billion, but then government reduced its borrowing from the Bank of Canada and increased its borrowing from the private sector. Federal debt went from $18-billion in 1974 to $588-billion in 1997, resulting in huge increases in debt financing.
Canada has immense natural resources and a well-educated work force. Through the Bank of Canada the government could finance infrastructure renewal, education, health services, affordable housing and stimulate business development. This would create many well-paid jobs directly and help the private sector to create many more.
Our question is:
Will your government use our own Bank of Canada for very low cost loans to create thousands of good paying jobs by financing such things as infrastructure renewal, hospitals, schools, affordable housing and business development programs, instead of bailing out the Big Banks and borrowing privately for a total cost to all levels of government of sixty billion dollars each and every year?
Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform
Kingston Chapter
Richard Priestman, Keith Wilde, Henry Becker, Kevin Connolly, Hugh Jennie, Peter Zuuring,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ron Gray wrote:
Mr. Priestman has it right.
The problem with trying to introduce this concept is that the media (themselves ill-informed on economics) -- and therefore many people -- will automatically respond: "Oh,oh! Social Credit!", and dismiss the messenger who calls for Government Created Money (GCM) instead of Bank Created Money (BCM).
In the 1940s and 1950s, the Bank of Canada created at least 50% of Canada's money; today it creates none. Instead, it rents our money from the chartered banks. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the influence of those banks on our mainstream political parties, through donations to election campaigns and through the appointment of bankers to the Board of the BoC, has brought this situation about. Thus, although the BoC (unlike the American Federal Reserve) actually belongs to the people of Canada, it does not act in their best interests.
To correct this situation, the CHP has chosen not to advocate a sudden, dramatic change overnight (such as having the BoC create the money to pay off the National Debt); sudden changes in the realms of finance and monetary policy almost always produce disastrous effects on the citizenry! Instead, we have opted to propose the re-introduction of the infrastructure policy adopted by the King government in 1945, which financed most of the infrastructure Canada enjoys today (and which urgently needs renewing!): the government of the day instructed the Bank of Canada to create money internally, and use it to make loans, virtually interest-free, to provinces, municipalities, Crown corporations and local public authorities for infrastructure projects. The increased economic activity and the improved access to resources and markets generated the revenue to repay the loans.
Once the policy of GCM for public works has been again demonstrated to be effective, all arguments against the expansion of that policy into financing other government works -- R&D, capital projects for education and hospitals, etc. -- will disappear. We think this gradualist approach will be more palatable, and less disruptive of the economy. But an immediate goal, after the Infrastructure Program is under way, should be to bring the BoC to at least 50% GCM within five years.
Ron Gray
| permalink
Thursday, October 2, 2008, 11:12 AM - Economy
It's time to plan for our future rather than allowing the government to spend our retirement and Employment Insurance money purchasing today's votes!
A Personal Income Security Account would provide a portable investment portfolio, vested in the name of each worker, for health, employment and retirement income. This plan was proposed for Canada in 1980 by a Christian politician, Dr. Robert N. Thomson. It was rejected by Parliament, but a few years later it was adopted by Chile. Chilean workers at that time were given the option of continuing on the tax-funded pension plan , or going on the new investment plan. Those who chose the investment plan are now retiring wealthy -- and Chile has become an economic powerhouse in Latin America because of the pools of investment created.
How will this plan work?
Beginning with an individual’s first job, they and their employer would contribute to the plan as a source deduction, just as we do now with CPP and EI, and in Ontario, the Health fund.
Beginning with one’s first job, 10% of an individual’s income would begin to accumulate in their account. Five percent contributed by the employee and 5% by the employer.
In the event of some unforeseen circumstance like unemployment or illness, the individual would be allowed to withdraw up to 15% per year of what had accrued in the account. After that, government assistance would meet the needs of any individual or family.
The account would never be completely depleted, but would continue to grow.
Welfare, disability and healthcare would continue to be government programs. We will always have what we may call “the deserving poor”, and we must care for them with the utmost compassion.
It is no secret that in Canada we also have serious abuse of our social systems. The undeserving poor, those who would choose to abuse the system and thereby the taxpayer, will be motivated—for example, in the case of unemployment—to find new employment quickly so as to use as little as possible of the allowable 15% of their account. As a party we believe very strongly in individual responsibility and accountability; but not disproportionately to compassion.
This policy would inculcate an ethic of individual responsibility in the majority of people, reduce payouts as a result, and therefore allow us to care of the truly unfortunate much better.
The experience in Chile has been an overwhelming success, and voters would do well to seriously consider the CHP’s better solution for the looming CPP crisis.
| permalink
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 01:43 AM - Economy
Our plan to repay the national debt in 25 years is also important to the people of York Simcoe because our debt takes $6,000 from each family’s pocket every year to maintain.
The CHP would repay our national debt in the same way a homeowner pays down their mortgage. Our debt is approx. $600 billion. Our present federal plan is to pay $3 billion per year which would take us about 125 years to repay. We have mortgaged our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. This is stealing from them! Our historic heritage has been to provide for our children not leave them indentured.
Using the same money that other parties are using to buy your vote, we would apply $4 billion dollars a month… every month… on the national debt. This would leave our children federally debt free in 25-30 years depending on the interest rates.
How much brighter future would your children have, if they didn’t have to carry the debt burden, which we created, through their entire adult lives?
The CHP is looking out for future Canadians rather than sabotaging their future. Better solutions do begin at the Christian Heritage Party.
| permalink
Monday, May 5, 2008, 08:29 PM - Economy
StatsCan omissions stir class war; Income redistribution by our tax and welfare systems ignored in earnings report
The Edmonton Journal
Sun 04 May 2008
Page: A14
Section: Opinion
Byline: Lorne Gunter
Column: Lorne Gunter
Source: The Edmonton Journal
I cannot for the life of me understand why Statistics Canada publishes income numbers that do not include money received by individuals from government, unless the nation's official number cruncher is deliberately attempting to fan the flames of class envy and reinforce the case for more and bigger social programs.
On Thursday, StatsCan set off a maelstrom of media coverage with its release of a report on Canadians' earnings in the past 25 years. It said since 1980, median earnings among the top 20 per cent of Canadian earners increased by 16.4 per cent, while the median among those in the bottom 20 per cent decreased by 20.6 per cent.
Headlines abounded about how the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer -- a favourite canard of the liberal-left. Also immediately, the Globe and Mail declared on its website that in the past quarter century, "those at the top end got a lot richer, and those at the bottom got much poorer." The following day, the front page of that paper's print edition devoted nearly the entire space to a declaration that the Canadian dream was dead.
Admittedly, StatsCan is not responsible for how its reports are spun by the media. But surely it is intellectually dishonest for the agency to release earnings numbers entirely out of context, particularly when it knows how those statistics are going to be played out in the press.
StatsCan did the same thing last spring when it released a report on our incomes in the previous decade -- 1996 to 2006. It led the public and reporters to believe that the gap between rich and poor had increased dramatically when in fact it had not moved a jot in 10 years.
The trouble (read fatal flaw) in both these StatsCan reports is that neither includes either taxes paid to governments nor benefits received. They paint only a picture of a pre-tax, pre-benefit world.
Who lives in that world -- a world where there are no taxes paid by the rich nor any welfare, pensions, child tax credits, GST rebates and so on received by the "poor"?
These StatsCan earnings reports lead to days and days of sensational news coverage and impassioned calls for more social programs from opposition politicians, special interest groups and editorialists.
But they neglect to mention that Canadians in the bottom 20 per cent of the income table receive 52 per cent of their income from government or that Canadians in the top 20 per cent pay nearly two-thirds of all income taxes.
The income redistribution achieved by our tax and welfare systems is completely overlooked in painting a portrait of a society increasingly divided along income and class lines. What motive would StatsCan have for doing this other than to manipulate the political debate in favour of a bigger, more lavish safety net?
Thursday's report insists that in the past 25 years the average Canadian has come ahead just $53 dollars in real income. Worse yet, the bottom one-fifth of Canadians have seen their earnings drop from $19,400 in 1980 to $15,400 today, after adjusting for inflation.
But without accounting for taxes and benefits, these numbers are meaningless. When transfers from government to individuals are included in the calculations, according to Statistics Canada's own numbers the median income of the poorest 20 per cent rose over the period, from $21,100 25 years ago to nearly $25,000 today, even with the effects of inflation taken into account.
And when the effects of progressive taxation are also factored in, the assertion that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor disappears, entirely.
Yes, before taxes and benefits, the income of the top 20 per cent is now 13- times higher than the income of the bottom 20. But after taxes and benefits, the gap between rich and poor was 5.6-to-1 in 1996 and it was still 5.6-to-1 in 2006, the last year for which StatsCan has applicable numbers.
The fact that the wealthiest 20 per cent in Canada are roaring ahead in some idealized, unreal, statistical Neverland is only of significance to people who are eager to feed their own prejudices about the uncaring "rich" and the "invisible" poor.
Figures released by StatsCan in other reports paint a very different picture of "poverty" and "income inequity" in Canada.
In just the past year the agency has told us only 11.7 per cent of children under the age of 18 still live in poverty, "far below the 18.6 percent in 1996." Seniors and single moms -- two groups that suffer a disproportionate share of low income -- have seen real income increases of 15 per cent and 39 per cent, respectively, since 1996. Now just 6.1 per cent of seniors are low-income and 29 per cent of single mothers (compared to 53 per cent a decade ago).
We should be pleased with the pro-gress we have made, rather than playing numbers games to spark a class war in Canada.
____________________
Lorne Gunter
Columnist/Editorial Writer,
National Post
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Tele: (780) 916-0719
E-mail: lgunter@shaw.ca
Fax: (780) 481-4735
Address: 132 Quesnell Cres NW
Edmonton AB T5R 5P2
| permalink
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 05:13 PM - Economy
In his Throne Speech delivered yesterday (October 16), Stephen Harper has promised to decrease the GST another percentage point. After all, the Federal Government is rolling in money!
This is while Municipalities are struggling to maintain our infrastructure. This is while we still have a debt which has mortgaged the next couple of generations. Shouldn't we be focussing on these two priorities? Shouldn't we make plans to unmortgage our children and grand children?
The Island of Guernsey, one of the Channel Islands, was bankrupt after the Napoleonic Wars: high debt; high poverty rate; high emigration; no services or infrastructure; deteriorated dikes and seawalls were allowing the island to be reclaimed by the sea. Obviously they were in dire circumstances!
The Council decided to print their own 'Island' money, hire contractors, and repair the dikes. The only problem the merchants saw was... what do they do with the "Island" money they accept? The Council agreed that all taxes could be paid with the "Island" money. Thus creating a circular system. The money was printed by the Island, used to purchase products and services on the Island, then used to pay taxes to the Island. Each year a percentage of the notes were destroyed.
The Island of Guernsey continues to use this method of building and repairing their infrastructure. Thus creating a non-inflationary method of infrastructure improvements using interest-free loans. Guernsey has a personal & corporate flat tax rate of 20%, along with personal allowances, and they have excellent infrastructure.
Canadians face decaying infrastructure, we have numerous municipal, provincial and federal needs which, under our present system, would increase our debt through borrowing from the Bank of Canada and paying interest on that money which we borrowed. In other words, we would pay interest to use our own tax dollars to repair our own infrastructure.
Our Constitution allows us to use the Guernsey model! It boggles the mind that successive governments have chosen instead to borrow money from The Bank Of Canada and to pay interest on the debt. We used the Guernsey model very effectively after WWII to deal with the return of our soldiers and to build our infrastructure. Why don't we repeat this successful strategy today?
The CHP has long advocated "Infrastructure Improvement Loans" which is based on the Guernsey model which Guernsey has used so effectively for almost 200 years.
The Frazer Institute concluded that, The fairest, most efficient, and simplest tax system upon which to base reform of the Canadian tax system is a flat tax based on the work of Hall-Rabushka. Such a system would provide enormous positive incentives for hard work, savings, and investment. The evidence suggests that the economic benefits of implementing a flat-tax system would include greater rates of economic and income growth, higher levels of capital formation and investment, and greater social welfare.
The flat-tax system would not, as many argue it would, eliminate the principle of progressivity. Rather, a flat-tax system that includes a personal exemption would enable Canada to maintain progressivity while by-passing the costs of high and increasing marginal tax rates.
Viewing such reform over the course of one's life rather than within a single year shows that nearly all taxpayers would gain from such a reform. In short, a flat-tax system of taxation presents enormous economic benefits with very few economic costs. The Hall-Rabushka flat tax should be the model upon which Canada begins to discuss and design real tax reform.
This is an opportunity to achieve both infrastructure improvement and decreased taxes.
Isn't it time that Canadians received tax relief AND good infrastructure?
****I've added as a p.s. an article in which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities implore PM Harper to help them deal with deteriorating infrastructure. from the National Post
| permalink
Next
