Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Posted: 04/18/2013 1:00 AM | Comments: 0
Many have called the 2013 Manitoba budget the "taxing budget" because of the one percentage point increase in the provincial sales tax, but it is more appropriate to call it the "inequality and poverty budget" because its main effects are to increase inequality and maintain high levels of poverty. It justifies this by claiming that all Manitobans will benefit; but what it does not say is that affluent Manitobans will benefit the most and poor Manitobans the least.
First, it is important to note there is significant income inequality in the Manitoba economy, so doing nothing about it is problematic, and taking action to worsen it is damaging. There is clear evidence economic inequality erodes health and increases social conflict, including crime.
The most recent Statistics Canada data are from 2010. In that year, on average, the richest 10 per cent of Manitoba families with children received 9.3 times as much income from all sources ($207,223) as the poorest 10 per cent ($22,309).
Put differently, 2.5 per cent of all income received by families with children went to the poorest 10 per cent of families and 24 per cent went to the richest 10 per cent.
How does this budget increase inequality? Both by the means through which it raises revenues and through the expenditure choices that it makes.
First, on the revenue side, the government could have taken action based on the ability to pay so that those with higher incomes and more capacity to pay would have borne more of the burden. One way to do this would be to add an additional bracket at the top end of the income hierarchy. All Manitobans who earn more than $67,000 pay the same marginal tax rate for income earned over that amount.
Why not establish a new bracket for those earning more than $135,000 as the federal government does? This would have acted to decrease economic inequality.
But the taxation measure the government took does the opposite. It is unfair in that it treats those in different circumstances as equal. The finance minister characterized the increase to the provincial sales tax as "the fairest way to reach these goals, because the cost will be shared by everyone."
But is it fair that the working poor and welfare recipients pay the same consumption-tax rates as Manitoba's millionaires? In fact, since the poor have less money to save or invest and must spend more of their income on daily living, the provincial sales tax increase likely amounts to a higher percentage of their income than for the rich.
And how will those on minimal fixed incomes bear the increased purchasing costs? Did the government consider raising the Manitoba child benefit for the working poor or employment and income assistance rates?
What about the expenditure side? Has the government really taken action to reduce poverty and economic inequality as claimed? Not by a long shot. There is a paltry increase of $20 per month that will not come close to allowing welfare recipients to achieve access to 75 per cent of the rental housing market. More progress would have been possible because the government has budgeted a $4.5-million decrease in welfare expenditure from last year.
This is especially important because adequate housing has been found to be an important determinant of health. The government probably is increasing demand for health-care services through its inaction.
And then there's the $250 increase to the personal income tax exemption. This is one of a series of increases that applies equally to the richest and poorest Manitobans, except for the fact that those who are too poor to pay any taxes do not benefit at all. Most of the benefits go to those above the poverty line, so it does nothing to fight poverty and little to counter inequality.
Sid Frankel is a University of Manitoba social work professor.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition April 18, 2013 A15
Having problems with the form?Contact Us Directly
Minority Christian Arabs are on the move
Strong, active board vital to police oversight
Hypocrisy on water diversion
Stop playing blame game in Gaza
Medical debt unfairly penalizes Americans
Putin doesn’t care what world thinks
Botched executions fail to dent death-penalty support
Hong Kong right to fight Beijing over vote
Diversion endangers Lake Manitoba's future
Strengthening Abbas offers best hope for peace
City dangerous by design
Western inaction bolsters Putin's web of lies
A little compassion for Forks lands
Righting the wrongs of U.S. war on drugs
What is the cost of climate inaction?
Illicit drug market booming in China
Gaza conflict hurting harmonious towns
Boko Haram prey on frustration around Lake Chad
Israeli media ‘shut ears’ on latest conflict
Brainless border bravado
Greek recovery frail
NATO credibility hurt in response to MH17 downing
Politicians of all stripes stifling interprovincial free trade
Joke's on those who thought referendum law had teeth
Facts were hazy in ’80s downing of Iranian jet
International anti-corruption court needed
Conspiracy theories abound in Russia
Assumptions about foreign intervention dangerous
Hostages to conflict, political blindness
New flood realities demand long-term solutions
Simple outrage won’t end Gaza conflict
Privacy views key to German hurt over U.S. spying
Missteps prove Putin is no master strategist
Repurpose pay phones for truly public Wi-Fi
American intelligence lacks smarts
False comparisons don't serve health-care analysis
Cynical Egypt unlikely to mediate Israel conflict
Proposal to split up California stupid, self-serving