Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
TORONTO - By the time most Canadians roll up their sleeves to begin a new year of work, Canada's best paid 100 CEOs will already be having a good year: They'll pocket the national average wage of $38,998 by 10:33 am January 2 nd.
And they will continue to earn the average Canadian wage every nine hours and 33 minutes for the rest of the year, according to a new report on CEO pay by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
"Most Canadians are heading back into work with a mound of Christmas bills and financial worries but for Canada's best paid 100 CEOs it's like Santa Claus delivers every nine hours," says the report's author, CCPA Research Associate Hugh Mackenzie.
"That's what happens when you make an average of $8,528,304 – which is the average of what Canada's 100 best paid CEOs made in 2006."
On average, the best-paid 100 CEOs make more than 218 times as much as a Canadian working full-time for a full year at the average of weekly employment earnings.
"That represents a significant gap between the rich and the rest of us – especially the working poor who earn the minimum wage," Mackenzie says.
By 1:04 p.m. New Years' Day, the best paid 100 CEOs pocketed what will take a minimum wage worker all of 2008 to earn. Every four hours and four minutes, they will keep pocketing the annual income of a full-time full-year minimum wage worker.
"We have to ask ourselves, are those at the top of the income heap really worth so much? And are those at the bottom really worth so little?"
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/Reports/2008/01/ReportsStudies1792/index.cfm?pa=BB736455
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Canada's Rich Not Contributing Fair Share in Taxes: CCPA Study
CANADA'S RICH NOT CONTRIBUTING FAIR SHARE IN TAXES: STUDY
TORONTO – More than a decade's worth of tax cuts have disproportionately lined the pockets of Canada's most affluent families, says a new tax study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
The study finds the top 1 percent of families in 2005 paid a lower total tax rate than the bottom 10 percent of families.
"Canada's tax system now fails a basic test of fairness," says Marc Lee, senior economist with the CCPA's B.C. office and author of the study. "Tax cuts have contributed to a slow and steady shift to a less progressive tax system in Canada."
The study, which is the first comprehensive review of tax changes at all levels of government in Canada within the past 15 years, finds the system is delivering larger tax savings for high income families. This reinforces the growing gap in market incomes between high income families and the rest of Canadians.
"Most Canadians will be surprised by these findings because they believe we have a progressive tax system – but looking at all taxes combined, that's no longer the case."
The study, Eroding Tax Fairness: Tax Incidence in Canada, 1990 to 2005, is available at http://nl1630.policyalternatives.ca.
TORONTO – More than a decade's worth of tax cuts have disproportionately lined the pockets of Canada's most affluent families, says a new tax study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
The study finds the top 1 percent of families in 2005 paid a lower total tax rate than the bottom 10 percent of families.
"Canada's tax system now fails a basic test of fairness," says Marc Lee, senior economist with the CCPA's B.C. office and author of the study. "Tax cuts have contributed to a slow and steady shift to a less progressive tax system in Canada."
The study, which is the first comprehensive review of tax changes at all levels of government in Canada within the past 15 years, finds the system is delivering larger tax savings for high income families. This reinforces the growing gap in market incomes between high income families and the rest of Canadians.
"Most Canadians will be surprised by these findings because they believe we have a progressive tax system – but looking at all taxes combined, that's no longer the case."
The study, Eroding Tax Fairness: Tax Incidence in Canada, 1990 to 2005, is available at http://nl1630.policyalternatives.ca.
Friday, September 7, 2007
TORONTO STAR: Public historically cool to faith-based funding
Doug Hart and D.W. Livingstone
September 06, 2007
Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory's new position on funding all faith-based schools is a poor fit with public opinion.
In 20 years of polling, we have never found more than a minority in favour of any extension of public funding to private schools.
Moreover, the views of this minority do not privilege faith-based schools but prefer funding extended to all private or independent schools meeting provincial standards.
Since 1984, the OISE Survey of Educational Issues has asked Ontarians every two years about extending public funding beyond the current public and Catholic systems. In 10 separate surveys over this period, support for funding religious schools has only once reached 10 per cent (in 1992) and has usually languished at between 4 per cent and 7 per cent. In contrast, support for extending funding to all private schools has fluctuated between 17 per cent and 27 per cent.
In 2004, the last year for which specific data are available (a different question was used in our soon-to-be released 2007 survey), 7 per cent favoured government funding of religious schools but 20 per cent wanted financial support extended to all private schools. This strongly suggests that among the minority who favour extended funding, the key issue is parental choice, not equity among faith communities. (In 2000, in the wake of the United Nations Human Rights Committee finding that Ontario's policy of funding Catholic schools but not other denominational schools was discriminatory under international human rights provisions, we asked people their preference if they were forced to choose between funding schools for all religious groups or no
religious groups, including Catholics. Forced to choose on this basis, the public split down the middle: 46 per cent to fund all religious schools, 47 per cent to fund none.)
Overall, willingness to extend funding at all to private schools has been and remains a distinct minority position. Between 1984 and 2004, support has fluctuated between 25 per cent and 35 per cent. Most Ontarians continue to support either a single public system or the status quo of public and Catholic systems.
The split between these options has fluctuated over time but neither option alone has ever come close to commanding majority support.
Since full funding was extended to Catholic schools by the Conservative government in 1984, around 40 per cent have supported this option. Support for funding a single public school system, with Catholic schools converted into it or losing their public funding, has hovered around 30 per cent.
Our 2007 survey uses a more general question (suitable for the national survey conducted with the Canadian Education Association this year) asking whether only currently funded public schools or all public and private schools should receive funding. In Ontario, we find 58 per cent in favour of currently funded public schools and 39 per cent willing to extend funding to all public and private schools.
The Conservative party proposal is in line with public thinking in making acceptance of the provincial curriculum, province-wide testing and teachers certified by the Ontario College of Teachers necessary conditions for public funding.
There is widespread unanimity on these conditions among all political parties and the general public. In 2002, when the issue was tax credits for parents of private school students, the OISE
survey asked whether the public agreed or disagreed that to be eligible for the tax credit system private schools should have to accept each of those three conditions. The overwhelming
majority (around 80 per cent) agreed that all three should be conditions for eligibility.
The whole issue of which schools should be funded is caught in a long-term gridlock as far as public support is concerned. There is no consensus on any basic option – a single public system, the status quo or extending funding to all private schools.
Hence, there is no net public pressure for change. The current Conservative policy to fund faith-based private schools charts a course through a political landscape at odds with most public opinion on the issue.
If politicians are going over this ground again, they might pause to check that their maps take account of the landscape as the electorate actually sees it.
Finally, while strong views on each of these options surely will be expressed in the current election, it should be kept in mind that whatever their views on extended school funding, Ontarians show similarly strong support for greater government funding of elementary and secondary education, and a willingness to accept higher taxes to improve public education.
In groups of all religious persuasions there is a similar acceptance of the need to improve the resource base for public schools.
Doug Hart and D.W. Livingstone are authors of Public Attitudes Towards Education on Ontario 2007: the 16th OISE/UT Survey.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
September 06, 2007
Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory's new position on funding all faith-based schools is a poor fit with public opinion.
In 20 years of polling, we have never found more than a minority in favour of any extension of public funding to private schools.
Moreover, the views of this minority do not privilege faith-based schools but prefer funding extended to all private or independent schools meeting provincial standards.
Since 1984, the OISE Survey of Educational Issues has asked Ontarians every two years about extending public funding beyond the current public and Catholic systems. In 10 separate surveys over this period, support for funding religious schools has only once reached 10 per cent (in 1992) and has usually languished at between 4 per cent and 7 per cent. In contrast, support for extending funding to all private schools has fluctuated between 17 per cent and 27 per cent.
In 2004, the last year for which specific data are available (a different question was used in our soon-to-be released 2007 survey), 7 per cent favoured government funding of religious schools but 20 per cent wanted financial support extended to all private schools. This strongly suggests that among the minority who favour extended funding, the key issue is parental choice, not equity among faith communities. (In 2000, in the wake of the United Nations Human Rights Committee finding that Ontario's policy of funding Catholic schools but not other denominational schools was discriminatory under international human rights provisions, we asked people their preference if they were forced to choose between funding schools for all religious groups or no
religious groups, including Catholics. Forced to choose on this basis, the public split down the middle: 46 per cent to fund all religious schools, 47 per cent to fund none.)
Overall, willingness to extend funding at all to private schools has been and remains a distinct minority position. Between 1984 and 2004, support has fluctuated between 25 per cent and 35 per cent. Most Ontarians continue to support either a single public system or the status quo of public and Catholic systems.
The split between these options has fluctuated over time but neither option alone has ever come close to commanding majority support.
Since full funding was extended to Catholic schools by the Conservative government in 1984, around 40 per cent have supported this option. Support for funding a single public school system, with Catholic schools converted into it or losing their public funding, has hovered around 30 per cent.
Our 2007 survey uses a more general question (suitable for the national survey conducted with the Canadian Education Association this year) asking whether only currently funded public schools or all public and private schools should receive funding. In Ontario, we find 58 per cent in favour of currently funded public schools and 39 per cent willing to extend funding to all public and private schools.
The Conservative party proposal is in line with public thinking in making acceptance of the provincial curriculum, province-wide testing and teachers certified by the Ontario College of Teachers necessary conditions for public funding.
There is widespread unanimity on these conditions among all political parties and the general public. In 2002, when the issue was tax credits for parents of private school students, the OISE
survey asked whether the public agreed or disagreed that to be eligible for the tax credit system private schools should have to accept each of those three conditions. The overwhelming
majority (around 80 per cent) agreed that all three should be conditions for eligibility.
The whole issue of which schools should be funded is caught in a long-term gridlock as far as public support is concerned. There is no consensus on any basic option – a single public system, the status quo or extending funding to all private schools.
Hence, there is no net public pressure for change. The current Conservative policy to fund faith-based private schools charts a course through a political landscape at odds with most public opinion on the issue.
If politicians are going over this ground again, they might pause to check that their maps take account of the landscape as the electorate actually sees it.
Finally, while strong views on each of these options surely will be expressed in the current election, it should be kept in mind that whatever their views on extended school funding, Ontarians show similarly strong support for greater government funding of elementary and secondary education, and a willingness to accept higher taxes to improve public education.
In groups of all religious persuasions there is a similar acceptance of the need to improve the resource base for public schools.
Doug Hart and D.W. Livingstone are authors of Public Attitudes Towards Education on Ontario 2007: the 16th OISE/UT Survey.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Response to the Ontario Budget 2007-8 - A short summary of a budget that’s short on anything new
March 2007
By Hugh Mackenzie
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Take the self-congratulation out of the 2007–8
provincial budget and you’re left with a very short
list of very modest initiatives spread out over a
very long period of time.
Most of the space consumed by the budget
speech and the background documents is devoted
to a repeat of announcements the government has
made over the past 3 ≥ years—many of them made
repeatedly—along with a running commentary
about what a good idea each and every one of
those announcements was. In Finance Minister
Sorbara’s own words, the purpose of the
government was to ‘celebrate’ the government’s
characterization of its own record.
In answer to a question in the media lock-up,
the Minister went as far as to describe his budget
as “magical”.
The worst-kept pre-budget secret, the new
Ontario Child Benefit, is the only new initiative
of any significance in the budget. But it is to be
phased in over a five-year period. It will be time for
the 2011 election before this new benefit is fully
phased in. This year the amount allocated to this
new initiative will be less than $200 million.
There is more money for child care. But at an
annual rate of $50 million per year, it is roughly
half Ontario’s share of the new child care spaces
transfer announced in the Federal budget. The
new funding for housing—$150 million—is less
than half Ontario’s $392 million share of new
Federal housing funding.
Despite the new postsecondary transfers
announced by the Federal government, the budget
is silent on how it will spend Ontario’s $320 million
share.
The budget promises to bring in a uniform
rate of tax for education on business, replacing
the current mish-mash of different rates across
the province, but it won’t be fully implemented
until 2014—a delayed day that would have set a
record for deferred promises if it weren’t for the
Nanticoke coal fired generating station.
The budget makes a big deal about property
taxes, announcing that it is going to develop a
new system after consulting with the Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation and the
Assessment Review Board—not the public. But
all it is really going to do with the system is move
to every-four year assessments from annual and
spread out the implementation of assessment
increases over four years.
The government is going to end a small part
of the download of provincial costs onto local
governments by ending the pooling of social
assistance costs across the GTA, at a cost to
the province of $200 million per year. But that
change is to be phased over seven years as well.
And the budget contains no response at all to the
complaints from municipalities about the much
larger downloads of responsibility for housing and
20% of social assistance costs.
Even if you take the budget on its own terms,
it falls far short. It touts itself as the answer to
child poverty. But by limiting increases in social
assistance rates to 2%, it persists in ignoring
the obvious—that children don’t live in poverty
by themselves. They live with parents who
live in poverty. Distinguishing between the
“deserving poor”—children—and the undeserving
poor—everyone else, including their parents—may
make for good politics, but it doesn’t deal with the
reality of families living in poverty.
And it has nothing new to say about one of
the fundamental issues of poverty in Ontario—
whether the working poor or the poor living on
social assistance—the lack of affordable housing.
The government says the new Ontario Child
Benefit will bring down the so-called “welfare wall“.
But while the provision of child benefits that will
be portable from social assistance to employment
is obviously a step forward, the government’s
continuing failure to deliver on the need for
affordable child care means that the biggest
obstacle to employment faced by social assistance
recipients—child care availability and costs—will
remain unchanged.
The budget continues the overriding political
theme of the McGuinty Government—ignoring
many of the glaring public services shortfalls it
inherited from the Conservatives in 2003-4 and
governing as if they had never happened.
The government congratulates itself on
increasing social assistance rates by 2%—an
increase that, when implemented in November
2007, will actually come close to matching
inflation since the government was elected. But
it continues to ignore the devastating impact on
the poorest Ontarians of the Harris Governments
22% cut and eight year freeze in Ontario Works
benefits and its eight year freeze of Ontario
Disability Support Plan benefits.
The government congratulates itself on having
delivered on its promise to end the clawback of
the National Child Benefit Supplement, but it
won’t get there until the Ontario Child Benefit is
fully phased in five years from now and even then
only gets there by counting general increases in
social assistance benefits against the cost.
In 2003 when the government was elected,
hundreds of thousands of Ontario families were
faced every day with the unacceptable choices
that go with incomes that fall far short of the
minimum required for a decent life. In 2007,
hundreds of thousands of Ontario families still
face those same choices every day.
When it is fully phased in by 2011, the
Ontario Child Benefit will deliver $745 million
more to Ontario families with children than the
programs that it replaces. Of that amount, only
$125 million will go to families receiving social
assistance—equivalent to an increase of 7.5%
in social assistance benefits for children—or an
additional 1.4% per year for five years.
That compares with the nearly 35% loss in the
purchasing power of social assistance benefits for
children under the Harris and Eves governments.
While the government has again increased
funding for elementary and secondary education
at well above the rate of inflation, the new funding
is focused entirely on the Liberals’ new initiatives
and does nothing to address the fundamental
flaws in the funding formula that it inherited from
the Conservatives—flaws that are at the root of
the problems faced by school boards struggling
to balance their budgets. And ultimately, these
flaws lead to underfunding of the very programs
to help students at risk for which the government
continues to congratulate itself.
The strategy of denial of what preceded
the government’s election repeats itself when
it comes to postsecondary tuition fees. It has
steadfastly refused to address the fact that, in the
ten years before it was elected in 2003, student
tuition fees had already more than doubled. And
its 5% cap on annual tuition fee increases will leave
tuition fees higher at the end of the government’s
term in October 2007 than they would have been
had the Eves government’s policy of matching
increases to inflation had remained in effect.
And while the government’s claimed increase
in operating grants for colleges and universities
from $2.9 billion in 2003–4 to $4 billion in 2007–8,
when you take into account the 22% increase
in enrolment and inflation since 2003–4, the
inflation- and enrolment-adjusted increase is less
than 3% over that four-year period.
Despite the obvious crisis facing
manufacturing industries in Ontario, with tens
of thousands of layoffs in the past year, the best
the government can come up with is an as-yetundefined
Manufacturing Council, an acceleration
of a cut in capital taxes that is of principal benefit
to banks, and a cut in business education tax rates
that won’t be fully implemented until 2014.
The Premier has announced that climate
change is the issue for our generation, but so
far all the government has really embraced
is recycling—of old promises. Despite the
heightened public concern about climate change
and the Premier’s declaration, the sum total of
new funding for climate change is a $2 million
grant to the Trees Ontario Foundation and a
rebate of up to $150 for individual home energy
audits—and all of that money comes from the
federal clean air and climate change trust.
On the fiscal side, those in the government
who insisted that the government had to appear
to be balancing the budget clearly won the day.
By cutting reserves and contingency funds and
delaying the implementation of its major new
initiatives, the government is projecting a deficit
of $400 million, less than the $750 million in
contingency funds.
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
410-75 Albert Street, Ottawa, on k1p 5e7
tel 613-563-1341 fax 613-233-1458 email ccpa@policyalternatives.ca
This report is available free of charge from the CCPA website at
www.policyalternatives.ca. Printed copies may be ordered through the
National Office for a $10 fee.
By Hugh Mackenzie
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Take the self-congratulation out of the 2007–8
provincial budget and you’re left with a very short
list of very modest initiatives spread out over a
very long period of time.
Most of the space consumed by the budget
speech and the background documents is devoted
to a repeat of announcements the government has
made over the past 3 ≥ years—many of them made
repeatedly—along with a running commentary
about what a good idea each and every one of
those announcements was. In Finance Minister
Sorbara’s own words, the purpose of the
government was to ‘celebrate’ the government’s
characterization of its own record.
In answer to a question in the media lock-up,
the Minister went as far as to describe his budget
as “magical”.
The worst-kept pre-budget secret, the new
Ontario Child Benefit, is the only new initiative
of any significance in the budget. But it is to be
phased in over a five-year period. It will be time for
the 2011 election before this new benefit is fully
phased in. This year the amount allocated to this
new initiative will be less than $200 million.
There is more money for child care. But at an
annual rate of $50 million per year, it is roughly
half Ontario’s share of the new child care spaces
transfer announced in the Federal budget. The
new funding for housing—$150 million—is less
than half Ontario’s $392 million share of new
Federal housing funding.
Despite the new postsecondary transfers
announced by the Federal government, the budget
is silent on how it will spend Ontario’s $320 million
share.
The budget promises to bring in a uniform
rate of tax for education on business, replacing
the current mish-mash of different rates across
the province, but it won’t be fully implemented
until 2014—a delayed day that would have set a
record for deferred promises if it weren’t for the
Nanticoke coal fired generating station.
The budget makes a big deal about property
taxes, announcing that it is going to develop a
new system after consulting with the Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation and the
Assessment Review Board—not the public. But
all it is really going to do with the system is move
to every-four year assessments from annual and
spread out the implementation of assessment
increases over four years.
The government is going to end a small part
of the download of provincial costs onto local
governments by ending the pooling of social
assistance costs across the GTA, at a cost to
the province of $200 million per year. But that
change is to be phased over seven years as well.
And the budget contains no response at all to the
complaints from municipalities about the much
larger downloads of responsibility for housing and
20% of social assistance costs.
Even if you take the budget on its own terms,
it falls far short. It touts itself as the answer to
child poverty. But by limiting increases in social
assistance rates to 2%, it persists in ignoring
the obvious—that children don’t live in poverty
by themselves. They live with parents who
live in poverty. Distinguishing between the
“deserving poor”—children—and the undeserving
poor—everyone else, including their parents—may
make for good politics, but it doesn’t deal with the
reality of families living in poverty.
And it has nothing new to say about one of
the fundamental issues of poverty in Ontario—
whether the working poor or the poor living on
social assistance—the lack of affordable housing.
The government says the new Ontario Child
Benefit will bring down the so-called “welfare wall“.
But while the provision of child benefits that will
be portable from social assistance to employment
is obviously a step forward, the government’s
continuing failure to deliver on the need for
affordable child care means that the biggest
obstacle to employment faced by social assistance
recipients—child care availability and costs—will
remain unchanged.
The budget continues the overriding political
theme of the McGuinty Government—ignoring
many of the glaring public services shortfalls it
inherited from the Conservatives in 2003-4 and
governing as if they had never happened.
The government congratulates itself on
increasing social assistance rates by 2%—an
increase that, when implemented in November
2007, will actually come close to matching
inflation since the government was elected. But
it continues to ignore the devastating impact on
the poorest Ontarians of the Harris Governments
22% cut and eight year freeze in Ontario Works
benefits and its eight year freeze of Ontario
Disability Support Plan benefits.
The government congratulates itself on having
delivered on its promise to end the clawback of
the National Child Benefit Supplement, but it
won’t get there until the Ontario Child Benefit is
fully phased in five years from now and even then
only gets there by counting general increases in
social assistance benefits against the cost.
In 2003 when the government was elected,
hundreds of thousands of Ontario families were
faced every day with the unacceptable choices
that go with incomes that fall far short of the
minimum required for a decent life. In 2007,
hundreds of thousands of Ontario families still
face those same choices every day.
When it is fully phased in by 2011, the
Ontario Child Benefit will deliver $745 million
more to Ontario families with children than the
programs that it replaces. Of that amount, only
$125 million will go to families receiving social
assistance—equivalent to an increase of 7.5%
in social assistance benefits for children—or an
additional 1.4% per year for five years.
That compares with the nearly 35% loss in the
purchasing power of social assistance benefits for
children under the Harris and Eves governments.
While the government has again increased
funding for elementary and secondary education
at well above the rate of inflation, the new funding
is focused entirely on the Liberals’ new initiatives
and does nothing to address the fundamental
flaws in the funding formula that it inherited from
the Conservatives—flaws that are at the root of
the problems faced by school boards struggling
to balance their budgets. And ultimately, these
flaws lead to underfunding of the very programs
to help students at risk for which the government
continues to congratulate itself.
The strategy of denial of what preceded
the government’s election repeats itself when
it comes to postsecondary tuition fees. It has
steadfastly refused to address the fact that, in the
ten years before it was elected in 2003, student
tuition fees had already more than doubled. And
its 5% cap on annual tuition fee increases will leave
tuition fees higher at the end of the government’s
term in October 2007 than they would have been
had the Eves government’s policy of matching
increases to inflation had remained in effect.
And while the government’s claimed increase
in operating grants for colleges and universities
from $2.9 billion in 2003–4 to $4 billion in 2007–8,
when you take into account the 22% increase
in enrolment and inflation since 2003–4, the
inflation- and enrolment-adjusted increase is less
than 3% over that four-year period.
Despite the obvious crisis facing
manufacturing industries in Ontario, with tens
of thousands of layoffs in the past year, the best
the government can come up with is an as-yetundefined
Manufacturing Council, an acceleration
of a cut in capital taxes that is of principal benefit
to banks, and a cut in business education tax rates
that won’t be fully implemented until 2014.
The Premier has announced that climate
change is the issue for our generation, but so
far all the government has really embraced
is recycling—of old promises. Despite the
heightened public concern about climate change
and the Premier’s declaration, the sum total of
new funding for climate change is a $2 million
grant to the Trees Ontario Foundation and a
rebate of up to $150 for individual home energy
audits—and all of that money comes from the
federal clean air and climate change trust.
On the fiscal side, those in the government
who insisted that the government had to appear
to be balancing the budget clearly won the day.
By cutting reserves and contingency funds and
delaying the implementation of its major new
initiatives, the government is projecting a deficit
of $400 million, less than the $750 million in
contingency funds.
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
410-75 Albert Street, Ottawa, on k1p 5e7
tel 613-563-1341 fax 613-233-1458 email ccpa@policyalternatives.ca
This report is available free of charge from the CCPA website at
www.policyalternatives.ca. Printed copies may be ordered through the
National Office for a $10 fee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
