Province of Toronto's Philanthropic Socialism

Mrs Layton seems to have received her financial information from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy. They wrote a paper in February, published in the Globe and Mail 15Feb06, which categorically refutes the Conservative Government's Choice for Childcare initiative. Unfortunately, the black and white numbers substantially obfuscate the truth. Of course, the Institute is not known for its financial validation. It's essentially a think tank for socialist intellectuals. Whoever put together their numbers is either obscuring the complexity of revenue taxation or they are trying to deceive the patrons of their wares. Hopefully, and thankfully, their audience are only more of their own breed. Nonetheless, should anyone of a right mind wander over to their website or come into contact with a beret wearing Gitane smoking hippy type who gives a nod to their papers, you should be armed with the facts.

In their paper, Finding Common Ground on Child Care, Feb06, they begin their commentary by stating that the Conservative proposal on Choice for Childcare is "deeply flawed" and "misleading". I'll forgive them that, we're all allowed to make partisan statements based on our ideology, but; they try to substantiate their premise with numbers. That's definitely a mistake. Numbers, you see, are the symbols which reflect the exactitude of human contemplation. All other things pale in comparison when it comes to stating the truth. I'll listen to your drivel, but when you give me numbers, stop the train, communication of numberical facts is a devine realm. Aowohmmm.

Where the nonsense gets skewed into biased partisan philosophy is when the Institute, known for weaving bullshit into social policy, can't seem to define their financial terms. Whoa up there Nelly.

They start their example on a family (I suppose a same-sex couple here is indisputable) "earning" $36,000. For income tax purposes, as is the basis for their argument, we will have to know the "net income" before the numbers they present begin to make any sense. Normally, from the point of view of a beneficiary of government funded programs, earned income is the result of a formulaic calculation. There are a number of complicated mechanisms leading from gross income to an earned income resultan. Suffice it to say, for every conceivable manner that Canadians are capable of earning income (this is not the technical term we are addressing, but real hard won dollars before the revenuers apply their sliderules) there is a complicated formula reducing it depending on how you communicate that income to the government. Short form: depends on the slot you plug it into. So, right off the start, their ability to communicate a point just stopped. Huh? Wha?

That would certainly preclude any further analysis, thank God, since refuting these imaginary suppositions the NDP has adopted are as speculative as their own. The problem in presenting numbers along a range of potentals, as they try in their report, especially when it regards taxes, is: what appears as a small incremental change, may have multitudinous and dramatic affects should it peak over an arbitrary limit the government has set in stone. The Caledon Institute must know this too. Each individual's case, tax wise, is a unique situation. That's why the Conservative's plan is so great. It's simple, doesn't take an inordinate amount of administrative staffing, and it fits everyone's needs depending on their situation.

As a last kick, their choice of $36k in their "earned income" is suspicious since the 2005 year's lowest tax bracket is $35,595. Of course, this is taxable income, or net income, or line 236 on your T1 form. Believe me, I understand how confusing taxes can be. To capitalize on what the socialist's recognize as a wide spread deficiency is just despicable, as usual, when you are prevented from clubbing your victims into voting for you.


The Caledon Institute of Social Policy Website

Further Reading on the Institute's Patron:

Alan Broadbent, CEO, Chair

• Avana Capital Corporation
• Ideas that Matter
• Maytree Foundation
• Tamarack Institute