REUTERS/ERIN SCOTT
Government finance
The idea of a Green New Deal—a radical and comprehensive transformation of the economy to cut greenhouse gas emissions while tackling inequality—has been gaining steam as an organizing principle for the environmental and social justice movements. Yet there are many questions that GND advocates have yet to think through or agree on. Like how can we produce enough electricity to rapidly replace all fossil fuels? Will new, green jobs be good, unionized jobs that are accessible in the places where jobs are needed most? Crucially, how will we pay for it all?
Photo by Hugo Morales, Wikimedia Commons
The Monitor starts off 2020—the CCPA's 40th anniversary year—with a direct attack on the Trudeau government's contradictory climate plans and the close connections between public officials and the fossil fuel sector. Will minority status and a rising Green New Deal movement change the government's course, or will it be just more business as usual?
Are the priorities of the Manitoba government in line with Manitobans’ more broadly? This is the question asked last week by a diverse group of community volunteers, representing teachers, healthcare professionals and those concerned about climate change, poverty and income inequality. They were comparing the vision presented in the recent Speech from the Throne with what they have been hearing in workplaces and communities while working towards the upcoming 2020 Alternative Provincial Budget (APB).
Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and other tax-avoiding internet giants were in the news a lot this summer. Much of the credit for this can go to Emmanuel Macron. Despite pushback from big tech and U.S. President Donald Trump, the French president announced plans at this year’s G7 summit to introduce a 3% tax on digital revenues. Trump only backed down after Macron agreed to pay back some of these revenues once the OECD reaches a new agreement for taxing digital giants over the next year.
Canada’s income tax system has a lot going for it. On balance, its rate structure is progressive. While there are flaws in our system of self-assessment, such as underreporting of income or aggressive tax planning (to avoid taxes owing), most Canadians seem to be motivated to comply with tax rules.
You can’t assume that government budgets affect men and women the same way—or other groups for that matter—since men and women generally occupy different social and economic positions. Unfortunately, until very recently, governments have done exactly that—developing policies and assigning funding to them in a gender-blind fashion.
Wealth taxation is back on the progressive political agenda. It is both a refreshing new idea and a return to vogue of a policy established decade ago in Europe. Some remember it as part of François Mitterrand’s 110 propositions pour France, a joint electoral platform in 1981 with the Communist Party that carried him into the Élysée Palace. The solidarity tax on wealth survived multiple right-wing presidents, only to fall recently to President Macron.
We are living with vast discrepancies between rich and poor in Canada. That much is undeniable. According to the Broadbent Institute, 10% of Canadians held almost half (47.9%) of all wealth in 2012. Meanwhile, around one in seven people (about 14%) live in poverty, according to Canada Without Poverty. The gap between those with and without wealth is stark.