Ship of Fools: Unemployed youth, have you considered working for free?

Thread: Unemployed youth, have you considered working for free? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028800

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Bank of Canada governor says that's what you should do: Bank Of Canada's Stephen Poloz: Long-Term Jobless Youth Should Work For Free

Of course you could call it an "internship", if it makes you feel better.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Ha! Maybe the said govenor could show good will by working for free, otherwise I hope he's told where to shove it.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Given that my agency has recently decided to try holding staff meetings on employees' own time without compensation, I doubt I can respond to this outside of Hell.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Cos giving employers free labour is going to encourage them to create paid positions how exactly ?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Of course you could call it an "internship", if it makes you feel better.

Another useful term is 'slavery'.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Yep, some ultra-wealthy morons (Mark Cuban, Donald Trump) here in the U.S. have also been advocating this bilge. However, they're not talking about the youth but adults who are unemployed. It's truly sickening the way some of these rich bastards talk about the poor and under/un-employed.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Unless you happen to live within walking distance of said work, close enough to go home for lunch, there is no working for free.

In the case of long-term unemployed there may be a case for them working for a brief period unwaged to get them back into the habit of getting to a place of work on time, etc, etc, etc. BUT this should be as a last resort and people asked to do this should have things like travel costs and lunch covered at the very least, plus it should only be for a limited period of time and with a clear path to a proper paid job.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Volunteering (which I did for many years) lost its charm for me when I discovered that it looks no different from Community Service, which is given to criminals to repay their debt to the community. It's hard to see how anyone would want to work for free when people will just assume they have done something wrong.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Unless you happen to live within walking distance of said work, close enough to go home for lunch, there is no working for free.

In the case of long-term unemployed there may be a case for them working for a brief period unwaged to get them back into the habit of getting to a place of work on time, etc, etc, etc. BUT this should be as a last resort and people asked to do this should have things like travel costs and lunch covered at the very least, plus it should only be for a limited period of time and with a clear path to a proper paid job.

In the UK something like this happens when one has been out of work for six months. My son was on one such scheme and an illustration of how badly organised they are was that he missed his fortnightly meeting with his "Job Seeking Advisor" while on this placement and therefore lost a month's benefit. The fact he was on a work placement didn't matter.

Nothing resembling a full-time job came out of it for him or any of the others. They were just cheap labour. Thanks Prince's Trust and Marks & Spencer.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Volunteering (which I did for many years) lost its charm for me when I discovered that it looks no different from Community Service, which is given to criminals to repay their debt to the community. It's hard to see how anyone would want to work for free when people will just assume they have done something wrong.

Volunteering is quite different - you choose to do it. Many people find it fulfilling. And you realise criminals are people too, right? Loads of people volunteer, not just people doing community service.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Of course you could call it an "internship", if it makes you feel better.
Another useful term is 'slavery'.

Now that's unfair. Slave owners were expected to provide accommodation and food.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chorister:
[qb]Volunteering is quite different - you choose to do it. Many people find it fulfilling. And you realise criminals are people too, right? Loads of people volunteer, not just people doing community service.

Yes, of course Criminals are people! But they are hardly volunteers.

I'd like to see a two tier benefit system - where everyone out of work is paid a basic subsistence rate, but those who do some volunteering to enhance their CV and do something useful with their time get paid a bonus rate on top. Such work is likely to make them more employable as well, so it's a win-win situation.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... I'd like to see a two tier benefit system - where everyone out of work is paid a basic subsistence rate, but those who do some volunteering to enhance their CV and do something useful with their time get paid a bonus rate on top. Such work is likely to make them more employable as well, so it's a win-win situation.

I disagree. I can see some arguments in favour of this where people are truly doing voluntary work rather than hanging around doing nothing. But why should the benefit system subsidise people so that employers can get people to work for them without having to pay them for doing so?

And what's the point of having a minimum wage if people can get round it in this way?

It may be a generation thing, but the whole notion of internships also gets up my craw. When I started, we'd only just got beyond the days of premium apprenticeships and articles. At least with those, usually, the apprentice or the articled clerk having had their parent cough up a large sum of money to pay someone to teach them the craft of being an engineer, a lawyer or whatever, quite often got paid an unskilled wage while they were serving their term. With an internship, the employer gets unpaid labour and gives nothing in return.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I volunteer at a charity shop, and am surprised at how many of the other people who pass through for a certain period of time are there because the job centre requires them to be there. I was expecting more retired ladies of means, but that's a tiny category.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Ah yes, our Bank Governor. [Disappointed]

Who the **** gave him permission to make a political comment? And when, unbeknownst to everyone in Canada, did he assume elective office? Oh, right, he isn't elected. Idiot.

His remit is interest rates, macroeconomics, currency exchange and trade balances. The microeconomic and policy problem of youth unemployment is quite outside of his brief. Therefore he should shut the **** up.

I dearly hope the NDP introduces a bill next Opposition Day that mandates that the Governor of the Bank of Canada work for free. I wonder how Mr. Poloz will enjoy that. [Devil]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Ah yes, our Bank Governor.

Who the **** gave him permission to make a political comment? And when, unbeknownst to everyone in Canada, did he assume elective office? Oh, right, he isn't elected. Idiot.

His remit is interest rates, macroeconomics, currency exchange and trade balances. The microeconomic and policy problem of youth unemployment is quite outside of his brief. Therefore he should shut the **** up.

I dearly hope the NDP introduces a bill next Opposition Day that mandates that the Governor of the Bank of Canada work for free. I wonder how Mr. Poloz will enjoy that.

As my dear departed friend Angus would have said "is he a bad man or a stupid man?". In this case, I suspect both. How such people with such deformed personalities manage to rise to such power has always astonished me.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Of course you could call it an "internship", if it makes you feel better.
Another useful term is 'slavery'.

It's pretty much indistinguishable in practice with a corvee, the idea that the poor peasantry should be prepared to do unpaid labour to keep their Lords and Masters in the style to which they have become accustomed. You would think that principled free marketeers would be opposed to such a use of the power of the state to distort the workings of the market.

Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on :

This is the expectation of many employers, though. I'll spare the long version, but I once interviewed for a volunteer position where they actually said "If you volunteer for our office, you know you'd have to put it ahead of your [sole income] temp job."

Mind you, I think they regretted it since they never called back, but still... [brick wall]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How such people with such deformed personalities manage to rise to such power has always astonished me.

Deformed personalities are a job requirement for positions of such power.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Most of my very "conservative" Bible study bunch insist anyone poor is lazy. None of them are exactly rolling money! Maybe it's an effort to quiet fears of becoming desperately poor themselves? "I work hard, that's the difference" is simplistic, but (falsely) reassuring.

This OP comment sounds like it is on that page - "prove you aren't just being lazy, go do something instead of sitting home watching TV expecting others to support you!" Note the assumption the unemployed aren't trying at all.

As to the rich, I worked with them; some of the bosses earning quarter million openly resented paying staff, but grudgingly recognized they had to pay "market wages" to get the help they needed.

I asked one boss how they decided how much to pay each person - due to one of my job duties I had the list of incomes, I saw that some secretaries being told "you are the highest paid secretary" were in fact below middle of that category. The boss said "we pay one dollar more than the amount at which a person will leave." Those known to be not the kind to go looking (i.e. the most loyal, reliable, or older) got paid least, because they were less likely to look for a job change.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When my son graduated with a Masters in Geography the recession had just hit. He volunteered at a NGO "Thousand Friends of Oregon." In six months he became their paid communications director. Six years later he has been hired by Portland Metro in their public relations department.

Unpaid experience gave him a foot in the door.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

That's fine as an anecdote, but the majority of places that could be filled by volunteers are being offered in order to keep from paying someone else. There is no progress from a lot of positions beyond hoping that someday there might be a way of being paid a little (see example above: "one dollar more")

That is NOT the way to grow an economy, which is Mr. Poloz' job. It has become obvious to all but the decision-makers that a lack of money among the peasants makes the whole system non-viable.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When my son graduated with a Masters in Geography the recession had just hit. He volunteered at a NGO "Thousand Friends of Oregon." In six months he became their paid communications director. Six years later he has been hired by Portland Metro in their public relations department.

Unpaid experience gave him a foot in the door.

Well done him, but how did he support himself while he was working for $0.00 per week? Some do a paying job alongside volunteering and in the UK it is possible to do voluntary work while claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, although I think that's limited to part-time voluntary work.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Last time I signed on it was a maximum of 16 hours voluntary work and I had to fill in forms to declare voluntary work as a Guide Leader and keeping a church website up to date (even though they are things I continue to do when I'm working) in case there was a complaint.

(And the same is true of education and training - I attended a course and had to go through the same hoops to declare attendance on an approved course.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I disagree. I can see some arguments in favour of this where people are truly doing voluntary work rather than hanging around doing nothing. But why should the benefit system subsidise people so that employers can get people to work for them without having to pay them for doing so?
It may be a generation thing, but the whole notion of internships also gets up my craw.

That's why I specifically said 'working for a charity' (where most people are unpaid volunteers anyway). The charity must benefit, not greedy employers who are hoping to save money to line their own pockets.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When my son graduated with a Masters in Geography the recession had just hit. He volunteered at a NGO "Thousand Friends of Oregon." In six months he became their paid communications director. Six years later he has been hired by Portland Metro in their public relations department.

Unpaid experience gave him a foot in the door.

That's great!

I honestly don't know any comparative statistics, over the years I've heard a lot of stories about people doing a volunteer work that really built up a program to the point where a paid director made sense, so the charity hired - someone else, not the person who built the program, because she'll work free, or because a volunteer by definition is not a professional.

I have also heard a few where, as you say, the volunteer was finally hired. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Working for free for an NGO and working for free for a megacorporation run by zillionaires sucking the blood out of their employees -- big diff.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Unpaid experience gave him a foot in the door.

Part of the problem is that unpaid internships, in the case where they actually do give you a leg up/foot in the door, are one of the ways that the wealthy game the system in favor of their own kids. If you don't come from a background wealthy enough to support a lengthy period with no income, those kinds of opportunities are essentially closed to you.

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

50-60 years ago in NZ the Minister of Labour knew every unemployed person by name, all 20-25 of them. It was then reasonable to say, work or starve. I had two different jobs in minutes another took 3-4 hours.
Today's economy in NZ and in most countries depends on a minimum of about 4% unemployment when times are good, more when time are bad. Without this level of unemployment the economy turns to custard. In simplistic and brutal terms, if one unemployed person gets a job, someone else needs to become unemployed.
Talking about working for nothing is fudging the basic issue which is a sick economic system.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think the coded message is "we need you to show willing before we'll even consider you for paid employment. No guarantees of course".

And the unemployed young will mostly figures this out, say to themselves "we may be being exploited and deceived even by the conditional message of hope; but, hey, what choice do we have?"

And if they perceive they are subsequently badly used, then some may blame themselves, think "I will do better next time". The some who are like that remind me of Boxer in Animal Farm whose response to every setback was to say "I will work harder". Poor Boxer ended up getting sold by the pigs to the knackers' yard.

I'm no Marxist, but isn't this just an example of the old saying that the workers are exploited at the point of production? An irregular verb is in play.

"I think they are after free labour.
You need to trust us.
They are exploitative pigs"

Oh I'm sure it isn't all like that. But I know a lot of young people trying to get onto the merry-go-round. A lot of what is going on is exactly like that.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When my son graduated with a Masters in Geography the recession had just hit. He volunteered at a NGO "Thousand Friends of Oregon." In six months he became their paid communications director. Six years later he has been hired by Portland Metro in their public relations department.

Unpaid experience gave him a foot in the door.

That's a cheering story. This may be a cultural difference, but I think it would be very unlikely to happen here.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I once got a job on the strength of previous volunteering, as a minimum wage healthcare assistant. A decent job, though as a graduate I was looking to move on fairly soon.

When I was unemployed (1999), I walked around the town going into every business and asking if the had any casual work, had a job by the end of the day. Again minimum wage. Not in the middle of a recession though.

But. I had good GCSEs, sixth-form qualifications etc - and was living with parents not needing to maintain myself on my salary. Also, I didn't worry about whether it was relevant to my future career, just took the first thing I was offered. There was little job security either, they were fill in casual posts. But I preferred to do that than try to claim benefits, especially as I wasn't sure I was eligible.

What surprises me, from the other side of the fence, is how many times we hold interviews for a post and people don't turn up.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What surprises me, from the other side of the fence, is how many times we hold interviews for a post and people don't turn up.

I had to withdraw from an interview recently, and sent a very apologetic email to let the interviewing agency know. They emailed me back to thank me and commented how few people did - they'd had 3 out of 4 interviewees not turn up for their last round.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

When I was unemployed (1999), I walked around the town going into every business and asking if the had any casual work, had a job by the end of the day. Again minimum wage. Not in the middle of a recession though.

But. I had good GCSEs, sixth-form qualifications etc - and was living with parents not needing to maintain myself on my salary. Also, I didn't worry about whether it was relevant to my future career, just took the first thing I was offered. There was little job security either, they were fill in casual posts. But I preferred to do that than try to claim benefits, especially as I wasn't sure I was eligible.

Yes. The big distinction, too, is whether or not one has children. Difficult to take an unpaid internship if one has to then pay a babysitter to watch your kids while you're working for free.

[ 10. November 2014, 22:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Reaction to the Governor's comment here seems to have noted that it only works if you're the child of wealthy parents who live in a large city. Other children need to eat, wear clothes and sleep somewhere, so volunteer work is irrelevent. And if your parents don't live in the places where you might get an internship, then there's no couch in the basement for you.

HOwever, I am reminded of a speech by the then Minister of Finance (Michael WIlson) in the mid- 1980s, in which his speechwriter made him say that Canada's problem was that it didn't have enough rich people. (I worked just hree offices down from that speechwriter). WHat he was trying to point out was that increasing taxes on the rich only wouldn't produce enough extra revenue to help Canada's massive deficit. Which was true. But, of course, expressed like that, he was immediately seen as an apologist for all sorts of evil things.

Similarly, I do believe the Governor was making a very small point -- that if you aren't able to work, rather than lie around (if that's what you're doing) do something rather than nothing. But expressed very badly. I think he has singificantly damaged his standing and that of the Bank of Canada in terms of people respecting what he says.

John

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

[Roll Eyes]

quote:
Similarly, I do believe the Governor was making a very small point -- that if you aren't able to work, rather than lie around (if that's what you're doing) do something rather than nothing. But expressed very badly. I think he has singificantly damaged his standing and that of the Bank of Canada in terms of people respecting what he says.

The Governor made no such point. As a good friend said to me at a former job, "I am very much against the concept of free work (in the form of internships). It devalues what the rest of us do." And the Governor's comments very much devalue paid work.

We have minimum wage laws for a reason. A defacto employment relationship (internship) means that an employer is liable to pay the minimum wage and neither party can waive that, not even to "work for free."

And a system that demands that is one that is fundamentally flawed.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

Similarly, I do believe the Governor was making a very small point -- that if you aren't able to work, rather than lie around (if that's what you're doing) do something rather than nothing. But expressed very badly. I think he has singificantly damaged his standing and that of the Bank of Canada in terms of people respecting what he says.

Even that small point is only valid if there are, in fact, large numbers of unemployed people who are "lying around doing nothing". In my experience, most of them (like my husband) are doing things like volunteering in important causes, taking care of a home and children-- as well, of course, of leaping through endless and often futile hoops trying to gain employment. Some of them are working harder than many employed people (and certainly more than our paid legislators in many cases). So the implication that they somehow need to be told to "do something" is, to say the least, offensive.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Beware Canadians, one of our former Governors of the Reserved Bank became Prime Minister [Devil]

He was not one of the most gifted or popular holders of that office.

huia

Posted by marzipan (# 9442) on :

Mr Marzipan got his current job after working as an intern - it was one organised through the job centre, so he got a bit extra to his normal jobseekers money which covered travel and lunch (I was paying the rent out of my salary). If he'd been living on his own, he would have been getting housing benefit which just about covers the cost of living in a shoebox, as you might expect.
The idea was that it didn't cost the company anything for the time he was training, but he still had some money to live on.
Now he has a permanent, full time job out of it - but it's pretty low paid and not actually the kind of work he was originally being trained for in the internship. So it does seem a bit like they don't actually value him very much (though the people in the company are nice enough).

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Beware Canadians, one of our former Governors of the Reserved Bank became Prime Minister He was not one of the most gifted or popular holders of that office.

huia

If it's any consolation, almost all public service managers whom I have seen try for elected office have failed miserably in the attempt, much as private sector managers do. They have spent years in command-and-control situations, expecting (and usually receiving) visible obedience and respect for their jewel-like phrases, and are clearly shocked when they find themselves in the tough marketplace of the hustings, where they have no control of the talking points or the questioners.

There have been some notable exceptions (e.g., Lester Pearson, Mitchell Sharp) but I think it safe to say that Mr Poloz would not be among those who would take joy in a town hall meeting where he does not influence the performance appraisals of those in attendance.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

Similarly, I do believe the Governor was making a very small point -- that if you aren't able to work, rather than lie around (if that's what you're doing) do something rather than nothing. But expressed very badly. I think he has singificantly damaged his standing and that of the Bank of Canada in terms of people respecting what he says.

Even that small point is only valid if there are, in fact, large numbers of unemployed people who are "lying around doing nothing". In my experience, most of them (like my husband) are doing things like volunteering in important causes, taking care of a home and children-- as well, of course, of leaping through endless and often futile hoops trying to gain employment. Some of them are working harder than many employed people (and certainly more than our paid legislators in many cases). So the implication that they somehow need to be told to "do something" is, to say the least, offensive.

Well put, cliffdweller. To follow on to Augustine's point, Mr. Poloz appears to be a prime example of a man for whom most things have gone right in his life. It appears he has not had to deal with involuntary, prolonged unemployment.

He has no knowledge of the agony of the uncertainty of waiting for an employer to call. Right now I have three Public Service of Canada positions in which I have reached the interview stage and am waiting for results. Tomorrow I have the testing for a fourth. I don't get paid until I actually get a job and get to work, and that takes a good deal of time.

Until you have had the door slammed in your face repeatedly, despite all your intentions you don't know how powerless unemployment really is.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

While before this exchange, I did not know Mr Poloz' employment history, I have learned from wikipedia that he started with the Bank of Canada at 25, moved to an "independent provider of global macroenomic research and international strategy advice," then to the Export Development Corporation as CEO, then back to the Bank of Canada. While he might have a PhD, it may be that he really has no clue what the workplace is like, nor the challenges in entering it.

Almost all of the unemployed I know are very hardworking, volunteering and helping out people who need a hand, and to eat and pay for a room, scrabbling together bits of work here and there (renovation, editing, homecare, housecleaning, gardening, dogwalking, even "exotic dancing"), and do not have the money to afford an unpaid internship. I cannot imagine how angry they might be at hearing Mr Poloz' (IMHO inane and insulting) comments but I suspect that they simply have the determination to plough on and ignore him.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Also some people are just a bit thick and disorganised, and actually, they are citizens too - and the nation is meant to work for them as well. Not being capable of higher education, or training for a skilled trade or white collar profession is not a moral failing and it doesn't follow that you should be shat on from a great height for the rest of your adult life.

[ 11. November 2014, 23:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I would say that a work history like that of Mr. Poloz can breed a great deal of hubris, and it takes an exceptional amount of empathy to truly understand involuntary unemployment.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Research just published puts the cost of an internship at £926 a month for London, £804 outside London.

Just how is anyone who is unwaged expected to find that sort of money, equivalent to roughly £10,200 / £8,800 per year. Even if you could claim Jobseekers Allowance (which you don't qualify for as an intern) it wouldn't go anywhere near covering that sort of expenditure.

So, next time you think internships are a good idea: remember its the Bank of Mum and Dad funding the exercise.

With 2 children due to graduate next summer you can't imagine how thrilled I'd be if they both 'secured' an internship.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Just how is anyone who is unwaged expected to find that sort of money, equivalent to roughly £10,200 / £8,800 per year. Even if you could claim Jobseekers Allowance (which you don't qualify for as an intern) it wouldn't go anywhere near covering that sort of expenditure.

In the US you wouldn't even have that. Possibly short-term unemployment insurance, depending on how/when you left your last position.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So, next time you think internships are a good idea: remember its the Bank of Mum and Dad funding the exercise.

With 2 children due to graduate next summer you can't imagine how thrilled I'd be if they both 'secured' an internship.

And as sad and disappointing as that scenario would be, it still is "just" delaying the launching of the child-- much like graduate school. But it's not just 22 year old recent college grads who find themselves in this position, but parents with families to support. I can deal with the ups and downs of my own career/financial insecurity but when it impacts my kids it's so much harder. For some in my community, it has meant watching their kids go w/o food or shelter.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
HOwever, I am reminded of a speech by the then Minister of Finance (Michael WIlson) in the mid- 1980s, in which his speechwriter made him say that Canada's problem was that it didn't have enough rich people. (I worked just hree offices down from that speechwriter). WHat he was trying to point out was that increasing taxes on the rich only wouldn't produce enough extra revenue to help Canada's massive deficit. Which was true. But, of course, expressed like that, he was immediately seen as an apologist for all sorts of evil things.

Eep, he was the chancellor of my (federative) university, and is the current chancellor of the university federation itself!

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Speaking of Michael Wilson, with respect to John Holding's original "point" that there aren't enough "rich people" in Canada to tax is itself spurious given that:

(a) in a progressive tax system, the rich should pay proportionally more, after which recourse is had to those lower down the income scale;
(b) Michael Wilson had just gone through a tax-bracket elimination exercise which benefitted the rich; and
(c) the same government introduced the regressive Goods and Services Tax which unduly burdened lower-income brackets. Again, a tax break to the rich (as all VAT taxes are).

The bottom line was that Michael Wilson did not want to raise taxes on the rich (see Ollie Rehn's reaction to France when France did in fact do that) and used a convenient excuse to get out of it, while heaping a larger tax burden on lower-income Canadians.

Moreover, there is more than one way to raise taxes, and the CRA has of late gone on a lengthy campaign to close tax loopholes and other transaction-based avoidance techniques in order to raise more revenue, since they feel that raising nominal rates is not in the cards. This has been successful in actually producing more revenue, according to one tax lawyer of my acquaintance.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Your points are taken. But I think the real tax loopholes needing plugging are the offshoring of large corporations' millions. Like a certain uranium company.

There is merit in allowing companies to defer taxes so as to smooth out the ups and downs of the economy, but it is offensive to allow them to under pay foreign workers and spend near to nil on training.

It is time for fairness.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0