The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is 'an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice', or so says its website. In practice, while its not affiliated with an established party its really a front the NDP; an attempt at 'fiscal legitimacy' if such a thing can truly be achieved by Canada's far left.
One of their favourite things to do is to trot out an 'alternative budget' ahead of the Government.
As you might guess, its full of guilt-money initiatives, social engineering, and mechanisms to make government even more bloated.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/
Very few people have the intestinal fortitude to slog through a budget document, myself included. So I'm looking at the 'Budget in Brief' as many would.
I notice that Canada's debt from this budget's projections would go up about $88B from 2011-2015. To start, I expect better from my current government.
In the 'Aboriginals' section (first in the alphabetical list) I see a program called 'Urban Aboriginals'. This program is costed at $122M. I wonder what why it would cost $122M to have some Aboriginals live in urban centres. While they lived in urban centres might they be there to work in mainstream society (as opposed to reservation life) and hence cost at least no more?
In the Agriculture section I see something unexpected. This 'budget' cuts Biofuel subsidies by $200M a year. Biofuels, of course, are not a panacea, but that doesn't stop the granola-eating, tree-hugging, Kum-ba-ya singing environmentalists from thinking it is.
Carbon taxes start in 2011 and go from $9.6B to $14B the following year. Guilt money; a tax for a problem that doesn't exist. Moreover, its a tax that wouldn't do anything to fix the 'problem' its for.
There is $1B for 'Recession Relief for Non-Profits' for this year only. This is actually agreeable, in principle. Its not hard to imagine that many non-profits are struggling because the donation base has tightened its purse strings and/or been asked to give more to more charities. And as non-profit agencies often use funds more efficiently than governments through their programmes, it makes sense that we want to keep them viable and effective.
On the matter of Employment Insurance, the CCPA wants to make qualification criteria the same across the country. I think this is a step backwards. The criteria was adjusted to make things more fair as job markets are not the same nationwide.
On the topic of Post Secondary Education, there are a bunch of programmes (RESP) and tax credits cancelled and in its place is a $2B programme called 'Income Tested Grants'. So, instead of having the current ones administered through Revenue Canada with various lines on our tax returns, presumably we get a bloated, wasteful bureaucracy that decides who gets how much based on perceived need.
On taxation, I see some curiosities too.
Research on CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) tells me that the highest federal income tax bracket is 29%. The CCPA's budget would increase that to 31.5%. Given that in two years the added revenue is only $1.7B, perhaps it accounts for those who are in the highest tax bracket and might choose to leave, taking their skills, education and job-creating money abroad.
They also want to cap Tax-Free Savings accounts and RRSP contributions, and fully tax capital gains and stock options. These are fine ways to discourage saving and investment. Given that in this country its best for an individual to not save at all for their retirement than to save a little, discouraging RRSP contributions would seem to already be the wrong answer.
Due to time constraints, I can't polish this now or expand on these points any more than I already have.
