The providing breakfast to school students may seem like a noble and caring act but I contest that it is in fact anything but. I came to this realisation some years ago when I had the good fortune to receive a long term subbing assignment at the Samson Elementary School. Naturally when I got this assignment I was very happy to have steady work for the foreseeable future. Little did I know though that part of my teaching duties, in addition to lesson delivery, would be the daily dispensing of breakfast to my homeroom students. Now this was a job that I had to perform everyday after having gotten my own children up, fed and then either off to school or a babysitter.
One of the ironies of the whole situation was that the parents of these children weren't so busy with work that they couldn't feed their own children. Actually quite the opposite was true. The truth was that few if any of these parents actually had work. All of this led me to conclude that I fail to see why if the feeding of their own children is not a priority for these parents, than why should it therefore be a priority for those of us who are responsible enough to work and feed our own children?
There are many naive arguments that are put forth in support of both school breakfast and lunch programs. I will attempt to deal with two of them here. The most prominent of these arguments is that "students will not learn on an empty stomach". Therefore it is necessary that if we are to avoid wasting the school day that we provide the missing meal at school. This statement is true but it only focuses on a small part of what is actually a much larger problem. My own experience with the above school breakfast program showed me that students who do not have food at home will not become good students, who are willing to learn at school just because they are served breakfast. The reason for this is that the fact that there is no food at home is indicative of a much more serious problem, that cannot simply be compensated for with a meal of cereal at school. The more telling truth is that students who do not have access to food at home are invariably living in a situation where there is an absence of any responsible adult(s) to give structure to their daily life. A constant lack of home stability is in reality the most influential factor governing a student's ability and willingness to learn. It may also be added that such homes tend to be characterized by a lack of the internal supports that foster intellectual development and they are the ones where there invariably is no food.
Another liberal fallacy is the notion that the dignity of the child must be protected at all costs. Therefore it is necessary that these breakfast be offered to all students. Again I must say that as noble as is the intent, the truth is that attempting to level the children to the lowest common denominator is counter productive. This argument is at its heart a Communist argument which says that material differences between people are bad and lead to oppression. What the system is conditioning the children for is a socialist utopia where any individual achievement that differentiates you from those achievements that are sanctioned by or are attained by the group are frowned upon. When seen in this light the best thing that can be done by parents who feed their children at home is to instruct their children that they are not to participate.
Next I would like to deal with the proposition that these children have no food at home because the families are too poor and cannot afford to buy food. I contend that this argument is totally false. In Canada only
10 % of our income is spent on food that is cooked and eaten at HOME. This is the same percentage as is spent by Americans and people from Great Britain. Our society has done an excellent job of making food affordable at a level that is unprecedented in the history of man.
Next I would also like to point out that this seemingly kind act inculcates in our children the idea that no matter your level of irresponsibility someone will step in, at their own expense and at the expense of their children, and save you from yourself or your children from you.
If there is anything that our schools need to do at 8am it would be for the school to offer a reading enrichment program. The free breakfast might be easier to tolerate if it were actually tied to the receiver doing something rather than nothing. Maybe attendance in such an enrichment program should be mandatory for those who want the breakfast. We need to avoid completely giving young people the ideal that they can get something for nothing. In our province it is a travesty to know that 44 percent of the adult population is functionally illiterate. It would therefore seem that the school system has not been able to even accomplish its primary job which is the education of our children. Maybe it is time to get rid of the educational group think that rules our classrooms and bring back individual accountability along with individual achievement?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Business Concessions
As a member of Town Council I would never be in favor of the town using tax concessions as a tool for bringing business to Ponoka. One reason that I am not in favor of granting tax concessions is because it makes no sense for the town to not collect the one tax that it has exclusive claim too. I know that supporters of the opposite view would argue that it is better to get the business to locate here and at least have the jobs but such an argument ignores the town's income reality.
When it comes to income the town cannot tax the employment income of its residents. That prerogative belongs solely to the province and the federal government. The only tax that the town can levy is that on the property which belongs to the businesses and homeowners in its jurisdiction. Therefore when a town grants concessions those concessions are a hit to the town's bottom line but the town must still provide infrastructure services to the business and its employees. If the business doesn't pay for these services that means that another town resident and business will have to pay those costs.
Secondly I am opposed to government at any level that proposes to use the tax system for anything other than what is its proper purpose which is to pay expenses that are incurred in the running of the government. The use of the tax system as tool to manipulate the economic decisions of individuals or businesses only serves to erode the tax system itself by reducing taxpayer confidence in the system's equity of application. And in the end it also serves to cheapen the value that is attached to the services that are provided and causes the taxpayers to hole their politicians, who are responsible for administration of taxes, in disrepute.
More importantly though the basis of this argument is to be found in the idea that governments by following certain fiscal policies can grow themselves out of a deficit. However this argument can only be used by national governments. I do not think that this argument can be applied to municipal economics because municipalities cannot issue money or set interest rate policy as a way of growing themselves out of debt. Therefore it is my position that ultimately no one wins when tax concessions are used to alter economic behaviour.
When it comes to income the town cannot tax the employment income of its residents. That prerogative belongs solely to the province and the federal government. The only tax that the town can levy is that on the property which belongs to the businesses and homeowners in its jurisdiction. Therefore when a town grants concessions those concessions are a hit to the town's bottom line but the town must still provide infrastructure services to the business and its employees. If the business doesn't pay for these services that means that another town resident and business will have to pay those costs.
Secondly I am opposed to government at any level that proposes to use the tax system for anything other than what is its proper purpose which is to pay expenses that are incurred in the running of the government. The use of the tax system as tool to manipulate the economic decisions of individuals or businesses only serves to erode the tax system itself by reducing taxpayer confidence in the system's equity of application. And in the end it also serves to cheapen the value that is attached to the services that are provided and causes the taxpayers to hole their politicians, who are responsible for administration of taxes, in disrepute.
More importantly though the basis of this argument is to be found in the idea that governments by following certain fiscal policies can grow themselves out of a deficit. However this argument can only be used by national governments. I do not think that this argument can be applied to municipal economics because municipalities cannot issue money or set interest rate policy as a way of growing themselves out of debt. Therefore it is my position that ultimately no one wins when tax concessions are used to alter economic behaviour.
Changing of the Guard
Should the citizens of Ponoka vote for a new slate of Town Council members or should they stick with the old ones? When you have two candidates for each available seat, that becomes the central question for this election.
In my recent candidate's profile I accuse the present council of being too insular and unresponsive to the voices of Ponoka's residents. Now some of the paper's readers may wonder in what way our town council is guilty of this. The evidence for my accusation is that historically the members of council have come from a very narrow population group or "clique". The people who have been on council have usually come from the ranks of the self employed or retired. The reason for this is that the people in these two groups have some control over their daily schedule, whereas those who must make a living for themselves but who do not have such time managment flexibility are unable to serve in public office.
This fact though has resulted in Ponoka, like many small communities, having historically been run by an Oligarchy of a few people who share a common mindset. Now in the early days of Ponoka this system may have worked well for the town but I do not believe that it is a political system that meets the needs of today's more dynamic society. And therefore I believe that it is necessary for the town's residents to choose candidates who are of a different mindset. On that note I would like to point out that it is interesting to see how many of the incumbent candidates are now trying to distance themselves from their historic performance.
By the criteria that I have established above it then also is evident that not all the new candidates are actually any different than the incumbents they are running against. Some of the new candidates also fit into the same narrow mode because they are part of the same business population and therefore are likely to share in the same current council mindset.
In my recent candidate's profile I accuse the present council of being too insular and unresponsive to the voices of Ponoka's residents. Now some of the paper's readers may wonder in what way our town council is guilty of this. The evidence for my accusation is that historically the members of council have come from a very narrow population group or "clique". The people who have been on council have usually come from the ranks of the self employed or retired. The reason for this is that the people in these two groups have some control over their daily schedule, whereas those who must make a living for themselves but who do not have such time managment flexibility are unable to serve in public office.
This fact though has resulted in Ponoka, like many small communities, having historically been run by an Oligarchy of a few people who share a common mindset. Now in the early days of Ponoka this system may have worked well for the town but I do not believe that it is a political system that meets the needs of today's more dynamic society. And therefore I believe that it is necessary for the town's residents to choose candidates who are of a different mindset. On that note I would like to point out that it is interesting to see how many of the incumbent candidates are now trying to distance themselves from their historic performance.
By the criteria that I have established above it then also is evident that not all the new candidates are actually any different than the incumbents they are running against. Some of the new candidates also fit into the same narrow mode because they are part of the same business population and therefore are likely to share in the same current council mindset.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Property taxes
Are property taxes inherently regressive in nature, since they are not set according to a person's ability to pay but rather according to a propery's value? Should property taxes be based upon income or a person's ability to pay?
Now although it is true that property taxes are based upon the value of the improvements that have been applied to a given piece of land there is no connection between what is determined to be the tax and the wealth of the individual property owner. Property taxes reflect the costs that a jurisdiction has incurred or can anticipate incurring as it tries to serve its citizens. As such property tax then is not a tax at all but rather a way for the jurisdiction to recoupe some of its coasts pertaining to the services which it provides. Property tax then should be more correctly understood as the means whereby the town covers the expenses that it incurs as it tries to do its number one job, care for its citizens.
Property taxes are also the performance by the town of a task that all corporations must do and that is, recapitalization. Private corporations can recapitalize by doing one of two things, selling bonds or selling stocks. For a non profit corporate entity such as a town the only things that it can do in order to recapitalize, is to sell bonds or collect taxes or both. The only stock that a town has is the property that it is composed of but which for the most part, is held in private hands. In other words the citizens and businessmen of a town are the share holders of the town. As the towns shareholders it is incumbent upon them that they, each year, provide the capital that the town needs in order to survive.
We can see from this that when people and businesses pay their property taxes that they are really enriching themselves and that every dime in taxes that is paid is also returned to them in the form of services provided.
Because of the close connection between the tax payer and local government property taxes are probably the most efficiently utilized form of taxation known to man.
Now although it is true that property taxes are based upon the value of the improvements that have been applied to a given piece of land there is no connection between what is determined to be the tax and the wealth of the individual property owner. Property taxes reflect the costs that a jurisdiction has incurred or can anticipate incurring as it tries to serve its citizens. As such property tax then is not a tax at all but rather a way for the jurisdiction to recoupe some of its coasts pertaining to the services which it provides. Property tax then should be more correctly understood as the means whereby the town covers the expenses that it incurs as it tries to do its number one job, care for its citizens.
Property taxes are also the performance by the town of a task that all corporations must do and that is, recapitalization. Private corporations can recapitalize by doing one of two things, selling bonds or selling stocks. For a non profit corporate entity such as a town the only things that it can do in order to recapitalize, is to sell bonds or collect taxes or both. The only stock that a town has is the property that it is composed of but which for the most part, is held in private hands. In other words the citizens and businessmen of a town are the share holders of the town. As the towns shareholders it is incumbent upon them that they, each year, provide the capital that the town needs in order to survive.
We can see from this that when people and businesses pay their property taxes that they are really enriching themselves and that every dime in taxes that is paid is also returned to them in the form of services provided.
Because of the close connection between the tax payer and local government property taxes are probably the most efficiently utilized form of taxation known to man.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
My Platform
Towns, Cities and Villages are probably the greatest and most numerous non-profit organizations on the planet, out numbering even the number of national governments, who rule them. Ponoka, like all governments, is organized voluntarily by it citizens for the expressed purpose of sharing certain costs which are too high for the individual to bear alone and for enabling the individual to share in economic and social benefits which cannot be gained by the individual outside of of the group dynamic. The organization of human society at this larger level enables the amassed individuals to become more than the sum of their parts.
There are three basic sources of operating revenue for our town:
Property tax assessments
Licensing and permitting
Government transfers- both federal and provincial.
As we all know, the first two sources of income are both paid by the business people and residents of the jurisdiction. Government sources of money are actually contributions that are made by residents of other jurisdictions to the residents of the receiving jurisdiction. In 2009 of the three largest sources of town revenue, one third came from Government transfers. This means that 1 dollar of every three that we need in order for our community to operate must come from people who are residents of other areas of this province or another province, who pay taxes based upon their income.
Although taxing property alone seems to not be the best means of taxation, it does have its advantages besides it being the only means of taxation that is open to local government. Some of the advantages of the property tax are outlined on page 9 of, Alternatives on Property Taxation by Joan M. Youngman :
They are highly perceptible to rate payers and promote accountability
Well understood
Cheap to collect
Difficult to evade
It is my belief that the idea of having infrastructure categories such as “Local Area Improvement” runs contrary to and undermines this basic purpose for which citizens organize themselves into these larger groupings of villages, towns and cities. The only way in which the idea that a neighborhood should be made to finance its own infrastructure needs is if the town can point to and say that the wear and tear that is sustained by installed infrastructure has arisen directly as a result of use by the local residents, and is in no way a consequence of normal degradation. Otherwise it is morally wrong for the town to charge those residents exclusively with costs of their replacement.
Such a change in town policy pertaining to the way in which some ongoing infrastructure needs have been funded will mean that taxes have to go up. However the current policy, although it has meant an overall exceptionally low rate of taxation compared to similar towns and has been a misrepresentation on the part of Council. The truth being that taxes have increased for those who have had to pay for their own “local area improvement”. The current policy has pitted neighbour against neighbour and has placed an inordinate financial burden on those who must live on fixed incomes.
If I were to be voted onto town council the areas which I think should receive the town's funding priorities are:
roads/sidewalks
policing
water/sewer
library
parks
These are the areas where I believe that the greatest community good can be achieved for the benefit of the greatest number of citizens.
Raising local property taxes alone is not going to close the town's income deficit. During my three year term of office I would also like for the town to enter into talks with the County of Ponoka for the purpose of amalgamating the two jurisdictions. I believe that amalgamation with the county is more in the town's interest than is the annexation of county land. It would seem that overall it would be fair for the county to acknowledge that its residents benefit from town services, such as the pool, library, shopping, arena; that are not provided by the county. The town of Ponoka is also a business and shopping hub for county residents. And for many it is the place where they retire from farming.
An advantage to the town, besides shared operational costs, would be a reduced number of councillors. Many county residents retire in Ponoka because living in an urban community affords more benefits,such as social and economic benefits, for the elderly than they can enjoy by staying in the sparsely populated countryside.
It is not my position that elected officials have the moral right to tell their electors what they will discuss with the town's residents or for how long they will discuss a matter. This is simply not their place. refuse to have further discussions with them when they have a grievance that is unresolved. Nor do I think that it is legitimate for the elected officials to hide behind provincial regulatory bodies and statutes, as a means of evading accountability. Nor should they drive this town's residents into penury as they look for justice in a property tax system that, in the interest of the politicians, has become opaque in its structure.
I would also work for a change to Ponoka's subsidized housing program which would require of those who reside in the units that they be working to get themselves out. No longer should the provision of subsidized housing be treated as an entitlement and a permanent place of for long term residence. Rather we need to structure the low income housing program around the concept of it being a way station. A place that affords the individual an opportunity to get a leg “up”. Rather than it being used as a permanent cheap storage facility for the lives of those who can work but who refuse to do so.
I would also work for a change to Ponoka's subsidized housing program which would require of those who reside in the units that they be working to get themselves out. No longer should the provision of subsidized housing be treated as an entitlement and a permanent place of for long term residence. Rather we need to structure the low income housing program around the concept of it being a way station. A place that affords the individual an opportunity to get a leg “up”. Rather than it being used as a permanent cheap storage facility for the lives of those who can work but who refuse to do so.
In the new system approved applicants would have to sign one year renewable leases which could only be renwed for a maximum of three consecutive years. Priority would be given to applicants who are currently working and are living below the official poverty threshold. If an applicant is not working he/she would have to submit a current resume or proof of fulltime attendance at a post secondary institution or enrollment in a trades program. Once approved, continued maintenance of a person's residential priviliges would be contingent upon their maintaining either fulltime attendance at the post secondary institution/trades program or continuing proof that they are seeking fulltime work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)