It is the hot topic of the day, the day when Prime Minister Harper will apologize to the Aboriginal peoples for the wrongs the Government of Canada did to them through the institution of the residential school. It is a day many had hoped for but have not lived to see but their children and grandchildren are bearing witness to this historic occasion.
In Winnipeg there are celebrations throughout the city but the big one is at the Marlborough Hotel where free lunches will be provided for survivors and their families and I am sure friends as well. Schools are participating by having students listen to the apology. It is a buzz and long time coming.
One man said on CBC this morning that the apology does not mean anything to him because it is a little too late and that nothing can erase the pain and memory of the residential school that robbed him of the love of his mother and family.
Well, it's a step in the right direction. For some this will bring closure of sorts and will give them the courage to go on with what is left of their lives. We are all broken people but we must go on. Each of us as human beings have our burden to carry. I do not think it is possible to be human without a burden. And so I hope the Aboriginal people will take comfort in this and press on for the larger victory of equality and greater participation in their own lives.
see story below by BBC - very good story indeed.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Legacy of Canada's residential schools
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Understanding the rationale for a federal taxes is a challenge: Understanding gender impacts of crucial importance to women
According to recent statistics, the traditional nuclear family is no longer a reality for more than 50% of Canadians. As taxation systems have largely been built on the old model,
The first requires analysis of where the budget lies on a broad political spectrum. At one end, the budget may follow the mantra of cutting taxes, reducing the deficit and the overall size of government, while focussing on economic competitiveness, the military, and law and order. At the other end, the budget may allow the government role and its expenditures when there are important social, environmental and economic initiatives needed to build a sustainable and inclusive society. Both approaches require a sense of balance, but the fulcrum between investing in public goods and services and freeing the individual will be differently located.
The second requires an analysis of a budget’s gender impact. This may appear to be a relatively simple task. Just examine individual measures to see if their impact on men and women is similar, and if not to determine how they should be adjusted to achieve greater equality of result. In reality, it is never that simple. Expenditures, taxes and debt can be too high or too low for long term wellbeing, for the individual and for society. Add the nation’s role in the international context – peacekeeping, investment, trade and aid – and you have a more formidable task.
The current aim is to restrict the analysis in the interest of gender equality to the gender impact of various tax measures, with some reflections on recent Canadian budgets. Much of my information comes from Kathleen Lahey, a Queens Economics professor I met through FAFIA in New York, and Armine Yalnizyan who FAFIA engaged to analyze the 1995-2005 decade in terms of gender impact.
The Context:
1. While Canada enjoyed #1 spot in UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) during the ‘90’s, we have now sunk to #3 in ;01 and #7 in ’06. Our rating on the Gender Development Index (GDI) has been consistently below that on the HDI.Other top ranking countries have continued tom improve their rating.
2. The UN World Economic Forum Gender Gap Index (GGI), based on economic participation and opportunities, educational attainment, political empowerment, health and survival, told a similar story: #14 in ’06, #18 in ’07.
3. These declines have been attributed to women’s different political economy: lower wages, more responsibility for unpaid work, more single parents.
4. Even women with advanced education experienced lower wages, glass ceilings, more child care hours (13/wk for men, 35 for women).
5. The large gender income gap persists until late in life when inheritance and longevity effects appear.
6. Women are less economically competitive throughout their lives, leading to proportionately more: 2nd class incomes, economic dependency, marginalized and interrupted work, poverty, smaller savings , lower retirement benefits, constrained rights to EI, smaller CPP and fewer opportunities for advancement. Race, class and disability further aggravate the inequality.
Taxation and Gender Budgeting (analysis of different impacts on men and women of revenue and expenditure)
1. Income and assets vary by gender; so does taxation even though it may appear neutral. Its impact is affected by economic status and women’s greater need for social services; tax principles, the total impact of the mix of taxes, and the types of credits and deductions (tax expenditures).
2. Governments should report impacts of tax expenditures as they do now giving economic and social impacts of many tax items (estimates of impact, projections of fiscal impact, how calculated and why considered tax expenditures).
3. Graduated income taxes are seen as “progressive”, “fair” or “redistributive” but the way they are graduated makes the difference.
a. In ’89, the number of tax brackets was reduced from 13 to 4, and all shared an exemption of $9600. People with incomes close to $15,000 paid the same tax rate of 15% (+GST/PST of 13-20% depending on the province or territory) as people with incomes close to $30,000. Many more women than men earn at the lower level so more women spend proportionately more of their income on tax.
b. In ’08, the tax rate was reduced from 17% to 15%, still a higher rate than before the above change.
c. Gender Budget Analysis should analyze the impacts on the majority of men and women using pre-1989 rates as their baseline.
4. Payroll taxes:
a. CPP and EI taxes are paid by contributions from both employers and employees (currently CPP $2.475 each = 4.95 % of income; EI $2.42% by employers + $1.73 by employees + 3.9% income, 8.85% in total) with caps for higher income people.
b. Because of these caps, more women will pay a higher proportion of their income for CPP and EI.
c. Because women on average are paid less than men, and are more likely to experience interrupted or marginal work and have lower lifetime income, their benefits and capacity to save are less.
d. Federal income tax rates and GST are common across the country but provincial income tax rates, PST, and other payroll taxes vary so total tax rates will vary.
5. Income Tax Provisions:
a. Women can experience additional disadvantages when adult relationships (spousal or partner) are embedded in the tax structure; e.g. dependent deduction or credit, as women’s economic dependence is reinforced without her having actual control of any funds.
b. Marriage and co-habitation ‘penalty’ taxes such as GST tax credit and Canada Child Tax Benefits (CCTB) are currently the largest forms. They are really social welfare benefits administered through the tax system for lowest income people, among whom women outnumber men. If there is a couple total income limit, the woman who generally has the lower income does not benefit directly unless the partner shares it equally.
c. Joint tax provisions: joint filing or income splitting is the ultimate form but is not yet in the Canadian tax system except for seniors.
d. Other provisions that reinforce women’s vulnerability, economic dependence and poverty (disincentives to enter the labour force and reduce the labour supply) are:
i. Dependent spouse/partner tax credits
ii. Transferable credits
iii. Tax exemption for unpaid work
iv. Caregiver tax credit
v. Child care deduction expense limits
vi. Tax-back of child care expense deductions in the CCTB
vii. Non-deductibility of work-related expenses
viii. Universal child care allowance
6. Urgent Issue: Income Splitting
a. May appear under guise of softening impact of income trust controls
b. No guarantee that lower income person, generally the woman, actually
has control of half the combined income
c. retirement income splitting introduced in 2007 breaking Canadian tradition of capping joint tax instruments to ensure high income people contribute to neediest.
i. single income couples with a single high earner benefit most
ii. the lower income person will have no incentive to take on paid work unless able to earn enough to offset the benefits to the higher income spouse
iii. half the combined incomes may even push both into a higher tax bracket, as well as depriving the unit of unpaid work..
iv. no benefit received by low income people or people needing more retirement income
v. only of slight benefit to middle income people
vi. low income people subsidize high income people
d. Should be top priority if gender budgeting introduced as it changes
principle of entire Income Tax Act (taxing the individual’s income); joint ownership should require a legal agreement, as with CPP splitting and spousal/partner RRSPs.
e. Legally married and common law partners would be affected differently: a spouse reports a fictional share of the other spouse’s income but retains liability for tax owed; if either spouse refuses to pay both portions of the tax, the other spouse will have no legal entitlement to the income of the other spouse from which to pay the tax until death or legal separation
f. A common law partner (in most jurisdictions) will only have a “moral” right to the property, a disincentive to shared ownership, and contrary to the principles of gender equity incorporated in family law since the ‘70s.
g. Pension income splitting benefits higher incomes more (with incomes of >$70,000) higher income married and co-habiting couples at the expense of single and widowed persons, the majority of whom are women. It also weakens the state’s ability to fund other social programs like child care
h. Gender responsive budgeting should focus on the dangers of income
splitting and the negative effects of all other taxes, credits and deductions.
So how does Budget Canada 2008 stack up for women?
Slight gains were made:
1. Tax relief for lower income (women predominate) , but overshadowed by large
tax cuts for upper income
2. Tax free savings plan – benefits some upper income women but of little help to
lower income women who require all their income for basic needs
3. Arm’s length crown corporation established for Employment Insurance gives
fund some more independence, but no changes made in criteria for qualifying or
level of benefits to remove the current disadvantage faced by most women; the
$2m. allocated the crown is very little when compared to the $57.5m.
accumulation in the fund that remained in general revenue
But Major losses were also there:
1. Service expenditure devolved to provinces, abdicating strong role for federal government in providing services of particular value to women largely because of their family caretaking role.
2. No expenditures on a National Early Learning and Child Care program; military expenditures were increased.
3. Role of central government in funding services curtailed; equalization transfers to provinces shifted to per capita base rather than compensation to provinces with lowest per capita tax base.
4. Large allocations to debt reduction potentially of benefit all but of no help for people living below the poverty line.
In balance, the current gender income gap between women and men was widened by Budget 2008 rather than reduced.
The first requires analysis of where the budget lies on a broad political spectrum. At one end, the budget may follow the mantra of cutting taxes, reducing the deficit and the overall size of government, while focussing on economic competitiveness, the military, and law and order. At the other end, the budget may allow the government role and its expenditures when there are important social, environmental and economic initiatives needed to build a sustainable and inclusive society. Both approaches require a sense of balance, but the fulcrum between investing in public goods and services and freeing the individual will be differently located.
The second requires an analysis of a budget’s gender impact. This may appear to be a relatively simple task. Just examine individual measures to see if their impact on men and women is similar, and if not to determine how they should be adjusted to achieve greater equality of result. In reality, it is never that simple. Expenditures, taxes and debt can be too high or too low for long term wellbeing, for the individual and for society. Add the nation’s role in the international context – peacekeeping, investment, trade and aid – and you have a more formidable task.
The current aim is to restrict the analysis in the interest of gender equality to the gender impact of various tax measures, with some reflections on recent Canadian budgets. Much of my information comes from Kathleen Lahey, a Queens Economics professor I met through FAFIA in New York, and Armine Yalnizyan who FAFIA engaged to analyze the 1995-2005 decade in terms of gender impact.
The Context:
1. While Canada enjoyed #1 spot in UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) during the ‘90’s, we have now sunk to #3 in ;01 and #7 in ’06. Our rating on the Gender Development Index (GDI) has been consistently below that on the HDI.Other top ranking countries have continued tom improve their rating.
2. The UN World Economic Forum Gender Gap Index (GGI), based on economic participation and opportunities, educational attainment, political empowerment, health and survival, told a similar story: #14 in ’06, #18 in ’07.
3. These declines have been attributed to women’s different political economy: lower wages, more responsibility for unpaid work, more single parents.
4. Even women with advanced education experienced lower wages, glass ceilings, more child care hours (13/wk for men, 35 for women).
5. The large gender income gap persists until late in life when inheritance and longevity effects appear.
6. Women are less economically competitive throughout their lives, leading to proportionately more: 2nd class incomes, economic dependency, marginalized and interrupted work, poverty, smaller savings , lower retirement benefits, constrained rights to EI, smaller CPP and fewer opportunities for advancement. Race, class and disability further aggravate the inequality.
Taxation and Gender Budgeting (analysis of different impacts on men and women of revenue and expenditure)
1. Income and assets vary by gender; so does taxation even though it may appear neutral. Its impact is affected by economic status and women’s greater need for social services; tax principles, the total impact of the mix of taxes, and the types of credits and deductions (tax expenditures).
2. Governments should report impacts of tax expenditures as they do now giving economic and social impacts of many tax items (estimates of impact, projections of fiscal impact, how calculated and why considered tax expenditures).
3. Graduated income taxes are seen as “progressive”, “fair” or “redistributive” but the way they are graduated makes the difference.
a. In ’89, the number of tax brackets was reduced from 13 to 4, and all shared an exemption of $9600. People with incomes close to $15,000 paid the same tax rate of 15% (+GST/PST of 13-20% depending on the province or territory) as people with incomes close to $30,000. Many more women than men earn at the lower level so more women spend proportionately more of their income on tax.
b. In ’08, the tax rate was reduced from 17% to 15%, still a higher rate than before the above change.
c. Gender Budget Analysis should analyze the impacts on the majority of men and women using pre-1989 rates as their baseline.
4. Payroll taxes:
a. CPP and EI taxes are paid by contributions from both employers and employees (currently CPP $2.475 each = 4.95 % of income; EI $2.42% by employers + $1.73 by employees + 3.9% income, 8.85% in total) with caps for higher income people.
b. Because of these caps, more women will pay a higher proportion of their income for CPP and EI.
c. Because women on average are paid less than men, and are more likely to experience interrupted or marginal work and have lower lifetime income, their benefits and capacity to save are less.
d. Federal income tax rates and GST are common across the country but provincial income tax rates, PST, and other payroll taxes vary so total tax rates will vary.
5. Income Tax Provisions:
a. Women can experience additional disadvantages when adult relationships (spousal or partner) are embedded in the tax structure; e.g. dependent deduction or credit, as women’s economic dependence is reinforced without her having actual control of any funds.
b. Marriage and co-habitation ‘penalty’ taxes such as GST tax credit and Canada Child Tax Benefits (CCTB) are currently the largest forms. They are really social welfare benefits administered through the tax system for lowest income people, among whom women outnumber men. If there is a couple total income limit, the woman who generally has the lower income does not benefit directly unless the partner shares it equally.
c. Joint tax provisions: joint filing or income splitting is the ultimate form but is not yet in the Canadian tax system except for seniors.
d. Other provisions that reinforce women’s vulnerability, economic dependence and poverty (disincentives to enter the labour force and reduce the labour supply) are:
i. Dependent spouse/partner tax credits
ii. Transferable credits
iii. Tax exemption for unpaid work
iv. Caregiver tax credit
v. Child care deduction expense limits
vi. Tax-back of child care expense deductions in the CCTB
vii. Non-deductibility of work-related expenses
viii. Universal child care allowance
6. Urgent Issue: Income Splitting
a. May appear under guise of softening impact of income trust controls
b. No guarantee that lower income person, generally the woman, actually
has control of half the combined income
c. retirement income splitting introduced in 2007 breaking Canadian tradition of capping joint tax instruments to ensure high income people contribute to neediest.
i. single income couples with a single high earner benefit most
ii. the lower income person will have no incentive to take on paid work unless able to earn enough to offset the benefits to the higher income spouse
iii. half the combined incomes may even push both into a higher tax bracket, as well as depriving the unit of unpaid work..
iv. no benefit received by low income people or people needing more retirement income
v. only of slight benefit to middle income people
vi. low income people subsidize high income people
d. Should be top priority if gender budgeting introduced as it changes
principle of entire Income Tax Act (taxing the individual’s income); joint ownership should require a legal agreement, as with CPP splitting and spousal/partner RRSPs.
e. Legally married and common law partners would be affected differently: a spouse reports a fictional share of the other spouse’s income but retains liability for tax owed; if either spouse refuses to pay both portions of the tax, the other spouse will have no legal entitlement to the income of the other spouse from which to pay the tax until death or legal separation
f. A common law partner (in most jurisdictions) will only have a “moral” right to the property, a disincentive to shared ownership, and contrary to the principles of gender equity incorporated in family law since the ‘70s.
g. Pension income splitting benefits higher incomes more (with incomes of >$70,000) higher income married and co-habiting couples at the expense of single and widowed persons, the majority of whom are women. It also weakens the state’s ability to fund other social programs like child care
h. Gender responsive budgeting should focus on the dangers of income
splitting and the negative effects of all other taxes, credits and deductions.
So how does Budget Canada 2008 stack up for women?
Slight gains were made:
1. Tax relief for lower income (women predominate) , but overshadowed by large
tax cuts for upper income
2. Tax free savings plan – benefits some upper income women but of little help to
lower income women who require all their income for basic needs
3. Arm’s length crown corporation established for Employment Insurance gives
fund some more independence, but no changes made in criteria for qualifying or
level of benefits to remove the current disadvantage faced by most women; the
$2m. allocated the crown is very little when compared to the $57.5m.
accumulation in the fund that remained in general revenue
But Major losses were also there:
1. Service expenditure devolved to provinces, abdicating strong role for federal government in providing services of particular value to women largely because of their family caretaking role.
2. No expenditures on a National Early Learning and Child Care program; military expenditures were increased.
3. Role of central government in funding services curtailed; equalization transfers to provinces shifted to per capita base rather than compensation to provinces with lowest per capita tax base.
4. Large allocations to debt reduction potentially of benefit all but of no help for people living below the poverty line.
In balance, the current gender income gap between women and men was widened by Budget 2008 rather than reduced.
The only Albino gorilla in the world was found in Equitorial Guinea
This gorilla is now languishing in a zoo in Barcelonia - taken out of Africa. Pity. PBS will be airing a show on this animal shortly. Watch for it.
Bill Moyer on what's wrong with the media today
Bill Moyers: 'Journalism in Profound Crisis' (Video) | MediaCulture | AlterNet
Link: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/87376/
Link: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/87376/
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
A custormer is mad at Best Buy... Are they really the Best Buy
BEST BUY, MY FOOT
Best Buy has some bad policies....
Normally, I would not share this with others, however, since this could
happen to you or your friends , I decided to share it. If you purchase
something from, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, JC Penny, Sears etc. and you
return the item with the receipt they will give you your money back if you paid
cash, or credit your account if paid by plastic.
| Well, I purchased a GPS for my car, a Tom Tom XL.S from 'Best Buy'. They
have a policy that it must be returned within 14 days for a refund!
So after 4 days I returned it in the original box with all the items in
the box, with paper work and cords all wrapped in the plastic. Just as I
received it, including the receipt.
I explained to the lady at the return desk I did not like the way it
could not find store names. The lady at the refund desk said, there is a
15% restock fee, for items returned. I said no one told me that. I said
how much would that be. She said it goes by the price of the item. It
will be $45.00 Dollars for you. I said, all your going to do is walk over and
place it back on the shelf then charge me $45.00 of my money for
restocking? She said that's the store policy. I said if more people were
aware of this they would not buy anything here! If I bought a $2000.00
computer or TV and returned it I would be charged $300.00 dollars restock
fee? She said yes, 15%.
I said OK, just give me my money minus the restock fee.
She said, since the item is over $200.00 dollars, she can't give me my
money back!!!
Corporate has to and they will mail you a check in 7 to ten days.!! I said
'WHAT?!'
It's my money!! I paid in cash! I want to buy a different brand..Now I
have to wait 7 to 10 days. She said well, our policy is on the back of
your receipt.
I said, do you read the front or back of your receipt? She said well, the
front! I said so do I, I want to talk to the Manager!.
So the manager comes over, I explained everything to him, and he said,
well, sir they should have told you about the policy when you got the
item. I said, No one, has ever told me about the check refund or
restock fee, whenever I bought items from computers to TVs from Best
Buy. The only thing they ever discussed was the worthless extended warranty program. He I said Well, I can give you corporate phone number.
I called corporate. The guy said, well, I'm not supposed to do this but I
can give you a 45.00 dollar gift card and you can use it at Best Buy. I
told him if I bought something and returned it, you would charge me a
restock fee on the item and then send me a check for the remaining 3
dollars. You can keep your gift card, I'm never shopping in Best Buy ever
again, and if I would have been smart, I would have charged the whole
thing on my credit card! Then I would have canceled the transaction.
I would have gotten all my money back including your stupid fees! He
|didn't say a word!
I informed him that I was going to e-mail my friends and give them a heads
up on this stores policy, as they don't tell you about all the little
caveats.
It's true! read it for yourself!!
Best Buys return policy
Do you have any stories about bad business practices? Share these with the world. It's the only way change can come about. Many times we do not read the fine prints. Read the fine prints that's where the shockers are always located. Many times we do not bother because the writing's so small and dense - it is for a reason to disguise bad policies.
Best Buy has some bad policies....
Normally, I would not share this with others, however, since this could
happen to you or your friends , I decided to share it. If you purchase
something from, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, JC Penny, Sears etc. and you
return the item with the receipt they will give you your money back if you paid
cash, or credit your account if paid by plastic.
| Well, I purchased a GPS for my car, a Tom Tom XL.S from 'Best Buy'. They
have a policy that it must be returned within 14 days for a refund!
So after 4 days I returned it in the original box with all the items in
the box, with paper work and cords all wrapped in the plastic. Just as I
received it, including the receipt.
I explained to the lady at the return desk I did not like the way it
could not find store names. The lady at the refund desk said, there is a
15% restock fee, for items returned. I said no one told me that. I said
how much would that be. She said it goes by the price of the item. It
will be $45.00 Dollars for you. I said, all your going to do is walk over and
place it back on the shelf then charge me $45.00 of my money for
restocking? She said that's the store policy. I said if more people were
aware of this they would not buy anything here! If I bought a $2000.00
computer or TV and returned it I would be charged $300.00 dollars restock
fee? She said yes, 15%.
I said OK, just give me my money minus the restock fee.
She said, since the item is over $200.00 dollars, she can't give me my
money back!!!
Corporate has to and they will mail you a check in 7 to ten days.!! I said
'WHAT?!'
It's my money!! I paid in cash! I want to buy a different brand..Now I
have to wait 7 to 10 days. She said well, our policy is on the back of
your receipt.
I said, do you read the front or back of your receipt? She said well, the
front! I said so do I, I want to talk to the Manager!.
So the manager comes over, I explained everything to him, and he said,
well, sir they should have told you about the policy when you got the
item. I said, No one, has ever told me about the check refund or
restock fee, whenever I bought items from computers to TVs from Best
Buy. The only thing they ever discussed was the worthless extended warranty program. He I said Well, I can give you corporate phone number.
I called corporate. The guy said, well, I'm not supposed to do this but I
can give you a 45.00 dollar gift card and you can use it at Best Buy. I
told him if I bought something and returned it, you would charge me a
restock fee on the item and then send me a check for the remaining 3
dollars. You can keep your gift card, I'm never shopping in Best Buy ever
again, and if I would have been smart, I would have charged the whole
thing on my credit card! Then I would have canceled the transaction.
I would have gotten all my money back including your stupid fees! He
|didn't say a word!
I informed him that I was going to e-mail my friends and give them a heads
up on this stores policy, as they don't tell you about all the little
caveats.
It's true! read it for yourself!!
Best Buys return policy
Do you have any stories about bad business practices? Share these with the world. It's the only way change can come about. Many times we do not read the fine prints. Read the fine prints that's where the shockers are always located. Many times we do not bother because the writing's so small and dense - it is for a reason to disguise bad policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)