Taxes are Good

You can blame Brian: he got me going on the subject of taxes at the pub the other day.

I know I'm on dangerous ground here, what with daring to disagree with that trained (well in Calgary, anyway) economist Stephen "I believe that all taxes are bad" Harper and the more heavily-armed elements of the Tea Party, but the fact is, taxes are a very good thing indeed.

For starters, taxes are an efficient and cost-effective way of collectively providing us with goods and services we would find impossible or too expensive to pay for individually: streets and parks, sewers and bridges, schools and libraries and hospitals, fire departments and police forces, courts and prisons and armies, pensions and health care.

Anti-tax arguments tend to fall into three main categories. The first is that there is a lot of "fat" and "waste" in government. The annual reports by auditors general serve as a valuable check on government and do turn up examples of waste, but taken as a percentage of government spending, they seldom amount to even a fraction of one percent. Money wasted to be sure, but not an argument against taxation. Based on the last two years, a much better case could be made for doing away with the global financial industry. When it comes to pissing away money, government can't hold a candle to those guys.

Politicians love this one because they can square the circle with it: we can have tax cuts without cutting programs and services. All we have to do is eliminate "fat" and "waste". The fact that no government ever has, and that they all still regularly promise it, should tell you something.

The second anti-tax argument goes farther: all taxes are a waste of money because they drain money away from productive economic activities. This is probably what Harper meant. This argument seems to presuppose that government takes our tax dollars and simply has a big bonfire. In fact, government spending generates economic activity. Some tax money flows directly back to citizens in the form of old age pensions or wages. Their spending is, in turn, someone else's income. The rest is spent purchasing goods and services, which again, creates jobs.

The fact that the Conservatives quickly adopted this approach to deal with the recession and have subsequently spent many millions advertising the fact is proof of its effectiveness. At least we know jobs have been created in the media and in the ad agencies.

Ironically, the one form of government spending generally favoured by the right (and it is almost always the right who oppose taxation) is on the military. Here, in fact, the government does take some of our money and literally blows it up, producing no economic benefit.

The third anti-tax position is the most extreme: in its simplest form it believes government is unnecessary. It's my money. I made it on my own, so why should I pay taxes? This is the view that underlies such notions as "Tax Freedom Day". We stop "working for the government" and get to keep our money. Taxation is confiscation. It's as if the payments, goods, and services provided by government have no value. Those who hold this view tend to be angry at government.

They ignore that fact that businesses wouldn't exist without the transportation, water, and power infrastructure built and maintained with taxes, that workers would lack basic skills without education obtained in public schools, or that property is protected by police, fire services, and courts of law.

And here is a final argument for taxes: far from discouraging economic activity, taxes encourage it. Consider whether business flourishes best in lawless societies or in those where people and their intellectual and physical property are protected; where there is a modern, efficient infrastructure and educated labour force; and where a pleasant quality of life makes attracting top talent easier. There's a reason companies prefer to set up head office in Switzerland rather than Somalia, even though Somalia has very low (I'm guessing no) taxes.

So there you are: the problems I see with anti-tax arguments and the reasons I see in favour of fair, efficient, intelligent taxation and government spending (what that means would take a lot longer to explain).

How to Live a Long Time

Though the actions of some drivers may cause you to doubt it, most people you talk to say they'd like to live a long time. Well, nothing in life is for sure, but there are some simple (I don't say easy) ways you can improve your chances of living a long and healthy life.

1. Don't smoke. This is the biggie. All else being equal, smoking shortens your life by 10-15 years. Quitting is hard. Get help. Keep trying.
   
2. Stay active. Walk, cycle, swim, golf, go to the gym. Get a dog. Get out of that chair and move. You'll not only add years to your life, you'll add life to your years.
   
3. Eat right. Enjoy your food. Good food is not usually the cheapest. Eat a variety of foods. Eat fresh, eat seasonal, eat local. Cook from scratch. Read food labels. Cut down on the sodium and the sugar. Don't eat trans fats. Eat in moderation. Eat breakfast.
   
4. Wear your seat belt. There's just no excuse not to. You may think a low speed collision won't hurt you. Ever try running as fast as you can into a brick wall? Unless you're an Olympic sprinter, that's less than 15 km./hr.
   
5. Get 7-8 hours sleep a night. Invest in a good mattress.
   
6. Love somebody. Live for someone or something else. Get a pet.
   
7. Take a multivitamin every day.
   
8. Take your medications responsibly. Follow your doctor's instructions about when and how much. Ask your doctor and pharmacist about drug interactions. Don't abuse "recreational" pharmaceuticals.
   
9. Drink moderately. A drink or two a day is actually good for you.
10. Stay "brain active". Read, keep a journal, do puzzles, talk to people, blog.

You've probably heard most of these suggestions before. As I said, these are not complicated, though some, like quitting smoking, can be very difficult. And sure, you can go further, but you want to have some fun, right? What's the use of a long life if you don't enjoy a few pleasures? After all, those French fries might kill you twenty years from now, but the e coli. in that spinach salad could kill you today.

Confessions of a Port Perry Streetwalker, Part 2

In my last post, I referred to the letter I'd sent to my local councilor about "jaywalking". But having gotten the snit out of my system, I got arrogant. I thought, "This would be something the local media might be interested in. I should tell them." So I copied the letter to The Scugog Standard and Focus on Scugog, saying I'd let them know if I got a response. I was thinking about my offer to lead a stroll downtown and how fascinating their readers would find my opinions.

I shouldn't have done that. It was unfair to do so after the fact, without informing the original recipients (Councilor Brock, et al). I know how I'd feel if someone did this to me: that I was being ambushed.

It got worse. The Standard published an edited version of my letter to Councilor Brock. That wasn't my intention, but it wasn't the Standard's fault: I should have made my intentions clear. Better yet, I shouldn't have done it at all.

I sent an email of apology to Councilor Brock. And emails of explanation/regret to the Standard and Focus.

To compound the farce, I discovered that my email wasn't working properly. Oh, my messages were being sent all right, but I hadn't been receiving emails for several days. In the meantime, Councilor Brock and Mayor Pearce both thanked me for my original comments, and Councilor Brock seemed to take it all in stride, responding to my apology by saying not to worry about it. I appreciate that.

So apart from some painfully humiliating lessons learned about the hazards of overestimating the importance of my own opinions (a tendency no doubt fed by this blogging business), what has been the result?

Well, no one has offered to go walking with me. But a lot of people have commented on the letter in the Standard. More so than any other letter I've ever had published on any other subject.

And what they're saying goes farther than I was prepared to go publicly, though I generally agree. Most maintain that the principal charm of Port Perry's downtown is to be able to stroll about freely (true). Some would like Queen Street made a pedestrian precinct for a block or two (wouldn't that be nice). A few pointed out that "jaywalking", i.e.: crossing in the middle of the block, is safer than crossing at the corner (it is, if done with awareness: there is traffic from only two directions to consider). One person offered to carry a placard if I wanted to lead a protest march against bollards (no thanks).

It's nice to see my cranky fondness for uninhibited perambulation is shared by others, but I think I'll steer clear of local controversy for a while.

Confessions of a Port Perry Streetwalker, Part 1

A few weeks ago I wrote to my local councilor, Georgina Brock, and c.c.ed the mayor and the rest of council regarding their comments in the media on "jaywalking" in downtown Port Perry. Here's what I said:

Councilor Brock,

Last week, the Scugog Standard reported that you raised the issue of "jaywalking" at council and that some of your colleagues joined in commenting on dangerous walking in the downtown.

My chief concern is that "jaywalking" is a loaded term. It originated in America in the 1920's as an insult about "jays", country bumpkins confused by busy city streets, and it was popularized by pro-automobile interests at the time. According to historian Peter D. Norton in his book, Fighting Traffic:

"Before the American city could be physically reconstructed to accommodate automobiles, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where cars belong. Until then, streets were regarded as public spaces… Motorists' claim to street space was therefore fragile, subject to restrictions that threatened to negate the advantages of car ownership."

And so, within a few decades we went from requiring a man to walk in front of a vehicle to warn of its approach, to legal sanctions against the reckless "jaywalker". It's this view, that the streets belong to cars and not to people, that the use of the term "jaywalking" implies.

The recent improvements to Port Perry's downtown reflect a vision of a town where the streets are public space. It's surprising then, that when people respond in a natural way to this pedestrian-friendly environment by crossing the street, some councilors are alarmed.

One of your fellow councilors called it a way of life in the downtown. We should be proud of that fact, for everything about Queen Street suggests a welcoming place for people rather than a rapid thoroughfare for vehicles.

I live around the corner from you, on Heath Crescent. I'm no expert on traffic or urban planning, but I have been walking (and driving) around Port Perry for thirty years. I'd be happy to accompany you, or any other member of council or township staff, on a walk to downtown to share what I've observed.

Sincerely,

Aeneas Lane

What Will the Catholic Church Do?

It seems every day brings more allegations in the sex abuse scandal shaking the Catholic Church. What seems to have changed in the last few weeks though, is that the focus has shifted from the misdeeds of individual members of the clergy to the role of the Church hierarchy. That's why the apologies for the sins of the abusers have failed to stem the tide of criticism: they haven't been seen as addressing the decades-long efforts at cover-up by church officials.

The current controversy threatens the very basis of the Church's legitimacy. If it behaves like any other human organization, what makes it special? If it cannot, or will not, respond honestly and compassionately when evil is done by its representatives, how can it claim to be divinely guided? In short, if it can't act as Jesus would, how can it call itself the body of Christ?

The Church has survived many scandals and schisms in its 2,000-year history. In the early sixteenth century, when the world was being reshaped by increasing literacy as a result of the invention of printing, the abuses of the gangsterish Borgia popes incited the Protestant Reformation. Depending on your point of view, that did, or didn't, turn out well for the Church.

Today it's the global mass media that have focused attention on the Church, examining its institutional character in a effort to understand why it responded the way it did and to predict how it will react to the present crisis. Many see a connection between its patriarchal authoritarianism and its reaction to the sex abuses.

I don't know what will happen. I wish the Church would be less authoritarian. I also wish it would relax the rule of celibacy for clergy to allow the option of marriage for priests and would permit women to be priests. However, the present Pope doesn't have a reputation as a reformer and such changes would amount to a second Reformation, so the Vatican may decide to hunker down and ride out the storm. But the Church is not as monolithic as many people think, so change is not out of the question.

Those who were abused certainly have justifiable reason to be angry at the Church. And there are always those who would wish the Church harm. But I think the majority of those directing anger at the Church today (meaning most people), are doing so out of a sense of disappointment.

I think the road forward for the Church is one of humility and repentance, but the road doesn't have to be walked alone. In some sense, and this may be a product of Pope John Paul II's popularity and widespread travel, we are all Catholics. And we don't want to see the Church destroyed; we want to see it reborn. We want to see it truly be the "light of the world" that it professes to be, for the world sorely needs light.