A publich letter to the editors of Global & Mail.
RE:Child-care proposal gives least to poorest
I did not want to write to you. Because as most of the "not-so-poor" people, I am too busy at work and have no time spare.
However, reading the comments I realized, if all the "not-so-poor" people are keep to themselves, their voice will never be heard and they will become a group of forgotten people - by media, by the mass and by the government. This is not democracy, this is not equality - this is unfair.
The title of this article is technically not-wrong but is very misleading. Reading through it, it is actually saying "family with no income, do not get as much as family with income". And this issue is so interesting, that I have to talk about it.
The Canadian tax law so far does not recognize child as dependent (unless it is single parent household). But the CCTB is calculated in such a way that it is related to the parents income (note, not the child's but the parents). This effectively is a tax on the Child - this was never fair from the beginning. Any child is a Canadian and should be treated equally. Their parents has already paid income tax on a "higher-rate on higher income" basis, this has effectively bring their household to the even level with any other family.
The reduce Child benefit payment is on top of the parents' tax liability – if both a “low-income” and a “high-income” parents do not have kids, there will be no difference in their “after tax benefits”; however, when they both have kids, there will be a practical different “after-tax-income” from the government. And this different payment is “after tax” which means the “before-tax” income difference has already been “addressed” by higher tax rate for higher income – hence this difference is purely levied upon the child.
This type of “give-to-the-in-need” theory totally ignores the effort the “higher incomes” may put forward to earn the income and although loud in the voice of equality, totally ignores the equality of all Canadian. It serves only a small group of people with their special interest – the government keep tax dollars because THEY DEEM “high income” family do not need child benefit.
Understanding the background of the whole issue, we soon realize that this article actually fiercely attacked a policy that rectifies an anti-equality policy in a country that treasures equality more than anything else. In the name of “helping the poor” it actually attacked one of the fundamental value all Canadian believes in – equality. The new policy is NOT about giving less to the poorer, it is about giving to all kids, no mater what kind of family they are from. The new policy is NOT taking away anything from the poor, it is about giving equally to all. What went wrong was the CCTB – it is a flawed policy that benefits the government itself in the name of “giving to the poor”.
The biggest problem this article delivered is its “hatred against not-so-poor”. It is complaining so harshly for – not for reducing the benefit paid to the poor, but for also giving to the not-so-poor who has already paid their high income tax so become no-where-close-to-rich.
Equality is not about what you want or what you like. It is not about everyone is getting the same amount of money. Equality is the authority need to treat everyone the same way: provide equal opportunities to men and women, poor or rich, old or young, black or white.
Very same flaw shows in another argument this article brought up – the single income families benefit more then double income family. Our tax law is already heavily against single income families. One single 70000 CAD income family pays thousands dollar more than two 35000 CAD income family. Again this article attacked the fact that single income family may be able to keep more after tax dollar in this 1200$ payment as if it is a hellishly sin.
I just wonder where this “equality” vindicator was when single income family was unfairly taxed. When I work 15 hours a day try to make it possible that my wife can stay home with my kids, why is that justified I should pay more tax than a family both parents work 7.5 hours a day?
The shameless use the concept of “equality” to attack a policy trying to rectify un-equality is unbelievable misleading the readers. It is very irresponsible to publish an article like this as is without special description to describe the obvious flaws in the analysis.
Your implicit endorsement to this selfish and seriously flawed article is harmful to Canadian society and to the reputation of your media and Canadian media as a whole. From the comments we can read that this irresponsible article as spared more hatred among Canadian ourselves. While it may to the benefit of some politicians, I saw no reason why someone should be so angry for other people being treated less harsh.
We expect you to be more responsible in future editing and publicly withdraw (or clarify the non-existence of) your endorsement to this article.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Monday, January 02, 2006
Is Martin Liberal minority-savior or the trouble maker?
Despite its claim of itself to be "the only savior for minorities", they are doing more harm than good.
Martin and his lieutenants is actually self-imposed savior believing in nothing but their own superiority. Forcing or cheating other people to accept their ideology or their protection.
We visual minorities do NOT need a savior - we are not in anyway less capable of taking care of our own life, and we are in no way need a savior more than (no offense to any one) a "white male".
The real equality can only be reached when "minority" is no longer a feature of any group.
Yes, "non-exist" is the ultimate state of the concept "minority". Only by then "minority" can no longer be used to differentiate a group from the rest of Canadian.
A "minority's government" is a false advertised campaign slogan, rather than a real governing practice. Here is a super simplified example: there are 3 people, blue, green, and red; blue likes A; green likes B; red likes C; to be a "government for minorities", government chooses "A" since blue is minority. The problem is - green and red are also minority, but their desires are actually suppressed. Yes the government worked for 1/3 of the population, but worked against 2/3.
The truth is we minorities, pay the same rate of tax, live by the same law, and expected to be treated same way. We do not think we are in any way superior than or inferior to other people, hence we do not think we need any more or less rights than the rest of Canadian. And we DO NOT think any other groups should think they are superior and should have more rights.
OK, I am not saying that there is no racist or racial profiling anymore. My point is in a free world, since no one can control any other's mind, government has no way to "solve" this problem except grant some minority groups some superficial privilege. -- This may satisfy some "minority" group's temporary self-esteem, but will simply emphasis to everyone else that "this group is different". And when the government can grant them some privilege, it cannot force everyone treat everyone the same, hence further differentiation will commence.
The court is a good place to fight for rights, if the judges are not appointed by the government directly. Even they are, it is a better place for right claims. The government should only provide rules, and services that really treat EVERYONE EQUALLY.
How Martin worsen the problem?!
As a visual minority, I did experienced racial profiling and in some case, discrimination. It exists. However, I actually noticed in terms of rate, minorities give me more trouble than main stream Canadian.
(Well, this is not as serious as it sounds. Let's say among every 100 3rd and up generation Canadian I met, probably there is one bad potato; but among 100 new Canadian I met, there could be 3 to 5 not-so-good ones. So the majority of both new and born here Canadian are very good. It is just living in Canada, the standard is high. People do expect Canadians are 100% good.)
The government immigration policy actually worsens the problem because it did not attract people from all over the world in a good proportion. Let me explain with an hypo-theoretical example:
Blue country have a similar crime rate compare to Red country. However, Red country immigration policy says if you are a criminal of any other country, you can stay in Red country. Unfortunately, in Blue country, most people are not idiots, and so are the criminals, hence the Blue men in Red country has a much higher criminal rate thank to the Red country immigration policy.
People in Red country will think Blue men are more likely to commit crimes because what they see is consider rate, more Blue men commit crime. But the fact is Blue men over all have a very similar crime rate, it is just most Blue criminals have been attracted to Red country.
There are 6 billion people out there. No one can meet them all. We always form a feeling of a group of people based on our experience with that group. This is human nature and one of the abilities differentiates us from the rest of the animals, there is nothing wrong with it. The problem is when there are 6 billion people out there, we need to make sure we invite good people come to this country, despite their color, sex, religious, and other features.
If we do not attract criminals (from any origin), then the government will not create a false sense of higher criminal rate among some particular minority groups.
Yes, to make it clear, it is not that there is a higher crime rate in one particular minority group. But the government, invited more criminals than the average rate to this country, making people in this country see a higher rate of crime in that minority group.
Inviting more bad Blue people than good Blue people is how the government made things worse for minority groups.
The right thing to do is invite only good people no matter what race they are, what they believe. We do not need any Crime. We do not want to show our "superiority" by accepting criminals from other country. What we want is a harmonized society that welcome good people from any where. And we want to say proudly that any single one Canadian is good, no mater they came from, no mater what color they are, as long as they are Canadian.
Yes, minority is not "a different kind of Canadian". We are Canadian! In no way less or more, just exactly as every other our country man and woman.
Viva La Canada.
Martin and his lieutenants is actually self-imposed savior believing in nothing but their own superiority. Forcing or cheating other people to accept their ideology or their protection.
We visual minorities do NOT need a savior - we are not in anyway less capable of taking care of our own life, and we are in no way need a savior more than (no offense to any one) a "white male".
The real equality can only be reached when "minority" is no longer a feature of any group.
Yes, "non-exist" is the ultimate state of the concept "minority". Only by then "minority" can no longer be used to differentiate a group from the rest of Canadian.
A "minority's government" is a false advertised campaign slogan, rather than a real governing practice. Here is a super simplified example: there are 3 people, blue, green, and red; blue likes A; green likes B; red likes C; to be a "government for minorities", government chooses "A" since blue is minority. The problem is - green and red are also minority, but their desires are actually suppressed. Yes the government worked for 1/3 of the population, but worked against 2/3.
The truth is we minorities, pay the same rate of tax, live by the same law, and expected to be treated same way. We do not think we are in any way superior than or inferior to other people, hence we do not think we need any more or less rights than the rest of Canadian. And we DO NOT think any other groups should think they are superior and should have more rights.
OK, I am not saying that there is no racist or racial profiling anymore. My point is in a free world, since no one can control any other's mind, government has no way to "solve" this problem except grant some minority groups some superficial privilege. -- This may satisfy some "minority" group's temporary self-esteem, but will simply emphasis to everyone else that "this group is different". And when the government can grant them some privilege, it cannot force everyone treat everyone the same, hence further differentiation will commence.
The court is a good place to fight for rights, if the judges are not appointed by the government directly. Even they are, it is a better place for right claims. The government should only provide rules, and services that really treat EVERYONE EQUALLY.
How Martin worsen the problem?!
As a visual minority, I did experienced racial profiling and in some case, discrimination. It exists. However, I actually noticed in terms of rate, minorities give me more trouble than main stream Canadian.
(Well, this is not as serious as it sounds. Let's say among every 100 3rd and up generation Canadian I met, probably there is one bad potato; but among 100 new Canadian I met, there could be 3 to 5 not-so-good ones. So the majority of both new and born here Canadian are very good. It is just living in Canada, the standard is high. People do expect Canadians are 100% good.)
The government immigration policy actually worsens the problem because it did not attract people from all over the world in a good proportion. Let me explain with an hypo-theoretical example:
Blue country have a similar crime rate compare to Red country. However, Red country immigration policy says if you are a criminal of any other country, you can stay in Red country. Unfortunately, in Blue country, most people are not idiots, and so are the criminals, hence the Blue men in Red country has a much higher criminal rate thank to the Red country immigration policy.
People in Red country will think Blue men are more likely to commit crimes because what they see is consider rate, more Blue men commit crime. But the fact is Blue men over all have a very similar crime rate, it is just most Blue criminals have been attracted to Red country.
There are 6 billion people out there. No one can meet them all. We always form a feeling of a group of people based on our experience with that group. This is human nature and one of the abilities differentiates us from the rest of the animals, there is nothing wrong with it. The problem is when there are 6 billion people out there, we need to make sure we invite good people come to this country, despite their color, sex, religious, and other features.
If we do not attract criminals (from any origin), then the government will not create a false sense of higher criminal rate among some particular minority groups.
Yes, to make it clear, it is not that there is a higher crime rate in one particular minority group. But the government, invited more criminals than the average rate to this country, making people in this country see a higher rate of crime in that minority group.
Inviting more bad Blue people than good Blue people is how the government made things worse for minority groups.
The right thing to do is invite only good people no matter what race they are, what they believe. We do not need any Crime. We do not want to show our "superiority" by accepting criminals from other country. What we want is a harmonized society that welcome good people from any where. And we want to say proudly that any single one Canadian is good, no mater they came from, no mater what color they are, as long as they are Canadian.
Yes, minority is not "a different kind of Canadian". We are Canadian! In no way less or more, just exactly as every other our country man and woman.
Viva La Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)