Hi All
Readers of FWk and BI may be interested in a reference used by Thomas J
Courchene, Prof of Economic and Social Policy at Queen’s U. He is also Sr.
Fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute.
In his book "Redistributing Money and Power, a guide to the Canada Health
and Social Transfer (CHST)" IBSN 0-88806-383-0. (1995) In Chapter 5, "The
CHST and the future of Social Canada" he writes, " By way of an
introduction to the likely effests of the CHST on welfare, health, and the
PSE, it is usedful to recall the range of concerns aired in the
introductory chapter. Among other effects, the CHST will trigger a "race to
the bottom" for welfare, the "end of medicare" for Canada’s health system,
and the specter of out of province tuition fees for the PSE. Not to put too
fine a point on this, the essence of these concerns is that the CHST will
lead to the demise of national programs and, in the view of many, the
embracing of the US social contract.(1)"
The reference reads:
(1) It is important to recognize, however, that welfare states are under
siege everywhere, as the following quotation from Horsman and Marshall
(1995, xiii) indicates:
This "techno-economic" revolution is beginning to alter the very concept of
"work" in a modern economy, and that fact has huge and troubling
implications for social organization. The Fordist paradigm, in which
workers were paid enough to be able to buy the sorts of products they had a
hand in making, and could give up a share of their income to finance an
extensive welfare system for the unemployed, the retired, and the ill, is
no longer tenable. Globalization has meant that factory workers in the US
cannot compete with their counterparts in Korea and still maintain a high
and growing standard of living. It has meant that governments cannot
afford to administer huge social programmes on the proceeds of a declining
manufacturing sector. Finally it has meant new kinds of jobs in the West -
in finance, real estate, computer software - for which an industrial
workforce is untrained.
I found the reference to the "Fordist Paradigm" especially interesting. It
substantiates my perception that the social welfare programs have always
been financed out of the income taxes paid by the laboring classes.
It also clearly showes that a new source of taxation is going to have to be
found to supplement the declining taxes obtained from the manufacturing
process.
If we recognise that intellectual property is in fact a valuable and
taxable commodity, then perhaps a reasonable and fair tax on such property
would serve both to supplement the social programs and gradually transfer
the value of such property to the public domain for the benefit of all of
society.
Regards
Ed G
Ed Goertzen,
Oshawa
