Burdens and benefits

About my only quibble with Andrew Potter's post on the Fraser Institute's perpetual tax stunts is his assertion that the institute is becoming any more respectable with time. (Though sadly it's tough to disagree on the "influential" side.) But he nicely highlights the sheer absurdity of the institute's latest anti-social tripe:

Get it? Food and clothing and housing are “necessities”. But taxes? That’s a “burden.”

Let’s look at it another way: Since 1961, the amount that Canadians spend collectively providing themselves with defence and other forms of security, health insurance, unemployment insurance, pensions, clean air and water, consumer protection, infrastructure, research and education, and other public goods has increased by 1,783 percent per family. Astounding? I’ll say! Burden? Hardly.

Despite what the Fraser Institute wants you to think, this is an entirely good thing. Only in the bizarro-world fantasies of anti-tax conservatives could a world where families spend over half their income on private necessities be considered preferable to the one we have today. If it’s invidious contrasts the Fraser folks are after, why look to 1961? Today, the average North American spends about 10 percent of disposable income on food alone. In 1933 it was more like 25 percent.

Ahh, but the tax “burden” was so much lower then.