Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Susan Delacourt is far too kind to the Cons in suggesting they've made some reasonable case based on "value" during their time in office. So let's serve up a reminder of, say, the CRA cuts that have led to $7 billion in back taxes going uncollected. Or a stimulus program that deliberately prioritized PR over value for money. Or their proud stewardship of the least efficient climate change programs on the planet.

Need I go on?

- Which isn't to say that their ethical failings don't also make for a compelling reason to want to be rid of the Harper Cons.

- Alice points out what looks to be a first in Canadian political advertising, as the NDP has managed to use QR codes on billboards to direct interested passersby to their new Quebec ads. Which makes for a particularly interesting development given that both the billboards and the ads themselves are decidedly simplistic - but it's well worth keeping an eye out for the NDP's level of success in reaching new demographics through higher-tech advertising techniques.

- Finally, David Forbes is the latest to make the case for rentn controls in Saskatchewan. (A nice read for the start of Seven Days for Rent Control.) And in the opposite corner, David Seymour makes the profound counterpoint that rent controls which don't apply to all rent...don't apply to all rent. This is not a close bout.

On progressive choices

Thankfully, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy's call for a flat tax was so bizarre and ill-timed that even the Sask Party couldn't use it as an excuse to move in that direction. But it's still worth pointing out part of the position taken by the Frontier Centre's David Seymour which deserves notice as a novel (if completely ill-founded) angle on the issue:

Seymour added that income is often a function of age, arguing that putting higher tax rates on higher income is just shifting the taxpaying to different stages of life rather than between people with different life fortunes.

Of course, Seymour doesn't appear interested in dealing with the cumulative impact of all taxes which results in an overall system that's barely if at all progressive. And on its face, there's ample reason for doubt about the argument that progressive taxes won't have some redistributive effect among individuals. But let's ignore those glaring problems with the argument and deal with income taxes alone on Seymour's footing.

Let's assume that an individual has the choice as to when to pay a fixed amount of income taxes during the course of his or her lifetime, but will have a "standard" income progression consisting of escalating income through his or her working life, followed by retirement at a lower income level.

From that starting point, which of the following seems like a more plausible statement?
(a) The individual would be best off paying a constant rate of income tax regardless of his or her income at any given time.
(b) The individual would be best off paying income tax at a rate which varies based on income, such as to pay a lower rate when money is tighter (early in his/her career and on retirement), and a higher rate when more money is available.

In effect, Seymour's argument relies on the premise that the population at large would take (a) as a given and prefer a flat tax as a result. But doesn't (b) actually make far more sense as a matter of rational self-interest?

(Edit: added link.)