- Paul Wells points out that despite the Cons' best efforts to get Canadians to panic over the state of our retirement system, the truth is that we're actually better positioned now than was projected 20 years ago. (And for those looking inexplicably for middle ground between the status quo and the Cons' apparent plans: no, a mere modest increase in seniors' poverty isn't a positive outcome.)
- Lest there be any doubt, it's well worth researching personalized health assessment - so kudos to the Cons for planning to fund the idea. But of course it'll be worth keeping an eye as to whether the plan turns into an excuse to devolve payment to the individual level. And in also in the department of credit where due (though only to the extent due), Brad Trost's musings about MP independence deserve some support even if his own plans figure to be even worse than the Cons' Harper-dictated policy and talking points.
- Of course, we'd have a lot more confidence the Cons didn't have ulterior motives if they weren't so insistent on governing in secret. Or if they could provide an honest and relevant answer to even the most direct of questions. Or if they didn't suddenly announce the end of programs without warning.
- Finally, Rob Rainer writes that the answer to reducing inequality is simple enough - if only we didn't have a federal government determined to go in the wrong direction:
As the London-based Equality Trust states, there are two compatible options:
• Reduce the differences in employment income before tax; and
• Increase the redistribution of income through tax and benefit systems...
(T)he more effective option for combating inequality is for governments to, first, rebuild greater fairness into our systems of taxation and, second, increase the distribution of income from the "top" to the "bottom." In 1948 there were 19 personal income tax brackets in Canada, and the top marginal tax rate was 80 per cent on incomes over $250,000 ($2.37 million in 2011 dollars). Today, we have but four brackets and the top rate is but 29 per cent, kicking in on earnings over $132,406.
The key to solving inequality seems pretty clear. Have we the public will now to support the political will for a fairer, better society?
