I felt it was so important that people understand why a socially conservative approach to taxation is not only the fairest approach, but also the essential approach, that I am reproducing a feature article from the Globe and Mail by Tim Cestnick:

The nice thing about an election year that’s accompanied by federal budget surpluses is that it’s fertile ground for tax cuts – and both the Conservatives and Liberals have promised that tax savings are on the way. But who should really benefit from tax cuts? While it might not seem politically correct to suggest that the rich should get the lion’s share of tax breaks, let me share a story that I first shared many years ago that provides food for thought here.

The cost of dinner – A parable

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn’t share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

“You’re all very good customers,” the owner said, “so I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I’m going to charge you just $80 in total.” The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren’t paying anything for their meals anyway. They’ll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that’s fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person’s share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person’s bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got one dollar out of the $20,” said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, “and he got $9!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too! It’s not fair that he got nine times more than me!” “That’s true,” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn’t faced before. They were $50 short.

The moral

There are a couple of lessons to be learned here. The first is an observation from my wife: If the 10 individuals had been women, they probably would have figured things out. But in all seriousness, I’m going to suggest that the approach taken by the restaurant owner in the story is exactly the right approach to divvying up tax cuts. It’s how our system should work. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the greatest relief from a tax cut, in absolute dollars.

The fact is, if you overtax the rich, they just might not show up for dinner next time. After all, there are plenty of good restaurants around the world.

This story is relevant today because both the Conservatives and the Liberals have proposed to cut taxes – in different ways. The Liberals have said that they would offer no tax cuts to the rich, but would instead increase the tax burden on the highest earners. The problem with this, of course, is that pushing any taxpayer’s marginal tax rate to 50 per cent or higher (which would be the case for many Canadians, particularly in provinces that also have taken steps to increase the marginal tax rate for the highest earners) will absolutely cause those folks to explore new ways to bring the tax burden down. And in the end, it may drive some to leave.

Tim Cestnick is managing director of Advanced Wealth Planning, Scotiabank Global Wealth Management, and founder of WaterStreet Family Offices.

Perhaps in response to Bill 21 all other Canadian provinces should ban Quebec MPs from entering their territories unless these MPs only communicate in English while in those territories.  Certainly, this is no more discriminatory than what the government of Quebec is proposing in their prohibition of individuals wearing religious icons while in the employ of the Quebec government.  Each province can use the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule the Official Languages of Canada section of the Charter to enforce this reactive discrimination.

As the Supreme Court of Canada has already noted, “the secular is the realm of competing belief systems… [including atheism and agnosticism].” per Justice Gonthier.  For those who have deeply held religious beliefs, the open display of certain icons or emblems are fundamental to, and inseparable from, their belief systems and to outlaw such icons or emblems while working in a government job is clearly a blatant form of discrimination.  The Quebec government is in fact saying, you cannot be a government employee because you are… Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, etc. – pick one.  It is the most blatant form of government discrimination one can imagine.

Secularism means that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. 

One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.  This is not what is happening.  Obviously, if a Sikh removes his turban while at work, while it may violate his religiously held beliefs, it will not separate his Sikh-held beliefs from his interpretation of his working environment.  The same can be said for a Moslem woman being forced to remove her hijab, or a Jewish man forced to remove his kippah.

Canada is a democracy with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The Charter reads in part: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion [that is freedom of – not freedom from]; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;…”.

Canada is a nation founded of Christian principles and Judaeo-Christian law.  Indeed, the very first words written in the Canadian Charter are, “Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God:”  According to Statistics Canada (2011 Census) persons who identified themselves as specifically atheist or agnostic were 0.11% and 0.14% respectively.  In the same census report 67% identified themselves as being Christian (all flavours) and 24% identified themselves as having no religious affiliation without expressing a belief in God one way or the other.

The Supreme Court has defined ‘The essence of the concept of the freedom of religion is: the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal; and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.’  This is where the Quebec government is picking its fight.

Secularism is not the realm of unbelief.  In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada (Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36) clearly agreed that “secular principles” must include—and not exclude—religious believers, because the secular is the realm of competing belief systems and atheism and agnosticism are belief systems.  Justice Gonthier wrote 137 Re: assumption that “secular” effectively meant “non‐religious”. This is incorrect since nothing in the Charter, political or democratic theory, or a proper understanding of pluralism demands that atheistically based moral positions trump religiously based moral positions on matters of public policy. I note that the preamble to the Charter itself establishes that “. . . Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. According to the reasoning espoused by Saunders J., if one’s moral view manifests from a religiously grounded faith, it is not to be heard in the public square, but if it does not, then it is publicly acceptable. The problem with this approach is that everyone has “belief” or “faith” in something, be it atheistic, agnostic or religious. To construe the “secular” as the realm of the “unbelief” is therefore erroneous. Given this, why, then, should the religiously informed conscience be placed at a public disadvantage or disqualification? To do so would be to distort liberal principles in an illiberal fashion and would provide only a feeble notion of pluralism. The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of a modern pluralism.” 

**Also from the 2011 Census (other major religions): Buddhist 1.1%, Hindu 1.5%, Jewish 1.0%, Muslim 3.2% and Sikh 1.4%.

• WHY OVERTAXING THE RICH IS A BAD IDEA – A PARABLE
• Blatant Religious Discrimination: Quebec Bill 21 Bans Religious Symbols for Frontline Government Employees
• POLITICAL POLARIZATION – WHY HAS IT BECOME SO EXTREME?

• FACT CHECK… CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING – “97% OF SCIENTISTS AGREE” NO, THEY DON’T!!!

• Disillusionment in the Ranks – The Church’s Sin of Silence

• Why does God keep punishing me?

• Meditating on Scripture – Doing the legwork