Should the government of Canada continue to support the universality of socialservices by increasing the proportion of salaries given to income tax? Thisquestion hits a very touchy spot for all Canadians because some agree that ahigher portion of an individual’s salary should go to income tax, so a betterstandard of living could be made by all Canadians, instead of just to thefinancially blessed class of society. They believe that by the Canadiangovernment doing so, it would limit the greed in our society, and make for abetter feel of equality. Then there are those Canadians’ who believe governmentshould not increase the proportion of their salaries given to income tax becausethey believe the government should help encourage Canadians to be moreindependent, instead of depending on the government for all of their basic needsand wants. They believe that when they go out and make their hard earned money,they should be able to keep it, instead of giving most of it away, so peoplethat sit at home all day, even though fully capable of getting a good job, havethe same benefits as themselves.Order now
My position on this issue would have to be withthe Canadians who don’t believe in the government increasing the proportion ofsalaries to income tax. I believe every man for himself. What an individualearns, he deserves, because he worked hard for his pay. It’s not that I don’tagree with government intervention, I do, I just believe it should be trying tohelp its people become more independent, instead of 100% dependant on itsgovernment. For almost sixty years the Swedish economy was looked upon andadmired for its high standard of living. Everything, you name it, they had it.
They had a system called cradle-to-grave welfare system, and it promised almosteverybody employment. Everybody was guaranteed a free post secondary educationand the same went with health care and pension plans. People looking in on thecountry would be lead to believe Swedes didn’t have a care in the world. Inorder for the Sweden economy to work as well as it did, Swedes had to pay 70% ofpersonal taxes, which was the highest rate for personal taxes in all of theindustrial worlds. What seemed to be a system with no flaws in it became evidentthat it was “too good to be true,” the Swedish government had pamperedits people so much, Swedes soon became dependant on its government and not onthemselves. Four out of ten workers were employed by the government, workers notbeing present for work were very high, low productivity was being experienced inthe export industries, vacations and other allowance benefits were very costly,economic slumps was reducing the base tax the social programs needed to pay forand the government deficit was increasing.
In the end, when the government triedto reduce, the government spending Swedes weren’t able to deal with their newgiven independence, and sure enough, high unemployment became one of many oftheir problems. Looking at Sweden as a case study, I think that is enough todiscourage the Canadian government from increasing the proportion of salariesgiven to income tax to support the universality of social services. If Canadawas to do so, it would only promote Canadians to be dependant on theirgovernment and not on themselves. Instead of increasing income tax to supportsocial services, the government should introduce programs to help Canadians tobudget their income to balance their wants and needs.
Through the case study onSweden we learnt that by the government increasing the proportion of salariesgiven to income tax to support the universality of social services, which in thelong run it doesn’t really benefit the citizens, but only sets them back, andteaches them that they don’t ever really have to face the responsibilities thatcome with adulthood.Economics