BRITISH COLUMBIA : fs, civic elec- Having just gone throush Or voters _ tion on Nov. < another, this time “now havet© Just because one ee ‘candi businessman p Bete vo accent the results. With to be elected, he ran 11th. First he tried to get in by a recount. He knew that wouldn’t work. Then he found -alegal technicality. Justice Patricia Proud- foot agreed with him and declared the election of COPE candidate Bruce Yorke for the 10th and last council seat invalid. Some hundreds of people were not on the voters list. The Vancouver charter permits them to vote providing they meet the qualifications required of Vancouver voters. The City Clerk ruled that they just had to sign a statement, declaring that they were eligible. The Vancouver Charter, Section 73(1) states that such voters are required to “swear or affirm.” Another judge might have ruled that signing a statement was substantially the same as affirming. But, Justice Produfoot ruled that some verbal affirmation was required of voters, and we have to accept her ruling. I think it would be helpful to draw the attention of voters to several salient facts concerning the ruling of the justice and the actions of NPA-Socred candidate Philip Owen. @ When Vander Zalm was ‘soundly trounced by Vancouver voters and sent packing to where he came from, he hinted darkly that fraud had been committed in the election. As usual with his wild Voters sh charges, Vander Zalm didn’t back this up with any evidence, because there was none. : Nor did Philip Owen submit any evi- dence that anyone who was not entitled to vote did, in fact, vote. The reason for that was quite obvious too — he didn’t have any such evidence. The fact is that as far as anyone knows, -every person who voted by signing a statement was eligible and entitled to vote. Owen’s lawyers produced evidence that at least 300 people had signed the statement and did not “swear” or “affirm” and claimed that since Owen lost by 220 votes, these 300 people could have changed the results. Since the ballot was secret no one knows or can know how these people voted. To suggest that 73 per cent of the voters actually would vote for Owen is really stretching credulity to the breaking point, even if it is theoretically possible. © Owen stated in a TV interview that the reason he took his case to the courts was that a principle of democracy was at stake. Wrapping himself in the flag of democracy in this instance will hardly strengthen his case. Let me ask: If Philip ould reaffirm Nov. 17 outcome Owen had been elected instead of Bruce Yorke, would Owen still have gone to a judge to have his own election over-ruled because of his belief in the principle of democracy? Of course not! There was no principle of democracy involved here, just political ambition. Some people just refuse to accept the verdict of the voters. If you can’t con the voters the first time round, try again! ; @ Owen was not defeated by a fraudu- lent election; he was defeated by the voters. This may be a bitter pill for him to swallow Harry Rankin but it is one that all defeated candidates in a democracy must accept. © During the election campaign the NPA—Socred candidates including Vander Zalm said a lot about the need for fiscal restraint. City council must economize, they said. Yet now, because of one man’s refusal to accept the verdict of the voters, Vancouver taxpayers will have to put up $250,000 — one quarter of a million dollars — just to satisfy one man’s politi- cal ambitions. Is that the NPA idea of restraint? . @ The NPA decision to try and have the election over-ruled was made in collusion another attempt to control Vancouver city with provincial cabinet officials. Owen admitted on TV that he had been in touch with them. So what we have here is inter- ference by the provincial cabinet in politics. © The issue on Feb. 2 will be the same as it was on Nov. 17. Right now we have five aldermen supported by the NPA and the Socreds. The other five (COPE and Harcourt’s independents) are supported by labor and community groups. The election on Feb. 2 will be decisive for Vancouver because it will decide who will have the majority. If the Socred-NPA candidate Philip Owen makes it, then we’re going to be in for a period of restraint, cutbacks and layoffs at city hall. Not only that — zoning bylaws and health and safety bylaws will also be relaxed to help developers and slum landlords. If Bruce Yorke, the COPE candidate backed by labor and community groups, makes it, then we will not only be able to hold the line at city hall but undertake some initiatives that will bring jobs to Vancouver rather than more layoffs. I think the voters of Vancouver can and will defeat this attempt by the Socred- NPA group to overturn the decision of the voters and turn.the clock back in this city. We’ve had just about enough of Socred restraint. What we need now is some action to help people. The election of Bruce Yorke is decisive to bring about this turn. Nothing fair in attack on universality : There is nothing new in Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s suggestion that the family allowance be denied to well-off families. Since the first cheques were mailed out in July, 1945 there has been criticism of the wastefulness of universal payments. No major political party has ever cam- paigned on dismantling universality, recog- nizing it would be a highly unpopular move. The family allowance benefits more Cana- dians than any other social program. It is tangibly felt each. month as 3.6 million cheques are received, benefitting 6.7 million _ children. Although the bill is high — $2.2 billion in 1983 — the family allowance is a cheap social program to administer. In fact the program is one of the most - efficient and cheaply administered of all. According to a study to be published this _ year by the Ontario Economic Council, its administrative costs were only 0.5 per cent, compared to 2.5 per cent for other income security programs, both federal and provin- cial The facts also show that the program is progressive, i.e. it benefits most those who need it. The public has been softened up for Mul- roney’s most recent attack with pictures of bank managers receiving the same $29.95 _ ($31.27 on Jan. 1, 1985) a month as the single mother struggling on welfare. How- ever the program does not reward rich and _ poor equally and_the government recoups nearly one-quarter of its cost through income taxes. . ~ But for a profile of who would be most _affected by scuttling universality one need look no further than the worker earning a trade union wage. ; In 1976 the then Liberal government _ launched a mini-attack on the family allo- wance program. Monthly payments were reduced by 20 per cent and low income families were able to take advantage of the Child Tax Credit. The full tax credit of $343 for each child goes to mothers whose net _ family income is $26,330 or less. The amount diminishes for higher incomes until 2 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 9, 1985 - Analysis those families earning $39,000 or more receive no credit. Combining the family allowance and the Child Tax Credit, a two-child-family mak- ing less than $26,330 would receive annual payments of $1,404, while those with incomes over $40,000 would receive only $440. =. Few would argue against the fairness of those families living below the poverty line receiving the maximum payments. But it is working people, earning the average indus- trial wage, who contribute the largest share to the federal and provincial coffers yet are least able to take advantage of tax loopholes or benefit from government assistance pro- grams. For example a two-income family; the man earns $22,500, the women, $15,000. Annual income of $37,500 would place that family above the poverty line. But after essentials of taxes, housing, food, clothing and transportation.are covered, that family would have little disposable income left to take advantage of registered retirement, homeowners, or political contributions tax savings. Nor would it be eligible for housing assistance, provincial’ rental credits, day care subsidies, or reduced health insurance, drug, dental or eyeglass costs, that are pro- vided to the poor. The federal income tax system divides income into 13 tax brackets. Each income bracket is taxed a defined per cent. The lowest incomes at six per cent, and this is graduated upwards until the highest bracket is taxed at 34 per cent. : ’ Nine of the 13 income brackets apply to incomes under $50,000, while there is only one for those earning above $141,000 i.e. someone earning $500,000 is taxed at the same 34 per cent as another with an income of $141,000. Because of the narrower.income brackets - for those earning less than $50,000, a raise bringing an extra $1,000 income would place the $20,000-a-year earner into a higher tax bracket where he or she would be taxed at the highest applicable rate. That same extra income to someone earning $85,000 would not affect the percentage of tax they pay. (This discussion excludes the many tax write-offs available to the wealthy.) : Taxable income is reduced by $710 for each dependent child, under the Child Tax Exemption. High income earners fre- quently find the exemption. High income “earners frequently find the exemption moves then down a notch into a lower bracket. Working class couples can also reduce their tax bill by making use of the exemption, but the less the percentage tax paid, the less the saving. For those parents whose incomes are so low they pay no taxes, there is simply no return from this exemp- tion. i When the three child benefits are put together (family allowance, Child Tax Credit and the Child Tax Exemption) an erratic payments of benefits takes place which is hardly proportional to income. A family earning $50,000 receives $1,000 annual credits while those with incomes seven times less receive $1,404. Dismantling universality in the quest of fairness then rings a little hollow from a° government which has made no attempt to reform its tax system. But even without tax reform, universality stands on its own mer- its. It is on universal programs including Old ings. Age Security; the Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance that all our other social programs sit. An attack on it would bea first step in eroding other social benefits including health care and education. The family allowance program in partic- ular is recognition of the important role parents play in society. It helps compensate for a wage system which does not take into account the extra financial burden borne by families raising children. As the only pay- ment which is almost exclusively given to women; it is for some, regardless of their husband’s income, the only money. they personally receive. It also, albeit in a’ small — way, addresses the substantial gap which _ exists between men’s and women’s earn- There is no doubt that a means test on family allowance would set a ceiling exclud- — ing the average paid worker but there is equal concern that despite the prime minis- ter’s pontifications about “helping the needy”, the poor would be seriously harmed. Means tests bring with them the stigma of welfare. Studies in Canada and abroad have shown that the poor in many cases would. sooner forego the benefits to which they are - entitled rather than face the bureaucratic nightmare involved. The argument that restricting family allowances would constitute a needed fed- eral savings is false. A 1983 study by the National Council of Welfare showed that if families who currently do not receive the child tax credit were exluded, the saving would be $560-million, but when the last taxes from these families is deducted the real _ savings amount to only $185-million. | Further reduce this by the increased admi- nistrative costs and you hardly have a sizea- ble attack on the $26-billion deficit. Even diverted into job creation the amount — would create less employment than would be lost due to reduced consumer spending. Unfortunately the true benefits of univer- sality may only be fully appreciated as the effects of dismantling it become felt. It would be a terribly expensive and painful lesson for working people to learn.