Paired with that pic was a cover photo of a smiling, white-haired older woman holding a wad of $50 bills, with many more floating around her head, as if money were raining down on her. The cover headline: “OLD. RICH. SPOILED.”
The gist of the piece was that older Canadians are making out like bandits, enjoying untold affluence and scooping up the lion’s share of government financial support, while young people struggle to get by.
A study released by the Conference Board of Canada this week painted a similar picture of a growing income gap between old and young — a gap that could “trigger a backlash” among young people unwilling to pay high taxes when the benefits largely go to their elders, suggested report co-author and conference board vice-president David Stewart-Patterson.
Maclean’s and the Conference Board report together raise an incredibly important issue: the lack of opportunity for young people in today’s economy.
But they also share a very particular spin on this tale — a spin that pits old against young, while studiously avoiding the root cause of the problem: policies that have led to a widening gap between rich and poor of all ages.
“It’s the golden age of seniors,” Maclean’s tells us. Well, sure — for some. In fact, there’s a huge divide between high-income and low-income seniors, and the Harper government has deepened that divide — by failing to strengthen the Canada Pension Plan (which is crucial to low-income seniors) and by supporting pension changes that leave workers financially vulnerable.
Meanwhile, the Harper government has further enriched some of the richest old people by introducing income-splitting for seniors — an outrageous tax break that offers no benefit whatsoever to the vast majority of seniors while giving up more than $6,500 a year in tax savings to the richest seniors.
So the suggestion that seniors as a group receive too much government support is absurd. Rich seniors, who need it least, are dramatically over-subsidized by government. Poor seniors — the ones who need more help — have been all but abandoned by the Harper government.
For that matter, the precarious financial situation faced by the young is part of the erosion of economic security for working people in general, as an increasingly powerful corporate sector pushes governments to redesign tax and trade laws in its favour, and to weaken union and workplace protections. This has allowed corporations to scoop up an increasingly large share of national income, at the expense of labour.
This corporate-government attack on workers has been fierce — but older workers, with more seniority, have been better positioned to defend themselves.
As a result, it’s now common to have two-tier workplaces, where new hires receive pay and benefits that are a fraction of what long-time employees receive.
But it’s corporations that have created this highly unequal situation, by taking advantage of vulnerable younger workers. Unions have fought bitterly against the two-tier workplace, knowing it will weaken worker solidarity.
Both Maclean’s and Stewart-Patterson suggest that young people could deal with their plight by launching a tax revolt — the Right’s favourite cause — which would lead to further cuts to our social safety net. How convenient it would be for conservatives if it could enlist young people in an anti-tax crusade.
A much better solution for young people would be a stronger social safety net: increased government subsidies for university and college tuition, a universal child care program and direct investments in job creation, particularly for youth.
Above all, the Right wants to ensure that the anger of disaffected young people doesn’t end up aimed at the corporate elite — as it was during Occupy Wall Street’s campaign against the growing wealth and power of the ‘one per cent’.
The wealth accumulation at the top continues to accelerate, which can only lead to an ever-widening gap between rich and poor — as economist Thomas Piketty documented in his acclaimed New York Times best-seller Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
When Maclean’s ran a cover story about income inequality last year, there was no hint of class conflict — no picture of a rich CEO with his middle finger raised.
Rather, the story — entitled ‘Who Earns What?’ — simply laid out what different people (including some celebrities) were being paid, and posed the question on the cover: “How do you measure up?”
Readers with low salaries were thereby encouraged not to feel that the system is rigged against them — but to feel bad about their own personal income inadequacies.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca/
Author: Linda McQuaig
No comments:
Post a Comment