Should the government of Canada continue to support the universality of social
services by increasing the proportion of salaries given to income tax? This
question hits a very touchy spot for all Canadians because some agree that a
higher portion of an individual's salary should go to income tax, so a better
standard of living could be made by all Canadians, instead of just to the
financially blessed class of society. They believe that by the Canadian
government doing so, it would limit the greed in our society, and make for a
better feel of equality. Then there are those Canadians' who believe government
should not increase the proportion of their salaries given to income tax because
they believe the government should help encourage Canadians to be more
independent, instead of depending on the government for all of their basic needs
and 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 people
that sit at home all day, even though fully capable of getting a good job, have
the same benefits as themselves. My position on this issue would have to be with
the Canadians who don't believe in the government increasing the proportion of
salaries to income tax. I believe every man for himself. What an individual
earns, he deserves, because he worked hard for his pay. It's not that I don't
agree with government intervention, I do, I just believe it should be trying to
help its people become more independent, instead of 100% dependant on its
government. For almost sixty years the Swedish economy was looked upon and
admired 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 almost
everybody employment. Everybody was guaranteed a free post secondary education
and the same went with health care and pension plans. People looking in on the
country would be lead to believe Swedes didn't have a care in the world. In
order for the Sweden economy to work as well as it did, Swedes had to pay 70% of
personal taxes, which was the highest rate for personal taxes in all of the
industrial worlds. What seemed to be a system with no flaws in it became evident
that it was "too good to be true," the Swedish government had pampered
its people so much, Swedes soon became dependant on its government and not on
themselves. Four out of ten workers were employed by the government, workers not
being present for work were very high, low productivity was being experienced in
the export industries, vacations and other allowance benefits were very costly,
economic slumps was reducing the base tax the social programs needed to pay for
and the government deficit was increasing. In the end, when the government tried
to reduce, the government spending Swedes weren't able to deal with their new
given independence, and sure enough, high unemployment became one of many of
their problems. Looking at Sweden as a case study, I think that is enough to
discourage the Canadian government from increasing the proportion of salaries
given to income tax to support the universality of social services. If Canada
was to do so, it would only promote Canadians to be dependant on their
government and not on themselves. Instead of increasing income tax to support
social services, the government should introduce programs to help Canadians to
budget their income to balance their wants and needs. Through the case study on
Sweden we learnt that by the government increasing the proportion of salaries
given to income tax to support the universality of social services, which in the
long run it doesn't really benefit the citizens, but only sets them back, and
teaches them that they don't ever really have to face the responsibilities that
come with adulthood.