The first thing that most Canadians should notice is that they are paying more in federal income taxes today. Having rescinded a previously scheduled .25% reduction (2005 Liberal budget update) and raising the rate another .25%, the base income tax rate is up .5% under the Conservatives. So much for conservatives support for low taxation! I acknowledge that the GST rate has been reduced by 1%, but would have preferred to see changes which positively affect the economy rather than those changes which are geared only to electoral objectives.
More troubling is the message to Canadians inherent in the child sports tax credit which comes into effect today. While the government may be touting the new tax credit as supportive of increasing physical activity and health amongst young Canadians, the real purpose of the tax is to give a break to hockey parents, as promised by the PM in last January’s election campaign. The initiative is being criticised as overly complex, as a result of pressure to include other physical activities and reduce the blatant prejudice in favour of hockey parents (of which the PM is one). But it is still biased in favour of team sports and against individual physical activity; something I believe is unfair, but then my athletic endeavours have always been in individual sports cycling, running, gym workouts, squash (in university). I question why seasonal sports should benefit more than year-round activity, if the motive is to encourage physical activity. Is it any surprise, given the PM’s personal interest and the fact that the Minister of Finance attended a US university on a hockey scholarship?
Aside from the obvious ploy to gain the support of middle class parents (the poor cannot afford to put their sons in organized hockey and the rich don’t care about a $500 tax credit), there is a heterosexist overtone to the new policy which offends. That gay and lesbian youth tend to shun team sports has been well documented and has led to the development of discrete LGBT athletic organizations and competitions. That gay youth tend to opt for individual sports, where they are less subject to taunts and abuse from coaches and team-mates is well known and so we see gay sports heroes in swimming, running, skating, etc. but none in hockey or football or basketball. The tax credit will not help the gay youth who goes through several pairs of running shoes a year and may want to join an organized track team or train with a qualified coach, on a year-round basis, but it will benefit the youth who plays hockey for a few weeks each winter. And forget about the youths who may want to take up dance or some similar physical activity with comparable to greater health benefits.
The policy reflects the PM’s tendency to cater only to people like himself, while blind to the nation’s families’ diversity. It is consistent with his “us” vs “them strategy of divide and conquer and it is offensive in whatever manifestation.
More troubling is the message to Canadians inherent in the child sports tax credit which comes into effect today. While the government may be touting the new tax credit as supportive of increasing physical activity and health amongst young Canadians, the real purpose of the tax is to give a break to hockey parents, as promised by the PM in last January’s election campaign. The initiative is being criticised as overly complex, as a result of pressure to include other physical activities and reduce the blatant prejudice in favour of hockey parents (of which the PM is one). But it is still biased in favour of team sports and against individual physical activity; something I believe is unfair, but then my athletic endeavours have always been in individual sports cycling, running, gym workouts, squash (in university). I question why seasonal sports should benefit more than year-round activity, if the motive is to encourage physical activity. Is it any surprise, given the PM’s personal interest and the fact that the Minister of Finance attended a US university on a hockey scholarship?
Aside from the obvious ploy to gain the support of middle class parents (the poor cannot afford to put their sons in organized hockey and the rich don’t care about a $500 tax credit), there is a heterosexist overtone to the new policy which offends. That gay and lesbian youth tend to shun team sports has been well documented and has led to the development of discrete LGBT athletic organizations and competitions. That gay youth tend to opt for individual sports, where they are less subject to taunts and abuse from coaches and team-mates is well known and so we see gay sports heroes in swimming, running, skating, etc. but none in hockey or football or basketball. The tax credit will not help the gay youth who goes through several pairs of running shoes a year and may want to join an organized track team or train with a qualified coach, on a year-round basis, but it will benefit the youth who plays hockey for a few weeks each winter. And forget about the youths who may want to take up dance or some similar physical activity with comparable to greater health benefits.
The policy reflects the PM’s tendency to cater only to people like himself, while blind to the nation’s families’ diversity. It is consistent with his “us” vs “them strategy of divide and conquer and it is offensive in whatever manifestation.
