 |
| Feature: |
| |
| You are here: Home > Features > Poverty In Canada: The New Reality Facing Canadians |
|
| |
| Jump to . . . |
| » Introduction » What is Poverty? » Poverty in Parliament » Poverty Coast to Coast » Canada in Comparison » Social Consequences » Progress or Regress » Politics of Poverty » In Perspective » Links to Further Info |
| More Information |
| « Web Features « Current Event Spotlights « Today's News Headlines « Political Cartoons « Voter Almanac « Interviews |
| External Info & Links |
| « Nat. Anti-Poverty
Org. « Campaign 2000 « Statcan: Shelter Pop. « OECD - Social Indicators |
Politics of Poverty
Different interpretations on the right and left
There are, of course, valid arguments for and against government-centred wealth re-distribution.
Against Government-Centred Wealth Re-distribution
Proponents on one side of the debate feel that social engineering by government is a particularly offensive idea. The imposition of high taxes to maintain large social security infrastructures not only restricts the mobility of a free-market society, but also infringes on citizens’ liberty. It is argued that heavy tax burdens on citizens will diminish the society’s productivity as a whole since their ability to reinvest in the society is restricted.
Moreover, proponents of this philosophy argue that the notion that governments will spend its citizens’ income better than the citizens themselves is foolish. There is, inherent in this argument, the view that a productive market society will bring benefits to all its members, naturally. In some circles, this is known as the ‘trickle-down’ effect.
High profile cases of fiscal mismanagement have compounded a belief that vast bureaucracies are inefficient. Put simply, they argue that political failures are almost always greater than market failures.
For Government-Centred Wealth Re-distribution
Arguments for the centralized, income redistribution method are committed to the notion that government’s central purpose is to advocate the needs of the community above that of its primarily self-interested members.
Most of the data shows a clear correlation between reduced poverty statistics and large, government-centred social security systems. But this requires a great deal of faith in government institutions.
As for ‘trickle-down’ economics, they argue that there are systemic barriers to social mobility; prosperity will continue to benefit certain circles and leave the majority without if there is no levelling mechanism. Above all, proponents of this philosophy argue that there will be economic gains for the society that can satisfy a greater proportion of its population. An egalitarian society, it is proposed, will benefit as a result of a larger number of healthy, productive members. In short, the most successful society is the one that produces the highest quality of life for the greatest number.