Can anyone please explain why income tax increases have always been broadbased and tax expenditures narrowly targeted? Further, since the principal of progressive taxation is a time hounoured one, why are the exemptions flat and not regressive. For example, a person earning 40,000 a year would be able to deduct 100% of the RRSP conrtibution up to the limit. A person earning 100,000 a year would be able to deduct only 50% of their contribution, with regressivity in between. We are already hearing of the the protestations and lobbying efforts of people who want to have their tax exempt contributions to their RRSP's exempt from taxation on withdrawl for those "special reasons" that only apply to a very small number of really deserving cases. There was once an effort to quantify the cost to canadians of tax expenditures to the dept of revenue. Tax expenditures are the "special exemptions" that obviate the priincipal of progressive taxation. The effort was quickly halted since it would expose the inequity of Canadian Tax Law. The best Royal Commission Report on Taxation ever was done by Prof Carter (1950's?") The underlying theme of the report was that "a dollar income is a dollar income and should be taxed as a dollar income." Regards Ed G Ed Goertzen, Oshawa
