Fighting the War on Poverty
By Sid Ryan
I grew up poor in a family of seven children in the Republic of Ireland.
At
the time, Ireland had one of the highest poverty rates among
industrialized
countries. That was five decades ago, well before the Ireland of today
where progressive government social and economic policies have improved
the standard of living for many people there.
While policies like free post-secondary education, a living wage (not, a
minimum wage) for low-income earners and cooperative job/economic
strategies between labour, business and government have set Ireland on a
better course, the child poverty rate remains stubbornly high (it is on
par
with Canada's at about 15 %). That's because - according to recent studies
measuring poverty - both Canadian and Irish government spending on family
and social benefits falls far short of where these investments can
mitigate the growing gap between rich and poor in global market economies,
and show meaningful results in decreasing poverty rates.
Where we should be looking for a socio-economic model that benefits the
majority citizens and where poverty rates are lowest - between 2 and 5 per
cent - is, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway. Out-performing
Canada and all the other Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries in many quality of life indices, these
Scandinavian countries have high taxation rates (between 42 and 52 per
cent of (GDP) - Gross Domestic Product) compared to Canada's rate of 34
per cent of GDP, high social program spending, and high worker
unionization rates of over 80 per cent.
In addition, according to a Unicef study, the government policies of these
countries are the most effective at alleviating the effects of 'market'
forces on the poor, and conversely in lowering child poverty rates
In short the policies of the 'high-tax' Scandinavian social democracies,
where governments redistribute a higher percentage of the national income
to protect low wage earners and the poor against market forces, where the
majority of workers are unionized, and where child care is free or
subsidized, there is greater social cohesion and equality of opportunity,
and poverty rates are lower.
Go figure. Everything the pro-market, less government proponents say is
bad, is really good for working families and the poor.
Of the OECD countries, only Mexico with a 28 per cent child poverty rate
has a higher rate of child poverty than the U.S., at 22 per cent. Marked
by low- taxes, low unionization rates, for-profit health care and great
income
disparity, the U.S. is not the socio-economic model Canadians I know
aspire to. Yet it is the model promoted by Prime Minister Stephen Harper -
who, in the last election campaign said he believes "all taxes are
bad", who has fronted organizations vehemently opposed to labour
unions that help raise workers' wages and, who favors tax cuts to
investments in social spending.
In the coming federal election, voters can give Harper a strong message,
that we want to lower child poverty, and improve the quality of life for
poor and middle income earners, not make it worse, by giving him and his
'new' government the big heave ho.
Sid Ryan is Ontario President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees
For further information contact:
Sid Ryan 416-209-0066
