nstn
11-27-2003, 07:42 PM
It appears that both the provincial and federal governments need to work harder on the problems of urban income desparity.
Report in PDF format at:
http://www.fcm.ca/english/communications/igfull.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cities alone can't fight income gap
Toronto Star Nov. 27, 2003
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities yesterday released a report, Falling Behind: Our Growing Income Gap, that used Toronto, Saskatoon and Calgary as case studies to examine increasing disparities between rich and poor in urban centres. Here is an edited excerpt:
The case studies reinforced the importance of several system elements to address the growing income gap and the implications of the gap.
First, there is considerable evidence that a system of national transfer payments and progressive taxes plays an important role in reducing inequities.
The effectiveness of these measures has been reduced in recent years as a result of policy and program changes as well as funding reductions.
The National Child Benefit is an excellent example of the success that can be achieved through a national program to redistribute income to those in need. However, the provincial clawback of the benefit from families receiving social assistance in many provinces, including Ontario and Alberta, is a significant step backward in reducing poverty and income inequality.
The Alberta flat tax is a recent example of a tax with disproportionate impact on low-income families.
Second, there is clear evidence that provincial and municipal policies play an important role in reducing inequities and income polarization.
In Saskatchewan, social assistance programs invest in children. They provide a provincial income supplement and health benefits for low income working families. As a result, families in Saskatchewan are about $4,000 better off than those in Alberta and about $2,000 better off than in Ontario.
Similarly, there is evidence that provincial policies can lead to a widening of inequities and income disparities. The mid-1990s cuts in social assistance payments in many provinces and the lack of any subsequent rate increases have deepened the income inequities.
Changes in provincial rent control policies, minimum wage, and employment standards policies have also had a negative impact on inequalities.
Third, community-based initiatives in Saskatoon, Calgary, and Toronto were identified as providing a number of important direct benefits to the local communities. They were seen as addressing the immediate and local problem by building local capacity and leadership, contributing to social inclusion and developing relationships with institutions and service providers that could facilitate future undertakings.
Fourth, Calgary, Saskatoon and Toronto all played important roles in promoting a common understanding of income inequity issues and in helping their communities develop effective responses. Each of the cities had an effective analytical and research capacity to monitor and report on changing socio-economic indicators in the city. This critical role is not provided by other orders of government.
Finally, accessible public programs and services are critically important as equalizing instruments that are available to all members of the community. Municipalities are the main providers of community services through public health, recreation, library, and other community services. The location, range, and scope of the services and the policies regarding use and fees, greatly affect access to the services.
There is significant anecdotal evidence of the negative impact of the recent introduction of user fees for recreational services in Toronto on the use of the services by low-income families.
Income inequality is a complex issue that requires responses at different levels. There must be a continued response to reduce inequities through the tax and transfer system, as well as targeted responses to address the needs of disadvantaged groups such as children, lone parents and immigrants.
Report in PDF format at:
http://www.fcm.ca/english/communications/igfull.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cities alone can't fight income gap
Toronto Star Nov. 27, 2003
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities yesterday released a report, Falling Behind: Our Growing Income Gap, that used Toronto, Saskatoon and Calgary as case studies to examine increasing disparities between rich and poor in urban centres. Here is an edited excerpt:
The case studies reinforced the importance of several system elements to address the growing income gap and the implications of the gap.
First, there is considerable evidence that a system of national transfer payments and progressive taxes plays an important role in reducing inequities.
The effectiveness of these measures has been reduced in recent years as a result of policy and program changes as well as funding reductions.
The National Child Benefit is an excellent example of the success that can be achieved through a national program to redistribute income to those in need. However, the provincial clawback of the benefit from families receiving social assistance in many provinces, including Ontario and Alberta, is a significant step backward in reducing poverty and income inequality.
The Alberta flat tax is a recent example of a tax with disproportionate impact on low-income families.
Second, there is clear evidence that provincial and municipal policies play an important role in reducing inequities and income polarization.
In Saskatchewan, social assistance programs invest in children. They provide a provincial income supplement and health benefits for low income working families. As a result, families in Saskatchewan are about $4,000 better off than those in Alberta and about $2,000 better off than in Ontario.
Similarly, there is evidence that provincial policies can lead to a widening of inequities and income disparities. The mid-1990s cuts in social assistance payments in many provinces and the lack of any subsequent rate increases have deepened the income inequities.
Changes in provincial rent control policies, minimum wage, and employment standards policies have also had a negative impact on inequalities.
Third, community-based initiatives in Saskatoon, Calgary, and Toronto were identified as providing a number of important direct benefits to the local communities. They were seen as addressing the immediate and local problem by building local capacity and leadership, contributing to social inclusion and developing relationships with institutions and service providers that could facilitate future undertakings.
Fourth, Calgary, Saskatoon and Toronto all played important roles in promoting a common understanding of income inequity issues and in helping their communities develop effective responses. Each of the cities had an effective analytical and research capacity to monitor and report on changing socio-economic indicators in the city. This critical role is not provided by other orders of government.
Finally, accessible public programs and services are critically important as equalizing instruments that are available to all members of the community. Municipalities are the main providers of community services through public health, recreation, library, and other community services. The location, range, and scope of the services and the policies regarding use and fees, greatly affect access to the services.
There is significant anecdotal evidence of the negative impact of the recent introduction of user fees for recreational services in Toronto on the use of the services by low-income families.
Income inequality is a complex issue that requires responses at different levels. There must be a continued response to reduce inequities through the tax and transfer system, as well as targeted responses to address the needs of disadvantaged groups such as children, lone parents and immigrants.