If not a provincial plan, then what?

Vincent J. Curtis

13 Aug 15

My hometown newspaper published an editorial of today's date in which they argued that Harper was bad because he would not cooperate with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in creating an Ontario pension plan.  The case was based upon straightforward special pleading.  Special pleading occurs when the arguer says that his case should be accepted because he is special.  Below is a response.

The editorial today was a straightforward case of special pleading.  The arguments put forward by Kathleen Wynne, which The Spectator supports, are not privileged.  Wynne may have a majority, but as of this date, so does Harper.

The people with some business sense, which would include the Harper government, say the Ontario pension plan scheme would be a job-killer because she would be adding a further payroll tax.  That argument should be respected, or at least countered with something.  If it is respected, then The Spectator should argue why, nevertheless, it should be implemented anyway.

The Spectator put down Harper’s objections to another public pension plan as sheer ideology.  Well, expanding the power of government is an ideological commitment in itself, and adding a payroll tax to redistribute twenty years from now adds to the power of government.

The Spectator apparently is satisfied with treating people like children who cannot look after themselves.  It may well be true that most people are like children who cannot look after themselves, but it takes an elitist to say that you know better and you know what is in their best interests.

The way The Spectator put the problem - if not this, then what? - reveals an ideological commitment to larger government.  Before 1966, families, churches and charities handled the aged indigent.  More government doesn’t have to be the answer to everything.  And it is not obvious that indigence is a problem for the aged.

Already, we have RRSPs, tax free savings accounts, and other tax shelters intended to encourage people to save for retirement.  You seem to feel that coercion is necessary.

I view Wynne’s pension proposal as a back-door tax increase.  The beauty of it is that she gets to borrow money from the new plan to pay for her green infrastructure program, and twenty years from now she won’t be the premier responsible for making good on her promises of pension payments.

What we will get is another fiscally unsound government program that will eat up the budgets of governments yet to come.

You don’t have a democracy when adults are treated like children.  People simply have to act responsibly, and the consequences of making poor choices in life, and real examples of not accepting responsibility for oneself, provide reasons for acting responsibly throughout one’s life.
-30-