Should The Government Of Canada Continue To Support Of Universality Of Social Services By Increasing The Proportion Of Salaries Given? Should the government of Canada continue to support the universality of social services by increasing the proportion of salaries given to income tax? This question hits a very touchy spot for all Canadians because some agree that a higher portion of an individual’s salary should go to income tax, so a better standard of living could be made by all Canadians, instead of just to the financially blessed class of society. They believe that by the Canadian government doing so, it would limit the greed in our society, and make for a better feel of equality. Then there are those Canadians’ who believe government should not increase the proportion of their salaries given to income tax because they believe the government should help encourage Canadians to be more independent, instead of depending on the government for all of their basic needs and wants. They believe that when they go out and make their hard earned money, they should be able to keep it, instead of giving most of it away, so people that sit at home all day, even though fully capable of getting a good job, have the same benefits as themselves. My position on this issue would have to be with the Canadians who don’t believe in the government increasing the proportion of salaries to income tax. I believe every man for himself. What an individual earns, he deserves, because he worked hard for his pay.
It’s not that I don’t agree with government intervention, I do, I just believe it should be trying to help its people become more independent, instead of 100% dependant on its government. For almost sixty years the Swedish economy was looked upon and admired for its high standard of living. Everything, you name it, they had it. They had a system called cradle-to-grave welfare system, and it promised almost everybody employment. Everybody was guaranteed a free post secondary education and the same went with health care and pension plans. People looking in on the country would be lead to believe Swedes didn’t have a care in the world.
In order for the Sweden economy to work as well as it did, Swedes had to pay 70% of personal taxes, which was the highest rate for personal taxes in all of the industrial worlds. What seemed to be a system with no flaws in it became evident that it was too good to be true, the Swedish government had pampered its people so much, Swedes soon became dependant on its government and not on themselves. Four out of ten workers were employed by the government, workers not being present for work were very high, low productivity was being experienced in the export industries, vacations and other allowance benefits were very costly, economic slumps was reducing the base tax the social programs needed to pay for and the government deficit was increasing. In the end, when the government tried to reduce, the government spending Swedes weren’t able to deal with their new given independence, and sure enough, high unemployment became one of many of their problems. Looking at Sweden as a case study, I think that is enough to discourage the Canadian government from increasing the proportion of salaries given to income tax to support the universality of social services.
If Canada was to do so, it would only promote Canadians to be dependant on their government and not on themselves. Instead of increasing income tax to support social services, the government should introduce programs to help Canadians to budget their income to balance their wants and needs. Through the case study on Sweden we learnt that by the government increasing the proportion of salaries given to income tax to support the universality of social services, which in the long run it doesn’t really benefit the citizens, but only sets them back, and teaches them that they don’t ever really have to face the responsibilities that come with adulthood. Social Issues Essays.