Are the members of the National Assembly insufficiently paid or has the Legault government targeted too broadly those who needed to be helped to deal with inflation?
Even an elected official receiving the non-taxable allowance which is added to the base salary of $101,561 will be able to benefit from a check for $400, insofar as the eligibility threshold is a net income of $100,000, c i.e. the total income from which many deductions can be subtracted: contribution to an RRSP, purchase of flow-through shares, etc. In addition, the tax-free annual expense allowance of $19,052 received by each Member is not taken into account in the calculation of income.
When the government distributed a first series of checks for $500 last spring, the CAQ MP for Maskinongé, Simon Allaire, argued that he was a victim of inflation “like everyone else” and that his check was the welcome.
The members of the opposition parties do not hear it with the same ear. Ruba Ghazal (Mercier) and Michelle Setlakwe (Mont-Royal–Outremont) announced that they would donate this money to food security organizations working in their ridings.
The office of the Minister of Finance explains that eligible taxpayers “are free to use this support as they see fit, for example by offering it to charities”. In other words, the government passes on to individuals the duty of solidarity incumbent on it. At least this solidarity is tax deductible!
The Auditor General of Canada criticizes the Trudeau government for having paid at least 4.6 billion too much in emergency relief during the pandemic, an amount which could even reach 27 billion.
That is certainly a lot, but the federal government can at least plead that it was impossible to measure the state of distress of those who were asking for help, while businesses closed one after another and many self-employed workers saw their income suddenly drop by more than 50%.
The Legault government had all the information to target those it wanted to help, but it chose for electoral reasons to reach as many people as possible, rather than prioritizing those who needed it the most.
Anyone can see the inequity of giving $800 to a household with a total income of $200,000, while a single mother earning $30,000 will receive $600.
While food banks are struggling to keep up with demand, businesses are rubbing their hands as the holidays approach. Thanks to the government check, we can still treat ourselves a little at Christmas.
“It is sure and certain that there will be more people who will come to buy. I think we’re going to make a lot more money in the next few days, because it’s a gift from the government, so people risk spending it all, ”rejoiced a shopkeeper on Tuesday on the airwaves. of VAT.
The government is simply giving back with one hand what it took with the other, since the inflation against which it says it wants to protect taxpayers has largely contributed to the increase in its income.
By distributing these billions, it nevertheless contributes to fueling this same inflation, from which the poorest will be the first to suffer during the coming year, despite the “shield” that the government claims to have put in place.
It is also taxpayers with the lowest incomes who will benefit the least from the reduction in income tax promised by the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) during the election campaign, which will come into effect on 1er January 2023. Thus, for an income of $30,000, the drop will be $109; at $50,000 of income, it will be $329; at $100,000, it will drop to $810.
“The tax cuts proposed by the government are zero targeted; 100% of the wealthiest will benefit, while two million people [qui ne paient pas d’impôt], the less fortunate in our society, will not benefit. The cashier of the grocery store will have at most $110, when the CEO of the chain will have $750,” lamented the solidarity deputy for Maurice-Richard, Haroun Bouazzi, on Wednesday.
The response from the President of the Conseil du trésor, Sonia LeBel, perfectly illustrated the sophism that takes the place of fairness according to the CAQ: “100% of Quebecers who pay taxes will be entitled to the tax reduction, and that that’s fairness. This is what one might call inequitable equity.