Toxic Multiculturalism

[Barrister]

Note that tax benefits are not the only benefits that are only available if you stay put on your reserve.

Now obviously those who are already status Indians living on a reserve are not going to want to lose their tax-exempt status and other benefits. Who in their right minds *wants* to pay taxes and who will say no to free money? Not me!

But equally obviously, this policy is likely to "incentivise" those Indians to remain in what amounts to ghettos, often filled with poverty, crime, substance abuse, etc.

In short, counter-intuitive as it may seem, they would have been better off without the tax and other breaks, as they act as a force tying them to a particular spot - regardless of economic and other advantages which may be available elsewhere. Move to better yourself, and you lose the benefits. Naturally, some of the most ambitious will say to themselves "the hell with the benefits" and move anyway; these are however the very folks whom you would want to stay, to fix their communities.

It is as if you told American Blacks that, if they could in a way satifactory to the government, "prove" that they were really "Black", they were exempt from tax and got all sorts of governmet perks - but only as long as they lived in Detroit. Is it any great surprise the system isn't working well?

You're not reading your quote correctly.

First, your residence doesn't make any difference for income tax.  What matters is where you earn your income.  So if you take a job on reserve you don't pay tax, but if you take a job off reserve, you do.  So yes, if the choice is between an on-reserve job, and an off-reserve job, you incentivize on-reserve jobs.  If you think about it, that's not actually a bad public policy - promote economic development.  The fact it utterly doesn't work that way has much more to do about the difficulty in starting any kind of private industry on a reserve than it does about the tax benefits.

Second, there aren't all that many benefits that are tied to staying on-reserve.  Housing is about it.  Your band is supposed to provide you with a house on reserve.  But every other benefit, such as medical and education, is not tied to residency.  Off-reserve status people still get those benefits.

And even with those supposed 'incentives', there are more status people living off reserve than on, and the numbers keep growing.

IMHO, the troubles on reserves have much more to do with poor attitudes towards education combined with poor local governance than they do with the Indian Act.

And by the way, all the 'modern' land claims agreement have included provisions doing away with the tax exemption.  That includes the Final Settlements in the Yukon Territory (where we don't have reserves anyways).

[Oexmelin]

As for the so called 'natives' or 'first nations' - as if the tribes who existed here before our arrival were nations in the sense we usually define that word

The French and the British who arrived here were not nations in the sense we usually define the word either.

[Oexmelin]

Tax breaks were never meant as incentives of anything. They were the logical outcome of treating the Natives as non-citizens. Other financial help stemmed from the gradual transformation of former payments of food and cloth given as part of alliances and treaties, which, through pressure from Indian affairs who thought it was too much to manage, were transformed into cash payments.

[Malthus]

You're not reading your quote correctly.

First, your residence doesn't make any difference for income tax.  What matters is where you earn your income.

Huh?

Please note that I refer to "taxation" and not specifically "income tax". The quote has two main paragraphs - one referencing "income tax" and the other "personal or real property located on a reserve".

Sure, residence may make no difference for income tax - but it certainly does for real or personal property. Unless, unlike the vast majority of humans, you store your personal property, buy your food, etc. somewhere other than where you live, the location of your "real and personal property", or buy your groceries (and thus pay GST and PST - or not), is likely to be the same as where you live.

I suppose you could live somewhere else and only use the reserve to have your house, store your stuff, buy your groceries, and work, but that would be rather inconvenient, no?

In short, I'm glad you are not my tax advisor. 

So if you take a job on reserve you don't pay tax, but if you take a job off reserve, you do.  So yes, if the choice is between an on-reserve job, and an off-reserve job, you incentivize on-reserve jobs. 

And by making personal or real property tax-free if located on a reserve, you are incentivising on-reserve living.

If you think about it, that's not actually a bad public policy - promote economic development.  The fact it utterly doesn't work that way has much more to do about the difficulty in starting any kind of private industry on a reserve than it does about the tax benefits.

Heh. 'The fact that our government plan doesn't work has nothing to do with its essential excellence'. 

Second, there aren't all that many benefits that are tied to staying on-reserve.  Housing is about it.  Your band is supposed to provide you with a house on reserve.  But every other benefit, such as medical and education, is not tied to residency.  Off-reserve status people still get those benefits.

Tax-free status and housing assistance are pretty substantial perks.

And even with those supposed 'incentives', there are more status people living off reserve than on, and the numbers keep growing.

"Supposed" incentives? Tax-free status is "supposedly" an incentive now? 

No wonder - the reserves are thoroughly disfunctional places to live, those ambitious for their futures can't be bribed to stay there, even with a hefty bribe.

IMHO, the troubles on reserves have much more to do with poor attitudes towards education combined with poor local governance than they do with the Indian Act.

And by the way, all the 'modern' land claims agreement have included provisions doing away with the tax exemption.  That includes the Final Settlements in the Yukon Territory (where we don't have reserves anyways).

See, the difference between us is that you don't see that the sort of centralized government planning and incentives mandated by the Indian Act are part of the problem; you seem to see them as ameliorating the problem, albeit unsuccessfully.

To my mind, it is practically a poster-child for why even positive ("positive" defined as providing benefits for a favoured group defined by race, rather than seeking to impose disadvantages on a disfavoured race) official racism, carried out with the best of intentions, results in bad unintended consequences -- in this case, exacebating the plight of the very people it was intended to help. 

(It should be noted that in some cases, provided it is mild, "negative' racism has the opposite unintended consequence of actually giving the disfavored group a leg-up: Jews have often benefited from this effect, and more recently, Chinese in SE Asia).

[Malthus]

Tax breaks were never meant as incentives of anything. They were the logical outcome of treating the Natives as non-citizens. Other financial help stemmed from the gradual transformation of former payments of food and cloth given as part of alliances and treaties, which, through pressure from Indian affairs who thought it was too much to manage, were transformed into cash payments.

The issue is whether they are a good idea to continue or not. Their historical origins are interesting, but not relevant for the question of whether they are helping or harming those who are the intended recipients.

[Oexmelin]

They are relevant because it is all the difference, which you play with yourself, between entitlement and help. It is the difference between Canadian citizen like all the others, but who happened to be the recipient of special help, and Canadians citizen who are *not* like the others, as per status recognized through historical vicissitudes.

The issue therefore is whether the Canadian government is abiding by what might deem its responsibility and what is essentially a grace. You use the word incentives as if it was part of a policy to do something *for* Natives, for their own good (again, regardless of what their own wish might be). Natives might see it as something which is owed to them, regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. Hence the need to re-open treaties and not simply to decide by fiat what is supposed to be good for them.

[Barrister]

Malthus - you can't own real property on a reserve.  So the supposed "tax free" status of a reserve vis-a-vis property is a mirage - you don't own it, so you'd never have to worry about taxes either.

[Neil]

There are some lucky indians for whom avoiding tax on the reserves is a great thing.  But given that most of the reserves make the groups of shacks I saw in Belize look like a nice, middle-class suburb, I would think that it would be better to have them move on.  Ultimately, the only way that we can give the Indian self-respect is to seize all their land, compensate them for it, and scatter them to the winds.

In a true civilization, there can only be one culture.

[Jaron]

Are you SERIOUS Neil?

All the great civilizations of the world have been multi-cultural.

Even the British and French Empires of yesteryear had several cultural groups within.

QUIT trolling about things you know nothing about.

[Martinus]

It's arguable whether they were multicultural or simply had several cultural groups, as you say. I think colonial empires were the opposite of multiculturalism, at least in principle - the point was to transplant the dominant white culture to the uncivilized colony.

India is a prime example of this.

[Jaron]

Oh well nevermind then

Carry on Neil

[Viking]

The "Great" Civilisations have not been multi-cultural. What they all have in common is cultural vibrancy. They open themselves up to ideas from abroad, which they make their own and then re-export those new ideas (often in the form of invading armies).

[Razgovory]

It's arguable whether they were multicultural or simply had several cultural groups, as you say. I think colonial empires were the opposite of multiculturalism, at least in principle - the point was to transplant the dominant white culture to the uncivilized colony.

India is a prime example of this.

No, it wasn't.  I suspect that transplanting "white culture" would have been a fairly foreign concept to the Portuguese and British at the time.

[grumbler]

It's arguable whether they were multicultural or simply had several cultural groups, as you say. I think colonial empires were the opposite of multiculturalism, at least in principle - the point was to transplant the dominant white culture to the uncivilized colony.

India is a prime example of this.

No, it wasn't.  I suspect that transplanting "white culture" would have been a fairly foreign concept to the Portuguese and British at the time.

Disagree.  Getting the local elites to adopt the imperial power's culture was a goal of all the imperial powers.  They wanted the elites to be more loyal to the imperial elites than the colonies' masses.  See India, Rwanda, the Philippines, Algeria, etc.

[Malthus]

Malthus - you can't own real property on a reserve.  So the supposed "tax free" status of a reserve vis-a-vis property is a mirage - you don't own it, so you'd never have to worry about taxes either.

Odd that the association of Chiefs believes different. Perhaps they know something about the matter?

In any event, I assume you are not claiming folks can't *buy* stuff on a reserve, and you still don't pay GST or PST on that - for low-income folks that may be a more important incentive than the income tax break, or a break on real property tax.

And funny you should mention this:

But every other benefit, such as medical and education, is not tied to residency.  Off-reserve status people still get those benefits.

Globe editorial today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/for-students-both-on-and-off-reserves/article1502728/

For students both on and off reserves

...
Those aboriginals who have already moved off-reserve (or come from families that did so) often cannot access most of the assistance.
...