One benefit of column-writing is the chance to receive feedback from readers, whether fans, critics or the merely curious. Responses can reflect the rainbow of human emotion, from cheery agreement to annoyance to the equivalent of outright road rage.
Much of what I (and my colleagues) do is analyze how politicians spend tax dollars and the multiple ways governments affect our lives. As a result, any report or column that recommends a change to the status quo is sure to touch someone鈥檚 interest, with predictable results.
Some responses are thoughtful, others less than enlightening, but all are worth a read.
For example, I wrote a report about the almost three million government sector employees (83 per cent of them) across sa国际传媒 who have a defined-benefit pension plan. (That鈥檚 the type with guaranteed levels of payouts in retirement, which create large unfunded liabilities or jacked-up contribution rates from taxpayers.) That compares to just 1.5 million private-sector workers with such plans, or just 13 per cent of the private sector.
Even though government unions have long had their way with taxpayers, any proposed reforms on compensation generates plenty of heat, though not much light. One person wrote to tell me how she had been a child-care worker, deserved a guaranteed-benefits pension and that anyone who thought otherwise must not care about children. Another government employee wrote to say his taxpayer-funded pension was evidence of civilized society.
Yet another emailer, a retired government worker, was quite upset about the teasing he received at cocktail parties about his government pension. He then claimed that 鈥渢he majority of Canadians, who are not in the public sector, do nothing in terms of planning or saving for their retirements; they then proceed to bitch and bellyache about those who have.鈥�
This emailer also asserted private-sector employees possessed a sense of entitlement and should have spent less and saved more, or they should have taken a government job.
Some writers were unhappy when I crunched updated numbers on the (forced) 2009 taxpayer bailout for General Motors and Chrysler. I noted $810 million was the loss for the Chrysler loan and $2.8 billion is missing in action on the GM loan.
A former mid-level employee at one of those above companies identified the problem in a nice email. He wrote of how, when offered a job again with that particular firm, he said no, partly because when he worked there, the firm was populated with executives who had a sense of entitlement vis-à-vis consumers, employees and even taxpayers.
The film sector was unhappy after I pointed out that ever-more film tax credits are just another type of corporate subsidy. Predictable responses claimed that the film industry generates extra tax revenues like manna from heaven that, they all claimed (and contrary to the evidence from impartial observers) balances out the generous taxpayer help in Canadian provinces and American states.
But one correspondent, a film-production manager, said this: 鈥淵ou have only touched the edge of this star-struck phenomenon.鈥� He explained that, at least in Alberta, 鈥渇ilm producers advise the government on policy and I liken it to Al Capone advising the government on Prohibition.鈥�
Fracking, an issue in 2013, generated perhaps the most bizarre response.
Kenneth Green and I wrote that by approving fracking for oil and gas, some provinces might generate extra revenues (Quebec and Atlantic sa国际传媒 in particular). We also, importantly, noted how risks from fracking are low, this according to U.S. National Academies of Science.
And the response from someone at the Halifax chapter of the Sierra Club? That fracking has caused 鈥渁 62 per cent increase in sexually transmitted infections (chlamydia and gonorrhea) in rural communities linked with unconventional resource development.鈥�
So fracking causes the clap. Who knew?
Mark Milke is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
