Basically speaking, Social Services are in reality the product of taxation. The intelligent use of taxes. The honorable and humane use of taxes. The equal division of income from taxation. The problem as we see it, is that each and everyone of us have different needs and different priorities. This not only applies to us as individuals, but to us as part of a social group, big or small--ethnic or otherwise. We all feel that WE deserve our fair share of taxes merely because we contribute towards taxes. How then is one able to determine what each one's fair share shall be? Putting aside the concept of "a fair share," surely the criteria one should use is perhaps "an equitable share according to one's needs," be these either as individuals or as a part of a social group. Easier said than done!

Many years ago a lot of the social services were undertaken by church groups. They built and ran hospitals and schools. Old age homes and orphanages. Soup Kitchens and Shelters for the poor and destitute. And much more. The list of services they performed were literally endless. There came a time that they were eventually unable to cope with it all, and as time went by Foundations and other social groups such as "Toc H", "Rotary," "The Lions Club"--''Kiwanis," "The Salvation Army" and hundreds of others in many countries around the world took up the slack. However, the more who entered the field to help, so too did the lists grow who needed assistance. Eventually, starting at the Municipal level, some of these functions were run or controlled by the municipalities, and paid for out of municipal taxes. Eventually many of the larger entities became the function of "Province" or "County" or as in the U.S.A., as "State." And finally one gets to "Government" or as in the U.S.A. " Federal" level. So one eventually arrives at the basis of either "Provincial' or "State"--or Government or "Federal" taxes to pay for these functions.

When it comes down to the level; ( maybe it should be "the upper level" of taxation ), that one starts to "bicker" or argue about the priority or percentage factor of equitable distribution of the proceeds of taxation. In essence--this possibly will be the prime criteria by which we shall be judged in what we have to say about the disbursement of taxation within Social Services. In order to understand our argument and / or comments, one must bear in mind that "we have no axe to grind." We have no prior personal commitment to or necessity for any of the functions we may refer to in this article. This is a very broad field we are attempting to "negotiate," and hopefully we can do so without prejudice or favor.

Whether one speaks of Provincial ( or State ) taxation, or that of "Government" or "Federal" taxation, the division of taxes is broadly based between the following. Education--Health--Social Services-- and--"others." In other words, we are trying to say that the PRIME PRIORITY for MOST CITIZENS around the world are those first three categories in whatever sequence one wants to put them. Not to say that everything else is not that important! Far from that! However, as it impacts on the vast majority of peoples all over the world, one would think that those three mentioned are of the greater importance in their lives. Before one gets down to specifics, there is this constant argument as to who shall control both the income from taxation and it's disbursement. Who has the right to tax "what" and who shall control the income derived from various forms of taxation. As the National Government ostensibly "runs" the country, they are loath to hand over many of "the functions of government" to lower tiers or entities such as Provinces( or States). These in turn disburse certain functions and taxing authority and the income derived, to "County" or Municipal control.

Before one can examine or discuss Social Services in either general or specific terms, one has to define and discuss the division of "power / Functions" between Centralized Government and that of the lower tiers of government such as Provinces (States) and County and Municipal levels of "governmental function." One talks of a "democratic state of government", or a "democracy," as if it were a common factor wherever these terms of government are practiced. This is not so, and while the term is loosely used, it is in most cases very differently applied in all those countries who define themselves as being "a democracy." It would be safe to say that no two democracies are the same--or even alike. This being so, it becomes very difficult to generalize about social services. They differ in content and function in every country, and are also in turn controlled by different tiers of government from country to country. We therefore intend to discuss this subject in, if one can presume to do so, as "an idealistic format" which one hopes is or can be practiced in many countries. In many cases these may already apply in one country or another-- but as said before, this subject can only be discussed in general terms.

The problem with "POWER." is that once it is given or held, it is very difficult to take away. Some countries believe in, and practice a rigid form of "centralized government. Others delegate both taxing functions as well as the right to utilize the proceeds from those taxes in areas at their discretion. Yet again in some cases lower tiers of government control various functions--and are allocated a share of taxes collected by the "central government." In territorially small countries and those with small populations, centralized power can, and often do work well --or reasonably well. However in larger countries, the further one is away from the "seat of government," the greater the perception that one is not being given "their fair share" of tax. In countries as large as the United States of America and Canada, this perception can lead to a great deal of friction, ill-feeling and often extreme animosity. De-centralization comes at a cost. It requires the duplication of "governance" many times over. In the case of the U.S.A. it means that 50 States each have their "House of Representatives," as well as a "Senate." In the case of Canada, each of the ten Provinces has a "Legislative Assembly", and two "Territories" administered differently, yet under the control of the central government. So in the one case there are 50 "Governors" and 100 "speakers" and 50 "ministers- of -finance", and in the other 10 "premiers" and 10 "ministers-of-finance, besides the two tiers of government at each countries Capital. We are not going to concern ourselves with the historical facts whereby this type of governance took place; but merely to state its existence, and in some cases to study its effect.

The first four sentences used in the opening paragraph of this article, said it all--and hopefully said it well. We repeat them again. "Basically speaking, Social Services are in reality the product of taxation. The intelligent use of taxes. The honorable and humane use of taxes. The equal division of income from taxation." And finally, towards the end of the paragraph, the words--"an equitable share according to one's needs." When dealing with "central government" the perception is that very few of the above sentiments are adhered to either in whole or in part. Even where most of the essential functions of Social Services are dealt with at Provincial or "State" level, the same perception exists. And so as well even at the Municipal level. Rural areas especially feel neglected by whatever tiers of government disburse their taxes. Yet with all this, one feels that the closer one gets to "the people," the less this is felt. Basically speaking, the closer one gets to "local government," the more the populace feels that they can control the more equitable share of taxation. Perhaps "disbursement" may be a better word. Having taken so long in "getting to the point," this is how we feel a democratic society should function.

It is not possible to remember to state all the functions of government, be they administered at whatever tier of government. What we are merely trying to do -- is to get our point across. So let us proceed. Central Government should concern themselves with anything that can be defined as INTERNATIONAL such as Embassies and Consulates. International trade and treaties. With International bodies such as the I.M.F. and the WORLD BANK and the WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION. The UNITED NATIONS and all their ancillary bodies. Things of that nature. On the NATIONAL scene, the control of the country's currency, it's banking laws and perhaps a part of it's judiciary. Control over the overall security of the country's borders and it's lands--such as the Army--the Navy--and it's Air Force. I think one starts to get the general idea. Wherever possible, as many functions as possible or feasible, should be delegated to "State" or "Provincial" authority. These bodies in turn should delegate as much as possible down the line to regional and municipal tiers of government. The general idea behind this is to bring to reality the philosophy of GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE--BY THE PEOPLE. The emphasis being on the "by the people!" What is of paramount importance is the unencumbered use of that portion of taxes required to perform those functions of government. In other words, the closer one gets "to the people," the greater the perception that one is getting a fairer share of the revenue derived from taxes. No matter what method of tax division is used, the method of tax distribution is the crux of the matter. At this point one cannot state what percentage of the whole should be controlled by Central Government, but if the International and National cost functions amount to say 20% of tax revenue--then the balance of 80% should derive to Provincial or State control. Surely it is axiomatic that the requirements of a rural or farming community situated a thousand miles from the central seat of government, can be better understood and provided for by the provincial and regional authorities than that of central government.

Finally we arrive at the point of "right" or "rights." What is one's right or rights? Essentially speaking-- we do not have any! One has no rights. A right or rights are given to us by someone else. For example, we just cannot "practice law"--set up as a Lawyer. One has to study, pass exams, then someone else bestows upon us the right to practice law. So too with the medical profession, as it is with the right to practice the trades of a plumber or an electrician. The first few words in Colliers Dictionary defines "right" as follows: "done in accordance with or conformable to moral law or to some standard of rightness; equitable; just; righteous." Even these rights just mentioned have their limitations. We cannot just practice these anywhere. Leave for another country--and those rights more than likely will not be recognized. Many rights granted to us are enshrined in law and called "a Charter of Rights." What we often term as "our rights," generally speaking do not exist. More specifically, the entity might exist--but our "right" to it may not exist. One often hears the term; " I have a right to a Government Pension. After all, I paid my taxes." First of all--how does one know where ones taxes went to. If the govt. made no provision for annual contributions to a pension system--then you have no right to expect one. Being facetious for a moment in time; where-in-the-hell did my taxes go, when a part of someone else's was going towards a pension one day?

We mentioned pension rights, as this is where we would like to specifically start in our discussion on Social Services. Many governments provide "OLD AGE PENSIONS" for their senior citizens. Besides these there may also be additional funds given to these people under perhaps headings such as "social assistance" funds, or "income supplement funds," or whatever additional monies a government can afford to give it's citizens or senior citizens as a supplementary income. Invariably these funds are derived from gross tax income and allocated within annual tax budgets according to annual estimates based on previous expenditures. Broadly speaking--there is NEVER enough money from taxation to satisfy EVERYONE'S needs. However there is a method ( or should be) to satisfy, or if not exactly satisfy--then at least prove more satisfactory to everyone, than just an estimated provision out of general taxes. All--or as many as it is possible to do so of taxes should be for SPECIFIC purposes. In other words if Old Age Pensions are to come out of taxes, and are say 10% of revenue--then say so! People who are paying say $3000 in income tax should be aware that $300 of that tax is being put away towards their old age pension. If another 2% is being used by Govt. to supplement less fortunate people, then SAY SO! People like to know where their taxes are going , and what they are being used for. Specified taxation is invariably more acceptable than those not so specified. As a matter of fact, generally speaking, most people are not averse to taxation; they are averse to the misuse or waste of tax "dollars." Those reasons --in "a nutshell" is basically why taxation and it's income should be controlled by lower and lower tiers of government. We will get back to this aspect again later.

Before completing our discussion on pensions, we would like to make the following comments. The concept that pensions ( i.e. pension payments) can be maintained by payments from those still contributing to the fund-- to those who are retired and no longer contributing, is rapidly being found as unworkable. As people today live to a longer age, more and more workers are required to contribute an ever increasing amount to keep these pension funds with the means to make those payments. This state of affairs is the same, whether they are run by government or by private institutions. This is one of the reasons why Trade Unions are forever attempting to unionize more workers, even though these workers are in totally unrelated industries or services. The only workable solution is for each and every one of us to contribute towards our own retirement, whether this be either by voluntary monthly contributions to a registered retirement fund, or as a "Set aside" proportion of our taxes. Whichever course one takes, these funds can either be invested by government or a private institution. In either case, both the contributions and the profit growth should be both tax deductible and a non taxable item. Finally--and this aspect is perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT factor of all, the proceeds from a pension fund on retirement should to a greater or total extent--BE TAX FREE! The problem with retirement funds, is its value expectation 40 or 50 yrs. "down the line." A home could be purchased 50 years ago for 5000 or 6000 pounds. Today that home would cost perhaps 100,000 pounds or more. In dollar terms, an apartment 50 yrs ago costing $5,000--would today cost a similar difference in value. So someone who could afford to retire on $3000 per month today, would find this totally inadequate perhaps in 10 to 15 years time. Either contributions should have to rise from the presently recognized 10 /11% of income to as much as an eventual 25%; or interest rate returns on pension monies must become available at far higher rates than presently available. Or somehow, a combination of these two factors may have to be put in place. A possible start could be made now in slowly advancing the amount of non taxable retirement income. For example, if we presume that a person is presently being allowed a non-taxed income of $15,000 per year (only taxed from the next dollar), then the ceiling could be raised in increments of $1000 per year, so that the following year it would become a $16,000 tax free proportion of income. In other words, in 30 years time the tax free portion would become $45,000 per year. While this would be taking place, over the same time frame, contributions towards pensions would also increase by slightly higher percentages at 2 /3 /or 5 yr. intervals. Whatever is found to be feasible, the important and urgent factor is that however long it takes--be it 15 or 20 or 25 yrs. to do so, the concept of other "workers-to-come" having to contribute towards those already on retirement MUST BE PHASED OUT.

Welfare Payments have always been a "bone of contention." To those who need it--it has never been enough, and to those from whose taxes it has been paid out from--it has always been "too much." If not too much, then that it is given to those who do not deserve it. These payments cover a great variety of factors, "for reasons of......." this or that circumstance. So that whereas people may not be averse to payments being made for one particular reason, they may strenuously oppose another. And while they may feel that not enough is being done for one sector of society, they in turn could feel that another is getting more than it's fair share. One cannot please everyone, and it would be foolish to ever presume that it can be done. The dictionary describes" Charity" as......"liberality to the poor. An institution for the help of the needy. Tolerance. Spiritual benevolence." And the word "charitable" as......"generous in gifts to the poor. Liberal.Characterised by love and goodwill." So perhaps the problem arises from not having the choice. In other words the dispensation of our tax "dollars" by someone else. In the normal course of events there must be very few individuals who go through life without giving something to charity. However , whatever we give; to whom and in what amount--the choice is ours, and ours alone. And one therefore feels that this may be the main reason for one's dissatisfaction with the system. Be that as it may, there is something that can be done which probably would help to alleviate some of the animosity which may prevail, and that is "workfare."

It is already being applied in several countries. Broadly speaking, it is the payment in kind for being given "welfare payments" by either Provincial or Federal level of government. It more often than not, is work done as part of community service, in shall we say "appreciation" for acceptance of welfare payments--in part, or even as "in full payment thereof." One sees no harm at all in this. It must surely give the recipient some satisfaction in rendering a service to society in return for being assisted by their fellow members of society. The more one examines the concept, the more one sees the possibility of it being a boon to society. Let us examine a few possibilities. One of the most difficult situations to overcome by working mothers is both the availability of, and the cost of "daycare." Somewhere to leave their children while they are at work. There is either never enough facilities, or child care workers, and also the cost involved if these are available. Let us for a moment consider the case of either a single woman or one with two children receiving say $800 per month in welfare payments. At an arbitrary "payment cost factor" of say $8 per hour, this would equate to a 100 hrs. of work per month to equal the $800 payment. What then if either or both of those woman were asked to look after children at a daycare centre for 25 hrs per week, in whatever sequence of work hours that would be convenient to them. In addition to the $800 they would get their transport costs paid for--and maybe a "meal cost " allowance should they work through the mid-day period. For each six workfare assistants--there would be one qualified child care giver to oversee the assistants. One now has six additional workers to look after many more children at no extra cost other than that of transport and perhaps a meal-cost allowance. The individual drop in cost per child to the working mother would be considerable. For the mother of those two children receiving welfare payments, she would get the assistance of other woman in looking after her two children--at no cost to herself as well.

Let us examine another possibility. Hospital care. The Nursing profession constantly complain of too much work and too many hours at work. Surely we can assist them with these problems. If one took away the drudgery of less important "nursing functions" such as bed-making, the carrying to and disposal of "bed-pans and "urine bottles," and whatever else the nurses consider as not being within the compass of their "professionalism", we would have a happier and more dedicated and contented nursing profession. Even the hours of paper-work they are forced to perform, could perhaps be delegated to competent welfare recipients where feasible to do so. Even if this means only transcribing from voice dictated tapes which will subsequently be checked by the nurse for accuracy. Whatever functions we assist in , it will relieve the daily stress to some extent and give them more time to devote to their professional duties. Here again the costs are minimal. Transport costs and either a meal or the cost equivalent would help solve this problem.

There are perhaps hundreds of other opportunities to render community service in exchange for welfare assistance. Assistance given to the staff at Homes For The Aged, the blind, the deaf. Assisting at Food Banks. Delivering of meals to the homes of those who are incapable of providing for themselves. Perhaps accompanying police doing community policing patrols. The list is perhaps endless. What is important is that it gives dignity back to those who are receiving assistance from society. The figures we have used are purely for illustrative purposes only. We are not intimating that service rendered shall be at the figure of $8 per hour. It is for those who dispense welfare payments to make those assessments.

We have reached the stage where we are about to introduce perhaps a very contentious facet of the use of tax "dollars." This deals with either a tax "credit" or actual cash given by Government to those paying taxes, who have children. One understands the fact that there is an extra cost involved in feeding and clothing a child. Fair enough. So is the cost of running a car,--or an extra two cars. In paying for electricity or the purchase of a TV.--a VCR.. or what have you! What one is trying to assess is, the equity in the use of tax dollars. Let us try and examine this problem "dispassionately." If that is at all possible. For each child born, the State has to provide "schooling." Either free, or at subsidized cost. Health. The children of each family are included in the charges levied on the parents--no difference whether the family consists of no children, one, three, or six. Please note we are talking here of "national health plans" and not that of an insured health plan. Then finally, society has to--or is expected to, provide a job for each of those children when they grow up. Let us be reasonable about this. Each and everyone of us want to marry and have a family. However at this stage let us pause. One wants a family that we can afford. One that we can provide for. At this stage, we hope that we are all getting the message! Come on. Get with it! why should society have to provide for maybe 5 /6 /8 /10 /12 children of someone's family, who has no care or worry as to their future well-being. One thinks that one has made the point by this stage. If one wants to be compassionate and considerate, fair enough. However there are the blind, the deaf , the dysfunctional, the paraplegic and a raft of other folk who deserve either equal or maybe better consideration, when it comes down to the use of our taxes. What we therefore propose is that either cash or tax credits be limited to three children. Not that we expect that this be taken away immediately. but at least start to diminish this privilege gradually over a number of years by only applying it eventually to say a maximum of three children. However long it takes to get down to the maximum three children allowance, either simultaneously or shortly thereafter, the pendulum should start swinging the other way. Surely it becomes a logical function for the parents of larger families to assume a greater cost load in starting to share the additional costs incurred by the State in educating these extra children and having to provide the additional health care costs which the State will incur. It may sound callous in making these suggestions, but in fairness to other taxpayers, it is a logical assumption, that "the user fee" factor in tax costs should be born by those who use the service.

How does one spread one's tax "dollars." No matter in which country we live in, there is never enough money to spread around to all those facets of society who have a need for some of those funds to be spent where they want it to be spent. Who can honestly assess the order of priority--and the volume or extent of expenditure. It is a daunting task. How does one weigh one factor against another. There is an old saying; "you can please some of the people some of the time,--but you can never please all of the people all of the time." Well said! But you CAN get close to pleasing MOST of the people MOST of the time. However there is possibly only ONE WAY in which this can be done. First of all, we must repeat what we said earlier on. The closer you get to "the people," the easier it becomes to assess what is needed by the members of society around you. When you reach that point, it becomes a far easier task to determine what each one's share shall be. A Very Simple System! However the system can only work if we change our system of "budget presentation." At the very beginning of this article we mentioned that in the order of priority, the most important factors that concerns the majority of the citizens of a country, is that of Health, Education, and Social Services. In addition, we also said "others." So what we are about to say applies equally to all those sectors. Except of course, that we may not break down each and every sector into it's many components.

For this to work, two factors have to apply. The first is that annual budgets at whatever stage of "government" should be roughly considered as always being in four major segments. These being: Health--Education--Social Services--and "The Rest." The second factor is that one tries not to spread the expected growth in income annually, between the four segments mentioned. For instance, if we are talking about a Provincial or "State" budget of say $30 Billion and an expected income growth of 2.5% in tax income, this would amount to $750,000,000 (750 million.) First of all, the budget figure quoted is "after interest and debt redemption" has been accounted for. For this exercise, the budget annual allocations are as follows:

Health:                 35%     being     $10.50 Billion ( $15,000 million )

Education:            27.5%  being     $ 8.25  Billion ( $ 8,250 million  )

Social Services:    15%     being     $ 4.50  Billion ( $ 4,500 million  )

The Rest:             22.5%   being     $ 6.75  Billion ( $ 6,750 million  )

Now if we examine the impact of allocating the total 2.5% ( $750 million ) to just the one entity of the above four--this is what we would see:

Health: The $ 750 million would allow for every single entity of that portfolio to be increased by 5%. However, over the full range of all the components that lie within "Health," there would be nothing to stop those in control in differentiating between these components, by giving one a 2% increase, another 3% and another 7% and so on. They may all get "a bite of the cherry," and while it may not be an equal bite, they would expect to get this situation to be reversed "the next time around."

Education: The $ 750 million would allow for an increase in the portfolio of 9.09%, and the same distributive comments would apply.

Social Services: The $ 750 million would constitute an increase of 16.66%, and be distributed in a similar manner.

The Rest: The $ 750 million would constitute an increase of 11.11% and would be similarly acted upon.

Several important factors come into play with this type of arrangement. First of all, a meaningful amount becomes available for allocation and can perhaps be more intelligently and more effectively used. Secondly all the components are more than likely not going to be overlooked or ignored--whatever their share of the cherry is to be that time around. And finally, if the occasion ever arises that "fat" has to be trimmed from the portfolio, this can be better done while they are, shall we say, "flush with money." They would be foolish not to do so, knowing that another three years will go by before their portfolio will again have any increased income. One would expect a more honorable, a more equitable, and a better allocation according to ones "needs".

While we have suggested that only one portfolio be allocated the total expected growth in income, if it were felt that a period of "three lean years" is too long--then at it's worst it can be divided between any two in the proportion in which their share of the budget relates to their percentage to each other. Thus the wait to the "next time around" would be cut to every second year.

The growth in a country's economy is never identical in each and every year. So in order to equalize "the take" each year in order that there be an equal distribution between portfolios as their turn comes around, the following needs to be attended to. The budget should have "an Equalization Fund" into which a given percentage of tax "dollars" are allocated each year before any funds are allocated to each portfolio. In any year that the growth is below that of the previous year, funds are drawn out from the fund to equalize the extra income utilized the previous year. Where growth exceeds the previous year's, the fund is topped up to it's stated "desired level." When there are two succeeding years growth in excess of what was established as "the norm," then either of two things should be done. One either starts to reduce taxes--or one starts to increase the allocations percentage-wise where it is felt to be more needed or equitable. Should the economy continue to grow above the expected norm--then undoubtedly taxes should be reduced in preference to increasing "State" expenditure.

We stated a while back that for taxes to have some relevance, it should be seen to be used for the purposes it was meant for. Not go into General Revenue--and then be allocated from there. For example, where some countries have a National Health Scheme, some take the entire revenue from the allocated tax and that becomes the only available revenue to be utilized. In other countries such as Canada only a minute' portion of the cost of running the system comes from allocated tax, and the balance comes out of general revenue. Thus in this instance at a tax of say $40 or $50 per individual, or approximately $70 for a whole family--irrespective of how many minor children there are --per month, becomes shall we say an irrelevant figure in relation to what is actually required to run the system. With a minor charge of this nature, there is little relevance to what is either needed --or spent, with consequent dissatisfaction. When one takes a country such as South Africa as an example of the other system, an individual can pay as much as R1200 ( Rand ) per month --and a family as much as R1800 or R2200 per month. The high factor is related to the few taxpayers who have to bear the greater load to cover those who are either paying little or nothing towards the system. The charges are a percentage of one's income; so it rises with one's increase in income; whereas in Canada, everyone pays the same irrespective of one's earnings. There are of course exceptions, such as those with very low incomes pay little or nothing as well. Getting back to Canada, if one divided the "per head " cost of National Health by the total cost to run it, one would have to pay $300 to $350 per person per month to pay for the scheme. As children and the aged are counted into the population, the cost to recoup the total, would become very much higher than $350 per month from each taxpayer. While their Government and it's people are loath to increase the monthly charges, and as well do not want to institute a sliding scale of payments, it seems silly not to do so. All Income tax is charged on "a sliding scale. The more one earns--the more one has to pay. So surely it is more logical to tax people according to one's earnings and get closer to the perceived cost of the system--than to forever be dissatisfied with what is allocated by Government from General Revenue. Allocating little from low-earning youth at the one end, and low income Senior Citizens at the other end of the scale, a charge of say 6% of ones salary allocated to the "Health Plan" would mean that someone earning $3000 per month would be paying $180 and one earning $5000 would be paying $300 per month. The total cost of taxation to the individual would be no different, as the tax paid for Health would be deducted from the total annual tax which the individual or the family would be liable in any case. So that when one complains about the shortcomings of National Health--one realizes that to overcome this--one is expected to have ones taxes increased SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ENTITY. That is why a specific tax is the best and most relevant form of taxation.

As one comes to the end of this article, there is a comment which one feels should be made. Without a doubt one thinks it applies the world over in each and every country--and in each and every tier of government as well. Why is it that when one is elevated to a position of power in "Government" that there is immediately "a personality" change? Why is it That Power Corrupts? We do not mean that people become "corrupt,"--merely perhaps a corruption of the "spirit." In some cases even a show of arrogance! We wish it were not so! And we will leave it at that!