Understanding Gov't Accounting & Accountability
Dear Editor,
Re:FP Comment Aug 26/2005, FP15
Call Gov'ts to Account for Taxes
Gary Marshall makes a fine point, when he laments the impossibility of measuring the efficacy of government taxation & expenditure policies and actions.
He rightly explains that absent a 'capital cost' no one can compute the return TO Canadians ON the investment(i.e. tax contribution) they have made to the operating accounts of the enterprise we call Canada.
Your editorial headline urges 'someone' to call governments to account for taxes. Ok here goes.
To facilitate understanding of a new concept, I will pose and answer 2 questions:
1) Why are virtually none of the Assets of Canada (Crown Land, natural resources etc) included on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities? (yes, there are a few tens of billions recently added as 'Tangible Assets' in addition to 'Financial Assets')
and 2) Who might be the person or official to call the stewardship policies of our governments to account?
To explain the connection between these two points consider ... If Canada, were an incorporated company, there would be but one shareholder -The Queen. The government is management and the populace but mere non-unionized, contract employees.
Ever since 1763, the Monarch has held absolute title to absolutely all the assets of Canada and the 'governors' are charged with administering Her Royal Highness' estate and Treasury. Sadly our puny freehold interest in land and time-limited copyrights and trademarks don't count for much in comparison, however aboriginal/treaty rights ARE categorically different.
Therefore, on #1 the government books only show the balance sheet on THEIR participation in the day-to-day administration OF HRH assets (by-the-by, what DID we get in return for the ~$800 billion in Fed+ Prov. debt? it's on the books as 'deferred taxation')
and on #2, No one but the Queen personally (the British Cabinet excused themselves in 1982) has the authority to call for an accounting from the 'Stewards of the Crown's Treasury & Assets'.
Going back to my Canada as corporate-feudal state parallel,
a)can management be expected to accede to the wishes of the employees or the sole proprietor?
b)in the absence of hands-on participation or even occasional cursory supervision BY the sole proprietor, could it be expected that the managers might get carried away with power?
c)if 'fooling-some-of-the people' at periodic election was sufficient to keep hold of power, would any other course of action be expected?
This information is contrary to everything you've ever read or heard, but it's a true and accurate summary of why YOU think Canada's government is 'out of whack'.
Regards,
Robert Ede
PS I'll gladly furnish the solution to this dilemma to anyone who responds
Re:FP Comment Aug 26/2005, FP15
Call Gov'ts to Account for Taxes
Gary Marshall makes a fine point, when he laments the impossibility of measuring the efficacy of government taxation & expenditure policies and actions.
He rightly explains that absent a 'capital cost' no one can compute the return TO Canadians ON the investment(i.e. tax contribution) they have made to the operating accounts of the enterprise we call Canada.
Your editorial headline urges 'someone' to call governments to account for taxes. Ok here goes.
To facilitate understanding of a new concept, I will pose and answer 2 questions:
1) Why are virtually none of the Assets of Canada (Crown Land, natural resources etc) included on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities? (yes, there are a few tens of billions recently added as 'Tangible Assets' in addition to 'Financial Assets')
and 2) Who might be the person or official to call the stewardship policies of our governments to account?
To explain the connection between these two points consider ... If Canada, were an incorporated company, there would be but one shareholder -The Queen. The government is management and the populace but mere non-unionized, contract employees.
Ever since 1763, the Monarch has held absolute title to absolutely all the assets of Canada and the 'governors' are charged with administering Her Royal Highness' estate and Treasury. Sadly our puny freehold interest in land and time-limited copyrights and trademarks don't count for much in comparison, however aboriginal/treaty rights ARE categorically different.
Therefore, on #1 the government books only show the balance sheet on THEIR participation in the day-to-day administration OF HRH assets (by-the-by, what DID we get in return for the ~$800 billion in Fed+ Prov. debt? it's on the books as 'deferred taxation')
and on #2, No one but the Queen personally (the British Cabinet excused themselves in 1982) has the authority to call for an accounting from the 'Stewards of the Crown's Treasury & Assets'.
Going back to my Canada as corporate-feudal state parallel,
a)can management be expected to accede to the wishes of the employees or the sole proprietor?
b)in the absence of hands-on participation or even occasional cursory supervision BY the sole proprietor, could it be expected that the managers might get carried away with power?
c)if 'fooling-some-of-the people' at periodic election was sufficient to keep hold of power, would any other course of action be expected?
This information is contrary to everything you've ever read or heard, but it's a true and accurate summary of why YOU think Canada's government is 'out of whack'.
Regards,
Robert Ede
PS I'll gladly furnish the solution to this dilemma to anyone who responds
posted by Walk a Kb or Two in my cassins | 2:04 pm
1 Comments:
i don't get the queen part - i thot she was british?
Post a Comment
<< Home