The list - a fat tome, really - is based on opinion, speculation, suspicion, the odd fact or detail, and indigestion, or the feeling I get as soon as I hear a certain type of writer, politician or prognosticator clear his/her throat.
["The tome just keeps getting fatter": photo GH]
Let me give you an example from one of the middle pages.
Challenge in modern times #412: Hasty editorializing
In Monte Sonneberg’s recent ‘point of view’ (‘Pension reform requires sacrifice from everyone’, Feb. 7, London Free Press) a few good points about pensions are shared.
He writes, for example, “Given that companies are stockpiling the proceeds of recent corporate tax reductions, perhaps pension reform could coincide with an increase in the corporate tax rate.”
If that’s how he'd started his article I’d have initially thought Monte was sticking up whole-heartedly for the little guy or at least trying to get corporate Canada to take carry a fair load.
But nope. The article starts with the following:
“Canadians have to come to terms with the idea of a higher retirement age.”
WTHeck? Really? Is ‘a higher retirement age’ for the majority of Canadians the key plank in pension reform? Did I miss the referendum, straw vote, memo or nation-wide telephone poll?
Phffft! I don’t think so. Monte is just taking a quick stab at telling us what to believe, but he misses the mark with me.
Admittedly, there are people who want to work past the age of 65 and retire when they’re more ready to hang up the old apron, or sell the old metal lunch bucket at a yard sale, so to speak. They have various reasons for doing so; e.g., they like their job, they want to be active as long as possible and make their own decisions about work and retirement, they have kids in college, they’re saving for a trip to Disneyland, they have a big mortgage, etc. But that doesn’t mean Canadians, or even the majority of Canadians, have to accept or ‘come to terms with the idea of a higher retirement age.’
Monte later tries to get more people on board re Freedom 67 by concluding that “a lot has to change before Canadians will accept (phasing in 67)”, e.g, the aforementioned change or increase to the corporate tax rate, MP pensions, etc. But before doing so he greases the rails under his hasty editorializing, which highlights, in my opinion, another challenge in modern times.
Challenge in modern times #413: Greasing the rails under hasty editorializing
Stay tuned...
***
Please click here to read “Smoke and fire up your pants”
.
No comments:
Post a Comment