Speaking of uplifting and edifying (see my last post about In-Between Days), I caught, this morning, a CBC interview with Maria Toorpakai Wazir, the Pakistan-born Canada-based professional squash player, who has just published a book of her remarkable early life called A Different Kind of Daughter: The Girl Who Hid from the Taliban in Plain Sight.
Though still only 25, Maria has already led a remarkably full and active life, chock full of incident and challenges overcome. Born in the intensely traditional and conservative region of Waziristan (a region of Pakistan near the Afghanistan border that is firmly under the repressive thumb of the Taliban), she realized at a very early age that she preferred the freedom and active life of a boy, rather than the cloistered, traditional role of a girl. At just 4 years old, she burnt all her "girly dresses", as she describes them, preferring the looser, more practical garb of a boy.
Luckily, her father, Shamsul, was also that rare thing in Waziristan, a feminist and social activist, something that Maria puts down to his brief contact with some European hippies followed by a great deal of reading and thinking. Just as he had encouraged his wife to study and then to teach, Shamsul immediately accepted Maria's youthful protest, and happily treated her as his "fifth son".
Not only was Maria a rebel, she was also incredibly active and strong, and from a young age her father encouraged her to compete in weightlifting, where she went by the name Genghis Khan. She tells tales of managing to narrowly avoid the traditional mandatory practice of naked weighing with the help of her protective brother, and she went on to win junior championships in her weight range.
It was only by chance that she then discovered squash, which she immediately took to and excelled at. However, she was not able to avoid the need to produce a birth certificate to join the squash academy, and so was forced to compete as a girl. Again she excelled, despite harassment and bullying from other players, and despite her inability to find coaches or training partners. She drove herself mercilessly, pushing her body to, and at times beyond, its limits. Much of the time, she was forced to practice alone, in her own house.
At the age of 16, she turned professional, and went on, against all the odds, to become Pakistan's No. 1 female squash player. But she and her family continued to receive threats and harassment from the local Taliban, and so she applied to train abroad, for her own safety and that of her family. After 3½ years of failure, she was finally taken on by Canadian Jonathan Power (one-time world champion, now retired from competition), and from the age of 21 she has trained at his academy right here in Toronto. Power helped her to heal various self-inflicted injuries and a nerve disorder, so that for the first time ever she was able to play the sport she loves without constant pain. She reached a highest ranking of 41st in the world, and is still 56th. She has set up a foundation, the Maria Toorpakai Foundation, to encourage families to educate girls and to allow them to play sports.
Phew! Kind of makes you feel pretty pathetic and feeble. Read the book. Listen to the interview. To listen to, she is remarkably articulate and clearly incredibly self-confident and driven, not to say aggressive. But what a story!
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Are Canadians really quintessentially nice?
It is always interesting to read outsiders' views on Canada. A recent article on BBC Travel investigates the commonplace, and I had thought specious, characterization of Canada and its people as quintessentially "nice".
This incorporates politeness, humility and, all too often, fecklessness. But, to a visitor from big, brash America, I can see that it would have a certain amount of charm. The article is replete with anecdotal evidence of our fabled Canadian niceness in action, from border guards to random acts of kindness to our excessive use of "hedge words" and apologies.
Some of it does ring quite true, and we often feel the lack of sincerity and politeness when we travel abroad, even if we also feel our own lack of it when we travel to other, even "nicer", places, such as some of the smaller Latin American countries, Iceland, Greece, etc. (Another article from a few years ago, in Forbes, purports to identify the world's rudest countries from a tourist's point of view, and points the finger at France, Russia, UK, Germany, China and USA.) But some of it - Canadian border guards and the supposed absence of road rage are two such examples - seems to me to be a product of its own mythology, and does not quite gel with our own on-the-ground experiences.
The article attempts to explain Canadian niceness in terms of a small population spread over a huge country trying to survive by getting along (this also seems spurious - in reality, almost our entire population is huddled together in a relatively small area within 100km of the US border), or as "fragments" of European colonial nations frozen in time (not sure I even understand that argument), or as some kind of a defence mechanism to cope with our inferiority complex (that sounds the most convincing).
Far be it from me to malign or disparage my adopted country, but I kind of feel that the articles lacks a little in objectivity, and suffers from the common error of generalizing from the specific. That said, in the most general terms, it is difficult to take issue with the Forbes/SkyScanner survey, which places Canada firmly at the "nice" end of the scale, along with the likes of Japan, New Zealand, Indonesia, Portugal, Thailand, Philippines, the Caribbean and Brazil.
This incorporates politeness, humility and, all too often, fecklessness. But, to a visitor from big, brash America, I can see that it would have a certain amount of charm. The article is replete with anecdotal evidence of our fabled Canadian niceness in action, from border guards to random acts of kindness to our excessive use of "hedge words" and apologies.
Some of it does ring quite true, and we often feel the lack of sincerity and politeness when we travel abroad, even if we also feel our own lack of it when we travel to other, even "nicer", places, such as some of the smaller Latin American countries, Iceland, Greece, etc. (Another article from a few years ago, in Forbes, purports to identify the world's rudest countries from a tourist's point of view, and points the finger at France, Russia, UK, Germany, China and USA.) But some of it - Canadian border guards and the supposed absence of road rage are two such examples - seems to me to be a product of its own mythology, and does not quite gel with our own on-the-ground experiences.
The article attempts to explain Canadian niceness in terms of a small population spread over a huge country trying to survive by getting along (this also seems spurious - in reality, almost our entire population is huddled together in a relatively small area within 100km of the US border), or as "fragments" of European colonial nations frozen in time (not sure I even understand that argument), or as some kind of a defence mechanism to cope with our inferiority complex (that sounds the most convincing).
Far be it from me to malign or disparage my adopted country, but I kind of feel that the articles lacks a little in objectivity, and suffers from the common error of generalizing from the specific. That said, in the most general terms, it is difficult to take issue with the Forbes/SkyScanner survey, which places Canada firmly at the "nice" end of the scale, along with the likes of Japan, New Zealand, Indonesia, Portugal, Thailand, Philippines, the Caribbean and Brazil.
In-Between Days - a memoir about living with cancer
I have been reading a book by a friend who is dying from incurable metastatic breast cancer. Well, perhaps not a friend, more a colleague of my wife, but we have met several times socially over the years, so I count her as a friend, especially as I don't have too many acquaintances who are published authors.
"In-Between Days" is by Teva Harrison, a bubbly blonde bon viveur with a keen intellect and a rock-solid commitment to environmentalism. She is a Jewish atheist, an American by birth and a Canadian by choice, a party girl with a great love of music and dancing, and a tough-as-nails grass-roots campaigner. At the tender age of 37, though, Teva was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer that had already metastasized into her bones and liver. In her typically assertive way, she threw herself into research, experimental drugs, inspirational speaking, and now a book of her experiences.
The book is a reasonably short, large-format book, part comic strip and part text, with the descriptive subtitle "A memoir about living with cancer". It is a warts-and-all account of hospital visits, mental struggles and social difficulties, interspersed with dark humour, family lore, and insightful observations on what it is really like to be sentenced to a cruelly shortened life of pain and dashed hopes. The book juxtaposes the minor, everyday, physical challenges with the overwhelming existential predicaments and debates that cancer brings with it, and is shot through with wistful anecdotes from Teva's bucolic childhood in hippy, rural Oregon, and tales of her eccentric family. It is a painfully honest, almost voyeuristic, account of the chaos that cancer wreaks on a person's life and dreams, and yet it manages to remain somehow uplifting and edifying. It is an object lesson in graceful decline, and a testament to the value of family and friends.
I'm not saying this is a perfect book - the illustrations I found were merely adequate, and the writing is competent and heartfelt but hardly high literature - but it nevertheless offers a fascinating, and rather humbling, insight into coping with terminal cancer, and the kind of character and attitude needed to deal with it with at least a modicum of grace.
The book has garnered some rave reviews and plenty of media attention here in Toronto; here's hoping it soon reaches a wider audience. It is a subject almost everyone has to come terms with in one way or another, sooner or later, and we need all the help we can get.
"In-Between Days" is by Teva Harrison, a bubbly blonde bon viveur with a keen intellect and a rock-solid commitment to environmentalism. She is a Jewish atheist, an American by birth and a Canadian by choice, a party girl with a great love of music and dancing, and a tough-as-nails grass-roots campaigner. At the tender age of 37, though, Teva was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer that had already metastasized into her bones and liver. In her typically assertive way, she threw herself into research, experimental drugs, inspirational speaking, and now a book of her experiences.
The book is a reasonably short, large-format book, part comic strip and part text, with the descriptive subtitle "A memoir about living with cancer". It is a warts-and-all account of hospital visits, mental struggles and social difficulties, interspersed with dark humour, family lore, and insightful observations on what it is really like to be sentenced to a cruelly shortened life of pain and dashed hopes. The book juxtaposes the minor, everyday, physical challenges with the overwhelming existential predicaments and debates that cancer brings with it, and is shot through with wistful anecdotes from Teva's bucolic childhood in hippy, rural Oregon, and tales of her eccentric family. It is a painfully honest, almost voyeuristic, account of the chaos that cancer wreaks on a person's life and dreams, and yet it manages to remain somehow uplifting and edifying. It is an object lesson in graceful decline, and a testament to the value of family and friends.
I'm not saying this is a perfect book - the illustrations I found were merely adequate, and the writing is competent and heartfelt but hardly high literature - but it nevertheless offers a fascinating, and rather humbling, insight into coping with terminal cancer, and the kind of character and attitude needed to deal with it with at least a modicum of grace.
The book has garnered some rave reviews and plenty of media attention here in Toronto; here's hoping it soon reaches a wider audience. It is a subject almost everyone has to come terms with in one way or another, sooner or later, and we need all the help we can get.
Saturday, May 07, 2016
El Niño and climate change at the heart of Alberta wildfires
As Canada fixates on the drama and devastation occurring as raging wildfires burn up the one-time boom-town of Fort McMurray in Northern Alberta, few people are linking it to climate change. In the midst of all the turmoil and social and economic disruption, it kind of seems churlish to say I told you so. But, yes, global warming exacerbated by a strong El Niño phenomenon (or El Niño exacerbated by global warming depending on how you see it) is at the heart of this particularly early and particularly brutal forest fire season in Alberta.
The city of Fort McMurray has been decimated, and upwards of 80,000 people have been evacuated from the area over the last few days, in what could turn out to be Canada's most expensive natural disaster ever. Some 25% of the nearby tar sands oil production has been halted as a result of the fires, adding further economic woes to a region already reeling from the low oil price. The fires already cover an area larger than New York City, but the tragedy is far from over and the blaze could double in size over the next day or two, and the fires could continue to burn for weeks. The area has not seen rain for over two months, and no rain is forecast for at least the next week or two, even if the temperatures (which have been in excess of 30°C recently) are set to fall some.
The warm, dry weather the whole of Western Canada and the Prairies has experienced over the last winter (the third warmest and second driest since records began) could lead to a record fire season this year. The confluence of El Niño and climate change is creating a perfect storm of wildfire conditions, with most of Albert and Saskatchewan under "extreme" or "very high" fire risk warnings at the moment, along with Eastern BC and Southern Manitoba, and even parts of Southern Ontario and Quebec are experiencing a "high" risk.
As Globe and Mail correspondent Doug Saunders points out, though, Canada's woes in the face of the combined attack of climate change and El Niño are actually miniscule compared to what else is happening around the world:
UPDATE
Finally, about a week later, a mainstream media commentator has the cojones to make the same point in print - kudos to Gary Mason. As Mr. Mason points out, it is hard, and probably politically incorrect, to talk about climate change in the same sentence as the Fort McMurray fires, given that the whole town's very existence is predicated on oil production. But, yes, the subject needs to be broached and connections made.
The city of Fort McMurray has been decimated, and upwards of 80,000 people have been evacuated from the area over the last few days, in what could turn out to be Canada's most expensive natural disaster ever. Some 25% of the nearby tar sands oil production has been halted as a result of the fires, adding further economic woes to a region already reeling from the low oil price. The fires already cover an area larger than New York City, but the tragedy is far from over and the blaze could double in size over the next day or two, and the fires could continue to burn for weeks. The area has not seen rain for over two months, and no rain is forecast for at least the next week or two, even if the temperatures (which have been in excess of 30°C recently) are set to fall some.
The warm, dry weather the whole of Western Canada and the Prairies has experienced over the last winter (the third warmest and second driest since records began) could lead to a record fire season this year. The confluence of El Niño and climate change is creating a perfect storm of wildfire conditions, with most of Albert and Saskatchewan under "extreme" or "very high" fire risk warnings at the moment, along with Eastern BC and Southern Manitoba, and even parts of Southern Ontario and Quebec are experiencing a "high" risk.
As Globe and Mail correspondent Doug Saunders points out, though, Canada's woes in the face of the combined attack of climate change and El Niño are actually miniscule compared to what else is happening around the world:
- an extraordinary drought in already drought-prone South Africa, that has effectively wiped out its corn crop;
- a precipitous fall in Ethiopia's grain crop (up to 75%), leading to an estimated 10 million people in food crisis there;
- a food emergency declared in Malawi after a crop failure;
- lost harvests in Zimbabwe, leading to the need for substantial grain imports the country can ill afford;
- a doubling in grain prices throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa as a result of these and other droughts and resulting crop failures;
- major droughts in several states in India, leading to emergency food measures;
- reduced rice inventories of up to a third in Thailand, Vietnam and India, which between them are responsible for about 60% of the world's rice supply;
- a significant fall in North Korea's rice yield, putting their already hard-pressed population under even greater food stress;
- an increased gap between China's grain production and consumption of some 9.9 million tonnes;
- massive droughts and wildfires in Indonesia, from the which the country is struggling to recover;
- etc, etc.
UPDATE
Finally, about a week later, a mainstream media commentator has the cojones to make the same point in print - kudos to Gary Mason. As Mr. Mason points out, it is hard, and probably politically incorrect, to talk about climate change in the same sentence as the Fort McMurray fires, given that the whole town's very existence is predicated on oil production. But, yes, the subject needs to be broached and connections made.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Some Super Smart Animals
I don't watch much television, but I happened by accident on an interesting documentary on TVO called Super Smart Animals (it's actually a BBC program). Granted, it's a lousy National Geographic-esque title, but the program included some quite arresting footage, including:
UPDATE
It turns out that the "series" actually comprises just two episodes, and the second of them is much less interesting and mind-blowing than the first.
- an orangutan that uses water to float a peanut to the top of a tube in order to reach it;
- a European jay that learns to use pebbles to raise the water level in a tube in order to get to a floating morsel of food (a skill that evades humans until about the age of seven) in no time at all;
- a California dog that has taught itself to skateboard, with little or no human intervention;
- an Alaska chickadee that solves food-finding problems that a cosseted southern chickadee from Kansas has no clue where to start on;
- a night heron that has the foresight to use bread to fish with rather than just to eat;
- a pair of dolphins that learn to perform synchronized creative routines on the fly;
- an African grey parrot that has been taught to distinguish a huge variety of different letters, numbers, shapes, colours, etc, and to verbalize them;
- a chimpanzee in Japan that can play computer number games, and can easily memorize a random set of 9 numbers and screen positions in just 60 milliseconds, a feat no human can even come close to.
UPDATE
It turns out that the "series" actually comprises just two episodes, and the second of them is much less interesting and mind-blowing than the first.
Trump wins Republican nomination and all bets are off
I may not be only person posting on this subject today, but I don't see any alternative. With Donald Trump's win in Indiana yesterday, he becomes the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States. Technically, Trump has still not achieved the 1,237 delegate threshold needed for a statistical win, and may not do so until sometime in June, but the writing is already on the wall, especially given that first Ted Cruz decided to drop out of the race, and then John Kasich has also thrown in the towel. The unthinkable has become the undeniable. The tentative feeling in recent weeks - did I imagine it? - that perhaps Republicans were starting to rethink the wisdom of a Trump nomination all came to naught.
It has been a nasty, nasty campaign, like none before it. Even Trump's formulaic shout-out to Cruz ("he is one hell of a competitor, he is a tough, smart guy") cannot erase the memory of some of yesterday's more heartfelt insults, in which Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar", "completely amoral", a serial philanderer" and "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country has ever seen", and Trump responded by calling Cruz's father "disgraceful", and casting aspersions that he was linked in some way with Lee Harvey Oswald (President Kennedy's assassin).
Trump celebrated his Indiana victory with his usual, "We are going to make America great again" by-line, this time augmented by the wonderful, "We're going to start winning again, and we're going to win bigly". Whether Trump ultimately becomes President or not, America has already dealt itself a massive black mark in the eyes of the rest of the world, which remains aghast that the world's most powerful nation could even be considering such a buffoon as leader.
And how did all this happen? Well, I have analyzed this in more detail in a previous post, but essentially Trump has cynically tapped into working-class American disillusionment with low employment and stagnant wages, stemming from (as Trump would have us believe) the spread of globalization, immigration and free trade. As he gob-smacked the civilized world with one enormity after another during this campaign - Mexican rapists, a physical wall along the US's southern border, a ban on Muslims, "Lying Ted", Senator John McCain a fraud, and many more - his approval ratings just went up among a certain demographic.
But, while Trump has admittedly galvanized (for better or worse) a segment of the American electorate that traditionally just complains without voting, he has also alienated millions in a way never before seen, and reduced a whole political party to internal dissent and recriminations. There are many die-hard Republicans who still maintain that they will never vote for Trump, and some that say they will even vote for Clinton instead. They call him a "bigot", "racist", "misogynist", "bully", and describe him as "crass" or "rude".
Add to this the Democrats of the country, which still remain in the majority (at least according to political party identification statistics), and one might conclude that the final presidential race is a foregone conclusion. But Trump has been written off before, and a circumspect observer would do well to be wary. At this point, all bets are off. One thing that can safely be predicted: it's going to be a brutal and ugly fight.
It has been a nasty, nasty campaign, like none before it. Even Trump's formulaic shout-out to Cruz ("he is one hell of a competitor, he is a tough, smart guy") cannot erase the memory of some of yesterday's more heartfelt insults, in which Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar", "completely amoral", a serial philanderer" and "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country has ever seen", and Trump responded by calling Cruz's father "disgraceful", and casting aspersions that he was linked in some way with Lee Harvey Oswald (President Kennedy's assassin).
Trump celebrated his Indiana victory with his usual, "We are going to make America great again" by-line, this time augmented by the wonderful, "We're going to start winning again, and we're going to win bigly". Whether Trump ultimately becomes President or not, America has already dealt itself a massive black mark in the eyes of the rest of the world, which remains aghast that the world's most powerful nation could even be considering such a buffoon as leader.
And how did all this happen? Well, I have analyzed this in more detail in a previous post, but essentially Trump has cynically tapped into working-class American disillusionment with low employment and stagnant wages, stemming from (as Trump would have us believe) the spread of globalization, immigration and free trade. As he gob-smacked the civilized world with one enormity after another during this campaign - Mexican rapists, a physical wall along the US's southern border, a ban on Muslims, "Lying Ted", Senator John McCain a fraud, and many more - his approval ratings just went up among a certain demographic.
But, while Trump has admittedly galvanized (for better or worse) a segment of the American electorate that traditionally just complains without voting, he has also alienated millions in a way never before seen, and reduced a whole political party to internal dissent and recriminations. There are many die-hard Republicans who still maintain that they will never vote for Trump, and some that say they will even vote for Clinton instead. They call him a "bigot", "racist", "misogynist", "bully", and describe him as "crass" or "rude".
Add to this the Democrats of the country, which still remain in the majority (at least according to political party identification statistics), and one might conclude that the final presidential race is a foregone conclusion. But Trump has been written off before, and a circumspect observer would do well to be wary. At this point, all bets are off. One thing that can safely be predicted: it's going to be a brutal and ugly fight.
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
Leicester City - a celebration of improbability
I don't follow English soccer much these days, but here's a shout-out to little Leicester City, who clinched their improbable campaign to win the elite English Premier League last night.
It perhaps didn't happen in the most dramatic fashion - a statistical victory as second-placed Tottenham Hotspur failed to win against Chelsea - but it was not a fluke: the team has lost just three games all season, and are several points clear with a couple of games still in hand.
A little background, though, gives an idea of the enormity of their achievement. In a soccer world dominated by mega-corporations like Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal and Chelsea, who between them have shared out every championship for the last 20 years, Leicester has a quarter of the player payroll of these powerhouses. Manchester City spent more on one player this year (Kevin De Bruyne, £54 million) than Leicester spent on the whole of its starting line-up. Their best performance before this year was second place - in 1929. Just eight years ago, the team was playing in the lowly Third Division, and it narrowly avoided relegation from the Premier Division just last year. It filed for bankruptcy protection as recently as 2002. So, yes, improbable, I'd say!
In fact, at the beginning of the season, British bookmakers had the odds on Leicester City winning the championship this year at 5,000:1, substantially worse odds than the discovery of the Loch Ness Monster, Robert Mugabe winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Kim Kardashian being elected President, or Elvis Presley turning up alive (the things Brits bet on!) The internet is rife with stories of punters who bottled out early and took substantially lower payouts, thinking that their luck couldn't possibly hold out to the end of the season.
And why did it happen? A couple of shrewd acquisitions (Algerian Riyad Mahrez, since named PFA Player of the Year, and goal-scoring phenom Jamie Vardy); a manager, Claudio Ranieri, who has never won anything substantial in his career, and who had been fired from managing the Greek national side after their embarrassing loss to the Faroe Islands, but who has managed to mould Leicester into a cohesive giant-slaying team; and a new club owner, Thai billionaire and soccer fanatic Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, who has invested heavily in the team and its stadium since his arrival in 2010.
Maybe it was Vichai's habit of having the playing field blessed by Buddhist monks before kick-off, or maybe it was just sheer dumb luck and serendipity, but it's good to know that these kinds of phenomena are still possible, and that money does not dictate everything in the modern world.
It perhaps didn't happen in the most dramatic fashion - a statistical victory as second-placed Tottenham Hotspur failed to win against Chelsea - but it was not a fluke: the team has lost just three games all season, and are several points clear with a couple of games still in hand.
A little background, though, gives an idea of the enormity of their achievement. In a soccer world dominated by mega-corporations like Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal and Chelsea, who between them have shared out every championship for the last 20 years, Leicester has a quarter of the player payroll of these powerhouses. Manchester City spent more on one player this year (Kevin De Bruyne, £54 million) than Leicester spent on the whole of its starting line-up. Their best performance before this year was second place - in 1929. Just eight years ago, the team was playing in the lowly Third Division, and it narrowly avoided relegation from the Premier Division just last year. It filed for bankruptcy protection as recently as 2002. So, yes, improbable, I'd say!
In fact, at the beginning of the season, British bookmakers had the odds on Leicester City winning the championship this year at 5,000:1, substantially worse odds than the discovery of the Loch Ness Monster, Robert Mugabe winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Kim Kardashian being elected President, or Elvis Presley turning up alive (the things Brits bet on!) The internet is rife with stories of punters who bottled out early and took substantially lower payouts, thinking that their luck couldn't possibly hold out to the end of the season.
And why did it happen? A couple of shrewd acquisitions (Algerian Riyad Mahrez, since named PFA Player of the Year, and goal-scoring phenom Jamie Vardy); a manager, Claudio Ranieri, who has never won anything substantial in his career, and who had been fired from managing the Greek national side after their embarrassing loss to the Faroe Islands, but who has managed to mould Leicester into a cohesive giant-slaying team; and a new club owner, Thai billionaire and soccer fanatic Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, who has invested heavily in the team and its stadium since his arrival in 2010.
Maybe it was Vichai's habit of having the playing field blessed by Buddhist monks before kick-off, or maybe it was just sheer dumb luck and serendipity, but it's good to know that these kinds of phenomena are still possible, and that money does not dictate everything in the modern world.
Monday, May 02, 2016
Canadian taxpayers subsidizing government inefficiency
Well, who knew? It seems that a steady 60% of Canadian tax returns result in a refund, judging by stats for the last 10 years. Only around 15-20% result in a balance owing, and about 20-25% are nil returns (in theory, what should happen if the tax collection system is working efficiently).
So, 60% of us are financing the government with free loans each and every year. And I'll bet it's not the wealthiest 60% either. More spending money in the hands of taxpayers throughout the year (as opposed to an uncertain windfall each April) would probably be more beneficial to the Canadian economy as well.
Our own tax payable/refund status tends to vary each year, usually depending on tweaks of our RRSP contributions, but also - a bit of a pet peeve of mine - on the government's insistence on slapping on a demand for payments on account as soon as it spots any balance owed in the previous tax year. I understand that it makes sense for them to do this if there is consistently a balance owed over a period of years. But, please, not after a single year. It has happened many times that we have had tax payable for an individual tax year, followed by a demand for payments on account the next year, resulting in - guess what? - a tax refund due.
It's really not a big deal, but it's kind of annoying, as well as inefficient.
So, 60% of us are financing the government with free loans each and every year. And I'll bet it's not the wealthiest 60% either. More spending money in the hands of taxpayers throughout the year (as opposed to an uncertain windfall each April) would probably be more beneficial to the Canadian economy as well.
Our own tax payable/refund status tends to vary each year, usually depending on tweaks of our RRSP contributions, but also - a bit of a pet peeve of mine - on the government's insistence on slapping on a demand for payments on account as soon as it spots any balance owed in the previous tax year. I understand that it makes sense for them to do this if there is consistently a balance owed over a period of years. But, please, not after a single year. It has happened many times that we have had tax payable for an individual tax year, followed by a demand for payments on account the next year, resulting in - guess what? - a tax refund due.
It's really not a big deal, but it's kind of annoying, as well as inefficient.