Warfare State, Welfare State, and the Selling of the Personal Income Tax, 1942-1945
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines lower-income Canadians' protests around the personal income tax aspects of Canadian war finance during the Second World War. It describes criticisms of the 1942 amendments to the Income War Tax Act and the means by which lower-income Canadians registered their concerns, through absenteeism, labour organization, and participation in public debate, drawing on their resources as voters (through political parties) and as prospective contributors to war savings campaigns. The finance minister and others took these protests seriously as a threat to war finance and the stabilization program. Consequently, the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue, together with the Wartime Information Board, responded vigorously to the protests, through various public relations campaigns and through a series of amendments to the tax statute. These responses to tax protest contributed to the process, normally seen as driven by either macroeconomics or social security ideology, or both, that led to Canada's Family Allowance Act, a landmark in the evolution of the Canadian welfare state. By pointing to the influence of tax protest by smaller income tax payers on the decision to expand the welfare state, the story told here shows how the communitarian public opinion of the war years was also shaped in part by self-interested pocketbook politics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".