Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Conference Board of Canada (2014) is concerned that income inequality in Canada has increased over the past 20 years. Since 1990, the richest group of Canadians has increased its share of total national income, while the poorest and middle-income groups have lost ground. The same phenomenon is also happening in the United States. For example, the Economist reported that the democratization of living standards has masked a dramatic concentration of wealth over the past 30 years, on a scale that matches, or even exceeds, the first Golden Age. Including capital gains, the share of national income going to the richest 1% of Americans has doubled since 1980, from 10% to 20%, roughly where it was a century ago. Even more striking, the share going to the top 0.01%, some 16,000 families with an average income of $24M, has quadrupled from just over 1% to 5%. This is a bigger slice of the national pie than the top 0.01% received 100 years ago (The Economist, 2012). This paper will attempt to investigate the concept of income inequality in Canada and, as such, will address the following two objectives: firstly, to show that income inequality has increased over the last years between the rich and the poor, and secondly, what measures are used in Canada in order to diminish income inequality. In the first part of the paper we will present data on the taxpayers' share of income and taxes in Canada. The second part will cover income and wealth inequality on OECD countries before and after social transfers. In the following section, we will use health care in Canada as an example of income distribution. In the last two sections, we will try to identify who pays for health care by presenting the tax bill for each Canadian based on his/her income and the federal transfers to the provinces to fight income inequality and support social programs such as health care. We will finish with a conclusion. TAXPAYERS' SHARE OF INCOME AND TAXES IN CANADA An analysis of the most recent Statistics Canada survey on market, total and after-tax income by economic family type shows that in general, Canada's richest 20% of families takes over 50% of all income. To that effect, we are presenting three tables from Statistics Canada that covers the period from 2007 to 2011 (see Tables 1-A, B, C). These tables ranked the taxpayers by the value of their income on a specified income concept (Market, Total, or Aggregate tax paid). Then, the ranked population is divided into five groups of equal numbers of units, called quintiles. The concept of income covers income received while residents of Canada, or as relevant for income tax purpose in Canada. Market income is the sum of earnings from employment and net self-employed, net investment income, private retirement income and the items on other income. Total income refers to income from all sources including government transfers and before taxes. Table 1-A presents the distribution of Market income in five quintiles for the years 2007 to 2011. For 2011, the highest quintile earned 52.3% of the total Market income earned in Canada, and the lowest quintile earned approximately 1% of the total Market income, showing that income is not evenly distributed. For example, in 2011, the two highest quintiles earned 77.2% (24.9% + 52.3%) of the Market income, and the three lowest quintiles, or 60% of the population, earned 22.8% (1.0% + 7.2% + 14.6%) of the total Market income. We can also observe an increase in inequalities in income distribution from 2007 to 2011. The highest quintile saw an increase in the Market income compared to the two lowest quintiles in which a decrease could be observed. Table 1-B shows the Total income distribution, which includes government transfers to the lower incomes, and it is slightly more distributed. For example, in 2011, the highest quintile earned 47.2% of the Total income, compare to 52.3% for the Market income (Table1-A), and the lowest quintile earned 4. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".