"In France, in 1527, Francois I decreed standard paper sizes throughout his kingdom; anyone breaking the rule was thrown in prison."
And I thought transit fines were stupid. I almost turned this into a post on silly or outrageous laws in history or even still on the books, but I'm sure that's been done to death.
What is interesting about laws such as the one above is the desire to control that which can't be controlled. I paid $40,000 for the following piece of insight, so please pay attention: the sanctioning of an activity does not necessarily mean that the state then controls said activity. In fact, it may be the exact opposite. Laws against illegal immigration don't stop it, and may only serve to indicate just how big the problem is. Continual passing of new legislation addressing the problem only reinforces (figuratively speaking, that is) the sad state of affairs a country (read: the US) is in regarding illegal immigration.
So, what was Francois thinking? Why did he feel the need to regulate the size of paper? Not the ownership or trade (though he may have tried that too), but the size. To control the trade? The publishing industry, which was taking off at the time? The latter, I assume. Regulate and tax.
Was he successful? Alberto Manguel doesn't say, nor does his note explain anything. The comment is made in the midst of an exposition on the development of books from painstakingly produced works of art to mass-produced flimsy pulp editions. Manguel touches on so many aspects of reading, and at times it's merely interesting. I've been a little disappointed in the last few chapters of A History of Reading. Were the 20 pages on reading in bed really necessary?
Right now (in my life) he's exploring metaphors for reading, and it is far more interesting than knowing that Romans read scrolls while relaxing on pseudo-beds. Nature is a book, Walt Whitman, and all that. I always find Walt Whitman far more interesting in books other than his. I fell in love with his poetry while reading quotes in a long piece in a National Geographic, but then couldn't bother to read Leaves of Grass after buying it. Reading bits in this Manguel book has me remembering why I love his poetry but I probably won't go searching for my copy of Leaves of Grass anytime soon.
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Friday, November 6, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
UNFINISHED DRAFT: More cuts to legal aid
The Liberal government, in all its mean-spirited wisdom, has cut more funding to legal aid in BC. The Legal Services Society is going to have to shut down all but one of its regional offices and lay off more than 50 staff. This is in addition to a similar round of cuts in the spring. If you're going to hit the poor while they're down, why not spit in their faces too?
Today Mike de Jong, Attorney General, said that they had actually increased the budget of the LSS this year. I'm not sure what numbers he's looking at, but I'm guessing not the same ones that I am. And he has the gall to claim that a shortfall in other funding sources is to blame. Mike, let me walk you through the LSS funding gallery, just so we can be clear:
In 1993, the BC NDP decided to tax legal services in BC in order to make them pay for themselves, a move still opposed by the legal profession in BC.* In 1996, after several years of tax collection, Liberal MLA Jeremy Dalton asked the Clark government, "Can the Attorney General tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue, and there's no accountability for it?" What a great question, Mr. Dalton (more on this below).
Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh answered that $73m was collected, but that even more was given out to LSS. In 2001, before the Liberals formed government, the LSS received about $88m from the province, probably about what they received in taxation revenue from legal services. The Liberals slashed the budget by about 35% when they came to power. Slight increases over the past 8 years have brought the government disbursement to $69m, a figure that was meant to remain this year despite huge increases in demand for their services (example?). This led to service and staffing cuts, but the head of the LSS was confident that the budgeted amount would stand. A few months later, they're cutting even more.
When the Liberals slashed the LSS budget, what do you think they did with those taxes they were collecting on legal services? Yep, right into general revenue. The numbers aren't entirely clear (hopefully more on this soon), but it's clear that by cutting the LSS budget but maintaining the taxation level, the Liberals were benefiting by about $30m per year over the past 8 years, maybe more. When it was introduced by the BC NDP, the tax was meant to fund legal aid in BC. Instead, it goes straight into general revenue, unattached to the legal services it was meant to fund. Mike de Jong was a member of the Liberal caucus in 1996 (double-check) when Jeremy Dalton asked that question above, and it looks like he needs to answer it himself, 13 years later.
Mr. de Jong, as Attorney General, can you tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue?
* As recently as February of this year the head of the Canadian Bar Association BC Branch, in a submission to the Finance Committee, argued that the tax should be abolished.
Today Mike de Jong, Attorney General, said that they had actually increased the budget of the LSS this year. I'm not sure what numbers he's looking at, but I'm guessing not the same ones that I am. And he has the gall to claim that a shortfall in other funding sources is to blame. Mike, let me walk you through the LSS funding gallery, just so we can be clear:
In 1993, the BC NDP decided to tax legal services in BC in order to make them pay for themselves, a move still opposed by the legal profession in BC.* In 1996, after several years of tax collection, Liberal MLA Jeremy Dalton asked the Clark government, "Can the Attorney General tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue, and there's no accountability for it?" What a great question, Mr. Dalton (more on this below).
Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh answered that $73m was collected, but that even more was given out to LSS. In 2001, before the Liberals formed government, the LSS received about $88m from the province, probably about what they received in taxation revenue from legal services. The Liberals slashed the budget by about 35% when they came to power. Slight increases over the past 8 years have brought the government disbursement to $69m, a figure that was meant to remain this year despite huge increases in demand for their services (example?). This led to service and staffing cuts, but the head of the LSS was confident that the budgeted amount would stand. A few months later, they're cutting even more.
When the Liberals slashed the LSS budget, what do you think they did with those taxes they were collecting on legal services? Yep, right into general revenue. The numbers aren't entirely clear (hopefully more on this soon), but it's clear that by cutting the LSS budget but maintaining the taxation level, the Liberals were benefiting by about $30m per year over the past 8 years, maybe more. When it was introduced by the BC NDP, the tax was meant to fund legal aid in BC. Instead, it goes straight into general revenue, unattached to the legal services it was meant to fund. Mike de Jong was a member of the Liberal caucus in 1996 (double-check) when Jeremy Dalton asked that question above, and it looks like he needs to answer it himself, 13 years later.
Mr. de Jong, as Attorney General, can you tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue?
* As recently as February of this year the head of the Canadian Bar Association BC Branch, in a submission to the Finance Committee, argued that the tax should be abolished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
