Growing Income Gap Generates Little Blame, Poll Suggests

Canada Inflation Wages Income Cost Of Living

First Posted: 01/19/2012 5:22 pm Updated: 01/22/2012 9:36 pm


Canadians continue to believe there's a significant income gap between the rich and the poor in their country, a new poll suggests.


But there's no clear agreement on who's to blame for this perceived disparity. And only one Canadian in five thinks large corporate profits are bad.


Highlights from the annual Focus Canada national public opinion survey by the Environics Institute were released at the Canada 2020 conference in Ottawa on Thursday afternoon. The full report will be available in March.


Surveys prior to 2011 also suggested Canadians perceived a significant and growing gap between their country's richest and poorest citizens. But in light of the "Occupy" movement's recent campaign to raise awareness of the vast income differences between extremely wealthy individuals (defined by Occupy protest participants as the "top 1 per cent") and everyone else, this year's survey asked about this particular disparity.


Two-thirds of respondents said the gap between the wealthy and everyone else is larger than it has ever been historically. Only 27 per cent said the gap remains the same, while only four per cent said the gap was now smaller.


Environics suggests that these findings mirror the opinions of Americans found in a November 2011 survey for the Washington Post.


Respondents to the Canadian survey did not identify a single clear cause of this growing gap.


Roughly three-quarters (74 per cent) cited reasons such as tax breaks for the rich (18 per cent), capitalism helping the rich (14 per cent), regional or structural disparities in the economic system (10 per cent), government policies (7 per cent) and fewer middle-class jobs (six per cent.)


Only seven per cent attributed the growing gap to "basic greed and speculation." Five per cent suggested the wealthy work harder and earn what they make.


International comparisons


Compared to other countries, most respondents believed the income gap in Canada was smaller (44 per cent) or roughly the same (35 per cent) as the gap in the U.S.


Respondents were most likely to see Canada as having similar income disparities as European countries (40 per cent), versus 20 per cent who thought the gap was bigger in Canada and 17 per cent who felt it was smaller in Canada in comparison with countries such as France or Germany.


Close to half of respondents (46 per cent) believed the gap was smaller in Canada than in developing countries such as China or India. One-quarter thought the income gap was bigger in Canada than in developing countries.


Ambivalence prevails on corporate profits


Despite the attention paid by the Occupy movement to "corporate greed" and perceived high corporate profits, this latest poll suggests the number of Canadians opposed to corporate profits is going down: only 21 per cent said corporate profits were bad in 2011, down four points since the 2006 survey. One in three respondents felt corporate profits were good.


Forty per cent in this Environics survey were ambivalent on corporate profits, seeing them as neither good nor bad.


Negative opinions of corporate profit were more likely among Atlantic Canadians, older respondents, lower-income Canadians and NDP supporters.


Conservative supporters were most likely to have a positive view of corporate profits.


Corporate tax rates were an election issue in 2011, when a majority Conservative government was elected on a platform which championed lowering, not raising corporate taxes.


Who should fix the gap?


More than eight in 10 Canadians suggested their governments have a responsibility to do something to reduce the gap between the wealthy and the rest of Canadians.


When asked whose job it is to address income disparities, a clear majority agreed strongly (52 per cent) or somewhat (30 per cent) that governments should actively find ways to shrink the gap.


Atlantic Canadians and Quebecers, as well as NDP or Bloc Québécois supporters, are the most likely to hold this view.


Respondents across all income brackets agreed that finding solutions for income disparities is the government's responsibility, but top income-earners were less likely to agree strongly.


Optimism evident


Despite these perceived gaps, Canadians remain relatively optimistic about their own personal situations.


Environics asked Canadians about their expectations for their personal finances in 2012. Nearly half (47 per cent) felt their finances would improve, while 20 per cent expected things to remain the same. Optimism was strongest in the Prairie provinces and Quebec, and among younger respondents.


2010 Environics findings suggested most Canadians were very satisfied (29 per cent) or somewhat satisfied (53 per cent) with their standard of living. Almost half (46 per cent) said in 2010 that their standard of living had improved compared to 18 per cent saying it was worse.


The 2010 findings were up from the results of the 2008 survey, held during the early days of the financial meltdown.


The Focus Canada 2011 survey was conducted using telephone interviews between Nov. 21 and Dec. 14, 2011. A representative sample of 1,500 Canadians aged 18 and over were polled. The results may be considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA BUSINESS

Canadians continue to believe there's a significant income gap between the rich and the poor in their country, a new poll suggests. But there's no clear agreement on who's to ...
Canadians continue to believe there's a significant income gap between the rich and the poor in their country, a new poll suggests. But there's no clear agreement on who's to ...
Filed by Daniel Tencer  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 31
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:33 PM on 01/21/2012
Here are two reasons why we have very rich people.

First, governments pass legislation which interferes with the workings of competitive markets. If markets were perfectly competitive there would be no profits and therefore no rich people.

For example, for there to be perfect competition it has to be easy for new firms to get into any industry and for that they must have knowledge of the technology. Patent legislation, whatever the merits of intellectual property arguments, restricts competition and allows the patent holder to make profits that otherwise would not be available.

Other examples of legislation that restricts competition are copyright, licensing, regulations and trade restrictions.

Second, the reason bankers become rich is that they create money when they make loans. This gives them a great deal of power in that they decide what projects go ahead and by whom. It also provides them with opportunities to take cuts for themselves and they also get to charge interest on the money they have created.

So, if we want a more equal economy we should repeal some of the legislation which restricts competition and we should look for another way to create money.

(The author of this comment has a web log on economics at https://economics102.wordpress.com/)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
10:26 PM on 01/20/2012
If you haven't got a job or its low paying, if you can't meet your bills, if your credit is maxed out, if you have no savings, if you have kids to support, if you are over forty, you should be blaming yourself. You always have to have a plan A, B, and C. Look at those fat MPs. Most are lawyers or corporate business people. Some are even doctorss. All of them win or lose can jump right back in and look at those fat pensions. Moral of the story, the only one there to look after you is you. No one is your mother.
photo
Blodo
Time to build a better world
01:41 PM on 01/21/2012
I agree. Personal financial responsibility is often overlooked in the rush to blame the banks (although they are certainly not free of blame). If anyone does not have a) a household budget and b) a long-term retirement plan, they should get both right away. A great book to get one started is "The Wealthy Barber" by David Chilton.

There is also the growing problem of future underfunding for CPP (social security in the US). I would like to see us transition to a system of personal accounts, as has been done in many other countries (Sweden, Australia, Chile etc.), but the political cost in doing that may be beyond the courage of any party.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
08:12 PM on 01/21/2012
How does the Sweden example work?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
07:45 PM on 01/20/2012
All of us in North America, Europe, and OzNz, ARE the 1% of the world's population who own the wealth. Consider yourself very lucky if you're reading this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Uber
01:24 PM on 01/22/2012
A good reminder north of 60, but that doesn't distract from the fact that what there is widening disparity to that 1 per cent of the global population. It does not bode well for that 99 per cent of the global population, but in fact, really bad news.
07:21 PM on 01/20/2012
Canadians don't know who to blame because its more complex than that, You can't just point at someone and say "he did it!", it is the way the system itself is designed. It is a longstanding and deeply ingrained problem that has no easy solution nor anyone to blame. Also some of those surveys are just stupid, "number of Canadians opposed to corporate profits", seriously? The question is if you think corporate profits are good bad or neutral? I honestly struggle to think of a more poorly designed question. I think it's bad if a company that uses overseas slave labor has lots of profit, but I think its good if an ethical corporation has good profits.
photo
Blodo
Time to build a better world
01:44 PM on 01/21/2012
I agree, it's a meaningless question as it is written. They might as well have asked "Is money a good thing or a bad thing?"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
haselcheck
Had enuff...Get active....
04:43 PM on 01/20/2012
i like it...i must be in the 1% ...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Allen
05:22 PM on 01/20/2012
and a sociopath.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
06:16 PM on 01/20/2012
Name-calling is a clear demonstration of ignorance. Thanks for showing 'true colors'
04:38 PM on 01/20/2012
Perhaps if the questions on the poll were more reflective of the true situation, explaining thee structure of the problem first, the answers would be different.
There is nothing the matter with profits being made in a legally run business, but it is the distribution of those profits that create the problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
12:46 PM on 01/20/2012
The government doesn't demonstrate resonsible governance. Pensions of MPs is one area to address.

10. Michael Chong - $3,124,903 (2015 = $2,684,816)
9. Peter Van Loan - $3,194,114 (2015 = $2,462,029)
8. Rona Ambrose - $3,330,876 (2015 = $2,429,149)
7. Rob Anders - $3,643,873 (2015 = $3,034,089)
6. Denis Coderre - $3,701,989 (2015 = $3,288,821)
5. Scott Brison - $3,723,666 (2015 = $3,113,881)
4. James Moore - $3,795,386 (2015 = $2,893,658)
3. Gerry Byrne - $3,996,498 (2015 = $3,450,711)
2. Jason Kenney - $4,318,507 (2015 = $3,416,779)
1. Stephen Harper - $6,216,858 (2015 = $6,233,568)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ansdlmol
04:45 PM on 01/20/2012
Although I am appalled at the amount of money forked out for politicians pensions---let them invest in an RRSP out of their salaries just as the ordinary Joe does--but it is small potatoes when it comes to the widening income gap. This gap is a combination of two things. Huge salaries that in turn are invested at low tax rates that makes more money to be in turn reinvested at low tax rax rates. The huge salaries are required to attract the very best minds BUT I believe that in any year that a company does not make a reasonable profit the CEOs should receive absolutely nothing in the way of salaries and stock options. That will hone their skills and also lighten their pockets in times of austerity. I also think that we need a complete overhaul of how the government collects the necessary revenue required and I believe we should phase out income tax and phase in an accross the board Goods and Services Tax with NO write off for company cars, jets, corporate lunches etc. When you close that loophole the money will flow in.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
05:36 PM on 01/20/2012
Good points, especially about replacing income tax with a higher GST, cutting corporate 'entertainment' deductions, and tying CEO salaries to performance.

People who consume more use the tax supported infrastructure more. The more you consume, the more tax you should pay. User pay is fair taxation. Let people keep what they earn.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
08:36 PM on 01/21/2012
The point of my posing this is that the government has forgotton to whom it owes this money as do the corporations that milk the fields they sew. The whole crux of the arguement is the gap generated by these very people who need the population to support it.
Your idea of restructuring the tax procedure is certainly valid.
photo
BCSLAVE
Got a key?
02:03 PM on 01/22/2012
6,233,568 from you and me for a guy who wants to butcher yours and my CPP.

Oh and a report in the US says the RRSP approach, which largely replaced company pensions in the private sector in the US and Canada, isn't working as it was originally intended - the experts say companies paid too little by not matching employee contributions as was the original plan when it was devised...anyone surprised?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ansdlmol
03:01 PM on 01/22/2012
I agree that government pensions are way out of line but as a % of our fiscal indebitness that total is small potatoes. I am not in a position to comment about company top ups to RRSPs in Canada but as it is a tax deductable benefit going in I see no reason why the MPs should not pony up all the cash without the government adding anything. Canada is a much more regulated--civilized--country that the USA so there would be little chance of companies renaging on their RRSP contributions as a signed benefit at the onset of employment..