Latest news with #foundingfathers
Yahoo
29-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
It's time Canada took another look at how it taxes death
In 1789, one of the founding fathers of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, famously wrote in a letter that 'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.' So true. But what happens when a death occurs? Does the taxman take an interest? Around the world, the answer is an emphatic 'yes.' However, the form of such taxes can vary widely. For example, some countries have an estate tax based upon the fair market value of the decedent's property at death. There is often a basic exemption for such amounts so that it is only the amount of the estate in excess of that exemption that is subject to tax. The U.S. and a handful of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, South Korea and Denmark, have a traditional estate tax. In the U.S., it's fair to say the estate tax is more of a symbolic tax. It was originally established in 1916 with the stated policy objective of preventing dynastic wealth accumulation. The exemption amount is now US$15 million (but it will be indexed to inflation starting in 2026) as implemented by the One Big Beautiful Bill. Such a large exemption exempts the vast majority of deaths from the tax. For example, in 2022, the U.S. estate tax applied to only about 3,900 taxable estates — roughly 0.11 per cent of deaths — and raised approximately US$22.5 billion out of total federal revenues of approximately US$4.9 trillion. In other words, it's a pittance. Most tax practitioners know it's pretty easy to walk around the U.S. estate tax. It's fair to say the estate tax has failed to achieve its original policy objective. In other countries, an inheritance tax is common, and the recipients of a deceased's estate pay it. Countries such as Germany, France, Belgium and others deploy this type of regime. There are a variety of other death tax regimes, like a capital acquisitions tax in Ireland that is triggered when an individual acquires wealth, either through inheritance or gifts. Chile has a similar regime. Other countries, such as Greece, Italy and parts of Latin America, have stamp or notarial duties that apply when people register their inheritances. What about Canada? It introduced an estate tax in 1947 and it operated similarly to the U.S. model. In 1966, the Royal Commission on Taxation recommended the country abolish it and instead introduce an inheritance tax. 'The estate tax fails to account for the economic position of those who receive the assets and cannot be properly integrated with a personal tax system based on income and individual ability to pay,' its report said about the estate tax. 'We believe that an integrated income tax system should treat all accretions to wealth, whether earned or unearned, as part of the taxpayer's income, and that gifts and inheritances should be included in income for this reason.' In the end, after much debate and consideration, the government chose to abolish the estate tax and not introduce an inheritance tax as recommended by the commission. It appears that, like today, any form of death tax in the late 1960s and early 1970s was very unpopular with voters. Accordingly, Canada decided to introduce a deemed disposition upon death rule as part of the introduction of capital gains tax effective Jan. 1, 1972 (previously, capital gains were not taxable). The new regime treated death as a disposition event of one's worldwide property, with any resulting gains included in their final income tax return. Such a regime combines with the acceleration of deferred income inclusions — such as registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds — which are included in income upon death. This overall regime has had some tweaking over the years, but the basic architecture has remained since 1972. There are a number of exceptions to the deemed disposition and deemed income inclusion tax. For example, if the deceased's assets all vest with a surviving spouse or common-law partner, the tax is deferred until the survivor's death. Canada's regime is very unique. Has it served Canada well? It's fair to say it was and continues to be a clever compromise to avoid the administrative complexities of an estate tax and/or inheritance tax. It's also less politically charged than a traditional estate or inheritance tax, which is often thought to be unfair given that it may result in double tax (since assets are usually accumulated with after-tax amounts and taxed again at death) and liquidity issues (the liquidity issue is diminished for an inheritance tax, however). Notwithstanding, it's time Canada took another look at how it taxes death. From a tax policy design perspective, using death as a trigger for taxation makes sense given its administrative efficiency. But does our current regime help prevent dynastic wealth? Should it? Do we care? Are there reasons to not tax upon death so as to assist with generational wealth accumulation, especially for lower- and middle-income families who have modest assets? Benjamin Franklin wasn't wrong. Death and taxes are certain. But that doesn't explain why most Canadians have no idea how the two collide. That lack of financial literacy comes at a cost. As trillions in wealth prepare to shift between generations, Canada cannot keep pretending that our current approach to taxing death is sacrosanct. It may be efficient, but is it fair? Does it need updating? Prime Minister Mark Carney's commitment to an 'expert review' of our corporate tax system is the same tired half-step we've seen for decades. What the country needs is a full-scale, unapologetic review of the entire tax system, including how we tax death. Canada's personal tax rates need to come down. Here's how to do it CRA keeps messing up despite an increased headcount and bigger budget It's time for grown-up conversations before the taxman has the last word. Kim Moody, FCPA, FCA, TEP, is the founder of Moodys Tax/Moodys Private Client, a former chair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, former chair of the Society of Estate Practitioners (Canada) and has held many other leadership positions in the Canadian tax community. He can be reached at kgcm@ and his LinkedIn profile is __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Khaleej Times
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
Revealed: The untold story behind the UAE's founding moment
In 2024, the President of the UAE declared July 18 as Union Pledge Day, when the founding fathers came together to sign the declaration of the Union and of the UAE Constitution. It was then that the official name of the country, the United Arab Emirates, was announced. Historians and historical archivers tell Khaleej Times of the lead up to that historical date. The historic gathering at the Guest Palace in Jumeirah, Dubai, on July 18, 1971, marked the culmination of years of careful deliberation, consultation, and diplomatic negotiations that would forever change the landscape of the Arabian Peninsula. The long road to union Dr Hamad bin Sarai, an Emirati historian, university professor, heritage researcher, and cultural consultant, emphasised that the formation of the UAE was far from a spontaneous decision. Speaking to Khaleej Times, he revealed the extensive groundwork that preceded the historic declaration. Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels. 'The steps that began in 1968 with the formation of the United Arab Emirates went through many stages, during which the founding fathers, may God have mercy on them, exerted all their efforts to establish the foundations of this union,' Dr bin Sarai stated. The historian stressed that the union 'did not come out of nowhere or by chance; rather, it was the result of discussions, consultations, and listening sessions with researchers and consultants, along with numerous rounds of talks where representatives from the seven emirates, as well as Bahrain and Qatar, participated.' These extensive deliberations covered crucial aspects of the proposed federation, including the fundamental structure of the union, the administrative and political framework, border demarcations, the distribution of powers among the emirates, and the selection process for the president and vice president of the union. Constitutional foundation The UAE constitution, which was formally adopted on July 18, 1971, underwent rigorous development through various phases of discussion and refinement. Dr bin Sarai noted that 'all the institutions of the union underwent extensive discussions, with the constitution of the union being at the forefront, which also went through various phases.' The constitutional framework established on Union Pledge Day laid the groundwork for the federal structure that continues to govern the UAE today, balancing federal authority with the autonomy of individual emirates. Historic moments captured The National Archive and Library of the United Arab Emirates has preserved remarkable photographic documentation of the historic events of July 1971, providing visual testimony to the momentous occasions that shaped the nation's founding. Among the preserved images is a photograph of Ahmad Khalifa Al Suwaidi during his announcement of the statement declaring the establishment of the United Arab Emirates in Dubai on July 18, 1971, as documented by Al-Ittihad Newspaper. Another significant photograph captures Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum, Sheikh Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, and Ahmad Khalifa Al Suwaidi during a meeting of the Conference of Rulers that led to the declaration of the United Arab Emirates at the Guest Palace in Jumeirah on July 18, 1971. The archives also document the collaborative spirit of the founding fathers, with images showing Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan and Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum during meetings of the Council of Rulers of the Emirates at the Guest Palace in Jumeirah throughout July 1971. Additional archival photographs capture the extensive consultations that preceded the historic declaration, including an image of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan speaking with Sheikh Mohammed bin Hamad Al Sharqi, in the presence of Sheikh Hamid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi and Sheikh Sultan bin Ahmed Al Mualla during the meetings held among the rulers of the Emirates to discuss the establishment of the United Arab Emirates at the Guest Palace in Jumeirah between July 11-18, 1971. The National Archive also preserves moments of camaraderie among the leadership, with a photograph showing Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum, Sheikh Rashid bin Ahmed Al Mualla, and Khalaf bin Ahmed Al Otaiba in a friendly conversation at the Guest Palace in Jumeirah during the period of July 10-18, 1971. The significance of July Dr bin Sarai highlighted the particular importance of July 1971 in the UAE's founding narrative, describing it as the month that 'signifies the initial maturity of the union and its emergence and prosperity, marked by the raising of the union flag on the second of December". He explained that while December 2, 1971, marked 'the establishment of the foundations of the union", July represented 'the initial phase of dialogue and consultations' that made the eventual federation possible. The historian's account underscores that Union Pledge Day represents not just a single moment of declaration, but the culmination of a carefully orchestrated process of nation-building that involved extensive consultation, negotiation, and consensus-building among the emirates' leadership. A foundation for future generations The declaration of the United Arab Emirates on July 18, 1971, established more than just a political union; it created a framework for shared prosperity, security, and development that has enabled the UAE to emerge as a global hub for commerce, innovation, and cultural exchange. The wisdom and foresight demonstrated by the founding fathers during those crucial July days in 1971 continue to guide the UAE's development trajectory, with Union Pledge Day serving as an annual reminder of the vision, determination, and collaborative spirit that brought the nation into being. As the UAE continues to evolve and expand its global influence, the principles established during those historic consultations at the Guest Palace in Jumeirah remain fundamental to the nation's identity and governance structure. Opening move Dr Saif Al Bedwawi, a professor of modern Gulf history, told Khaleej Times of how the idea for a United Arab Emirates came to be. It was January 1968, when the rulers of Abu Dhabi and Dubai, Sheikh Zayed and Sheikh Rashid, respectively, met in a gathering referred to 'Sumaih meeting'. They came to a conclusion of signing an agreement of unity between their prospective emirates and invited other emirates to join. All the others agreed, and by February, a new agreement was signed by the seven emirates, in addition to Bahrain and Qatar. However, that did not last long. 'Unfortunately, some obstacles like where the capital of the new federal state should be. Also, neighbouring countries like Iran tried to manipulate the situation by threatening to seize the Islands,' Al Bedwawi said. Three years later, in May 1971, Sheikh Zayed formed an envoy to visit all the rulers and assess their points of view. However, during the summertime, as he was spending his holidays in Switzerland, Sheikh Zayed heard the news that both Qatar and Bahrain opted out of the Union Agreement, instead choosing their own independence. Rocky beginnings In the following months, Sheikh Zayed and Sheikh Rashid met many times with other rulers who had visited Abu Dhabi. Finally, Sheikh Zayed established a cabinet, which Al Bedwawi said was a challenge to other states as '[Sheikh] Zayed was ready to launch a federation with any state.' On July 10 to 17, all the Rulers of the Trucial States came to Jumeirah and kept negotiating for eight days that ended with a final agreement of a Federation of the Emirates,' he said, adding that Ras Al Khaimah's integration had some circumstances that delayed its intervention to 10th of February, 1972. 'The announcement on 2nd of December, 1971, came as a result of the founding fathers' long processes of talks and negotiation,' he added.
CNA
09-07-2025
- Entertainment
- CNA
Singapore's founding fathers as pop art: Cartoonist Sonny Liew's nostalgic tribute
For the upcoming art exhibition Artist's Proof: Singapore At 60, cartoonist Sonny Liew reimagined three of Singapore's founding fathers as toy figurines.
CNA
09-07-2025
- Entertainment
- CNA
Cartoonist Sonny Liew reimagines Singapore founding fathers as vintage-style toy figurines
From a distance, they resemble superhero action figures from the 1970s and 1980s, complete with transparent plastic blister packs on cardboard backing. Upon closer inspection, the three toy figurines are striking caricatures of Singapore's founding fathers: Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and S Rajaratnam. Superheroes of a different vintage, some may say. Created by award-winning Singaporean cartoonist Sonny Liew for the privately curated exhibition Artist's Proof: Singapore At 60, which opens Sunday (Jul 13), the figurines appear to be a straightforward homage to Singapore's founding fathers on the nation's 60th birthday this year. But the one-off commissioned project – P.A.P. x P.A. (that's 'performance art', not the People's Association) – packs the layered wit and subtext that have become his signature. After all, Liew, 51, is no stranger to evoking public discourse. A decade ago, the National Arts Council (NAC) withdrew its publishing grant for his graphic novel, The Art Of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, as they said it potentially undermined the authority of the government. While the toy figurines this time are a different medium, he hopes the pop culture approach – also taken for his comics – will keep the project equally accessible for mainstream audiences. For starters, he wanted the figurines to elicit a sense of nostalgia, right down to their simple swivel joints that prevent dynamic poses seen in toys today. Each figurine is around 15cm tall, just like the classic toys they were inspired by; and made with lacquer and acrylic paint on resin, acrylic and cloth. Liew essentially saw the potential in helping audiences embrace art through "more consumer-friendly" mediums that could reveal "deeper meanings". 'You kind of come from under the radar for the viewer. They see something that's accessible and friendly, then when they look at it more closely, they will find other ideas,' he told CNA Lifestyle, ahead of the public reveal on Sunday. The exhibition, presented by art space The Culture Story, will showcase over 90 works created from the 1940s to 2025, in addition to Liew's figurines. It will run daily from 10am to 6pm at ArtSpace @ Helutrans at Tanjong Pagar Distripark till Aug 17, and admission is free. MARRYING POLITICS WITH PERFORMANCE ART Take the Lee Kuan Yew figurine, for instance. Even standing at 16cm, the late prime minister's likeness, with his characteristic furrowed brows, manages to command respect. The figurine dons a black jacket. There is nothing out of the ordinary – from the front. Emblazoned on the back of the jacket is a single line: A luxury we can now afford. It's firstly a nod to his speech in the late 1960s to Singaporean university students, where Lee – true to his deep pragmatism – expressed the belief that 'poetry is a luxury we cannot afford'. The maxim has since become shorthand in Singaporean discourse exploring the tension between passion and practicality. The design of the jacket pays tribute to a 1995 performance intervention by Singaporean artist Tang Da Wu, as much a pioneer in his field. Tang went to the opening ceremony of Singapore Art '95, wearing a black jacket stitched with "Don't Give Money To The Arts". Back then, there was a freeze on grants for unscripted performance art. Similarly, each of the other two figurines incorporate references to renowned works of Singaporean performance art in its portrayal of the political heavyweight. The Goh Keng Swee figurine is painted yellow – a tribute to the Yellow Man series by the late Singaporean performance artist Lee Wen, who painted his body bright yellow as a commentary on identity, ethnicity and cultural stereotypes. Titled Uniform Man, the figurine is hence a play on an aspect of the late Dr Goh's political identity that many might remember him for: His seminal role as Singapore's inaugural minister for the Ministry of Defence, which he established along with the introduction of National Service. Meanwhile, the S Rajaratnam figurine is packed with a blue gel-like substance, referencing Suzann Victor's 1997 performance Still Waters, which critiqued censorship and the containment of art. The late Rajaratnam, Singapore's first Minister for Culture, shaped the country's official historical narrative through his writings and speeches. He was also a firm advocate of the dominant party system. In their own way, both politician and performance artist engaged with ideas of control and expression. And finally, each of Liew's three figurines come with miniature props of elements from the notable performance art piece in 1994, Brother Cane by Singaporean artist Josef Ng. The pioneering but controversial work led to a clampdown on public funding for performance art till 2004. Elaborating on his thought process, Liew said there was a point in Singapore's development where a vibrant art scene was considered important to be a global city. 'That, I think, created a tension, because some artists would have values or ideas that are different from the state's,' he said. 'And so, by bringing (these elements) together in performance art, I hope the audience will tease out their own meanings.' BALANCING REALISM AND CARICATURE In fact, it was precisely Liew's ability to provoke reflection and conversation – and not just in traditionally exclusive art spaces – that drew The Culture Story to him. The company's co-founder Ning Chong said they had specifically sought out a "non-traditional fine artist". The brief given to Liew was straightforward: What does Singapore, or being Singaporean, mean to you in this day and age? Chong 'naively thought' that Liew, as a cartoonist, would produce an illustration or comic strip panel that she could frame and hang. Instead, he proposed a performance art piece inspired by toy figurines a la Star Wars' Boba Fett and Marvel superheroes from days of yore. Then came selecting the ministers. They had to be recognisable enough to the average Singaporean, at least by name, if not by their contributions. Lee Kuan Yew was an "obvious choice" because he's widely recognised as the primary leader of the ruling party, Liew said. "Goh Keng Swee was formerly the second best known, and S Rajaratnam was the primary ideologue of the party. So I think they were quite easy choices." On the other hand, the commission was 'the most complicated' Chong's team had handled, both in medium and subject matter, she said. The level of technical detailing on each small figurine proved challenging, for instance. "The challenge … is trying to figure out the balance between realism and caricature. Every feature in the characters can be done differently – the eyeballs, the height, the size of the head," Liew added. "I was trying to find a depiction of the ministers in a way that was most platonic – the idealised version of them. Not too old, not too young, just the way we would remember them in a common memory." The team keenly navigated potential political sensitivities alongside artistic freedom too, eventually believing they could take a risk as they believed the landscape today was 'very different' from 15 to 20 years ago. 'I do believe our audiences are more mature, more worldly, and we feel that having (Liew's work) in our exhibition will intrigue people and make them curious,' said Chong. 'The whole point is to invite these people, who may not necessarily even step into a museum, to come and see a show. And this is one avenue to just be exposed to other types of work, narratives and stories.' She and her father Chong Huai Seng, also The Culture Story's co-founder, ultimately hope to give the country 'a shot at having a thriving, vibrant (arts) ecosystem'. 'We're so used to thinking about art as expensive art, high art, fine art that we forget – especially today – that pop art, street art, illustration and graphics are part of our visual culture," she said. 'Dad and I are interested in inspiring the current and next generation towards connection-building and culture-building for posterity, for ourselves. We have to know where we came from in our stories; there's no one story about Singapore or Singapore art for that matter."
The Guardian
05-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Lost Jefferson letter on arms and democracy resurfaces for Fourth of July sale
A rare, handwritten letter by Thomas Jefferson, in which the founding father and third president expounds the right of citizens to bear arms in a revolutionary cause, has been uncovered in New England and offered for sale to mark the Fourth of July holiday. The holiday also marks the 199th anniversary of his death. Jefferson penned the letter to Virginia's then governor Benjamin Harrison on 31 December 1783, shortly after the conclusion of the revolutionary war that ended British opposition to the US declaration of independence seven years earlier. Written from Annapolis, the temporary capital of the fledgling country, the letter is notable for Jefferson's observation of a rising tide of revolutionary fervor in Europe, and his citing of the insistence of citizens there to be able to take up arms against their rulers, as residents of the 13 colonies had done against the British crown. He tells Harrison that 'citizens of the Dutch states are all in commotion' against the stadtholder regime of William V, the prince of Orange. He goes on to say that 'of 80,000 men able to bear arms among them it is believed scarcely any will refuse to sign this demand'. The original was in the hands of a private collector for more than half a century, dealer Nathan Raab of the Pennsylvania-based Raab Collection said. It was considered missing by custodians of the Jefferson papers at the University of Virginia. 'We are not aware of any letter having reached the market from a signer, let alone author of the declaration of independence on the right of democratic citizens to bear arms and oppose autocracy,' said Raab, who values the document at about $90,000. 'To see Jefferson, whose declaration of independence lit the spark of … western hemisphere liberty, rejoicing that these independence movements are gaining steam, and the people are making demands … it's about as evocative an expression of the democratic right to bear arms of the people as you can get. 'He's basically saying the momentum is toward democracy, not royalty.' While the letter showcases Jefferson's thoughts on justice overseas, his life in the US was much darker and less stable. He was the owner of more than 600 slaves – more than any other person who became president. Another letter uncovered by Raab last year highlighted Jefferson's financial misadventures that left him also penniless immediately before, and during, his time in the White House from 1801 to 1809. The letter to Harrison, Raab said, also reflects Jefferson's growing anxiety over ratification of the Treaty of Paris, which was signed in France in September 1783 by Britain, the US and others, to end the revolutionary war. The agreement required at least nine of the 13 new states to sign the document at a congressional summit in Annapolis called for November, and send it back to London – a two-month voyage away – by March 1784. But bad weather prevented several delegations from reaching the summit, and in his 31 December letter Jefferson wrote: 'We have yet but seven states, and no more certain prospects of nine than at any time heretofore. We hope that the letters sent to the absent states will bring them forward'. Raab said: 'It's like you're at the finish line and waiting to cross it. This is not a situation where you send it over by email; it had to cross the Atlantic twice. It's also the 1700s. You're not hopping on transatlantic flights, these people are coming from distant destinations on horseback.' Representatives from Connecticut and South Carolina eventually arrived days later, and the treaty was ratified on 14 January and dispatched urgently to London. The letter, Raab said, provides an intriguing snapshot of a crucial time in American history, with a brand new nation beginning to find its feet and in turn inspiring others to challenge centuries of established rules of governance overseas. 'It speaks to us today on many levels,' he said. 'We can see the power and inspiration of Jefferson's pen as he can begin to reflect on the success of his work and the American revolution, and witness democratic ideals spreading worldwide.'
