A Man Without a Country


The light of joy and strange light of Christ is a light whose source lies always and everywhere in another country.  For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country

Charles Marsh; Strange Glory, A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

The four main political parties in Canada; none of them reflect my values.

I’m a man without a country.

Watching the political turmoil of the last few years I’ve increasingly felt as though I have no real political home.  And the more I feel that way, the more I’m okay with it.

During the last provincial election cycle here in Ontario our choices were between an incumbent government that had spent huge amounts of money on an ill-conceived plan to move the province toward renewable energy, an opposition party with a loud and flamboyant leader who promised to roll back the most progressive sex education program in North America and said he would “respect the tax-payers” but never really explained what that meant, and a third party that promised free prescription drugs but confessed that would mean even higher taxes and still more debt. 

There were other minor issues too but those all tended to get lost in the fray.  What it came down to for me, and many other voters, was a choice between more debt and higher taxes versus, a regressive set of social policies that fly in the face of history.  Most people chose to vote against debt and taxes without considering what that might mean for the many social programs we have come to rely on.  Today we have a government that is hellbent on lowering taxes with little to no regard for what that money is actually needed for.      

We can’t roll back the clock.  Gays get married, climate change is real and we’re deep in debt, all facts.  But it seems to me that no one in politics can successfully navigate these changing times without resorting to fear and division or spending all our money in the process.

Luckily, I don’t have to feel like I’m stuck here.  My citizenship lies in another country.  A country that doesn’t technically exist but one that we can easily see and promote if we know where to look. 

The Apostle Paul likened the life of a Christ follower as that of an ambassador, (2 Corinthians 5:20).  Ambassadors are not citizens of the country in which they live.  They are representatives of somewhere else.  Somewhere with different values, different interests and different ways of expressing themselves.  Ambassadors are representatives of a different kind of society and a different culture.  But because the Christian country that I represent doesn’t exist, I am still a man without a country. 

The country I represent, and the country I seek is a country defined by love.  It’s a country where the sad are comforted, the poor receive dignity, the sick receive healing and people willingly reduce their own comfort and security to make it all happen (Micah 6:8, Matthew 5).  But that county doesn’t exist and no one, politicians and citizens alike seem willing to make the hard choices that will bring it into being. 

So I’m a man without a country, and an ambassador of non-existent kingdom. 

Whom Do We Follow?


I think most people can agree that in 2018 we’re living in unique and uncharted history.

That might sound silly, all history is unique and uncharted while we are living it, but that’s not the point.

The point is that in 2018 things are very different than they have ever been before and the choices we make today can and will have lasting effects on our future.  It’s as if we are standing at a crossroads of history.  Fifty or a hundred years from now people may look back on these moments and say that the era in which we are now living was a major turning point.

History is a funny thing.  It turns all the time.  But this time somehow feels different to me and as I look back over some of the major sociopolitical events of my lifetime I see an accelerating trend that appears irreversible and that is scaring the hell out of me.

Sociologist and historians have begun to refer to our current cultural moment as the turning point from Christendom, in which most people identified, at least nominally, as members of the Christian religion to a new “Post-Christian” period.  For the first time in over 1500 years polls are showing that people who identify as Christian have fallen to less than 50% in most western countries.  And those who identify as having no religion all are the fastest growing segment of society.

What this means for our society is not yet known.  For clues we can look back to the pre-Christian period, that time before the Church became the dominant sociopolitical force but that will only give us a few clues, looking backwards can’t accurately predict the future.

In the pre-Christian period for example the sanctity of life was not a given.  As a result, unwanted babies were simply thrown in the trash, people were bought and sold as nothing more than units of labor, conscripted into armies and treated like “canon fodder” to advance the ambitions of a despotic leader.  Human rights were practically non-existent.

Over the last 1500 years however the Church has played a big role in the slow progression away from these attitudes.  The Church wasn’t perfect but Christian monasteries were the first to take in unwanted children giving them a chance at life, William Wilborforce, a devoted Christian politician, championed the abolishment of human slavery and the Red Cross was founded to help and protect wounded soldiers left to die on the battlefield.

One only needs to look to societies where Christianity has failed to penetrate to see what our future could be.  Abortion, human trafficking and even the failure to adequately care for war veterans were once the exclusive purview of nations heavily influenced by Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim theology.  But as the influence of Christianity wanes these debates are becoming more and more mainstream.

The abortion debate is alive and well as are discussions of Euthanasia and welfare programs.  The poorest members of society continue be victimized by those with wealth and power.  Human trafficking resulting in sexual slavery and indentured servitude is happening right under our noses in every city and province of Canada while arguments regarding how best to educate our children about things like sexuality and the funding for social programs to assist the poorest among us continue to be hijacked by far-right discussions of personal responsibility.  All of this results in the restriction rather than expansion of human rights.

What is the true Jesus follower to do?

First, we must remember that Jesus was no friend of the ruling class.  When Christians align with political power the result is almost always an ugly, misshapen form of oppression.

Jesus was called a friend of sinners, relentlessly pursuing the downtrodden.  What an irony that today his followers are seen in the opposite light!  How can people love God, whom they can’t see if those of us who claim to represent him don’t respond to outsiders with love? David Kinnaman; unChristian; What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity and Why it Matters

It sickens me that Christians can in one breath proclaim the love of Christ and salvation for everyone while voting in politicians who gut social programs, close boarders and deny access to health care on the basis of some misaligned morality and “traditional” values.  There is a huge disconnect and when people really study the teachings of Jesus the untruth of what many of His followers teach becomes glaringly obvious.  The sad fact is that most self-proclaimed Christians refuse to see it or try to explain it away by saying that Jesus didn’t really mean that to apply to us, just to his first century followers.  That quite frankly is heresy.

When people live life the way Jesus intended the result is undeniably counter cultural.

There is nothing more powerful than the Christian life lived out in obedience; there is nothing worse than a flat, self-righteous form of faith that parades around in Christian clothes. David Kinnaman; unChristian; What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity and Why it Matters

Christians who endeavor to embrace Jesus stand out.  They are perpetrators and ambassadors of an entirely new way of living.  The way of Jesus is not the way of politics or religion but the way of discipleship on a completely different plain.

Jesus declares not that he has come to reform religion but that he’s here to END religion and to replace it with himself. – Timothy Keller; King’s Cross

Followers of Jesus are not perfect.  We get it wrong a lot, probably more often than we care to admit.  But our heart is aligned with Jesus, completely and totally.  No pretence, no caveats and no compromise.  We work together in community to study the scriptures and learn from one another to bet better versions of ourselves and better followers of Him each day.

We are not followers of a book, or a set of rules, we are followers of a person.

If your religion does not look like Jesus, it’s heresy, plain and simple.

 

 

Book Review – Break Through:  From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility


In 2007, at the end of the second term of President George W. Bush, America and the world stood at a crossroads.  The sovereign debt crisis and subsequent economic collapse of 2008 and the election of Barak Obama had not yet happened, but the seeds of their impact had already been planted and the cracks in the status quo were already starting to show.  The Kyoto protocol, the U.N.’s sweeping resolution to combat global warming was all but dead, America was mired in a seemingly endless war in Iraq and Osama bin Laden was still on the loose believed to be hiding somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan.

It was against this backdrop that two social scientists the directors of the economic research firm American Environics, Ted Nordhaus & Michael Shellenberger published “Break Through:  From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility”.

The politics of limits took hold in the 1970s and has dominated political debate for over 40 years now.  As the unprecedented economic expansion that marked the post-war era began to wane and the national embarrassment of Vietnam, Watergate, and the middle eastern oil embargo began to sink in politicians stopped talking about expansion and possibilities and started to couch their rhetoric in terms of protectionism and limits. President Jimmy Carter referred to America in the late 1970s as a nation suffering through a collective “malaise”.  On the campaign trail in 1980, then candidate Ronald Reagan seized on Carter’s comments and called for “Morning in America”.  The slogan promoted a sense of hope and possibility underpinned with a conservative “America First”, isolationist, us versus them agenda.

Nearly 40 years later little has changed.  Indeed, in the intervening decade since the publication of “Break Through”, American politics has become even more polarized.  Eight years under President Barak Obama, while strongly progressive in its approach to social issues like LGTBQ rights and health care reform, left many Americans feeling disenfranchised as they perceived a loss of economic opportunity and a deminishing “Christian” identity as a nation.  Economic concerns mounted while globalization continued to send more and more jobs to places like China and Mexico.  And anxiety over immigration and an increasingly post-Christian social landscape continued to take hold.  The time was right for another “Morning in America”, this time in the form of a bright red baseball cap emblazoned with the slogan “Make America Great Again”.  What exactly that meant and what mythical time it sought to return was unclear and left to the imagination of perspective voters.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger where writing at a time before both Obama and Trump but in reading their work today their analysis of the state of American politics and economics seems eerily prophetic.  With the exception of a few bumps on the road, most notably at the end of the 1970s, and between 2008 and 2011, economic expansion since the end of World War Two has continued pretty much unabated.  But as the authors assert, to keep people voting for the same old solutions you need to convince them that things are getting worse, not better.  When you are the party out of power you need to promote insecurity not contentment to get people to think about change.  According to Nordhaus and Shellenberger:

The rise of insecure affluence has caused social values to evolve in two directions simultaneously.  Rising insecurity has fueled the move away from fulfillment values and back toward lower-order, postmaterialist “survival” values, which tend to manifest as status competition, thrill-seeking, and hedonism, all of which have triggered a cultural backlash that conservatives more than liberals, Republicans more than Democrats, have harnessed.  At the same time, rising affluence has fueled a shift, over the past century and a half, away from traditional forms of religious, familial, and political authority and toward greater individuality.

But rising insecurity in the face of affluence is the construct of spin masters, it has little basis in reality.  If you have more money you should also have more security, but the political strategists have mastered the manipulation of fear based on the threat of loss.  Limiting beliefs that your affluence could be taken from you are what have kept people in survival mode and stunted progress even as affluence has continued to increase.

The authors go on and later remind the reader that:

Just as prosperity tends to bring out the best of human nature, poverty and collapse tend to bring out the worst.  Not only are authoritarian values strongest in situations where our basic material and security needs aren’t being met, they also become stronger in societies experiencing economic downturns…  This shift away from fulfillment and toward survival values appears to be occurring in the United States…  Survival values, including fatalism, ecological fatalism, sexism, everyday rage, and the acceptance of violence, are on the rise in the United States.

It’s that line about “authoritarian values” that caught my eye first.  At some point during the 1992 election cycle, the one that saw Bill Clinton gain the presidency I recall seeing a republican commentator refer to the two parties as the “Mommy Party” and the “Daddy Party”.  His point was that Americans tend to vote republican when they feel threatened and need a strong father figure to tell them what to do, they vote democrat after daddy has save them and they feel secure enough to go out and do their own thing.   The underlying point of his argument was that even when America votes democrat, it’s because the republicans are better at giving people the security they ultimately want.

What Nordhaus and Shellenberger propose is a move away from limiting beliefs and toward a more open and progressive society like the one that predominated in the years immediately following the Second World War.  Forget for a minute about the overtly racists, sexists and religiously conservative society of the era and consider more the fact that this was the era that gave rise to the reconstruction of Europe, the construction of the Inter-State Highway System, the expansion of world wide economic markets in places like Japan and the far east, the civil rights movement, and ended by putting a man on the moon.  These were great, progressive achievements that came about through expansionist politics and a belief in possibilities beyond limits.

It beings with an expressing of gratitude for how far we’ve come and an acknowledgment of how much we have yet to do.  As Nordhaus and Shellenberger put it toward the conclusion of their book:

Those of us who are fortunate enough to have met our basic material and postmaterial needs should feel neither guilt nor shame at our wealth, freedom, and privilege, but rather gratitude.  Whereas guilt drives us to deny our wealth, gratitude inspires us to share it.  It is gratitude, not guilt, that will motivate Americans to embrace the aspirations of others to become as wealthy, free, and fortunate as we are.

The politics of possibility begins by embracing human ingenuity and rejecting limiting beliefs.  Progress will come when we all recognized that nostalgia cannot be allowed to limit our longing for greatness.  “Make America Great Again” assumes that our best days are behind us and seeks to return to a mythical time when things were better than the are today.  It seeks to limit immigration because things were better before “those” people lived here.  It seeks to limit personal human rights for minorities, women and homosexuals because things were better before I had to compete for my job or think about what those two guys are doing in the privacy of their own home.  It seeks to limit imports of goods from other countries, block the development of green technology and prevent competition of any kind.

You don’t win by enforcing unfair “rules”, you win by getting better at the game or embracing a completely different set of circumstances.  And you win by changing the game completely.

That’s progress and the politics of possibility.

 

A Guide to Better Conversations


Once upon a time people could disagree with each other and remain on civil, even friendly terms.

Ahh the good old days!

It was a time before social media and biased media outlets set up echo chambers online and prevented anyone with a dissenting opinion from saying anything.  The year was 2004, just 14 years ago, when facebook launched, changing the world and the way we communicate with one another forever.

But the death of civility was already well underway by then.

In 1949 the FCC implemented the Fairness Doctrine.  This was the rule that required holders of federal broadcasting licenses to present controversial issues in a manner that was “honest, equitable and balanced”.  The rule required that stations present these contrasting views to ensure that citizens were exposed to a variety of viewpoints and given the opportunity to make informed decisions.  The FCC removed the rule in 1987 and this decision has been widely considered as the main contributing factor to the increased polarization of political views over the last 30 years.

The removal of the Fairness Doctrine made it possible for cable news and other broadcasters to become echo chambers and the private mouth piece of special interest groups.  The internet and social media has only served to make it even easier for these groups to amplify there voice and silence their critics.

It’s with that in mind that I want to give you two tactics for engaging in better conversations with people of opposing viewpoints.  It is my hope that by having better conversations we can return to a time when a disagreement, even one over which political party we plan to vote for, won’t end in name calling and broken relationships.

Tactic One –  Begin your questions with “How”. 

How is less threatening than why.  How did you learn this?  How did you come to this conclusion?  How do you feel about this?

By starting with how you show genuine interest in the other person’s point of view and give them an opportunity to explain their position without judgement.  It also gives them a chance to think about their answers a bit more and maybe start to see the flaws in their arguments without you saying anything.

Tactic Two – Go deeper with follow up questions. 

Once you have people explaining the position with a non-threatening how question you can go deeper and get more pointed with follow ups like based on where and what.  Where did you get that idea? What makes you think that?  Can you explain that?

Try to stay away from why if you can.  Why can be a conversation killer because it puts people on the defensive, the most common response to a why question is something along the line of “because and you’re an idiot for thinking otherwise”.

By asking open ended questions and avoiding direct conversation killers that start with why both parties to a conversation tend to feel herd and sometimes even begin to reconsider their opinions.  The government can’t regulate the kinds of things we see on-line and they can’t force private companies to offer balanced view points, that ship sailed a long time ago. It’s up to us to be as well informed as possible and the best way to do that is to start asking better questions.

So how did you find that?

 

My Peace Statement


Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God.- Matthew 5:9

I originally wrote out my Peace Statement in August of 2009.  It was actually the first thing I ever posted on line.  In light of recent events I thought it might be a good idea to revisit and update what I wrote back then.It’s been over 8 years since I started my first blog but so little has changed. 

Through the reading of Naomi Klein’s book “The Shock Doctrine”; one of the things that kept coming back to me is a phrase that I coined about 10 years ago while sitting in church and listening to a sermon on peacemaking just after Remembrance Day.

Peace without Justice is Oppression

I grew up Mennonite and was baptized into the community of Nairn Mennonite Church, just north of London ON at the age of 17.  Since the very beginning the Mennonite Church has officially declared itself to be a Peace Church.  But when you make a declaration like that what you are really saying is that you want to protect Justice, otherwise you’re just ignoring and oppressing people with dissenting views.  Peace is not simply the absence of war; it is the presence of justice and the absence of oppression.

Oppression does not have to be overt either.  It can be very subtle.  If we aren’t careful the majority rule or democracy in general can become distorted and look more like – biggest guns rule, elite rule, wealthy rule, or educated rule.

We in the wealthy West, or more accurately the North West are often times inadvertently waging a war of oppression on the developing regions of the world, mostly to the South and East of us.  Over the past 30 years, and most rapidly since the fall of the Berlin Wall, governments, corporations and wealthy individuals have exploited the poor and uneducated in the developing world for their own gain.  They have extracted natural resources and caused unprecedented damage to the environment, corrupted and interfered in local government affairs and generally ignored human rights all in the name of profit.

What are the oppressed people of the world to do?  They do not have the resources to stand up to us economically, nor do they have the education or skills that are useful to the world wide economy, so they strike back in the only way they can.   The world wide drive to globalization and homogenization of cultures through the economic domination of the North West has given rise to terrorism.

One of the things I have learned while exploring this Rabbit Hole is that we cannot continue to fight terrorism with guns.  Greg Mortensen – founder of the Central Asia Institute is the chief driving force behind the building of over 50 schools in remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan.  The schools he has founded equally educate both boys and girls.   At a joint meeting of US congressmen and Pentagon officials Mortensen stated that:

The war on terror should be fought with books, not bombs. – Greg Mortensen (Central Asia Institute)

This has been a recurrent theme in all of a lot of my own research.  When we give the poor access to knowledge we can bring them into fuller participation in the global economy and help to greatly reduce terrorism and increase security.

For more information on the topic of reducing terrorism through education, I highly recommended Mortensen’s book Three Cups of Tea; One Mans Mission to Promote Peace, One School at a Time”  Check it out and let me know what you think.

 

Save

Save

Kicking Away the Ladder


(A Lament for Charlottesville, NAFTA and the proper use of Tiki Torches)

It is a very common clever device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him.  – Friedrich List; The National System of Political Economy

Georg Friedrich List was a German born economist who developed what is known today as the National System of Innovation.  He was a forefather of the German historical school of economics and many of his ideas formed the bases of the European Economic Community, the predecessor of today’s European Union.  His seminal work on the subject of economics and international trade, “The National System of Political Economy” is a three volume set originally published in 1841 which rivals the works of Adam Smith and Karl Marx in terms of lasting influence in the minds of economists the world over.  Sadly List’s ideas were so controversial at the time that he was arrested and exiled to the United States.  He died shortly after the final publication of The National System and never had the opportunity to defend or expand upon his theories.

List’s work focused on a doctrine of national and international management of trade, global collaboration, and supportive interconnectedness.  In sort, Friedrich List was one of the first proponents of comparative advantage and globalization.  The fact that most of his work was completed while living in the United States and the United Kingdom is in no small part responsible for the rise of western domination in international trade over the last century and a half.

In today’s political and economic climate List’s observations regarding protectionism and oppression can be viewed as very timely and prophetic.  Just this past week, behind closed doors in Washington, the United States, Canada and Mexico began the first of several rounds of negotiations aimed at re-writing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  No doubt many of List’s ideas will be front and centre throughout the process, even if many of the negotiators aren’t even conscious of them.

The very people and systems that have used things like tariffs and subsidies to increase trade, and were once in favour of immigration to bolster the workforce and create wealth now actively oppose all attempts of others to use those same devices to achieve the same things.  That, in a nutshell is the current state of international relations and trade, especially in the west were populist sentiment and neo-conservative economic thought prevails.  America was built on immigration, subsidies and cheap labour, now they want to prevent Mexico and punish Canada for doing the same kinds of things in order to protect their own dominance on the world stage.

But that’s not all.

Economics isn’t just about money.  It’s about politics and inter-human relationships as well.  Earlier this week I watched in horror as white men marched through the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia with Tiki Torches chanting “White Lives Matter” and calling for a return to white privilege and the establishment of a so called white homeland.  Nothing is more repulsive than privileged men complaining about a loss of privilege in the most heavily skewed white male privileged society the world as ever known.   If only these men really understood what it meant to be persecuted for the color of your skin, religion, level of education or economic status?

At the end of the day all violence is in some way about economics and a loss of privilege.  Even a miniscule loss of privilege is still a loss of economic influence in a rapidly changing world.    But change is necessary and hanging on to privilege while people scratch and claw their way up the economic ladder is simply impossible.  The only way to do it is to deny the basic humanity in those below you on that ladder.

And that’s what it comes down to; Humanity.   That is humanity defined in terms of benevolence, not just a collective description of the human race.

In 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  At the time it was a progressive document that envisioned a world very similar to the one proclaimed by the founding fathers in the United States Declaration of Independence.  Among the 30 points adopted by the UN are such stalwarts of humanity as;

Article 1 – We are all born Free and Equal.

Article 7 – We are all equal before the law.

Article 12 – The right to privacy.

Article 20 – The right to public assembly.

Article 21 – The right to democracy.

Article 22 – The right to social security.

Article 26 – The right to education.

Article 30 – No one can take away your human rights.

http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/articles-1-15.html

Within the laws of western democracy and any country that is signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, racist rallies like the one that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 13th are an aberration that cannot be tolerated!  Nor can any attempt to restrict trade or curtail immigration.

Freidrich List warned against the potential for both the current contentious NAFTA negotiations and the riots in Charlottesville over 175 years ago.  He could see that at the end of the day, people are selfish and we need institutions like NAFTA and the UN to remind us of our shared humanity.

My prayers are with the victims of racial violence in all its forms and with the men and women tasked with re-negotiating NAFTA.  May we all, first and foremost, remember our shared humanity at times like these.

Lauren C. Sheil is a serial entrepreneur who has been in business for over 25 years. His latest book “Meekoethics: What Happens When Life Gets Messy and the Rules Aren’t Enough” is available on Amazon.com.

He can be reached at themeekonomicsproject@gmail.com or by calling 613-295-4141.

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Why I Write This Stuff


The following is a excerpt from the introduction to my first book – Meekonomics, How To Inherit The Earth and Live Life to the Fullest in God’s Economy. 

I’m not sure why, I think it might have something to do with the current political climate around the world, but there has been a recent up tick in interest in my writing.  So I’m going to start republishing portions of my work on a semi-regular basis here.  Questions and Comments are always welcome, and feel free to click the link above to purchase a copy of the book…

I realize that it is an act of sheer hubris to attempt to write a book called Meekonomics. The meek don’t write books do they? Especially Mennonite kids from Southern Ontario with no formal education in either economics or theology.

I grew up in a small town surrounded by family farms and working class individuals. When I graduated from High School I wanted to be a record producer so I spent 19 years in the music business. In my mid 30s I read two books that unlocked my love of economics and theology; The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and Simply Christian by NT Wright.  

There followed nearly 8 years of prayer, research and reflection on two things that have driven me for almost as long as I can remember; God and Money.

Although I have always held a strong faith my relationship with money has been an extreme roller-coaster from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows. I’m an entrepreneur. I started my first business at the ripe old age of the age of 10, I had an opportunity to become a millionaire before my 26th birthday only to fall victim to an unscrupulous fraudster and ended up bankrupt at 33.

My drive to understand money and reconcile economics with my faith started to take root in the fall of 2005 not long after I first filed my bankruptcy proposal. What I soon realized is that reconciliation of the God and Money issue is not just a personal question, although personal finance is a big part of it, it’s really required on both a micro and macro-economic scale if our society is to survive.

Call it what you will; estate or retirement planning, investments, pension plans etc. It all comes down to the storing up of treasures on earth just as Jesus warned us not to do.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:19-24]

What you will find in the pages that follow is a journal of sorts. After my bankruptcy I set out to learn all I could about how this whole God and Money thing works. Anyone who has ever gone through something like that knows how devastating it can be. I was wounded, I needed healing and so I used the study of God and Money as the start of my healing process.

As I studied I took notes, those notes became a blog and that blog became this book. Most authors will tell you that they write for a specific audience, my friend Tim Day, author of “God Enters Stage Left” told me he first started writing for his kids as a way to help explain his faith in case he passed away before he had a chance to teach them in person. If I’m being honest I write just for myself, it’s a way to frame my thinking so that I can move forward in life secure and grounded in what I know to be true.

I first published the blog as a way to share what I was learning with my closest friends and family around the world, I never dreamed anyone else would be interested in what I had to say but I soon had over 100 readers on-line encouraging me to go deeper and publish more. The idea for the book came out of that interaction with the on-line community.

Lauren C. Sheil is a serial entrepreneur who has been in business for over 25 years. His latest book “Meekoethics: What Happens When Life Gets Messy and the Rules Aren’t Enough” is available on Amazon.com.

He can be reached at themeekonomicsproject@gmail.com or by calling 613-295-4141.

 

Save

Save

Don’t Tax My Health Benefits!


taxRecent media reports suggest the Government of Canada is considering a new federal tax on the employer-paid portion of your health and dental plan coverage.

In 1993, a similar provincial income tax on the employer-paid portion of benefit plans was introduced in Quebec. It resulted in almost 20 per cent of Quebec employers (including up to 50 per cent of small business employers) terminating their group benefit plans. Under the proposed legislation, employee coverage would be considered a taxable benefit (additional income).  So that $500 visit to the dentist, would now have to be declared, not as an expense but as income on your T4.

So What?

Taxing the employer-paid portion of benefit plans may have the following implications:

  • As an employee, you would have to pay tax on the amount of the employer-paid portion of health and dental coverage, as it would be a taxable benefit. While it’s not clear how much such a tax could cost, the additional amount subject to tax might be hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
  • Termination of employer-paid health and dental benefit plans could lead to serious public health issues. According to a recent IPSOS poll, without coverage through group benefit plan, 84% of Canadians would end up delaying or forgoing treatment or medication if they didn’t have coverage. This will ultimately drive up treatment wait times and public health costs.mental-health
  • Among many other health outcomes, Canadians’ mental health will suffer as their covered access to needed psychological and other mental health supports will be reduced.

Take action

You can help protect the health care coverage that over 22 million Canadians rely on. Visit www.donttaxmyhealthbenefits.ca to tell your Member of Parliament and the Minister of Finance that you oppose a tax on your health and dental coverage. To ensure your voice is heard, use the hashtag #donttaxmyhealthbenefits on Facebook, Twitter.

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save