With the renewed popularity of the 1960s, it was only a matter of time until 'groovy' economic and social theories were resurrected by some well-meaning, nostalgic, but tragically mistaken 1960s guru.

Enter Exhibit A, Tom Kent, adviser to the 1960s Pearson Liberals. In a recent policy paper, Mr. Kent wants more money for healthcare, daycare centres for all, a national pharmacare program, an a new inheritance tax (AKA - a 'death' tax.)

In Mr. Kent's view, the last 30 years have been an unmitigated disaster, not because governments attempted too much, rather, they attempted too little. As a bone to taxpayers whom he admits are overtaxed (thanks to a miserly basic personal exemption and bracket creep) he suggests upping the basic personal exemption. But he then destroys any positive effect that would accrue to taxpayers by proposing higher capital gains taxes.

It's downhill from there. He is correct that more healthcare funding will be necessary in the coming years, but like many of his generation that profited from demographics in their favour - lots of working stiffs to pay the healthcare and pension bills of relatively few seniors - Mr. Kent does not recognize the basic flaw in his simple 'spend more' approach.

Fact is, demographic shifts will force Western governments of every ideological persuasion to move to individually funded accounts for health and pensions needs. That is the only way to ensure every individual receives healthcare and pensions in the future as opposed to the current pay-as-you-go intergenerational pyramid scheme funding.

Universality over sensible means testing is another fatal flaw. Why should taxpayers subsidize Canadians who can afford to pay for part or all of their own drugs or child's daycare Taxpayers should only fund those who can't pay for an important social good on their own

For example, if an employer already covers the cost of some employees' prescriptions, why shift that bill to taxpayers through a new national pharmacare program

A one-size-fits-all approach is what sunk the federal government into $580 billion worth of debt, not to mention the unfunded liabilities in pensions and medicare.

And taxes Tom Kent wants personal income taxes reduced somewhat, though not because governments deserve less revenue. To keep government treasuries overflowing, he wants capital gains taxed at the same rate as personal income taxes. But our capital gains taxes are already double those of the Americans. Truth is, capital gains taxes count as double taxation - and they hurt the economy.

Your after-personal income tax money is for you to use as you see fit. Investing such money is the healthiest for the economy in that it allows business working capita for businesses to start, expand, buy equipment and ultimately hire and pay wages to employees. And contrary to the myth that only 'the rich' declare capital gains as income, 60% of the 800,000 Canadians that declared a capital gain in 1997 earned under $50,000 a year. Capital gains taxes should be scrapped, not increased.

Mr. Kent's proposals on taxation and spending would discourage thrift, capital risk, and punish investment. Sound familiar It's what Canadian governments did for the last thirty years (and still do) thanks in part to Mr. Kent's previous incarnation as a social policy mandarin. The 60s are not due to show up again for another 61 years. Let's keep it that way.