Capital gains tax hike will cause widespread damage in Canadian economy

According to an analysis by economist Jack Mintz, 50 per cent of taxpayers who claim more than $250,000 of capital gains in a year earned less than $117,592 in normal annual income from 2011 to 2021. These include individuals with modest annual incomes who own businesses, second homes or stocks, and who may choose to sell those assets once or infrequently in their lifetimes (such as at retirement)

On Monday, two months after tabling the federal budget, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland introduced a motion in Parliament to increase taxes on capital gains. On Tuesday, the motion passed as the NDP, Bloc Québécois and Green Party voted with the Liberals. Unfortunately for Canadians, the tax hike will likely hurt Canada’s economy. And the finance minister continues to make misleading claims to defend it.

Currently, investors who sell capital assets pay taxes on 50 per cent of the gain (based on their highest marginal tax rate). On June 25, thanks to Freeland’s motion, that share will increase to 66.7 per cent for capital gains above $250,000. (Critically, the gain includes inflationary and real increases in the value of the asset.)

According to Minister Freeland, the hike is necessary because it will bring in more than $19 billion of revenue over five years to pay for new spending on housing, national defence and other programs. This claim is disingenuous for two reasons.

First, investors do not pay capital gains taxes until they sell assets and realize gains. A higher capital gains tax rate gives them an incentive to hold onto their investments, perhaps anticipating that a future government may reduce the rate. Individuals and businesses may not sell their assets as quickly as the government anticipates so the tax hike ends up generating less revenue than expected.

Second, the government does not have a revenue problem. Annual federal revenue is increasing and has grown (nominally) more than $185 billion (or 66.2 per cent) from 2014-15 to 2023-24. Before tabling the budget in April, the government was already anticipating annual revenue to increase by more than $27 billion this year. But the government has chosen to spend every dime it takes in (and then some) instead of being disciplined.

Years of unrestrained spending and borrowing have led to a precarious fiscal situation in Ottawa. If the government wanted to pay for new programs, it could’ve reduced spending in other areas. But Minister Freeland largely chose not to do this and sought new revenue tools after realizing this year’s deficit was on track to surpass her fiscal targets. Clearly, raising taxes to generate revenue was unnecessary and could’ve been avoided with more disciplined spending.

Further misleading Canadians, the Trudeau government claims this tax hike will only increase taxes for “0.13 per cent of Canadians.” But in reality, many Canadians earning modest incomes will pay capital gains taxes.

According to an analysis by economist Jack Mintz, 50 per cent of taxpayers who claim more than $250,000 of capital gains in a year earned less than $117,592 in normal annual income from 2011 to 2021. These include individuals with modest annual incomes who own businesses, second homes or stocks, and who may choose to sell those assets once or infrequently in their lifetimes (such as at retirement). Contrary to the government’s claims, the capital gains tax hike will affect 4.74 million investors in Canadian companies (or 15.8 per cent of all tax filers).

In sum, many Canadians who you wouldn’t consider among “the wealthiest” will earn capital gains exceeding $250,000 following the sale of their assets, and be impacted by Freeland’s hike.

Finally, the capital gains tax hike will also inhibit economic growth during a time when Canadians are seeing a historic decline in living standards. Capital gains taxes discourage entrepreneurship and business investment. By raising capital gains taxes the Trudeau government is reducing the return that entrepreneurs and investors can expect from starting a business or investing in the Canadian economy. This means that potential entrepreneurs or investors are more likely to take their ideas and money elsewhere, and Canadians will continue to suffer the consequences of a stagnating economy.

If Minister Freeland and the Trudeau government want to pave a path to widespread prosperity for Canadians, they should reverse their tax hike on capital gains.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#CapitalGainsTaxHike #ChrystiaFreeland #FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss #JustinTrudeau

Up Next

New York and Vermont Seek to Impose a Retroactive Climate Tax

Don't Miss

Inner city shoplifting and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Joe Rogan Tells Elon Musk He ‘Changed’ History By Buying Twitter, Calls Out Previous Government Interference

Fraser Institute / 6 hours ago

U.S. election should focus or what works and what doesn’t work

Business / 7 hours ago

EU Tightens Social Media Censorship Screw With Upcoming Mandatory “Disinformation” Rules

Business

EU Tightens Social Media Censorship Screw With Upcoming Mandatory “Disinformation” Rules

Published on November 4, 2024

Todayville

From Reclaim The Net

By Didi Rankovic

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

What started out as the EU’s “voluntary code of practice” concerning “disinformation” – affecting tech/social media companies – is now set to turn into a mandatory code of conduct for the most influential and widely-used ones.

The news was revealed by the Irish media regulator, specifically an official of its digital services, Paul Gordon, who spoke to journalists in Brussels. The EU Commission has yet to confirm that January will be the date when the current code will be “formalized” in this way.

The legislation that would enable the “transition” is the controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which critics often refer to as the “EU online censorship law,” the enforcement of which started in February of this year.

The “voluntary” code is at this time signed by 44 tech companies, and should it become mandatory in January 2025, it will apply to those the EU defines as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) (with at least 45 million monthly active users in the 27-nation bloc).

Currently, the number of such platforms is said to be 25.

In its present form, the DSA’s provisions obligate online platforms to carry out “disinformation”-related risk assessments and reveal what measures they are taking to mitigate any risks revealed by these assessments.

But when the code switches from “voluntary” to mandatory, these obligations will also include other requirements: demonetizing the dissemination of “disinformation”; platforms, civil society groups, and fact-checkers “effectively cooperating” during elections, once again to address “disinformation” – and, “empowering” fact-checkers.

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

The code was first introduced (in its “voluntary” form) in 2022, with Google, Meta, and TikTok among the prominent signatories – while these rules originate from a “strengthened” EU Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the Commission’s Guidance issued in May 2021.

“It is for the signatories to decide which commitments they sign up to and it is their responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their commitments’ implementation,” the EU said at the time – that would have been the “voluntary” element, while the Commission said the time it had not “endorsed” the code.

It appears the EC is now about to “endorse” the code, and then some – there are active preparations to make it mandatory.

Alberta

Lesson for Ottawa—don’t bite the hand that feeds you

Published on November 3, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The Alberta government has launched a campaign to inform Canadians about the negative impacts of the federal government’s cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector, which exempts the other three-quarters of the economy that emit including transportation, buildings and heavy industry.

According to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, the cap will “kill jobs” and lead to “economic and societal decline” for all Canadians—and she’s right. Any policy that damages Alberta’s economy comes with consequences for all of Canada.

Of course, this isn’t the first Trudeau policy to damage the sector. The list includes Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48, (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), “clean fuel standard” regulations, numerous “net-zero” targets, and so on.

Again, while these policies disproportionately impact Albertans, they have consequences for all Canadians from coast to coast because of Alberta’s role in the federation. In our current system, Ottawa collects various taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes the money for programs including equalization and employment insurance.

For perspective, from 2007 to 2022 (the latest period of available data), Albertans contributed $244.6 billion more in taxes and other payments to the federal government than they received in federal spending—more than five times as much as British Columbians or Ontarians. The remaining seven provinces received more federal spending than they contributed to federal revenues. In other words, Albertans are by far the largest net contributor to Ottawa’s coffers.

Albertans’ large net contribution reflects the province’s comparatively young population (fewer retirees), higher rates of employment, higher average incomes and relatively strong economy.

Alberta’s relative economic strength isn’t new. From 1981 to 2022, the province had the highest annual average economic growth rate in Canada. In 2022, Alberta accounted for 17.9 per cent of Canada’s total economic growth despite being home to just 11.6 per cent of the country’s population. That same year, Alberta contributed nearly one in every five private-sector jobs created in Canada. In fact, Alberta was one of only two provinces (alongside Nova Scotia) where private-sector employment growth (including self-employment) exceeded government-sector employment growth over the last five years (2019 to 2023).

Alberta’s prosperity, which helps finance other provinces, may help explain why 56,245 more Canadian residents moved to Alberta than left it in 2022—a much higher net inflow than in any other province. For decades, Alberta has provided economic opportunities for Canadians from other provinces willing to relocate.

Albertans continue to contribute more to the federation than Canadians in other provinces due to Alberta’s relatively strong and prosperous economy. And Canadians benefit from the economic opportunities Alberta provides. With this in mind, the Trudeau government should stop imposing economically damaging policies on the province—as it costs not just Albertans but all Canadians.