Fraser Institute
Honest discussion about taxes must include bill Canadian families pay
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss
Every year at the Fraser Institute, we calculate the total tax bill—which includes income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, etc.—for the average Canadian family. This year we found the average family paid 43.0 per cent of its annual income in taxes in 2023—more than it spent on basic necessities such as food, clothing and housing combined, and significantly higher than the 33.5 per cent it paid in 1961.
Put differently, the average family’s tax bill has increased 2,705 per cent since 1961—or 180.3 per cent after adjusting for inflation.
And yet, in a recent column, Star contributing columnist Linda McQuaig said we’re “distorting the public debate over taxes” by publishing these facts while stating that the effective tax rate the average family pays has only “increased by 28 per cent since 1961.” Presumably, she arrived at her 28 per cent figure by calculating the change in the share of income going to taxes from 33.5 per cent (in 1961) to 43.0 per cent (in 2023). And yes, that’s one way to measure tax increases. But again, the inflation-adjusted dollar value—what the average family actually pays—of the tax bill has increased by 180.3 per cent. That’s not distortion, that’s explaining the increase in terms everyone can understand.
Of course, these aren’t simply academic points. Taxes, particularly at a time when families are struggling with the cost of living, have real-world effects. According to a recent poll, 74 per cent of respondents feel the average family is overtaxed, and 80 per cent believe the average family should pay 40 per cent or less of its income in total taxes.
Another important question is whether families get value for the taxes they pay. Polling shows nearly half (44 per cent) of Canadians feel they receive “poor” or “very poor” value from government services while only 16 per cent believe they receive “good” or “great” value. This should be no surprise. Health-care wait times are at record highs. Student test scores are declining. And Canada routinely fails to meet our NATO defence spending commitments.
Meanwhile, governments waste taxpayer dollars on pet projects such as a federal infrastructure bank, which, despite a budget of at least $13.2 billion, has delivered only two relatively minor projects in seven years. Or handouts to new electric vehicle (EV) owners that cost taxpayers—including Canadians unable to afford EVs—more than $587 million annually.
Can we really say governments are using our money wisely?
Unfortunately, many governments are doubling down. Municipalities such as Vancouver and Toronto raised property taxes by at least 7.5 per cent this year. Toronto city council has even floated the idea of a municipal sales tax. It’s hard to argue that you want to make life more affordable for families by leaving less money in their pockets.
And of course, the Trudeau government recently raised taxes on capital gains. But despite claims to the contrary, this tax hike won’t only affect wealthy investors. 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 Canadians 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 (when they retire, for example).
Finally, more tax hikes are likely on the horizon. The federal government and eight provinces are currently running budget deficits, meaning they’re not taxing enough to keep up with spending. Deficits produce debt, which will be passed onto future generations of Canadians in the form of higher taxes.
If governments across Canada want to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians, they should reduce taxes. And everyone should want an honest discussion about taxes in Canada, based on facts, not distortions.
Author:
Business
Federal tax policy in 2025 will not be kind to Canadians
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
Federal tax policy was not kind to Canadians in 2024, and that shouldn’t be a surprise. It wasn’t kind to Canadians in 2023, 2022 or any year since 2016 when the Trudeau government established a new income tax bracket of 33 per cent, pushing the combined federal and provincial top tax rate over 50 per cent in many provinces.
To recap 2024 tax policy changes, the federal government began the year with its sixth consecutive Canada Pension Plan tax hike. In 2018, before the government’s CPP “enhancements” (to use the government’s phrase), for a worker earning $85,000, the combined employer and employee CPP tax was $5,188. In 2024 the same worker’s tax bill was $8,111—or about 56 per cent higher including the government’s new “CPP2” tax.
Unfortunately, things will only get worse for Canadians in 2025. The CPP tax bill for the Canadian earning $85,000 will rise to $8,860 in 2025, bringing the total nominal tax increase to 71 per cent through the government’s seven annual CPP “enhancements.”
In addition to making the CPP tax more expensive yearly, the federal government also has been increasing the carbon tax each year. In April 2024, the Trudeau government increased the carbon tax to $80 per tonne from $65 per tonne, and like the CPP tax, the carbon tax will become more expensive yet again in 2025, rising another $15 per tonne to $95.
Another big tax change in 2024 was the capital gains tax hike announced in June. The Trudeau government claimed it was increasing taxes only on “0.13 per cent of Canadians in any given year”—a statistic that’s both misleading and incomplete. First, 0.13 per cent of Canadians “in any given year” are a different group than the 0.13 per cent of Canadians in the previous or following years, so many more than 0.13 per cent of Canadians will directly pay the tax.
Second, the tax hike also affects corporations, of which millions of Canadians are owners or part-owners (even excluding their ownership of publicly traded companies’ shares). Overall, economist Jack Mintz estimated that through their ownership of private corporations (based on 2021 data) about 4.74 million Canadians would be affected by the higher tax rate, or 15.8 per cent of tax filers. In other words, about 100 times more Canadians than the Trudeau government suggested.
And in reality, just about all Canadians will be made worse off by the tax hike because almost everyone will effectively be subject to the higher capital gains tax rate through their exposure to publicly traded corporations including through public pension plans.
Worse, because capital gains taxes are taxes on investment, the certain effect of the tax hike will be to reduce business investment. Unfortunately as multiple economic analyses have shown, business investment in Canada has already been extremely weak in the past decade, falling further behind the United States and other developed economies, and contributing to Canada’s productivity and economic stagnation crisis. The capital gains tax hike will make this even worse.
Finally, the Trudeau government ended 2024 with a so-called sales tax “holiday” for two months, which imposes severe administrative and logistical nightmares onto business owners (in a survey of small businesses, most opposed the change and 75 per cent said it would be costly and complicated to implement), and will do nothing to increase productivity or improve economic incentives.
Quite the opposite; government deficits fund the tax “holiday,” which will increase the future tax burden—something that will further reduce economic productivity in the future. Federal tax policy clearly was not kind to Canadians in 2024. Unfortunately, 2025 is looking no better.
Education
Parents should oppose any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology in schools
From the Fraser Institute
According to a recent poll, the vast majority of parents in Canada easily understand letter grades on report cards but are confused by the nouveau “descriptive” grading adopted in British Columbia. This should serve as a warning to any province or school board thinking about adopting this type of convoluted descriptive grading.
In September 2023, despite overwhelming opposition from British Columbians, the B.C. government replaced letter grades—such as A, B, C, D, etc.—on K-9 report cards with a “proficiency scale,” which includes the descriptive terms “emerging,” “developing,” “proficient” and “extending.” If these four terms seem confusing to you, you’re not alone.
According to the recent poll (conducted by Leger and commissioned by the Fraser Institute), 93 per cent of Canadian parents from coast to coast said the letter grade “A” was “clear and easy” to understand while 83 per cent said the letter grade “C” was “clear and easy” to understand. (For the sake of brevity, the poll only asked respondents about these two letter grades.)
By contrast, 58 per cent of Canadian parents said the descriptive grade “extending” was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 26 per cent could correctly identify what “extending” means on a report card.
It was a similar story for the descriptive grade “emerging,” as 57 per cent of Canadian parents said the term was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 28 per cent could correctly identify what “emerging” means on a report card.
It’s also worth noting that the poll simplified the definitions of the four “descriptive” grading terms. The B.C. government’s official definitions, which can be found on the government’s website, speak for themselves. For example: “Extending is not synonymous with perfection. A student is Extending when they demonstrate learning, in relation to learning standards, with increasing depth and complexity. Extending is not a bonus or a reward and does not necessarily require that students do a greater volume of work or work at a higher grade level. Extending is not the goal for all students; Proficient is. Therefore, if a student turns in all their work and demonstrates evidence of learning in all learning standards for an area of learning, they are not automatically assigned Extending.”
So, what are the consequences of this confusing gobbledygook? Well, we already have some anecdotes.
Before the B.C. government made the changes provincewide, the Surrey School District participated in a pilot program to gauge the effectiveness of descriptive grading. According to Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA in Surrey and mother of three, for three years her daughter’s report cards said she was “emerging” rather than clearly stating she was failing. Sturko was unaware there was a problem until the child’s Third Grade teacher called to tell Sturko that her daughter was reading at a Kindergarten level.
Former B.C. education minister Rachna Singh tried to justify the change saying descriptive grading would help students become “better prepared for the outside world” where you “don’t get feedback in letters.” But parents in B.C. clearly aren’t happy.
Of course, other provinces also use terms in their grading systems (meeting expectations, exceeding expectations, satisfactory, needs improvement, etc.) in addition to letter grades. But based on this polling data, the descriptive grading now used in B.C.—which again, has completely replaced letter grades—makes it much harder for B.C. parents to understand how their children are doing in school. The B.C. government should take a red pen to this confusing new policy before it does any more damage. And parents across the country should keep a watchful eye on their local school boards for any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology open to interpretation.
-
Energy1 day ago
Trump’s promises should prompt major rethink of Canadian energy policy
-
Education1 day ago
Parents should oppose any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology in schools
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Australia’s Misinformation Bill Is Dead…for Now
-
National19 hours ago
Trudeau continues to lose support from his political allies
-
Bruce Dowbiggin19 hours ago
2024 In Review: The Year Woke Fever Broke
-
International2 days ago
FBI identifies Texas man as Bourbon Street attacker
-
Jordan Peterson7 hours ago
Jordan Peterson interviews likely next Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
US should look to Canada to settle H-1B Visas issue