If you spent and borrowed like Ottawa you’d be in big trouble

If the median household chose to spend like the Trudeau government, it would spend $109,982 and incur a deficit of $8,161, which it would put on a credit card. And this year—again, if the family was in the same fiscal situation as the federal government—it would pay $11,066 in interest on an overall debt burden of $427,759.

According to polling released earlier this year, two-thirds of Canadians are concerned about the size of the federal deficit. And considering its size, Canadians are right to be concerned, but it can be hard to wrap our heads around the scale of the numbers involved. A new study puts the federal deficit in more familiar terms, and shows what the median Canadian household’s finances would be like if it budgeted like the federal government.

This year, the Trudeau government plans to spend $537.7 billion while expecting to collect $497.8 billion in revenues—a $39.8 billion difference or deficit, which represents the amount of money Ottawa must borrow in 2024/25 to cover its spending commitments. The Trudeau government has run deficits every year for the last decade, and plans to continue running deficits for at least the next five consecutive years.

Consequently, the government has racked up massive amounts of debt. In 2024/25, federal gross debt is expected to reach $2.1 trillion, which is nearly double the $1.1 trillion held in 2015/16.

So what would the median household budget look like in 2024 if it managed its finances like the federal government?

In 2024, the median household will earn $101,821 after taxes (median means half of Canadian families earn more than this amount and the other half earn less). If the median household chose to spend like the Trudeau government, it would spend $109,982 and incur a deficit of $8,161, which it would put on a credit card. And this year—again, if the family was in the same fiscal situation as the federal government—it would pay $11,066 in interest on an overall debt burden of $427,759.

While it’s clear that a family spending 11 cents of every dollar it earns on debt interest, and ending the year with $8,161 in new credit card debt, is not in a good financial situation, there’s an important nuance that makes this situation even worse.

For this comparison (the federal government and a Canadian household) to work, we shouldn’t view the $427,759 in debt as a mortgage. Why? Because when a family takes out a mortgage, the amount of debt is balanced by the value of the house. In other words, the family could sell the house and use that money to pay off most or all of the outstanding mortgage.

The same cannot be said about government debt. In many cases, government debt is not backed by many assets. In the unlikely scenario the federal government used all of its financial assets to pay off its debt, it would still be left with $1.4 trillion in debt this fiscal year. If the government went a step further and sold all its non-financial assets (which includes all buildings and land owned by the federal government), it would still have $1.3 trillion in debt. In other words, more than half of the federal government’s debt cannot be paid off simply by selling its assets.

The Trudeau government continues to spend beyond its means and rack up mountains of debt every year, which has eroded federal finances. If a family budgeted like the federal government, it would be in big financial trouble.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FederalDebt #FederalDeficit #FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss #JustinTrudeau FederalSpending LiberalGovernment

Up Next

Will AI Displace Climate Change As The Next Globalist Bogeyman?

Don't Miss

Lockdowns Codified a World of Violence

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

Hamas, Palestinians paraded dead babies coffins through streets before handover to Israel

Health / 3 hours ago

RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B

National / 5 hours ago

Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know

Business

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.

According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.

Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.

While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.

The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.

Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.

Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.

Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.

Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.

Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.

Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.

With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

‘Out and out fraud’: DOGE questions $2 billion Biden grant to left-wing ‘green energy’ nonprofit`

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The EPA under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a ‘green energy’ group that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a “green energy” nonprofit that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists such as former Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams.

Founded in 2023 as a coalition of nonprofits, corporations, unions, municipalities, and other groups, Power Forward Communities (PFC) bills itself as “the first national program to finance home energy efficiency upgrades at scale, saving Americans thousands of dollars on their utility bills every year.” It says it “will help homeowners, developers, and renters swap outdated, inefficient appliances with more efficient and modernized options, saving money for years ahead and ensuring our kids can grow up with cleaner, pollutant-free air.”

The organization’s website boasts more than 300 member organizations across 46 states but does not detail actual activities. It does have job postings for three open positions and a form for people to sign up for more information.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project, along with new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, are raising questions about the $2 billion grant PFC received from the Biden EPA’s National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), ostensibly for the “affordable decarbonization of homes and apartments throughout the country, with a particular focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities.”

PFC’s announcement of the grant is the organization’s only press release to date and is alarming given that the organization had somehow reported only $100 in revenue at the end of 2023.

“I made a commitment to members of Congress and to the American people to be a good steward of tax dollars and I’ve wasted no time in keeping my word,” Zeldin said. “When we learned about the Biden administration’s scheme to quickly park $20 billion outside the agency, we suspected that some organizations were created out of thin air just to take advantage of this.” Zeldin previously announced the Biden EPA had deposited the $20 billion in a Citibank account, apparently to make it harder for the next administration to retrieve and review it.

“As we continue to learn more about where some of this money went, it is even more apparent how far-reaching and widely accepted this waste and abuse has been,” he added. “It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue.”

Daniel Turner, executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, told the Beacon that in his opinion “for an organization that has no experience in this, that was literally just established, and had $100 in the bank to receive a $2 billion grant — it doesn’t just fly in the face of common sense, it’s out and out fraud.”

Prominent among PFC’s insiders is Abrams, the former Georgia House minority leader best known for persistent false claims about having the state’s gubernatorial election stolen from her in 2018. Abrams founded two of PFC’s partner organizations (Southern Economic Advancement Project and Fair Count) and serves as lead counsel for a third group (Rewiring America) in the coalition. A longtime advocate of left-wing environmental policies, Abrams is also a member of the national advisory board for advocacy group Climate Power.