By David Clinton

Shaping Government Spending Choices to Reflect Taxpayer Preferences

Technically, the word “democracy” means “rule of the people”. But we all know that the ability to throw the bums out every few years is a poor substitute for “rule”. And as I’ve already demonstrated, the last set of bums you sent to Ottawa are 19 times more likely than not to simply vote along party lines. So who they are as individuals barely even matters.

This story isn’t new, and it hasn’t even got a decent villain. But it is about a universal weakness inherent in all modern, nation-scale democracies. After all, complex societies governed by hundreds of thousands of public servants who are responsible for spending trillions of dollars can’t realistically account for millions of individual voices. How could you even meaningfully process so many opinions?

Hang on. It’s 2025. These days, meaningfully processing lots of data is what we do. And the challenge of reliably collecting and administrating those opinions is trivial. I’m not suggesting we descend into some hellish form of governance by opinion poll. But I do wonder why we haven’t tried something that’s far more focused, measured, and verifiable: directed revenue spending.

Self-directed income tax payments? Crazy, no? Except that we’ve been doing it in Ontario for at least 60 years. We (sometimes) get to choose which of five school boards – English public, French public, English separate (Catholic), French separate (Catholic), or Protestant separate (Penetanguishene only) – will receive the education portion of our property tax.

Here’s how it could work. A set amount – perhaps 20 percent of the total federal tax you owe – would be considered discretionary. The T1 tax form could include the names of, say, ten spending programs next to numeric boxes. You would enter the percentage of the total discretionary portion of your income tax that you’d like directed to each program with the total of all ten boxes adding up to 100.

The specific programs made available might change from one year to the next. Some might appear only once every few years. That way, the departments responsible for executing the programs wouldn’t have to deal with unpredictable funding. But what’s more important, governments would have ongoing insights into what their constituents actually wanted them to be doing. If they disagreed, a government could up their game and do a better job explaining their preferences. Or it could just give up and follow the will of their taxpayers.

Since there would only be a limited number of pre-set options available, you wouldn’t have to worry about crackpot suggestions (“Nuke Amurika!”) or even reasoned and well-meaning protest campaigns (“Nuke Ottawa!”) taking over. And since everyone who files a tax form has to participate, you won’t have to worry about a small number of squeaky wheels dominating the public discourse.

Why would any governing party go along with such a plan? Well, they almost certainly won’t if that’s any comfort. Nevertheless, in theory at least, they could gain significant political legitimacy were their program preferences to receive overwhelming public support. And if politicians and civil servants truly believed they toil in the service of the people of Canada, they should be curious about what the people of Canada actually want.

What could go wrong?

Well the complexity involved with adding a new layer of constraints to spending planning can’t be lightly dismissed. And there’s always the risk that activists could learn to game the system by shaping mass movements through manipulative online messaging. The fact that wealthy taxpayers will have a disproportionate impact on spending also shouldn’t be ignored. Although, having said that, I’m not convinced that the voices of high-end taxpayers are less valuable than those of the paid lobbyists and PMO influencers who currently get all the attention.

Those are serious considerations. I’m decidedly less concerned about some other possible objections:

• The risk that taxpayers might demonstrate a preference for short term fixes or glamour projects over important long term wonkish needs (like debt servicing) rings hollow. Couldn’t those words just as easily describe the way many government departments already behave?
• Couldn’t taxpayer choices be influenced by dangerous misinformation campaigns? Allowing for the fact the words “misinformation campaign” make me nervous, that’s certainly possible. But I’m aware of no research demonstrating that, as a class, politicians and civil servants are somehow less susceptible to such influences.
• Won’t such a program allow governments to deflect responsibility for their actions? Hah! I spit in your face in rueful disdain! When was the last time any government official actually took responsibility (or even lost a job) over stupid decisions?
• Won’t restricting access to a large segment of funds make it harder to respond to time-sensitive emergencies? There are already plenty of political and policy-based constraints on emergency spending choices. There’s no reason this program couldn’t be structured intelligently enough to prevent appropriate responses to a genuine emergency.

This idea has no more chance of being applied as some of the crazy zero-tax ideas from my previous post. But things certainly aren’t perfect right now, and throwing some fresh ideas into the mix can’t hurt.

  By David Clinton

It won’t happening. And perhaps it shouldn’t happen. But we can talk.

By reputation, income tax is an immutable fact of life. But perhaps we can push back against that popular assumption. Or, to put it a different way, thinking about how different things can be is actually loads of fun.

That’s not to suggest that accurately anticipating the full impact of blowing up central economic pillars is simple. But it’s worth a conversation.

First off, because they’ve been around so long, we can easily lose sight of the fact that income taxes cause real economic pain. The median Canadian household earns around $85,000 in a year. Of that, some 13 percent ($11,000) is lost to federal income tax. Provincial income tax and sales taxes, of course, drive that number a lot higher. If owning a house is out of reach for so many Canadians, that’s one of the biggest reasons why.

Having said that, the $200 billion or so in personal income taxes that Canada collects each year represents around 40 percent of federal spending. In fact, in the absence of other policy changes, eliminating federal personal income tax would probably lead to significant drops in business tax revenues too. (I could see many small businesses choosing to maximize employee salaries to reduce their corporate tax liability.)

So if we wanted to cut taxes without piling on even more debt, we’d need to replace that amount either by finding alternate revenue sources or by cutting spending. If you’ve been keeping up with The Audit, you’ve already seen where and how we might find some serious budget savings in previous posts.

But for fascinating reasons, some of that $200 billion (or, including corporate taxes, $300 billion) shortfall could be made up by wiping out income tax itself. How’s that?

For one thing, many government entitlements and payouts essentially exist to make up for income lost through taxes. For example, the federal government will spend around $26 billion on child tax credits (CCB) in 2025. Since those payments are indexed to income, eliminating federal income tax would, de facto, raise everyone’s income. That increase would drop CCB spending by as much as $15 billion. Naturally, we’d want to reset the program eligibility thresholds to ensure that low-income working families aren’t being hurt by the change, but the savings would still be significant.

There are more payment programs of that sort than you might imagine. Without income taxes to worry about:

• The $6.2 billion GST/HST credit would cost us around $3 billion less each year.
• The Canada Workers Benefit (CWB) could cost $1.5 billion dollars less.
• The Old Age Security (OAS) Clawback would likely generate an extra billion dollars each year in taxes.
• The Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income OAS recipients could save $4 billion a year.

Even when factoring in for threshold recalculations to protect vulnerable families from unintended consequences, all those indirect consequences of a tax cut could easily add up to $20 billion in federal spending cuts. And don’t forget how the cost of administering and enforcing the income tax system would disappear. That’ll save us most of the $11 billion CRA costs us each year.

Nevertheless, last I heard, $30 billion (in savings) was a long, long way from $300 billion (in tax revenue shortfalls). No matter how hard we look, we’re not going to find $270 billion in government waste, fraud, and marginal programs to eliminate. And adding more government debt will benefit exactly no one (besides bond holders).

Ok then, let’s say we can find $100 billion in reasonable cuts (see The Audit for details). That would get us close to half way there. But it would also generate some serious economic turbulence.

On the one hand, such cuts would require dropping hundreds of thousands of workers off the federal payroll¹. It would also exert powerful downward pressure on our gross domestic product (GDP).

On the plus side however, a drop in government borrowing of this scale would likely reduce interest rates. That, in turn, could spark private investment activities that partially offset the GDP hit. If you add the personal wealth freed up by our income tax cuts to that mix, you’d likely see another nice GDP bump from sharp increases in household spending and investments.

Precisely predicting how a proposed change might affect all these moving parts is hard. Perhaps the ideal scenario would involve 20 percent or 50 percent cuts to taxes rather than 100 percent. Or maybe we’d be better off by playing around with sales tax rates. But I’m not convinced that anyone is even seriously and objectively thinking about our options right now.

One way or the other, the impact of such radical economic changes would be historic. I think it would be fascinating to develop data models to calculate and rank the macro economic consequences of applying various combinations of variables to the problem.

But taxation is a problem. And it’d be an important first step to recognize it as such.