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.

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

It’s no exaggeration to describe the Trudeau years as almost a “lost decade” for Canadian prosperity.

The Justin Trudeau era is ending, after nine-and-a-half years as prime minister. His exit coincides with the onset of a trade crisis with the United States. Trudeau leaves behind a stagnant Canadian economy crippled by dwindling productivity, a long stretch of weak business investment, and waning global competitiveness. These are problems Trudeau chose to ignore throughout his tenure. His successors will not have that luxury.

It’s no exaggeration to describe the Trudeau years as almost a “lost decade” for Canadian prosperity. Measured on a per-person basis, national income today is barely higher than it was in 2015, after stripping out the effects of inflation. On this core metric of citizen wellbeing, Canada has one of the worst records among all advanced economies. We have fallen far behind the U.S., where average real income has grown by 15 per cent over the same period, and most of Europe and Japan, where growth has been in the range of 5-6 per cent.

Meanwhile, Ottawa’s debt has doubled on Trudeau’s watch, and both federal government spending and the size of the public service have ballooned, even as service levels have generally deteriorated. Housing in Canada has never been more expensive relative to average household incomes, and health care has never been harder to access. The statistics on crime point to a decline in public safety in the last decade.

Reviving prosperity will be the most critical task facing Trudeau’s successor. It won’t be easy, due in part to a brewing trade war with the U.S. and the retreat from open markets and free trade in much of the world. But a difficult external environment is no reason for Canada to avoid tackling the domestic impediments that discourage economic growth, business innovation and entrepreneurial wealth creation.

In a recent study, a group of economists and policy advisors outlined an agenda for renewed Canadian prosperity. Several of their main recommendations are briefly summarized below.

Return to the balanced budget policies embraced by the Chretien/Martin and Harper governments from 1995 to 2015. Absent a recession, the federal government should not run deficits. And the next government should eliminate ineffective spending programs and poor-performing federally-funded agencies.

Reform and reduce both personal and business income taxes. Canada’s overall income tax system is increasingly out of line with global best practise and has become a major barrier to attracting private-sector investment, top talent and world-class companies. A significant overhaul of the country’s tax policies is urgently needed.

Retool Ottawa’s existing suite of climate and energy policies to reduce the economic damage done by the long list of regulations, taxes, subsidies and other measures adopted Trudeau. Canada should establish realistic goals for lowering greenhouse gas emissions, not politically manufactured “targets” that are manifestly out of reach. Our climate policy should reflect the fact that Canada’s primary global comparative advantage is as a producer and exporter of energy and energy-intensive goods, agri-food products, minerals and other industrial raw materials which collectively supply more than half of the country’s exports.

Finally, take a knife to interprovincial barriers to trade, investment and labour mobility. These long-standing internal restrictions on commerce increase prices for consumers, inhibit the growth of Canadian-based companies, and result in tens of billions of dollars in lost economic output. The next federal government should lead a national effort to strengthen the Canadian “common market” by eliminating such barriers.

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute