Honest discussion about taxes must include bill Canadian families pay

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:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #JakeFuss

Up Next

Retired judge says Freedom Convoy organizers on trial represent all opponents to current government

Don't Miss

They Would Call Me a “Denier” – Let Me Explain what I Believe about Residential Schools in Canada

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

Why carbon emissions will fall under Trump

Agriculture / 4 hours ago

How USAID Assisted the Corporate Takeover of Ukrainian Agriculture

Daily Caller / 5 hours ago

Migrants Won’t Be Putting Their Feet Up At One NYC Hotel Much Longer

Economy

Meeting Ottawa’s new housing target will require more than $300 billion in additional financing every year until 2030

Published on February 23, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

Canada Needs to Save Much More to Finance an Ambitious Investment Agenda

To meet Ottawa’s ambitious new housing construction targets in order to restore affordability, the country needs more than $300 billion in additional financing every year from 2025 to 2030, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“To increase home building and restore business investment in key areas like technology to previous levels, Canada needs to become much more attractive to investors, both from within Canada and around the world,” said Steven Globerman, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Canada Needs to Save Much More to Finance an Ambitious Investment Agenda.

To restore housing affordability, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a Crown Corporation of the federal government, has estimated that about 3.5 million additional housing units need to be built by 2030 given expected construction rates.

The study finds that for the federal government to meet this housing construction goal, an estimated $331 to $364 billion in additional financing is needed annually from 2025-2030.

If business investment in key areas such as communications and IT are to return to previous levels, another roughly $13 billion is needed annually.

In total, this means Canada needs an additional $343 to $377 billion in financing annually over the next five years. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent to increasing the current Canadian savings rate by 50 per cent.

One option to mitigate the need for a drastic increase in the domestic savings rate is to attract more foreign investment, but that will require substantial policy reforms to make Canada a more attractive environment for foreign investors.

“It is very likely that the ambitious targets that have been set for homebuilding and business investment won’t be met, but even so, encouraging increased investment and higher domestic savings is a worthy policy pursuit,” Globerman said.

Both the Canadian government and policymakers from various organizations including the Bank of Canada have called for ambitious programs to increase capital investment in Canada, particularly investment focused on residential housing and productivity-enhancing business assets.
The ambitious domestic investment agenda will require a substantial increase in domestic savings in order to finance the necessary increased capital expenditure. The requisite increase has been largely ignored, to date, in policy proposals and surrounding discussion of those proposals.
The financial capital required to fund major investments in residential housing and even modest increases in business investment will require an increase in the domestic savings rate of as much as 50 percent. Alternatively, much larger inflows of long-term foreign capital investments into Canada beyond what has been realized over the past few decades will be required.
Such large increases in the domestic savings rate and in foreign capital inflows would require unrealistic and unsustainably high real interest rates. The implication is that the federal government’s investment goals, especially with regard to increasing the supply of residential housing, are unrealizable over the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, implementing policies to encourage increased domestic savings and channeling those savings into high priority investment activities should be a public policy imperative.

Read The Full Report

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

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.