Business
The Problem of Corporate Tax Rate Hikes
Why it’s nearly impossible to avoid causing more harm than good
Are Canadian corporations paying their share? Well, what is their share? And before we go there, just how much are Canadian corporations paying?
According to Statistics Canada, in the second quarter of 2024 the federal government received $221 billion from all income tax revenues (excluding CPP and QPP). Provincial governments took in another $104 billion, and local (municipal) governments got $21 billion. Using those numbers, we can (loosely) estimate that all levels of government raise somewhere around $1.38 trillion annually.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
If you’re curious (and I know you are), that means taxes cost each man, woman, and child in Canada $33,782 each year. Trust me: I feel your pain.
Based on Statistics Canada data from 2022 (the latest comparable data available), we can also say that roughly ten percent of those total revenues come from corporate taxes at both the federal and provincial levels.
Keep that 10:90 corporate-to-personal tax revenue ratio in mind. Because what if raising the corporate tax rate by, say, five percent ends up driving businesses to lay off even one percent of workers? Sure, you’ll take in an extra $7 billion in corporate taxes, but you might well lose the $12 billion in personal income taxes those laid-off workers would have paid.
How Much Should Corporations Pay?
Ok. So how should we calculate a business’s fair share? Arguably, a single dollar’s worth of business activity is actually taxed over and over again:
- When a corporation earns revenue, it’s taxed on its profits.
- Any remaining profit may be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends. Shareholders, of course, will pay income tax on those dividends.
- Corporations pass on part of the tax burden to consumers through higher prices. When consumers pay those higher prices, a part of every dollar they spend is indirectly taxed through the corporation’s price adjustments.
- Employee wages paid from after-tax corporate profits are taxed yet again.
- Shareholders may eventually realize capital gains when they sell their shares. These gains are, naturally, also taxed.
I guess the ideal system would identify a corporate tax rate that takes all those layers into account to ensure that no single individual’s labor and contribution should carry an unreasonable burden. I’ll leave figuring out how to build such a system to smart people.
Does “Soaking Rich Corporations” Actually Work?
Do higher corporate taxes actually improve the lives of Canadians? Spoiler alert: it’s complicated.
Government policy choices generally come with consequences. From time to time, those will include actual solutions for serious problems. But they usually leave their mark in places of which lawmakers were initially barely aware existed.
Here’s where we get to explore some of those unintended consequences by comparing economic performance between provinces with varying corporate tax rates. Do higher rates discourage business investment leading to lower employment, economic activity, and incoming tax revenues? In other words, do tax rate increases always make financial sense?
To answer those questions, I compared each province’s large business tax rate with four economic measures:
- Gross domestic product per capita
- Business gross fixed capital formation (GFCF – the money businesses invest in capital improvements: the higher the GFCF, the more confidence businesses have in their long-term success)
- Private sector employment rate
- My own composite economic index (see this post)
Using four measures rather than just one or two gives us many more data points which reduces the likelihood that we’re looking at random statistical relationships. Here are the current provincial corporate tax rates for large businesses:
If we find a significant negative correlation between, say, higher tax rates and outcomes for all four of those measures, then we’d have evidence that higher rates are likely to have a negative impact on the economy (and on the human beings who live within that economy). If, on the other hand, there’s a positive correlation, then it’s possible higher taxes are not harmful.
When I ran the numbers, I found that the GDP per capita has a strong negative correlation with higher tax rates (meaning, the higher the tax rate, the lower the GDP). GFCF per capita and the private sector employment rate both had moderately negative correlations with higher taxes, and my own composite economic index had a weak negative correlation. Those results, taken together, strongly suggest that higher corporate tax rates are indeed harmful for a province’s overall economic health.
Here’s a scatter plot that illustrates the relationship between tax rates and the combined outcome scores:
Alberta, with the lowest tax rate also has the best outcomes. PEI, along with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, share the high-tax-poor-outcome corner.
I guess the bottom line coming out of all this is that the “rich corporations aren’t paying their share” claim isn’t at all simple. To be taken seriously, you’d need to account for:
- The true second-order costs that higher corporate taxes can impose on consumers, investors, and workers.
- The strong possibility that higher corporate taxes might cause more harm to economies than they’re worth.
- The strong possibility that extra revenues might just end up being dumped into the general pool of toxic government waste.
Or, in other words, smart policy choices require good data.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces
From the Fraser Institute
By Alex Whalen and Tegan Hill
Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.
In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.
This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.
However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.
Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.
Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.
Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.
Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.
Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.
Authors:
Alberta
Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.
The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.
For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).
And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.
In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.
This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.
Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.
Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.
Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.
When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.
According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.
Author:
-
conflict1 day ago
US and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?
-
Alberta2 days ago
Province considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
John Stossel2 days ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Business16 hours ago
CBC’s business model is trapped in a very dark place
-
Alberta2 days ago
Early Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
armed forces1 day ago
Judge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
ESG2 days ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
International24 hours ago
Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing