Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Trump victory means Canada must get serious about tax reform

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

Following Donald Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election, lower taxes for both U.S. businesses and individuals will be at the top of his administration’s agenda. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Trudeau has raised taxes on businesses and individuals, including with his recent capital gains tax hike.

Clearly, Canada and the United States are now moving in opposite directions on tax policy. To prevent Canada from falling even further behind the U.S., policymakers in Ottawa and across Canada should swiftly increase our tax competitiveness.

Before the U.S. election, Canada was already considered a high-tax country that made it hard to do business. Canada’s top combined (federal and provincial) personal income tax rate (as represented by Ontario) ranked fifth-highest out of 38 high-income industrialized (OECD) countries in 2022 (the latest year of available data). And last year, Canadians in every province, across most of the income spectrum, faced higher personal income tax rates than Americans in nearly every U.S. state.

Our higher income tax rates make it harder to attract and retain high-skilled workers including doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs. High tax rates also reduce the incentives to save, invest and start a business—all key drivers of prosperity.

No doubt, we need reform now. To close the tax gap and increase our competitiveness, the federal government should reduce personal income tax rates. One option is to reduce the top rate from 33.0 per cent back down to 29.0 per cent (the rate before the Trudeau government increased it) and eliminate the three middle-income tax rates of 20.5 per cent, 26.0 per cent and 29.0 per cent.

These changes would establish a new personal income tax landscape with just two federal rates. Nearly all Canadians would face a personal income tax rate of 15.0 per cent, while top earners would pay a marginal tax rate of 29.0 per cent.

On business taxes, Canada’s rates are also higher than the global average and uncompetitive  compared to the U.S., which makes it difficult to attract business investment and corporate headquarters that provide well-paid jobs and enhance living standards. According to Trump’s campaign promises, he plans to lower the federal business tax rate from 21 per cent to 20 per cent (and reduce the rate to 15 per cent for companies that make their products in the U.S.). Trump must work with congress to implement these changes, but barring any change in Canadian policy, business tax cuts in the U.S. will intensify Canada’s net outflow of business investment and corporate headquarters to the U.S.

The federal government should respond by lowering Canada’s business tax rate to match Trump’s plan. Moreover, Ottawa should (in coordination with the provinces) change tax policy to only tax business profits that are not reinvested in the company—that is, tax dividend payments, share buybacks and bonuses but don’t touch profits that are reinvested into the company (this type of business taxation has helped supercharge the economy in Estonia). These reforms would encourage greater business investment and ultimately raise living standards for Canadians. Finally, given Canada’s massive outflow of business investment, the government should (at a minimum) reverse the recent federal capital gains hike.

Of course, there’s much to quibble with in Trump’s policies. For example, his tariffs will hurt the U.S. economy (and likely Canada’s economy), and tax cuts without spending reductions and deficit-reduction will simply defer tax hikes into the future. But while policymakers in Ottawa can’t control U.S. policy, Trump’s tax plan will significantly exacerbate Canada’s competitiveness problem. We can’t afford to sit idle and do nothing. Ottawa should act swiftly in coordination with the provinces and pursue bold pro-growth tax reform for the benefit of Canadians.

Business

“We have a deal”: Trump, Xi strike breakthrough on trade and fentanyl

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

President Trump declared “we have a deal” Thursday after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, describing their nearly two-hour summit as “a 12 out of 10.” Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters the two leaders reached a sweeping agreement to stabilize trade relations and address the deadly fentanyl crisis. “We have a deal. Now, every year we will renegotiate the deal,” Trump said. “But I think the deal will go on for a long time.”

According to Trump, Xi agreed to suspend for one year China’s export restrictions on products made with rare-earth and critical minerals — materials essential to the production of semiconductors, batteries, and high-tech magnets. “There’s no roadblock at all on rare earth,” he said. “It’s a one-year deal that I think will be very routinely extended.” In exchange, Trump said the U.S. would lower the average tariff rate on Chinese imports from 57.6% to 47.6%. Trump emphasized that Xi also committed to intensifying China’s crackdown on fentanyl exports, which have been a major driver of overdose deaths in the United States. “We agreed he’s going to work very hard to stop the flow,” Trump said. “I think you’re going to see a big difference.”

Beijing also pledged to resume “tremendous” purchases of American soybeans, reversing its earlier retaliatory halt. In a Truth Social post later Thursday, Trump said China had additionally agreed to begin purchasing U.S. oil and gas, noting that “a very large-scale transaction may take place concerning the purchase of oil and gas from the Great State of Alaska.” The president confirmed that Taiwan was not discussed during the meeting but said both sides talked about working together to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. “We didn’t really discuss the Russian oil,” he added. “We discussed working together to see if we can get that war finished.”

The meeting, held at a South Korean air base, marked the first in-person exchange between Trump and Xi since his return to the White House. The two leaders greeted each other warmly, with Xi telling Trump, “Great pleasure to see you again.” Xi praised Trump’s leadership, saying, “China’s development goes hand in hand with your vision to make America great again,” and added that the two nations “are fully able to help each other succeed and prosper together.” Much of Thursday’s agreement builds upon a framework negotiated earlier this month in Kuala Lumpur between U.S. and Chinese trade teams.

Trump said he plans to visit China in April, calling the meeting “amazing” and “an outstanding group of decisions.” He did not say whether the pending TikTok deal was discussed. The renewed cooperation on fentanyl follows years of tension over China’s role in the U.S. opioid crisis. The CDC reports the drug has killed nearly 330,000 Americans in the past five years — roughly one in every 1,000 people. Trump has long pressed Beijing to stop the export of precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl, arguing the problem is both moral and economic. “They make $100 million selling fentanyl into our country,” Trump said last week. “They lose $100 billion with the 20% tariff. It’s not a good business proposition.”

Trump left Thursday’s summit expressing confidence that the new arrangement marked a major step forward. “On the scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the best, I would say the meeting was a 12,” he said. “It was an amazing meeting — and I think this deal will go on for a long time.”

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Lee Harding

Ottawa is targeting the charitable tax status of faith-based groups. The fallout could hit every Canadian community

The possibility that Canadian religious organizations will lose their charitable status has never been more real.

On Jan. 6, Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance recommended numerous changes, including Recommendation 430: “Amend the Income Tax Act to define a charity, which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a
charitable purpose, meaning faith-based organizations could lose access to tax benefits.”

The B.C. Humanist Association, a secular advocacy group, has long advocated for removing religion as a stand-alone charitable purpose. That idea is reflected in Recommendation 430. Before adopting such a proposal, the finance committee should have reviewed a study published last November by Cardus, a Canadian think tank focused on faith, civil society and public policy.

The Cardus study examined 64 Christian congregations in various provinces to assess the socio-economic value of their impact. It suggested that congregations make an $18.2-billion socioeconomic contribution to Canadian society, well in excess of tax exemptions and rebates equal to $1.7 billion. The net positive result of $16.5 billion—a “halo effect”—is more than 10
times the value of the tax exemptions.

The implications are clear: society will be worse off if the loss of religious charitable status leads to a drop of more than 10 per cent in donations to affected charities. Why risk it?

When congregations unravel, society follows in ways that go beyond mere economics. As Cardus explains, churches often provide space, often at no cost or below-market rates, for cultural and artistic events, recreation and sports, education, social services and other community activities. They also deliver addiction recovery, counselling and mental-health support, child care, refugee sponsorship and settlement services for newcomers, education and food banks.

Whether institutionally or personally, helping people is often an integral extension of religious belief. A 2012 Statistics Canada study found that the 14 per cent of Canadians who attend church weekly offer 29 per cent of the nation’s volunteer hours and provide 45 per cent of all charitable donations.

No party has explicitly endorsed removing charitable status for religion. But the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Liberals dominated the committee recommendation to remove religion as a charitable purpose. The Conservative Party, which held a minority on the committee, was alone in opposing it outright.

Randy Crosson, executive director of Freedoms Advocate, is organizing a national pushback. In a speech given Oct. 1 to the Regina Civic Awareness and Action Network, he said the recommendation was a “shot across the bow” to gauge public reaction.

“This isn’t just about donors losing tax receipts. It’s about churches losing buildings, staff losing jobs, and ministries being forced to shut down due to reduced donations. This is a direct threat to the future of faith in Canada, and it’s happening fast,” Crosson explained in an online video.

Crosson said religion enjoys less participation and more opposition than in previous decades. Church attendance has slumped since the pandemic, and some Canadians continue to criticize churches for their historical involvement in residential schools.

The Quebec government has also pursued a strongly secular approach to public policy. In 2019, Quebec’s Bill 21 used the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to ban public servants from wearing religious symbols, such as hijabs, turbans or crucifixes. In August, Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean François Roberge, said that the “proliferation of street prayer is a serious and sensitive issue” and promised to bring legislation to ban it.

That’s why Crosson is urging religious leaders to launch a three-part campaign.

“First, an open letter drafted with legal and faith leaders to show government and the media the real value of the church in Canadian society. Second, mass signatures. We need churches, leaders and individuals to sign the letter,” Crosson says in a video appeal. “And third, a national documentary based on the open letter. This will be released publicly and spread through churches, media and social platforms.”

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has also come out publicly against the proposed change. A report by Senior Fellow Pierre Gilbert entitled Revoking the Charitable Status for the Advancement of Religion: A Critical Assessment makes a case for the status quo, pointing to benefits such as those mentioned above.

For now, at least, the idea is on hold. A published email response by Liberal MP Karina Gould, the chair of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Finance, said the charitable status of faith-driven non-profits will not be revoked in the Nov. 4 budget.

That’s good news. Faith is a big motivator of charity, and it’s hard to see how a less charitable society is a better one. If governments want to balance the books, they should rein in spending, not put faith-based charities at risk.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that  strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Trending

X