Estonia’s solution to Canada’s stagnating economic growth

The only taxes corporations face are on profits they distribute to shareholders. This allows the profits of Estonian firms to be reinvested tax-free permitting higher returns for entrepreneurs.

A new study found that the current decline in living standards is one of the worst in Canada’s recent history. While the economy has grown, it hasn’t kept pace with Canada’s surging population, which means gross domestic product (GDP) per person is on a downward trajectory. Carolyn Rogers, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, points to Canada’s productivity crisis as one of the primary reasons for this stagnation.

Productivity is a key economic indicator that measures how much output workers produce per hour of work. Rising productivity is associated with higher wages and greater standards of living, but growth in Canadian productivity has been sluggish: from 2002 to 2022 American productivity grew 160 per cent faster than Canadian productivity.

While Canada’s productivity issues are multifaceted, Rogers pointed to several sources of the problem in a recent speech. Primarily, she highlighted strong business investment as an imperative to productivity growth, and an area in which Canada has continually fallen short. There is no silver bullet to revive faltering investment, but tax reform would be a good start. Taxes can have a significant effect on business incentives and investment, but Canada’s tax system has largely stood in the way of economic progress.

With recent hikes in the capital gains tax rate and sky-high compliance costs, Canada’s taxes continue to hinder its growth. Canada’s primary competitor is the United States, which has considerably lower tax rates. Canada’s rates on personal income and businesses are similarly uncompetitive when compared to other advanced economies around the globe. Uncompetitive taxes in Canada prompt investment, businesses, and workers to relocate to jurisdictions with lower taxes.

The country of Estonia offers one of the best models for tax reform. The small Baltic state has a unique tax system that puts it at the top of the Tax Foundation’s tax competitiveness index. Estonia has lower effective tax rates than Canada—so it doesn’t discourage work the way Canada does—but more interestingly, its business tax model doesn’t punish investment the way Canada’s does.

Their business tax system is a distributed profits tax system, meaning that the only taxes corporations face are on profits they distribute to shareholders. This allows the profits of Estonian firms to be reinvested tax-free permitting higher returns for entrepreneurs.

The demand for investment is especially strong for capital-intensive companies such as information, communications, and technology (ICT) enterprises, which are some of the most productive in today’s economy. A Bank of Canada report highlighted the lack of ICT investment as a major contributor to Canada’s sluggish growth in the 21st century.

While investment is important, another ingredient to economic growth is entrepreneurship. Estonia’s tax system ensures entrepreneurs are rewarded for success and the result is that Estonians start significantly more businesses than Canadians. In 2023, for every 1,000 people, Estonia had 17.8 business startups, while Canada had only 4.9. This trend is even worse for ICT companies, Estonians start 45 times more ICT businesses than Canadians on a per capita basis.

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor’s (GEM) 2023/24 report on entrepreneurship confirms that a large part of this difference comes from government policy and taxation. Canada ranked below Estonia on all 13 metrics of the Entrepreneurial Framework. Notably, Estonia scored above Canada when taxes, bureaucracy, burdens and regulation were measured.

While there’s no easy solution to Canada’s productivity crisis, a better tax regime wouldn’t penalize investment and entrepreneurship as much as our current system does. This would allow Canadians to be more productive, ultimately improving living standards. Estonia’s business tax system is a good example of how to promote economic growth. Examples of successful tax structures, such as Estonia’s, should prompt a conversation about how Canadian governments could improve economic outcomes for citizens.

Authors:

Callum MacLeod and Jake Fuss

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #JakeFuss CallumMacLeod CanadaProductivityCrisis EstonianBusinessTax

Up Next

Kamala Harris’ Energy Policy Catalog Is Full Of Whoppers

Don't Miss

Leaked documents: German gov’t lied about shots preventing COVID, knew lockdowns did more harm than good

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

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Agriculture / 8 hours ago

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Business

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Published on March 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.

In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.

According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.

According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.

The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.

Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.

Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.

And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Business

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Published on March 6, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Stocks sunk Thursday afternoon despite President Donald Trump’s decision to grant major exceptions to the 25% tariffs he put on Mexico and Canada earlier this week.

All three major U.S. market indexes were in the red by the time of Trump’s afternoon bill signing. Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office that steel and aluminum tariffs were on track for next week without modifications.

Trump shrugged off the stock losses, blaming the decline on “globalists.”

“I think it’s globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and don’t like it,” he said.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: They can either absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” And he’s used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Trump granted temporary tariff relief to both Canada and Mexico on Thursday by exempting goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement from tariffs until April 2.

On April 2, Trump plans to announce broader reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods or keep U.S. goods out of their markets through other methods.

Since imposing his latest round of tariffs on top of trading partners this week, Trump has been paring them back. On Wednesday, Trump said the Big Three automakers – Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV – would be exempt from his tariffs for a month.

In February, Trump took a step forward on his plan to put reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trading partners by signing a memo directing staff to come up with solutions in 180 days. Trump previously said he would put those tariffs in place on April 2 to avoid any confusion on April 1.

In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said all countries would have to either make their products in the U.S. or be subject to tariffs.

“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020. Trump signed the deal. That agreement continued to allow for duty-free trading between the three countries for products largely made in North America.

U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.