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

As war looms in Lebanon, will Canada be forced once again to evacuate “citizens of convenience?”: J.L. Granatstein for Inside Policy

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

Global Affairs Canada Foreign Aid: An Update

espionage / 2 hours ago

Chinese spies arrested in California

Alberta / 3 hours ago

Alberta’s Massive Carbon Capture and Storage Network clearing hurdles: Pathways Alliance

Business

Canadian health care continues to perform poorly compared to other countries

Published on December 26, 2024

Todayville Content Team

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua

At 30 weeks, this year marked the longest total wait for non-emergency surgery in more than 30 years of measurement.

Our system isn’t just worsening over time, it’s also performing badly compared to our universal health-care peers.

Earlier this year, the U.S.-based Commonwealth Fund (in conjunction with the Canadian Institute for Health Information) released the results of their international health policy survey, which includes nine high-income universal health-care countries—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, Canada continued to come in near or dead last on key measures of timely access. Most notably, Canada ranked worst for wait times for specialists and non-emergency surgery.

For example, whereas almost half (46 per cent) of Canadians surveyed indicated they waited two months or more for a specialist appointment, that number was just 15.1 per cent in the Netherlands and 13.2 per cent in Switzerland. And while one in five (19.9 per cent) Canadians reported waiting more than one year for non-emergency surgery, just half a per cent (0.6) of Swiss respondents indicated a similar wait. And no one in the Netherlands reported waiting as long.

What explains the superior performance of these two countries compared to Canada?

Simply put, they do universal health care very differently.

For example, the Netherlands, which ranked first on both indicators, mandates that residents purchase private insurance in a regulated but competitive marketplace. This system allows for private insurance firms to negotiate with health-care providers on prices, but these insurance firms must also accept all applicants and charge their policy holders the same monthly fee for coverage (i.e. they cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions).

In Switzerland, which ranked among the top three on both measures, patients must also purchase coverage in a regulated private insurance marketplace and share (10-20 per cent) of the cost of their care (with an annual maximum and protections for the most vulnerable).

Both countries also finance their hospitals based on their activity, which means hospitals are paid for the services they actually provide for each patient, and are incentivized to provide higher volumes of care. Empirical evidence also suggests this approach improves hospital efficiency and potentially lowers wait times. In contrast, governments in Canada provide hospitals with fixed annual budgets (known as “global budgets”) so hospitals treat patients like costs to be minimized and are disincentivized from treating complex cases.

It’s no surprise that in 2022, the latest year of available data, a lot more Swiss (94 per cent) and Dutch (83 per cent) reported satisfaction with their health-care system compared to Canadians (56 per cent).

No matter where you look, evidence on the shortcomings of Canada’s health-care system is clear. Fundamental reform is required for Canadians to have timelier care that matches what’s available in universal health-care countries abroad.

Business

Comparing four federal finance ministers in moments of crisis

Published on December 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Grady Munro, Milagros Palacios and Jason Clemens

The sudden resignation of federal finance minister (and deputy prime minister) Chrystia Freeland, hours before the government was scheduled to release its fall economic update has thrown an already badly underperforming government into crisis. In her letter of resignation, Freeland criticized the government, and indirectly the prime minister, for “costly political gimmicks” and irresponsible handling of the country’s finances and economy during a period of great uncertainty.

But while Freeland’s criticism of recent poorly-designed federal policies is valid, her resignation, in some ways, tries to reshape her history into that of a more responsible finance minister. That is, however, ultimately an empirical question. If we contrast the performance of the last four long-serving (more than three years) federal finance ministers—Paul Martin (Liberal), Jim Flaherty (Conservative), Bill Morneau (Liberal) and Freeland (Liberal)—it’s clear that neither Freeland nor her predecessor (Morneau) were successful finance ministers in terms of imposing fiscal discipline or overseeing a strong Canadian economy.

Let’s first consider the most basic measure of economic performance, growth in per-person gross domestic product (GDP), adjusted for inflation. This is a broad measure of living standards that gauges the value of all goods and services produced in the economy adjusted for the population and inflation. The chart below shows the average annual growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP over the course of each finance minister’s term. (Adjustments are made to reflect the effects of temporary recessions or unique aspects of each minister’s tenure to make it easier to compare the performances of each finance minister.)

Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0222-01; 2024 Fall Economic Statement

By far Paul Martin oversaw the strongest growth in per-person GDP, with an average annual increase of 2.4 per cent. Over his entire tenure spanning a decade, living standards rose more than 25 per cent.

The average annual increase in per-person GDP under Flaherty was 0.6 per cent, although that includes the financial recession of 2008-09. If we adjust the data for the recession, average annual growth in per-person GDP was 1.4 per cent, still below Martin but more than double the rate if the effects of the recession are included.

During Bill Morneau’s term, average annual growth in per-person GDP was -0.5 per cent, although this includes the effects of the COVID recession. If we adjust to exclude 2020, Morneau averaged a 0.7 per cent annual increase—half the adjusted average annual growth rate under Flaherty.

Finally, Chrystia Freeland averaged annual growth in per-person GDP of -0.3 per cent during her tenure. And while the first 18 or so months of her time as finance minister, from the summer of 2020 through 2021, were affected by the COVID recession and the subsequent rebound, the average annual rate of per-person GDP growth was -0.2 per cent during her final three years. Consequently, at the time of her resignation from cabinet in 2024, Canadian living standards are projected to be 1.8 per cent lower than they were in 2019.

Let’s now consider some basic fiscal measures.

Martin is by far the strongest performing finance minister across almost every metric. Faced with a looming fiscal crisis brought about by decades of deficits and debt accumulation, he reduced spending both in nominal terms and as a share of the economy. For example, after adjusting for inflation, per-person spending on federal programs dropped by 5.9 per cent during his tenure as finance minister (see chart below). As a result, the federal government balanced the budget and lowered the national debt, ultimately freeing up resources via lower interest costs for personal and business tax relief that made the country more competitive and improved incentives for entrepreneurs, businessowners, investors and workers.

*Note: Freeland’s term began in 2020, but given the influence of COVID, 2019 is utilized as the baseline for the overall change in spending. Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0130-01; Fiscal Reference Tables 2024; 2024 Fall Economic Statement

Flaherty’s record as finance minister is mixed, in part due to the recession of 2008-09. Per-person program spending (inflation adjusted) increased by 11.6 per cent, and there was a slight (0.6 percentage point) increase in spending as a share of the economy. Debt also increased as a share of the economy, although again, much of the borrowing during Flaherty’s tenure was linked with the 2008-09 recession. Flaherty did implement tax relief, including extending the business income tax cuts started under Martin, which made Canada more competitive in attracting investment and fostering entrepreneurship.

Both Morneau and Freeland recorded much worse financial performances than Flaherty and Martin. Morneau increased per-person spending on programs (inflation adjusted) by 37.1 per cent after removing 2020 COVID-related expenditures. Even if a more generous assessment is used, specifically comparing spending in 2019 (prior to the effects of the pandemic and recession) per-person spending still increased by 18.1 per cent compared to the beginning of his tenure.

In his five years, Morneau oversaw an increase in total federal debt of more than $575 billion, some of which was linked with COVID spending in 2020. However, as multiple analyses have concluded, the Trudeau government spent more and accumulated more debt during COVID than most comparable industrialized countries, with little or nothing to show for it in terms of economic growth or better health performance. Simply put, had Morneau exercised more restraint, Canada would have accumulated less debt and likely performed better economically.

Freeland’s tenure as finance minister is the shortest of the four ministers examined. It’s nonetheless equally as unimpressive as that of her Trudeau government predecessor (Morneau). If we use baseline spending from 2019 to adjust for the spike in spending in 2020 when she was appointed finance minister, per-person spending on programs by the federal government (inflation adjusted) during Freeland’s term increased by 4.1 per cent. Total federal debt is expected to increase from $1.68 trillion when Freeland took over to an estimated $2.2 trillion this year, despite the absence of a recession or any other event that would impair federal finances since the end of COVID in 2021. For some perspective, the $470.8 billion in debt accumulated under Freeland is more than double the $220.3 billion accumulated under Morneau prior to COVID. And there’s an immediate cost to that debt in the form of $53.7 billion in expected federal debt interest costs this year. These are taxpayer resources unavailable for actual services such as health care.

Freeland’s resignation from cabinet sent shock waves throughout the country, perhaps relieving her of responsibility for the Trudeau government’s latest poorly-designed fiscal policies. However, cabinet ministers bear responsibility for the performance of their ministries—meaning Freeland must be held accountable for her previous budgets and the fiscal and economic performance of the government during her tenure. Compared to previous long-serving finances ministers, it’s clear that Chrystia Freeland, and her Trudeau predecessor Bill Morneau, failed to shepherd a strong economy or maintain responsible and prudent finances.