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.
Quick Hit:
President Trump on Thursday confirmed a sweeping new 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1, citing Canada’s failure to curb fentanyl trafficking and retaliatory trade actions.
Key Details:
- In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said the new 35% levy is in response to Canada’s “financial retaliation” and its inability to stop fentanyl from reaching the U.S.
- Trump emphasized that Canadian businesses that relocate manufacturing to the U.S. will be exempt and promised expedited approvals for such moves.
- The administration has already notified 23 countries of impending tariffs following the expiration of a 90-day negotiation window under Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade policy.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump escalated his tariff strategy on Thursday, formally announcing a 35% duty on all Canadian imports effective August 1. The move follows what Trump described as a breakdown in trade cooperation and a failure by Canada to address its role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.
“It is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship,” Trump wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney. He added that the tariff response comes after Canada “financially retaliated” against the U.S. rather than working to resolve the flow of fentanyl across the northern border.
Trump’s letter made clear the tariff will apply broadly, separate from any existing sector-specific levies, and included a warning that “goods transshipped to evade this higher Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.” The president also hinted that further retaliation from Canada could push rates even higher.
However, Trump left the door open for possible revisions. “If Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,” he said, adding that tariffs “may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship.”
Canadian companies that move operations to the U.S. would be exempt, Trump said, noting his administration “will do everything possible to get approvals quickly, professionally, and routinely — In other words, in a matter of weeks.”
The U.S. traded over $762 billion in goods with Canada in 2024, with a trade deficit of $63.3 billion, a figure Trump called a “major threat” to both the economy and national security.
Speaking with NBC News on Thursday, Trump suggested even broader tariff hikes are coming, floating the idea of a 15% or 20% blanket rate on all imports. “We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay,” he told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, adding that “the tariffs have been very well-received” and noting that the stock market had hit new highs that day.
The Canadian announcement is part of a broader global tariff rollout. In recent days, Trump has notified at least 23 countries of new levies and revealed a separate 50% tariff on copper imports.
“Not everybody has to get a letter,” Trump said when asked if other leaders would be formally notified. “You know that. We’re just setting our tariffs.”
From LifeSiteNews
By Dan Frieth
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce rebuke of Brazil’s moves to silence American-run social media platforms, particularly Rumble and X.
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
He calls attention to “SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms,” pointing out that Brazil’s Supreme Court has been “threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market.”
Trump warns that these actions are “due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,” and states: “starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.” He also adds that “Goods transshipped to evade this 50% Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.”
Brazil’s crackdown has targeted Rumble after it refused to comply with orders to block the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian streamer living in the United States.
On February 21, 2025, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Rumble’s suspension for non‑compliance, saying it failed “to comply with court orders.”
Earlier, from August to October 2024, Moraes had similarly ordered a nationwide block on X.
The court directed ISPs to suspend access and imposed fines after the platform refused to designate a legal representative and remove certain accounts.
Elon Musk responded: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo‑judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
By linking censorship actions, particularly those targeting Rumble and X, to U.S. trade policy, Trump’s letter asserts that Brazil’s judiciary has moved into the arena of foreign policy and economic consequences.
The tariffs, he makes clear, are meant, at least in part, as a response to Brazil’s suppression of American free speech.
Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Brazil for censoring American platforms may also serve as a clear signal to the European Union, which is advancing similar regulatory efforts under the guise of “disinformation” and “online safety.”
With the EU’s Digital Services Act and proposed “hate speech” legislation expanding government authority over content moderation, American companies face mounting pressure to comply with vague and sweeping takedown demands.
By framing censorship as a violation of U.S. free speech rights and linking it to trade consequences, Trump is effectively warning that any foreign attempt to suppress American voices or platforms could trigger similar economic retaliation.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
“This is a total fucking disaster”
News Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list, nor did he kill himself, Trump DOJ, FBI claim
-
Also Interesting2 days ago9 Things You Should Know About PK/PD in Drug Research
-
Business2 days ago‘Experts’ Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina — Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoThe Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Business2 days agoCannabis Legalization Is Starting to Look Like a Really Dumb Idea
-
Media2 days agoCBC journalist quits, accuses outlet of anti-Conservative bias and censorship
-
Business2 days agoCarney government should recognize that private sector drives Canada’s economy
-
Alberta1 day agoFourteen regional advisory councils will shape health care planning and delivery in Alberta
-
Automotive2 days agoAmerica’s EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field