Connect with us

Business

Trudeau’s new tax package gets almost everything wrong

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Jake Fuss

Recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced several short-term initiatives related to tax policy. Most notably, the package includes a two-month GST holiday on certain items and a one-time $250 cheque that will be sent to all Canadians with incomes under $150,000.

Unfortunately, the Trudeau government’s package is a grab bag of bad ideas that will not do anything to get Canada out of the long-term growth rut in which our economy is mired. There are too many to list all in one place, but here are four of the biggest problems with Prime Minister Trudeau’s tax plan.

  1. It reduces the wrong taxes. When it comes to economic growth, not all taxes are created equal. Some cause far more economic harm per dollar of government revenue raised than others. The government’s package creates a holiday on the GST for some items (only for two months) which is a mistake given that the GST is one of the least economically harmful components of the tax mix. Canada’s recent growth record is abysmal, and boosting growth should be a primary goal of any changes to tax policy. A GST cut of any duration fails this test relative to other tax cuts.
  2. Temporary tax holidays shift consumption in time, they don’t boost growth. The government’s GST reduction is actually a short-term tax holiday on certain items that will last two months. There are decades worth of economic research showing that when governments create short-term tax breaks, they may change the timing of consumption, but they won’t contribute to actual economic growth. Shifting consumption from the future to the present won’t help get Canada out of the economic doldrums. This is particularly true of the Trudeau tax holiday since purchases that Canadians may have made after the two-month holiday period will simply be shifted forward to take advantage of the absence of the GST. As noted above, there are better taxes to cut than the GST, but no matter what taxes we are talking about permanent reductions are vastly superior to temporary tax cuts like short-term holidays.
  3. One-time tax rebates don’t improve economic incentives. Perhaps the worst element of the Trudeau government’s announcement was a plan to send $250 cheques to all Canadians earning under $150,000. One-time tax rebates are a terrible way to provide tax relief. When you cut income tax rates, you improve incentives for people to work and invest because they get to keep a larger share of their earnings. This helps the economy grow. One-time rebates that you get regardless of the economic choices you make has no similar effect. This means that the rebate with its $4.7 billion price tag won’t help Canada’s poor growth performance.
  4. It borrows from the future to give to the present. The federal government is currently running a large deficit. This raises the question of who will have to pay the $4.7 billion bill for the one-time payments announced today. The answer is that the government will have to borrow the money and therefore future taxpayers will have to either pay it off or service the extra debt indefinitely. The money the Trudeau government will send out won’t come out of thin air, it’ll have to be borrowed with the burden falling on future taxpayers.

The Trudeau government got one thing conceptually right, which is that there are advantages to reducing the tax burden on Canadians. Unfortunately, the policy package it has put forward to provide tax relief gets everything wrong. It reduces the wrong taxes, shifts taxes temporally rather than cutting them, does nothing to improve economic incentives, and burdens future taxpayers. With the holiday season around the corner, this attempt at a gift to Canadian taxpayers is the economic equivalent of a lump of coal in the stocking.

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

Automotive

Michigan could be a winner as companies pull back from EVs

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Federal deregulation and tax credit cuts are reshaping the auto industry, as Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. scale back electric vehicle production and redirect billions into hybrids and traditional gas-powered cars.

Yet, the Michigan automotive industry could see increased investments from those same companies as they reallocate that funding.

While both Ford and GM previously announced ambitious targets to expand electric vehicle fleets over the next decade, they are now cutting back on electric vehicle production.

That comes in response to federal deregulation of gas-powered vehicles, tax credit cuts, and the prospect of slowing consumer demand.

In August, Ford stated it was canceling plans to build a new electric three-row SUV. Instead, it is turning its focus to hybrid vehicles, including a massive $5 billon investment into a new “affordable” hybrid truck.

GM announced similar plans earlier this month. It will be cutting back electric vehicle production at Kansas and Tennessee plants, anticipating a decline in demand once federal tax credits end Sept. 30.

This all could have a real impact on the electric vehicle industry across the nation and experts are already anticipating that.

A new forecast by Ernst & Young Global Limited now predicts a five-year delay in electric vehicles making up 50% of the new car marketshare. While previous forecasts predicted America would reach that mark by 2034, the new forecast pushed that back to 2039.

“The U.S. faces policy uncertainty, high costs, and infrastructure gaps,” said Constantin M. Gall, the company’s global aerospace defense and mobility leader.

Clean energy advocacy groups are decrying this move away from electric vehicle initiatives, largely blaming the Trump administration.

“The transition to electric vehicles now faces significant roadblocks,” said Ecology Center in an April report. “The Trump administration has rolled back key policies supporting clean transportation.”

It also pointed to a nationwide deregulation of the gas-powered vehicle industry for allowing those to remain “dominant” over electric vehicles.

“These actions prioritize fossil fuels over clean energy, threatening progress toward a sustainable transportation future,” the report stated.

While bad news for electric vehicle supporters, the Michigan automotive industry could be a winner as companies re-shift focus back to gas-powered and hybrid vehicles.

With billions of dollars previously allocated to federal pollution fines and electric vehicle costs now available for investment, GM now plans to increase production at a Detroit-area plant by 2027.

The Michigan-based company also recently announced plans to invest billions into another Michigan plant in Lake Orion Township.

For similar reasons, Ford’s CEO Jim Farley told analysts that the company anticipates monetary savings “has the potential to unlock a multibillion-dollar opportunity over the next two years.”

While Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has long been a proponent for the electric vehicle industry, she did recently emphasize her support for all Michigan-based manufacturing, no matter the type.

“We don’t care what you drive – gas, diesel, hybrid, or electric – as long as it’s made in Michigan,” she said following the GM Orion announcement. “Together, let’s keep bringing manufacturing home, growing the middle class, and making more stuff in Michigan.”

Elyse Apel is a reporter for The Center Square covering Colorado and Michigan. A graduate of Hillsdale College, Elyse’s writing has been published in a wide variety of national publications from the Washington Examiner to The American Spectator and The Daily Wire.

Continue Reading

Business

Deportations causing delays in US construction industry

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The Trump administration’s immigration policies are leading to worker shortages and delayed projects across the construction industry, according to a new report.

A survey conducted in July and August by the Associated Contractors of America and the National Center for Construction Education and Research found more than one in four respondents said their firms were affected by increased immigration enforcement in the past six months.

Respondents said increased immigration enforcement is making it more difficult for firms to recruit workers. Ten percent of firms reported using the H-2B visa program, which is used for recruiting nonagricultural foreign workers, to recruit salaried and hourly workers.

Congress set the cap for H-2B visa allowances at 66,000 in fiscal year 2026. The program offers temporary work for the first and second halves of the year to foreign employees.

Jordan Fischetti, an immigration policy fellow with Americans for Prosperity, said government allowances for visa programs do not meet the demand of the current workforce.

“Immigration for a long time has been centrally planned, so there’s just not a very strong appetite for letting the market do its work,” Fischetti said.

The report found 83% of firms with craft worker openings reported that positions are hard to fill or harder to fill than one year ago. Eighty-four percent of firms with openings for salaried workers also reported it was hard or harder to fill positions than one year ago.

Five percent of respondents reported their jobsites or work sites were visited by immigration agents and 10% said workers did not report or quit due to rumored immigration enforcement allegations.

Contractors in Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, Nebraska and South Carolina were more likely to be impacted by immigration enforcement, according to the report.

The report found worker shortages were the most commonly listed reason for project delays. Two-thirds of firms reported at least one project in the last six months was postponed, canceled or scaled back. The survey took into account more than 1,300 individuals across various contracting and construction firms.

Michele Waslin, assistant director of the University of Minnesota’s immigration history research center, said the construction and agricultural industries have been deeply affected by the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

“Some businesses really do have a labor shortage, and they’re unable to hire American workers, and they want to hire foreign workers and it’s not that easy to do in many cases,” Waslin said.

A separate poll commissioned by The Center Square found 85% of registered voters think it is either somewhat or very important to create legal pathways for construction workers to live and work in the United States.

The poll, conducted by RMG Research in conjunction with Neapolitan News Service, surveyed 1,000 registered voters in August and found vast agreement across partisan lines, age and race in its support for legal pathways in construction.

Fischetti said both employers and the American public have expressed interest in allowing more flexibility in the immigration system and he wants to see Congress modernize in response.

“We really need to work on providing pathways,” Fischetti said. “I don’t just mean pathways to legalization, pathways to certainty.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X