Opinion
UCP Tax Cut Hits the Target but Misses the Mark
Opinion by Cory G. Litzenberger
Well for fear of being lynched, let me talk about how I think the UCP’s Job Creation Tax Cut may be (partially) incorrect.
While I applaud politicians for laying out their plans in advance of an election, my fear is that the plan is too slow in implementation and cuts too far.
I think a tax cut needs to be moderate and quick – not slow and deep.
Here are my thoughts for various tax changes we need to do in Alberta:
General Corporate Income Tax Rate:
Instead of cutting by 1% per year over 4 years, bring it back by 2% to 10% from 12% in the first year and keep it there.
By delaying the cut as the UCP currently proposes, it could reduce the impact it will have on the economy as the change to the bottom line will not be impacted enough for a corporation to make larger investment until year two or three of the plan.
Quicker action by government will result in quicker action by business, resulting in quicker action in the economy and job creation.
10% also still makes us the lowest jurisdiction in Canada.
Personal Income Tax change to 3 brackets:
– 8% for first $50k
– 10% for the next $100k
– 12% for over $150k
This reduction from 10% on the first $50,000 saves roughly $600 in personal income tax (after factoring in the basic personal tax credit) for every individual making more than $50,000 a year.
It also saves 2% for those making under $50,000 currently.
This is an important cut in order to reward people that call Alberta home, as you will see below.
A rich person paying 12% in Alberta on their personal income is better than them paying 0% because they live somewhere else.
Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) 5%
Yes, I think we need to remove the inflationary and regressive carbon tax as it is way too high of a burden and causes a ripple effect in inflationary pricing how it was implemented.
However, I suggest we implement a 5% HST (which is a flow-through for businesses and does not have the same impact on pricing).
Now, hear me out before you break out the yellow vest!
Currently, anyone visiting our province as either a tourist or a temporary worker from another province are using our infrastructure like roads, water, and yes, even hospital emergency rooms.
When these non-Alberta residents file their personal tax returns, they file it based on their home province of residence as of December 31. Since most of them don’t have a permanent residence in Alberta, this results is them paying income taxes to other provinces, while using our infrastructure for free.
Other provincial residents not paying any taxes in Alberta while here unfairly puts the cost on all of us that live here.
If we implemented an HST similar to the GST program, low income households would still receive credit back (just like GST credit) to offset most (if not all) of any HST they pay.
The $600 in income tax savings we mentioned above for everyone else, is equivalent to $12,000 of taxable supplies consumed ($24,000 in a double income household where they each make over $50,000 of income).
Don’t forget that basic grocery and shelter do not have sales taxes, and if Andrew Scheer gets elected, neither will basic home heating.(https://twitter.com/andrewscheer/status/854364648388182016)
This income tax reduction of $600 to $1,200 would offset much of the sales tax you would pay, but would now start to charge non-Alberta resident visitors and workers.
The reason for an HST instead of a PST is that currently, an HST is required to be charged by all GST registrants across Canada. If you are a GST registrant, you are automatically an HST registrant.
For example, in my office in Red Deer, I have to charge my Ontario customers HST and send it in to the government even though my business is in Alberta.
An HST could reduce the potential for tax leakage out of our province by funneling it back to Alberta because of other retailers in other provinces requiring to charge it on things purchased outside of, or shipped to, Alberta.
Results
– a competitive corporate tax rate to attract investment and do it quicker than the original UCP plan;
– low personal income tax to attract wealthy individuals (and their tax residency) back to Alberta to make it their place of residence, again, quickly;
– removal of the inflationary carbon tax;
– insertion of a relatively low cost HST so that we can get back some of that transfer payment money from the residents of other provinces.
In Summary
– Reduce Corporate moderately and quickly.
– Reduce Individual moderately and quickly.
– Remove Carbon tax.
– Implement an HST.
I know that the slight mention of a sales tax in Alberta makes the hair on the back of your neck stand straight up, and for many conservative politicians, they would resign before suggesting it. However, even as a fiscal-conservative tax accountant like myself, I believe that if it is implemented properly with tax reductions elsewhere, it can add to the bottom line for the province.
I also think it can do so without being a burden to those that live here by taxing those that don’t.
———
Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the President & Founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors; you can find out more about Cory’s biography at http://www.CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html
The whistleblower has always been anonymous, and it remains very suspicious that the very organization he created would turn on him after receiving an anonymous letter that they admitted may not have been credible.
World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab stepped down from his chairman position at the organization on April 20, 2025, amid accusations of fraud. Our computer had forecast that the WEF would enter a declining trend with the 2024 ECM turning point. This staged coup happened about 37 years after the first Davos meeting (8.6 x 4.3). From our model’s perspective, this was right on time. Now, Schwab and the WEF are working to repair ties.
An anonymous whistleblower claimed that Klaus Schwab and his wife collaborated with USAID to steal tens of millions in funding. The whistleblower has always been anonymous, and it remains very suspicious that the very organization he created would turn on him after receiving an anonymous letter that they admitted may not have been credible. Something like this would never be acceptable in any court of law, especially if it’s anonymous. It would be the worst or the worst hearsay, where you cannot even point to who made the allegation.
Back in April, the WEF said its board unanimously supported the decision to initiate an independent investigation “following a whistleblower letter containing allegations against former Chairman Klaus Schwab. This decision was made after consultation with external legal counsel.”
Now, the WEF is attempting to repair its relationship with its founder ahead of the next Davos meeting. Bloomberg reported that the WEF would like to “normalize their relationship [with Klaus Schwab] in order to safeguard the forum and the legacy of the founder.”
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe has replaced Schwab for the time being, but is less of a commanding force. Schwab’s sudden departure has caused instability in the organization and its ongoing mission. Board members are concerned that support for the organization will begin to decline as this situation remains unresolved.
The World Economic Forum’s annual revenue in 2024 was 440 million francs ($543 million), with the majority of proceeds coming from member companies and fees. Yet, the number of people registered to attend the 2025 Davos event is on par if not slightly exceeding the number of participants from the year prior.
Schwab’s departure has damaged the Davos brand. There is a possibility that the organization is attempted to rebrand after Agenda 2030 failed. The WEF attempted to move away from its zero tolerance stance on ESG initiatives after they became widely unpopular among the big industry players and shifting governments. The brand has attempted to integrate the importance of digital transformation and AI to remain relevant as the tech gurus grow in power and popularity. Those who are familiar with Klaus Schwab know the phrase, “You will own nothing and be happy.” These words have been widely unpopular and caused a type of sinister chaos to surround the brand that was once respected as the high-brow institution of globalist elites.
European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde was slated to replace Schwab in 2027 when her term ends, and all reports claimed that he was prepared to remain in the chairman role for an additional two years to ensure Lagarde could take his place. What changed seemingly overnight that would cause the organization to discard Schwab before he was due to retire?
Schwab denies any misconduct and filed lawsuits against the whistleblowers, calling the accusations “calumnious” and “unfounded.” He believes “character assassination” was the premise of the claims.
I am no fan of Klaus Schwab, as everyone knows. I disagree with his theories from start to finish. Nevertheless, something doesn’t smell right here. This appears to be an internal coup, perhaps to distract attention from the question of alleged funds for the WEF from USAID, or to try to salvage the failed Agenda 2030. Perhaps they will claim that no misconduct had occurred since DOGE did not raise concerns or there is a possibility that those behind the internal coup are concerned that Schwab’s counter lawsuit could uncover new corruption. The investigation into Schwab has not concluded, but after only three months, the WEF would like to wrap it up. It appears that the WEF does not want to welcome Schwab back; rather, they would like to ensure an amicable resolution to maintain both the brand’s reputation as well as the founder’s.
Governments are not real estate developers, and Canada should take note of the failure of New Zealand’s cancelled program, highlights a new MEI publication.
“The prospect of new homes is great, but execution is what matters,” says Renaud Brossard, vice president of Communications at the MEI and contributor to the report. “New Zealand’s government also thought more government intervention was the solution, but after seven years, its project had little to show for it.”
During the federal election, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised to establish a new Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes, to act as a developer of affordable housing. His plan includes $25 billion to finance prefabricated homes and an additional $10 billion in low-cost financing for developers building affordable homes.
This idea is not novel. In 2018, the New Zealand government launched the KiwiBuild program to address a lack of affordable housing. Starting with a budget of $1.7 billion, the project aimed to build 100,000 affordable homes by 2028.
In its first year, KiwiBuild successfully completed 49 units, a far cry from the 1,000-home target for that year. Experts estimated that at its initial rate, it would take the government 436 years to reach the 100,000-home target.
By the end of 2024, just 2,389 homes had been built. The program, which was abandoned in October 2024, has achieved barely 3 per cent of its goal, when including units still under construction.
One obstacle for KiwiBuild was how its target was set. The 100,000-home objective was developed with no rigorous process and no consideration for the availability of construction labour, leading to an overestimation of the program’s capabilities.
“What New Zealand’s government-backed home-building program shows is that building homes simply isn’t the government’s expertise,” said Mr. Brossard. “Once again, the source of the problem isn’t too little government intervention; it’s too much.”
According to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canada needs an additional 4.8 million homes to restore affordability levels. This would entail building between 430,000 to 480,000 new units annually. Figures on Canada’s housing starts show that we are currently not on track to meet this goal.
The MEI points to high development charges and long permitting delays as key impediments to accelerating the pace of construction.
Between 2020 and 2022 alone, development charges rose by 33 per cent across Canada. In Toronto, these charges now account for more than 25 per cent of the total cost of a home.
Canada also ranks well behind most OECD countries on the time it takes to obtain a construction permit.
“KiwiBuild shows us the limitations of a government-led approach,” said Mr. Brossard. “Instead of creating a whole new bureaucracy, the government should focus on creating a regulatory environment that allows developers to build the housing Canadians need.”
The MEI viewpoint is available here.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
What Connor Should Say To Oilers: It’s Not You. It’s Me.
Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards
Federal fiscal anchor gives appearance of prudence, fails to back it up
The Passage of Bill C-5 Leaves the Conventional Energy Sector With as Many Questions as Answers
-
COVID-192 days ago
Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards
-
Energy2 days agoThis Canada Day, Celebrate Energy Renewal
-
COVID-1915 hours agoNew Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility
-
Business11 hours agoOttawa Funded the China Ferry Deal—Then Pretended to Oppose It
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta Next Takes A Look At Alberta Provincial Police Force
-
MAiD13 hours agoCanada’s euthanasia regime is not health care, but a death machine for the unwanted
-
Alberta2 days agoCanadian Oil Sands Production Expected to Reach All-time Highs this Year Despite Lower Oil Prices
-
International2 days agoPresident Xi Skips Key Summit, Adding Fuel to Ebbing Power Theories