Fraser Institute
Honest discussion about taxes must include bill Canadian families pay
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss
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:
From the Fraser Institute
Based on the recent throne speech (delivered by a King, no less) and subsequent periodic statements from Prime Minister Carney, the new federal government seems stuck in an ambiguous and ill-defined state of energy policy, leaving much open to question.
After meeting with the premiers earlier this month, the prime minister talked about “decarbonized barrels” of oil, which didn’t clarify matters much. We also have a stated goal of making Canada the world’s “leading energy superpower” in both clean and conventional energy. If “conventional energy” includes oil and gas (although we’re not sure), this could represent a reversal of the Trudeau government’s plan to phase-out fossil fuel use in Canada over the next few decades. Of course, if it only refers to hydro and nuclear (also forms of conventional energy) it might not.
According to the throne speech, the Carney government will work “closely with provinces, territories, and Indigenous Peoples to identify and catalyse projects of national significance. Projects that will connect Canada, that will deepen Canada’s ties with the world, and that will create high-paying jobs for generations.” That could mean more oil and gas pipelines, but then again, it might not—it might only refer to power transmission infrastructure for wind and solar power. Again, the government hasn’t been specific.
The throne speech was a bit more specific on the topic of regulatory reform and the federal impact assessment process for energy projects. Per the speech, a new “Major Federal Project Office” will ensure the time needed to approve projects will be reduced from the currently statutory limit of five years to two. Also, the government will strike cooperation agreements with interested provinces and territories within six months to establish a review standard of “one project, one review.” All of this, of course, is to take place while “upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards and its constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples.” However, what types of projects are likely to be approved is not discussed. Could be oil and gas, could be only wind and solar.
Potentially good stuff, but ill-defined, and without reference to the hard roadblocks the Trudeau government erected over the last decade that might thwart this vision.
For example, in 2019 the Trudeau government enacted Bill C-48 (a.k.a. the “Tanker Ban Bill”), which changed regulations for large oil transports coming and going from ports on British Columbia’s northern coast, effectively banning such shipments and limiting the ability of Canadian firms to export to non-U.S. markets. Scrapping C-48 would remove one obstacle from the government’s agenda.
In 2023, the Trudeau government introduced a cap on Canadian oil and gas-related greenhouse gas emissions, and in 2024, adopted major new regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production. Removing these regulatory burdens from Canada’s energy sector would also help Canada achieve energy superpower status.
Finally, in 2024, the Trudeau government instituted new electricity regulations that will likely drive electricity rates through the roof, while ushering in an age of less-reliable electricity supply: a two-handed slap to Canadian energy consumers. Remember, the throne speech also called for building a more “affordable” Canada—eliminating these onerous regulations would help.
In summation, while the waters remain somewhat muddy, the Carney government appears to have some good ideas for Canadian energy policy. But it must act and enact some hard legislative and regulatory reforms to realize the positive promises of good policy.
From the Fraser Institute
Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.
The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:
• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.
• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.
• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.
“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.
“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
EU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
Letter Shows Biden Administration Privately Warned B.C. on Fentanyl Threat Years Before Patel’s Public Bombshells
-
Business2 days agoThe CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches
-
conflict2 days agoMiddle East clash sends oil prices soaring
-
Business1 day agoTrump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta is investing up to $50 million into new technologies to help reduce oil sands mine water
-
Also Interesting2 days agoHow to Use Bonuses at Magius Casino and Similar Websites
-
conflict2 days agoTrump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command
-
conflict2 days agoTrump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding
-
Alberta1 day agoCentral Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament