Business
Does Income Inequality Matter?
Super-high income taxes don’t increase government revenues. But can taxes be “smart”?
Reducing poverty and its harms is among the most urgent responsibilities of any modern government. But despite the claims of some activists, this particular problem has no obvious and easy solution. I’m going to suggest that targeting income inequality in particular is a waste of time.
First of all, income in Canada is actually not all that unequal. Income inequality is often measured by the Gini Coefficient. A Gini score of zero would represent total income equality, where everyone earns exactly the same amount. A score of one (or, sometimes, 100) represents perfect inequality, meaning one person has all the income, and everyone else has none.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Statistics Canada data shows changes to the Gini Coefficient in Canada between 1976 and 2022:
Relatively speaking, those numbers are quite low and – when you ignore the weird COVID years – they also haven’t changed much since 1976. For comparison, the U.S. Gini coefficient in 2023 was 0.47, while (Communist!) China’s was 0.465 – both significantly higher than ours. The worst and best scores are, respectively, claimed by South Africa (.63) and Norway (.23).
But the real reason that talking about income inequality is an unnecessary distraction, is because there’s nothing you can do about it.
As I pointed out in a recent article, the 2 percent of Canadians whose assessed taxable incomes are above $250,000 contribute nearly 30 percent of all personal income tax revenue. They’re already clearly – and for the most part willingly – carrying far more than their share.
Ok. But why not slap the super-rich with a 90 percent marginal income tax? Well that’s been tried. The Beatles even recorded an angry song about it. But as far as I can tell, such taxes have always led to decreasing tax revenues. That’s because the people you’re targeting will either decide to earn less or simply move their businesses and assets to more tax-friendly countries – that often come with the added bonus of good weather.
If you’d ask me for my opinion, I’d say that the federal government could easily free up billions of dollars to address poverty by cutting waste. And a good first step in that direction would involve sharply decreasing the size of our bloated civil service.
How those extra funds could be better spent in a way that actually helps the poor isn’t a simple question. And it’s something you’d definitely want to get right on the first shot. Not to mention that some problems just can be solved with more money.
But in the unlikely event that you did find an expensive solution AND money freed up by new government efficiencies wasn’t enough, one might consider an intelligently designed wealth tax. Wealth taxes – which can take the form of property and estate taxes – have been used for centuries. The catch is that, if they’re poorly designed, they can be destructive. Just imagine a tax on real estate worth more than a million dollars that ends up wiping out seniors counting on the value of their homes to fund their retirements.
An OECD report from a few years back identifies a long list of developed countries whose wealth taxes largely failed to deliver significant revenue boosts. Those included Spain, Austria, Denmark, and Germany.
Norway, with a wealth tax worth as much as 1.5 percent of net wealth, was one of the report’s few success stories. But even they now seem to be having serious problems with compliance. Apparently, rich and industrious Norwegians are leaving the country in such high numbers that the government has imposed a punitive exit tax. I’m sure that’ll work out just great. (The Free Press recently published a piece on Norway’s problem.)
Nevertheless, if there is a universe where the words “smart” and “tax” can happily co-exist in a single sentence, then it’s more likely to work when you also find a way to include “wealth”, “balanced”, and “focused”.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
If you enjoy The Audit, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.
Business
Google Rejects Eurocrats’ Push For More Censorship
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Ireland Owens
Google soundly rejected the European Union’s push for the platform to censor content Thursday, declaring that it would not implement so-called “fact-checks.”
The tech giant told the EU that it would not incorporate fact checks into its search results and YouTube videos, Axios first reported. Google’s President of Global Affairs Kent Walker wrote a letter to Renate Nikolay, deputy director-general for Communications Networks, Content and Technology at the European Commission, stating the fact-checking required by the law “simply isn’t appropriate or effective for our services.”
The European Commission’s Code of Practice on Disinformation, which was introduced in 2022, would require Google to incorporate fact-check results alongside its search results and YouTube videos and would also require it to incorporate fact-checking into its ranking systems and algorithms, Axios reported.
Axios’ report comes after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on Jan. 7 that his company was ending its third-party fact-checking program in favor of implementing community notes. Meta’s announcement states that Meta’s platforms are “built to be places where people can express themselves freely.” Zuckerberg said that his company’s approach to content moderation often resulted in “censorship,” NPR reported.
Zuckerberg recently criticized the European Union’s data laws as “censoring” social media. The EU has rejected his claims as “misleading.”
Some people have criticized some major tech companies, claiming that they have censored conservative speech. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced in October the launch of an investigation into Google for allegedly censoring conservatives.
Zuckerberg criticized Biden officials for pushing Meta to remove content that the Biden-Harris administration alleged to be disinformation during a recent appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast.
President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to combat social media censorship.
In December, Trump announced that he was nominating Andrew Ferguson to lead the Federal Trade Commission, stating that Ferguson “has a proven record of standing up to Big Tech censorship, and protecting Freedom of Speech in our Great Country.”
Minnesota Republican Rep. Tom Emmer said in a post on X that Google’s decision was a “step in the right direction,” adding “Kudos to @Google.”
A source with knowledge of the matter confirmed to the Daily Caller News Foundation that the content of Google’s letter as reported by Axios was accurate.
Business
Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation
From Conservative Party Communications
Canadians Deserve to Know How Much Carney is Being Paid
Today, Common Sense Conservative MPs Michelle Rempel Garner and Michael Barrett wrote this letter to Bruce Flatt, the CEO of Brookfield, calling on him to fully disclose Carbon Tax Carney’s compensation for his role as Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. The full text can be found below:
Dear Mr. Flatt,
We are writing with regard to the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, Mark Carney, who has acted in a senior leadership position for your company for some time now.
During the same time period, Mr. Carney has been advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, and advocating for policies that have arguably wreaked havoc on Canada’s economy, like the carbon tax.
After nine years of this NDP-Liberal Government, which by their own very public admissions have relied on Mark Carney for advice, Canadians are witnessing the worst decline in living standards in forty years. The cost of housing has doubled, and record numbers of Canadians are having to depend on food banks to survive.
Since August 2020, Mr. Carney has helped the NDP-Liberal Government hike its carbon tax on the backs of working Canadians, even endorsing it in his book, saying “One of the most important initiatives is carbon pricing…The Canadian federal carbon pricing framework is a model for others.” And since September 2024, when Trudeau appointed Carney as the Liberal Party’s Chair of the Leader’s Taskforce on Economic Growth, he would have had input into the most recent Fall Economic Statement which plunged Canada into a $62 billion deficit, blowing past the NDP-Liberal Government’s own fiscal guardrails.
And all the while Carney was advising the Liberals to continue carrying out their agenda of economic vandalism, he remained the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, posing grave ethical questions that could have real-life consequences for millions of Canadians.
For instance, just a few days after his official appointment as Chair of the Leader’s Taskforce on Economic Growth, The Logic reported that Brookfield Asset Management has been actively lobbying the same federal Liberal government he’s been advising for $10 billion from the Canadian taxpayer. And Mr. Carney has strongly advocated for policies that would destroy Canada’s oil and gas sector, while at the same time your company invested in oil companies in Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.
There are many other instances of questionable policy decisions the NDP-Liberal Government has made while Mark Carney was both advising them and acting as the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management – decisions that potentially could have resulted in Mr. Carney’s personal gain.
While we have written to the Federal Lobbying Commissioner to examine whether this arrangement broke any lobbying rules, that investigation may not shed public light on whether Mr. Carney was personally motivated by the structure of his compensation model with your company to advocate for certain policies in his senior advisory capacity with Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government.
Executive compensation for a Chair at a company the size of Brookfield can include salary, performance bonuses, stock options, lucrative expense accounts and more. Since Mr. Carney has a direct, senior, advisory line into Justin Trudeau’s government, and since your company has many interests which involve the type of policy on which Mr. Carney was advising the government, revealing the full scope of Mr. Carney’s compensation package to the public is essential to understanding what impact his access into the federal Liberal government had on his personal fortunes, if any.
For this reason, you must disclose Carney’s compensation structure with Brookfield Asset Management. This is especially important as Carney is now mounting a leadership campaign – with the help of members of Justin Trudeau’s inner circle – that could see him become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Prime Minister of this country, with even more power and more access.
It is vitally important for Canadians to know whether or not Mr. Carney’s compensation with Brookfield could increase if the Liberals implement his policy ideas. While food banks report over two million visits in a single month, Canadians have a right to know the fine details about the impact of insider access on their lives.
You must be transparent with Canadians on this matter. The stakes could not be higher.
-
National2 days ago
Trudeau Must Resign From Board Overseeing Leadership Race and Call for Investigation Into Foreign Interference
-
Health1 day ago
Cancer drug pioneer praises RFK Jr., suggests link between childhood cancer and COVID shots
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Celebrity Doctor says YouTube removed videos about vaccine discussions, insisted he take reeducation
-
Business2 days ago
You Now Have Permission to Stop Pretending
-
Business1 day ago
FDA bans highly used food dye
-
illegal immigration1 day ago
50,000 Students Missing: Trudeau’s Immigration Circus Hits New Low
-
Alberta1 day ago
Electronic monitoring of repeat offenders begins
-
COVID-191 day ago
Canadian judge rejects complaint against maskless workplaces as frivolous