Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Federal government’s capital gains tax hike is worse than you think

Published

1 year ago

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Following the recent plunge in Canadian and U.S. stock markets, many Canadians likely saw a sharp decline in the value of their investments. Yet as Canadians reckon with this sudden change, other factors help reduce the return on their investments—namely, higher capital gains taxes.

When an investor sells a capital asset (i.e. stocks) for a higher price than they originally bought it, they realize a capital gain. Prior to this year, investors would pay tax on 50 per cent of any gain (based on their highest marginal personal income tax rate), but the Trudeau government recently increased that inclusion rate to 66.7 per cent for capital gains above $250,000.

This increase will cause economic damage and increase taxes for many middle-class Canadians—despite being framed by the government as a tax increase on the wealthy. And the effect is even more harmful than it first appears because capital gains taxes don’t adjust for inflation.

Inflation, the general rise in the prices of goods and services in the economy, erodes the purchasing power of money. For example, if a basket of goods costs $100 in Year 1, and annual inflation is 4 per cent, that exact same basket would cost $104 in Year 2. The Bank of Canada maintains a target inflation rate of 2 per cent per year, but in recent years the rate has well-exceeded that target.

From 2021 to 2023, Canada experienced an average annual inflation rate of 4.7 per cent. And though inflation is easing and fell to 2.5 per cent last month, by the end of this year prices are still expected to be 17.5 per cent higher than they were in 2020. For comparison, prices increased 6.7 per cent from 2016 to 2020.

While inflation erodes the purchasing power of one dollar, it also erodes the returns people receive from their investments. If an asset increases in value by 5 per cent over one year, but inflation is 4 per cent, the asset’s real value has increased by just 1 percentage point. In other words, of the total 5 per cent gain, 4 percentage points are the “inflationary” gain while 1 percentage point is the “real” gain.

Which takes us back to the Trudeau government’s tax hike on capital gains. Unlike income thresholds for federal personal income taxes, which are adjusted to account for inflation, capital gains taxes don’t distinguish between “inflationary” and “real” gains. Therefore, even if a realized capital gain is solely inflationary—meaning there’s no increase in real wealth—the federal government will still levy the same amount of tax as it would if there was no inflation at all.

This is what’s happening right now. After years of high inflation, inflationary gains represent a significant share of the capital gains Canadians are currently realizing. For example, from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2023, the S&P/TSX Composite Index (Canada’s benchmark stock market index) increased 22.6 per cent. However, after adjusting for inflation (a cumulative 14.7 per cent), that 22.6 per cent represents a real gain of less than 8.0 per cent. As such, a large portion of revenue the Trudeau government expects to generate from raising capital gains taxes will originate from inflationary gains rather than actual increases in asset values.

As Canadians struggle with a weak economy, the Trudeau government’s recent capital gains tax hike will only add to the problem. But after years of high inflation, the effect is even worse than you might think.

Authors:

Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Health / 47 mins ago

RFK Jr reversing Biden-era policies on gender transition care for minors

Business / 1 hour ago

State of the Canadian Economy: Number of publicly listed companies in Canada down 32.7% since 2010

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Alberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance

Business

State of the Canadian Economy: Number of publicly listed companies in Canada down 32.7% since 2010

Published on December 19, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Cherniavsky and Jock Finlayson

Initial public offerings down 94% since 2010, reflecting country’s economic stagnation

Canadian equity markets are flashing red lights reflective of the larger stagnation, lack of productivity growth and lacklustre innovation of the
country’s economy, with the number of publicly listed companies down 32.7 per cent and initial public offerings down 92.5 per cent since 2010, finds a new report published Friday by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Even though the value of the companies trading on Canada’s stock exchanges has risen substantially over time, there has been an alarming decrease in the number of companies listed on the exchanges as well as the number of companies choosing to go public,” said Ben Cherniavsky, co-author of Canada’s Shrinking Stock Market: Causes and Implications for Future Economic Growth.

The study finds that over the past 15 years, the number of companies listed on Canada’s two stock markets (the TSX and the TSXV) has fallen from 3,141 in 2010 to 2,114 in 2024—a 32.7 per cent decline.

Similarly, the number of new public stock listings (IPOs) on the two Canadian exchanges has also plummeted from 67 in 2010 to just four in 2024, and only three the year before.

Previous research has shown that well-functioning, diverse public stock markets are significant contributors to economic growth, higher productivity and innovation by supplying financing (i.e. money) to the business sector to enable growth and ongoing investments.

At the same time, the study also finds an explosion of investment in what’s known as private equity in Canada, increasing assets under management from $21.7 billion (US) in 2010 to over $93.1 billion (US) in 2024.

“The shift to private equity has enormous implications for average investors, since it’s difficult if not impossible for average investors to access private equity funds for their savings and investments,” explained Cherniavsky.

Crucially, the study makes several recommendations to revitalize Canada’s stagnant capital markets, including reforming Canada’s complicated regulatory regime for listed companies, scaling back corporate disclosure requirements, and pursuing policy changes geared to improving Canada’s lacklustre performance on business investment, productivity growth, and new business formation.

“Public equity markets play a vital role in raising capital for the business sector to expand, and they also provide an accessible and low-cost way for Canadians to invest in the commercial success of domestic businesses,” said Jock Finlayson, a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute and study co-author.

“Policymakers and all Canadians should be concerned by the alarming decline in the number of publicly traded companies in Canada, which risks economic stagnation and lower living standards ahead.”

Canada’s Shrinking Stock Market: Causes and Implications for Future Economic Growth

  • Public equity markets are an important part of the wider financial system.
  • Since the early 2000s, the number of public companies has fallen in many countries, including Canada. In 2008, for instance, Canada had 3,520 publicly traded companies on its two exchanges, compared to 2,114 in 2024.
  • This trend reflects [1] the impact of mergers and acquisitions, [2] greater access to private capital, [3] increasing regulatory and governance costs facing publicly traded businesses, and [4] the growth of index investing.
  • Canada’s poor business climate, including many years of lacklustre business investment and little or no productivity growth, has also contributed to the decline in stock exchange listings.
  • The number of new public stock listings (IPOs) on Canadian exchanges has plummeted: between 2008 and 2013, the average was 47 per year, but this dropped to 16 between 2014 and 2024, with only 5 new listings recorded in 2024.
  • At the same time, the value of private equity in Canada has skyrocketed from $12.8 billion in 2008 to $93.2 billion in 2024. These trends are concerning, as most Canadians cannot easily access private equity investment vehicles, so their domestic investment options are shrinking.
  • The growth of index investing is contributing to the decline in public listings, particularly among smaller companies. In 2008, there were 1,232 listed companies on the TSX Composite and 84 exchange-traded funds; in 2024, there were only 709 listed companies on the TSX and 1,052 exchange-traded funds.
  • The trends discussed in this study are also important because Canada has relied more heavily than other jurisdictions on public equity markets to finance domestic businesses.
  • Revitalizing Canada’s stagnant stock markets requires policy reforms, particularly regulatory changes to reduce costs to issuers and policies to improve the conditions for private-sector investment and business growth.

 

Ben Cherniavsky

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Trump signs order reclassifying marijuana as Schedule III drug

Published on December 18, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By Thérèse Boudreaux 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order moving marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance, despite many Republican lawmakers urging him not to.

“I want to emphasize that the order I am about to sign is not the legalization [of] marijuana in any way, shape, or form – and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug,” Trump said. “It’s never safe to use powerful controlled substances in recreational manners, especially in this case.”

“Young Americans are especially at risk, so unless a drug is recommended by a doctor for medical reasons, just don’t do it,” he added. “At the same time, the facts compel the federal government to recognize that marijuana can be legitimate in terms of medical applications when carefully administered.”

Under the Controlled Substances Act, Schedule I drugs are defined as having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Schedule III drugs – such as anabolic steroids, ketamine, and testosterone – are defined as having a moderate potential for abuse and accepted medical uses.

Although marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, 24 states and the District of Columbia have fully legalized marijuana within their borders, while 13 other states allow for medical marijuana.

Advocates for easing marijuana restrictions argue it will accelerate scientific research on the drug and allow the commercial marijuana industry to boom. Now that marijuana is no longer a Schedule I drug, businesses will claim an estimated $2.3 billion in tax breaks.

Chair of The Marijuana Policy Project Betty Aldworth said the reclassification “marks a symbolic victory and a recalibration of decades of federal misclassification.”

“Cannabis regulation is not a fringe experiment – it is a $38 billion economic engine operating under state-legal frameworks in nearly half of the country that has delivered overall positive social, educational, medical, and economic benefits, including correlation with reductions in youth use in states where it’s legal,” Aldworth said.

Opponents of the reclassification, including 22 Republican senators who sent Trump a warning letter Wednesday, point out the negative health impact of marijuana use and its effects on occupational and road safety.

“The only winners from rescheduling will be bad actors such as Communist China, while Americans will be left paying the bill. Marijuana continues to fit the definition of a Schedule I drug due to its high potential for abuse and its lack of an FDA-approved use,” the lawmakers wrote. “We cannot reindustrialize America if we encourage marijuana use.”

Marijuana usage is linked to mental disorders like depression, suicidal ideation, and psychotic episodes; impairs driving and athletic performance; and can cause permanent IQ loss when used at a young age, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration.

Additionally, research shows that “people who use marijuana are more likely to have relationship problems, worse educational outcomes, lower career achievement, and reduced life satisfaction,” SAMHA says.

Continue Reading

Trending

X