Business
Reality check—Canadians are not getting an income tax cut
From the Fraser Institute
By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss
On the campaign trail, both the Conservatives and the Liberals promised to cut personal income taxes, and with the Liberal Party winning a minority, one assumes the Carney government will fulfill the promise and reduce the bottom personal income tax rate from 15 to 14 per cent. However, in reality, due to the dismal state of federal finances, neither party actually offered a tax reduction but rather simply a deferral of taxes to the future.
The key variable in any government’s fiscal policy is spending. It represents the amount of resources the government plans to marshal for its various programs and transfers. At any given point in time, a country has only so many resources (i.e. raw materials, workers, equipment, etc.) and a government’s spending plan represents the share of those resources it intends to use for its purposes rather than leaving them in the hands of the people, families and businesses that actually created them.
Taxes are simply the way governments finance that spending. But it’s not the only way. Governments in many western countries, particularly Canada and the United States, have increasingly relied on borrowing to finance current spending. Instead of raising taxes today to pay for increased spending, governments defer those taxes into the future by borrowing and increasing government debt.
According to the Trudeau government’s last economic update, Ottawa expected to collect $516.2 billion this year (2025/26) but planned to spend $558.3 billion on programs and debt interest payments. The difference—$42.2 billion—represents how much the federal government plans to borrow.
According to the Liberal Party’s election platform, the promised tax cut to the lowest personal income tax rate will reduce revenues by a projected $4.2 billion this year. If the Liberal platform also reduced spending by at least the same amount, the tax cut would represent a real reduction in the amount of resources used by government and thus a genuine reduction in the tax bill for Canadians.
But the Liberal platform doesn’t reduce spending. In fact, it proposes marked increases ($29.4 billion this year) on already record levels of spending by the previous government. And the planned deficit this year is expected to increase from a projected $42.2 billion under Trudeau to $62.3 billion under Carney.
Put differently, Prime Minister Carney plans to use more resources in government for his new spending and investments compared to Trudeau. However, Carney plans to collect slightly less taxes now by shifting the burden to more borrowing, which simply means more debt and higher debt interest payments, and ultimately higher taxes in the future.
These decisions are not also without immediate costs. Under Trudeau, total federal debt increased from $1.1 trillion in 2014/15 (the year before he took office) to an expected $2.3 trillion this year. (Again, Carney plans to increase the amount of debt accumulated this year and at least the next three years.) Debt interest payments also increased from $24.2 billion the year before Trudeau took office to a projected $54.2 billion this year.
Carney’s plan, which includes higher debt levels, means those interest costs will increase. Interest payments represent resources extracted from Canadians that are not available for actual programs such as health care or genuine tax relief.
So while the new government may tell Canadians that its delivering tax relief, it’s not. It’s simply kicking the can down the road by financing higher spending through more borrowing. That means higher interest costs, higher debt and ultimately higher taxes in the future.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
You’ve probably heard by now the blockbuster news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, one of the richest people to ever walk the planet, has had a change of heart on climate change.
For several decades Gates poured billions of dollars into the climate industrial complex.
Some conservatives have sniffed that Bill Gates has shifted his position on climate change because he and Microsoft have invested heavily in energy intensive data centers.
AI and robotics will triple our electric power needs over the next 15 years. And you can’t get that from windmills.
What Bill Gates has done is courageous and praiseworthy. It’s not many people of his stature that will admit that they were wrong. Al Gore certainly hasn’t. My wife says I never do.
Although I’ve only once met Bill Gates, I’ve read his latest statements on global warming. He still endorses the need for communal action (which won’t work), but he has sensibly disassociated himself from the increasingly radical and economically destructive dictates from the green movement. For that, the left has tossed him out of their tent as a “traitor.”
I wish to highlight several critical insights that should be the starting point for constructive debate that every clear-minded thinker on either side of the issue should embrace.
(1) It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate policies. This includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries.
(2) Countries should be encouraged to grow their economies even if that means a reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. Economic growth is essential to human progress.
(3) Although climate change will hurt poor people, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease.
I would add to these wise declarations two inconvenient truths: First: the solution to changing temperatures and weather patterns is technological progress. A far fewer percentage of people die of severe weather events today than 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago.
Second, energy is the master resource and to deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable – and this is inhumane.
If Bill Gates were to start directing even a small fraction of his foundation funds to ensuring everyone on the planet has access to electric power and safe drinking water, it would do more for humanity than all of the hundreds of billions that governments and foundations have devoted to climate programs that have failed to change the globe’s temperature.
Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
At Tesla’s Austin headquarters, investors backed Musk’s 12-step plan that ties his potential trillion-dollar payout to a series of aggressive financial and operational milestones, including raising the company’s valuation from roughly $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and selling one million humanoid robots within a decade. Musk hailed the outcome as a turning point for Tesla’s future.
“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said, as The New York Times reported.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The decision cements investor confidence in Musk’s “moonshot” management style and reinforces the belief that Tesla’s success depends heavily on its founder and his leadership.
Tesla Annual meeting starting now
https://t.co/j1KHf3k6ch— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2025
“Those who claim the plan is ‘too large’ ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla’s trajectory,” the Florida State Board of Administration said in a securities filing describing why it voted for Mr. Musk’s pay plan. “A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in E.V.s and clean energy under similar frameworks has earned the right to use incentive models that reward moonshot performance.”
Investors like Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood defended Tesla’s decision, saying the plan aligns shareholder rewards with company performance.
“I do not understand why investors are voting against Elon’s pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals,” Wood wrote on X.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management — one of Tesla’s largest shareholders — broke ranks, however, and voted against the pay plan, saying that the package was excessive.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” the firm said.
The vote comes months after Musk wrapped up his short-lived government role under President Donald Trump. In February, Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sparked a firestorm when they announced plans to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development, drawing backlash from Democrats and prompting protests targeting Musk and his companies, including Tesla.
Back in May, Musk announced that his “scheduled time” leading DOGE had ended.
Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
A Story So Good Not Even The Elbows Up Crew Could Ruin It
U.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
US Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report
-
espionage2 days ago
U.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
-
Business24 hours agoCarney’s Deficit Numbers Deserve Scrutiny After Trudeau’s Forecasting Failures
-
Business2 days agoU.S. Supreme Court frosty on Trump’s tariff power as world watches
-
Business1 day agoHere’s what pundits and analysts get wrong about the Carney government’s first budget
-
International24 hours agoKazakhstan joins Abraham Accords, Trump says more nations lining up for peace
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUN Chief Rages Against Dying Of Climate Alarm Light
-
Business1 day agoCarney budget doubles down on Trudeau-era policies
-
Automotive23 hours ago
Elon Musk Poised To Become World’s First Trillionaire After Shareholder Vote