Business
Taxpocalypse 2025: Trudeau Rings in the New Year with Higher Taxes and Empty Wallets
Taxpayer Federation’s report reveals how Trudeau’s government is using new taxes to crush the middle class, fund wasteful projects, and expand a bloated bureaucracy while Canadians struggle
When the clock strikes midnight, it won’t just be the start of 2025—it’ll mark the beginning of Taxpocalypse 2025, a year where Justin Trudeau’s government will hit the middle class harder than ever before.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has released a report that lays bare the financial storm Canadians are about to endure. It’s not just inflation draining your wallet; it’s an avalanche of new taxes designed to fund Trudeau’s bloated government and its endless corruption. Let’s go through the numbers, because you deserve to know what’s really happening.
First, payroll taxes are going up. If you earn $81,200 or more, you’ll be paying $403 more in Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance contributions this year. Your employer will also fork out nearly $6,000 per employee. Small businesses—already struggling with inflation and high costs—are being crushed under this weight. This isn’t job creation; it’s job destruction.
Then there’s the carbon tax. Starting tomorrow, it jumps from $80 per tonne to $95, adding 20.9¢ per litre to the cost of gasoline. Filling up a 70-litre tank will now cost you almost $15 in carbon taxes alone. If you heat your home with natural gas, get ready to pay an additional $415 this year. Trudeau claims this is about fighting climate change, but in reality, it’s just another excuse to fill government coffers.
And if you thought inflation was bad, bracket creep makes it worse. As your income grows slightly due to inflation, you’re pushed into higher tax brackets without actually having more buying power. So, you’ll pay more in income tax on money that doesn’t go as far as it did last year. Meanwhile, the wealthy use loopholes to avoid taxes, and the poor get targeted rebates. Once again, it’s the middle class holding the bag.
Don’t believe me about how bad things have gotten under Trudeau? Let’s talk inflation—specifically food inflation. Here are the year-over-year increases:
- 2021: 4.0% (September)
- 2022: 11.0% (October)
- 2023: 8.3% (June)
- 2024: 2.7% (October)
Now, let’s compound that year over year. Since 2021, food prices have soared 28.37%. Think about that—almost a third of your grocery budget wiped out. A dollar that used to buy a loaf of bread now barely buys three-quarters of one. And this year, Trudeau’s new taxes will take even more out of your wallet.
But while you’re paying more for less, Trudeau has been busy inflating something else: the federal public service. Since he took office in 2015, he has added 108,793 new public servants to the federal payroll—a 42% increase in the size of the federal public service. And for what? Are hospitals better staffed? Are services more efficient? Absolutely not. Wait times for healthcare are worse than ever. Infrastructure projects are endlessly delayed.
I’m an independent Canadian journalist exposing corruption, delivering unfiltered truths and untold stories. Join me on Substack for fearless reporting that goes beyond headlines
If you ask me, Trudeau bloated the public sector to artificially keep unemployment numbers down. Let’s be clear: it’s the private sector that provides for the public sector, not the other way around. Every new bureaucrat added to the payroll is funded by taxes from hardworking Canadians—people like you—who are already struggling to make ends meet.
So, under Trudeau, you’re paying more for groceries, more in taxes, and getting less in return. This isn’t governance; it’s theft. But here’s the real insult: all of this money is going to fund Trudeau’s swamp of waste and corruption. Take the ArriveCAN app, a disaster that cost $54 million—for what? A glorified QR code. Contracts were handed out to insiders, many of whom didn’t even do any work.
Then there’s the Green Slush Fund, which has wasted nearly $400 million on pet projects rife with conflicts of interest. Liberal insiders funneled taxpayer money into their own businesses, and Trudeau’s government just shrugged.
The alcohol escalator tax is going up too, adding 2% more to the already sky-high taxes on beer, wine, and spirits. And don’t forget the digital services tax, a 3% levy on platforms like Amazon and Netflix. Experts say most of this cost will be passed directly to consumers.
Final Thoughts
This is Justin Trudeau’s Canada: a nation where the poor are shielded, the rich find their loopholes, and the middle class—the backbone of this country—is bled dry. Payroll taxes, carbon taxes, alcohol taxes, income taxes—it’s all part of an elaborate scheme to fund the bloated vanity projects and corruption of a government that no longer even pretends to care about the people footing the bill.
And while Canadians are working longer hours to afford less, struggling to put food on their tables, start families, or even dream of owning a home, Trudeau jet-sets around the world like royalty. Whether it’s sipping top-shelf wine at a global summit or skiing the pristine slopes of Red Mountain, this guy lives like a king while the rest of you pick up the tab.
It’s no wonder Canadians are booing him in public—it’s not only justified, it’s well deserved. He’s earned every jeer, every shout of frustration, because his leadership has failed this country at every turn. Under Trudeau, affordability has become a joke, and hard work no longer guarantees success.
But here’s the best part, Justin: there’s an election this year. Canadians finally get the chance to tell you exactly what they think of your disastrous leadership. They’ll send your Liberal ship straight into the iceberg, where it belongs.
So, go ahead, call the election. Take the globalist agenda you’ve been so proud to champion, pack it up with your carbon-tax hypocrisy, and prepare for your next gig as a keynote speaker for the World Economic Forum. You’ve proven you’re great at reading from a script that someone else writes—just not at running a country.
Enjoy your top sirloin tonight, Justin. Canadians? They’ll be eating Kraft Dinner while watching your government fall apart. Happy New Year. And Canada, don’t forget: Taxpocalypse 2025 starts tomorrow. Let’s make it the year we take our country back.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
From the Fraser Institute
By Scott Lincicome
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of the global tariffs President Donald J. Trump has imposed under the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). A court decision invalidating the tariffs is widely expected—hovering around 75 per cent on various betting markets—and would be welcome news for American importers, the United States economy and the rule of law. Even without IEEPA, however, other U.S. laws all but ensure that much higher tariffs will remain the norm. Realizing that protection will just take a little longer and, perhaps, be a little more predictable.
As my Cato Institute colleague Clark Packard and I wrote last year, the Constitution grants Congress the power to impose tariffs, but the legislative branch during the 20th century delegated much of that authority to the president under the assumption that he would be the least likely to abuse it. Thus, U.S. trade law is today littered with provisions granting the president broad powers to impose tariffs for various reasons. No IEEPA needed.
This includes laws that Trump has already invoked. Today, for example, we have “Section 301” tariffs of up to 25 per cent on around half of all Chinese imports, due to alleged “unfair trade” practices by Beijing. We also have global “Section 232” tariffs of up to 50 per cent on imports of steel and aluminum, automotive goods, heavy-duty trucks, copper and wood products—each imposed on the grounds that these goods threaten U.S. national security. The Trump administration also has created a process whereby “derivative” products made from goods subject to Section 232 tariffs will be covered by those same tariffs. Several other Section 232 investigations—on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, commercial aircraft, and more—were also initiated earlier this year, setting the stage for more U.S. tariffs in the weeks ahead.
Trump administration officials admit that they’ve been studying these and other laws as fallback options if the Supreme Court invalidates the IEEPA tariffs. Their toolkit reportedly includes completing the actions above, initiating new investigations under Section 301 (targeting specific countries) and Section 232 (targeting certain products), and imposing tariffs under other laws that have not yet been invoked. Most notably, there’s strong administration interest in Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the president to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits via global tariffs of up to 15 per cent for no more than 150 days (after which Congress must act to continue the tariffs). The administration might also consider Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a short and ambiguous law that authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 per cent on imports from countries that have “discriminated” against U.S. commerce—but this is riskier because the law may have been superseded by Section 301.
We should expect the administration to move quickly to use these measures to reverse engineer Trump’s global tariff regime under IEEPA. The main difference would be in how he does so. IEEPA was essentially a tariff switch in the Oval Office that could be flipped on and off instantly, creating massive uncertainty for businesses, foreign governments and the U.S. economy. The alternative authorities, by contrast, all have substantive and procedural guardrails that limit their size and scope, or, at the very least, give American and foreign companies time to prepare for forthcoming tariffs (or lobby against them).
Section 301, for example, requires an investigation of a foreign country’s trade and economic policies—cases that typically take nine months and involve public hearings and formal findings. Section 232 requires an investigation into and a report on whether imports threaten national security—actions that also typically take months. Section 122 has fewer procedures, but its limited duration and 15 per cent cap make it far less dangerous than IEEPA, under which Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs of 100 per cent or more.
Of course, “procedural guardrails” is a relative term for an administration that has already stretched Section 232’s “national security” rationale to cover bathroom vanities. The courts also have largely rubber-stamped the administration’s previous moves under Section 232 and Section 301—a big reason why we should expect the Trump administration’s tariff “Plan B” to feature them.
Thus, a court ruling against the IEEPA tariffs would be an important victory for constitutional governance and would eliminate the most destabilizing element of Trump’s tariff regime. But until the U.S. Congress reclaims some of its constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy, high and costly tariffs will remain.
It finally happened. Canada received a federal budget earlier this month, after more than a year without one. It’s far from a budget that’s great. It’s far from what many expected and distant from what the country needs. But it still passed.
With the budget vote drama now behind us, there may be space for some general observations beyond the details of the concerning deficits and debt. What kind of budget did Canada get?
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Try it out.
For a government that built its political identity on social-program expansion and moralized spending, Budget 2025 arrives wearing borrowed clothing. It speaks in the language of productivity, infrastructure, and capital formation, the diction of grown-up economics, yet keeps the full spending reflex of the Trudeau era. The result feels like a cabinet trying to change its fiscal costume without changing the character inside it. Time will tell, to be fair, but it feels like more rhetoric, and we have seen this same rhetoric before lead to nothing. So, I remain skeptical of what they say and how they say it.
The government insists it has found a new path, one where public investment leads private growth. That sounds bold. However, it is more a rebranding than a reform. It is a shift in vocabulary, not in discipline.
A comparison with past eras makes this clear.
Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did not flirt with restraint; they executed it. Their budgets were cut deeply, restored credibility, and revived Canada’s fiscal health when it was most needed. The Chrétien years were unsentimental. Political capital was spent so financial capital could return. Ottawa shrank so the country could grow. Budget 2025 tries to invoke their spirit but not their actions. Nothing in this plan resembles the structural surgery of the mid 1990s.
Stephen Harper, by contrast, treated balanced budgets as policy and principle. Even during the global financial crisis, his government used stimulus as a bridge, not a way of life. It cut taxes widely and consistently, limited public service growth, and placed the long-term burden on restraint rather than rhetoric. Budget 2025 nods toward Harper’s focus on productivity and capital assets, yet it rejects the tax relief and spending controls that made his budgets coherent.
Then there is Justin Trudeau, the high tide of redistribution, vacuous identity politics, and deficit-as-virtue posturing. Ottawa expanded into an ideological planner for everything, including housing, climate, childcare, inclusion portfolios, and every new identity category. Much of that ideological scaffolding consisted of mere words, weakening the principle of equality under the law and encouraging the government to referee culture rather than administer policy.
Budget 2025 is the first hint of retreat from that style. The identity program fireworks are dimmer, though they have not disappeared. The social policy boosterism is quieter. Perhaps fiscal gravity has begun to whisper in the prime minister’s ear.
However, one cannot confuse tone for transformation.
Spending is still vast. Deficits grew. The new fiscal anchor, balancing only the operating budget, is weaker than the one it replaced. The budget relies on the hopeful assumption that Ottawa’s capital spending will attract private investment on a scale that economists politely describe as ambitious.
The housing file illustrates the contradiction. The budget announces new funding for the construction of purpose-built rentals and a larger federal role in modular and subsidized housing builds. These are presented as productivity measures, yet they continue the Trudeau-era instinct to centralize housing policy rather than fix the levers that matter. Permitting delays, zoning rigidity, municipal approvals, and labour shortages continue to slow actual construction. Ottawa spends, but the foundations still cure at the same pace.
Defence spending tells the same story. Budget 2025 offers incremental funding and some procurement gestures, but it avoids the core problem: Canada’s procurement system is broken. Delays stretch across decades. Projects become obsolete before contracts are signed. The system cannot buy a ship, an aircraft, or an armoured vehicle without cost overruns and missed timelines. Spending more through this machinery will waste time and money. It adds motion, not capability.
Most importantly, the structural problems remain untouched: no regulatory reform for major projects, no tax competitiveness agenda, no strategy for shrinking a federal bureaucracy that has grown faster than the economy it governs. Ottawa presides over a low-productivity country but insists that a new accounting framework will solve what decades of overregulation and policy clutter have created. More bluster.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From an Alberta vantage, the pivot is welcome but inadequate. The economy that pays for Confederation, energy, mining, agriculture, and transportation receives more rhetorical respect in Budget 2025, yet the same regulatory thicket that blocks pipelines and mines remains intact. The government praises capital formation but still undermines the key sectors that generate it.
Budget 2025 tries to walk like Chrétien and talk like Harper while spending like Trudeau. That is not a transformation; it is a costume change. The country needed a budget that prioritized growth rooted in tangible assets and real productivity. What it got instead is a rhetorical turn without the courage to cut, streamline, or reform.
Canada does not require a new budgeting vocabulary. It requires a government willing to govern in the best interest of the country.
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
Help us bring you more quality research and commentary.
Psyop-Style Campaign That Delivered Mark Carney’s Win May Extend Into Floor-Crossing Gambits and Shape China–Canada–US–Mexico Relations
Expanding Canadian energy production could help lower global emissions
Trump Gives Zelenskyy Until Thanksgiving To Agree On Peace Deal, With U.S. Weapons And Intel On The Line
Premier Smith explains how private clinics will be introduced in Alberta
-
Alberta14 hours ago
Premier Smith explains how private clinics will be introduced in Alberta
-
Health2 days agoTens of thousands are dying on waiting lists following decades of media reluctance to debate healthcare
-
Opinion2 days agoLandmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away
-
Alberta12 hours agoAlberta introducing dual practice health care model to increase options and shorten wait times while promising protection for publicly funded services
-
Aristotle Foundation10 hours agoWe’re all “settlers”
-
Business13 hours ago
US Supreme Court may end ‘emergency’ tariffs, but that won’t stop the President
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Business2 days ago
Budget 2025: Ottawa Fakes a Pivot and Still Spends Like Trudeau