Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Uncategorized

The average Canadian family paid more in 2023 on taxes than it did on housing, food and clothing combined

Published

3 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Callum MacLeod

The average Canadian family spent 43.0 per cent of its income on taxes in 2023—more than housing, food and clothing costs combined, finds a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy
think-tank.

“Taxes remain the largest household expense for families in Canada,” said Jake Fuss, director of Fiscal Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Taxes versus the Necessities of Life: The Canadian Consumer Tax Index 2024 Edition.

In 2023, the average Canadian family earned an income of $109,235 and paid in total taxes equaling $46,988. In other words, the average Canadian family spent 43.0 per cent of its income on taxes compared to 35.6 per cent on basic necessities.

This is a dramatic shift since 1961 when the average Canadian family spent much less of its income on taxes (33.5 per cent) than the basic necessities (56.5 per cent). Taxes have grown much more rapidly than any other single expenditure for the average Canadian family.

The total tax bill for Canadians includes visible and hidden taxes (paid to the federal, provincial and local governments) including income, payroll, sales, property, carbon, health, fuel and alcohol taxes. Moreover, since 1961, the average Canadian family’s total tax bill has increased nominally by 2,705 per cent, dwarfing increases in annual housing costs (2,006 per cent), clothing (478 per cent) and food (901 per cent).

“Considering the sheer amount of income that goes towards taxes in this country, Canadians may question whether or not we’re getting good value for our money,” Fuss said.

  • The Canadian Consumer Tax Index tracks the total tax bill of the average Canadian family from 1961 to 2023. Including all types of taxes, that bill has increased by 2,705% since 1961.
  • Taxes have grown much more rapidly than any other single expenditure for the average Canadian family: expenditures on shelter increased by 2,006%, food by 901%, and clothing by 478% from 1961 to 2023.
  • The 2,705% increase in the tax bill has also greatly outpaced the increase in the Consumer Price Index (901%), which measures the average price that consumers pay for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, health and personal care, education, and other items.
  • The average Canadian family now spends more of its income on taxes (43.0%) than it does on basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing combined (35.6%). By comparison, 33.5% of the average family’s income went to pay taxes in 1961 while 56.5% went to basic necessities.
  • In 2023, the average Canadian family earned an income of $109,235 and paid total taxes equaling $46,988 (43.0%). In 1961, the average family had an income of $5,000 and paid a total tax bill of $1,675 (33.5%).

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

Uncategorized

New report warns WHO health rules erode Canada’s democracy and Charter rights

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Canada’s Surrender of Sovereignty: New WHO health regulations undermine Canadian democracy and Charter freedoms. Authored by Nigel Hannaford, a veteran journalist and researcher, the report warns that Canada’s acceptance of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) revised International Health Regulations (IHR) represents a serious erosion of national independence and democratic accountability.

The IHR amendments, which took effect on September 19, 2025, authorize the WHO Director-General to declare global “health emergencies” that could require Canada to follow directives from bureaucrats in Geneva, bypassing the House of Commons and the will of Canadian voters.

The WHO regards these regulations as “binding,” despite having no ability or legal authority to impose such regulations. Even so, Canada is opting to accept the regulations as binding.

By accepting the WHO’s revised IHR, the report explains, Canada has relinquished its own control over future health crises and instead has agreed to let the WHO determine when a “pandemic emergency” exists and what Canada must do to respond to it, after which Canada must report back to the WHO.

In fact, under these International Health Regulations, the WHO could demand countries like Canada impose stringent freedom-violating health policies, such as lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or travel restrictions without debate, evidence review, or public accountability, the report explains.

Once the WHO declares a “Pandemic Emergency,” member states are obligated to implement such emergency measures “without delay” for a minimum of three months.

Importantly, following these WHO directives would undermine government accountability as politicians may hide behind international “commitments” to justify their actions as “simply following international rules,” the report warns.

Canada should instead withdraw from the revised IHR, following the example of countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, Czech Republic, and the United States. The report recommends continued international cooperation without surrendering control over domestic health policies.

Constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic said, “[b]y treating WHO edicts as binding, the federal government has effectively placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“Such directives, if enforced, would likely violate Canadians’ Charter rights and freedoms,” she added.

Mr. Hannaford agreed, saying, “Canada’s health policies must be made in Canada. No free and democratic nation should outsource its emergency powers to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva.”

The Justice Centre urges Canadians to contact their Members of Parliament and demand they support withdrawing from the revised IHR to restore Canadian sovereignty and reject blind compliance with WHO directives.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

As the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress move aggressively to roll back the climate alarm-driven energy policies of the Biden presidency, proponents of climate change theory have ramped up their scare tactics in hopes of shifting public opinion in their favor.

But CNN’s energetic polling analyst, the irrepressible Harry Enten, says those tactics aren’t working. Indeed, Enten points out the climate alarm messaging which has permeated every nook and cranny of American society for at least 25 years now has failed to move the public opinion needle even a smidgen since 2000.

Appearing on the cable channel’s “CNN News Central” program with host John Berman Thursday, Enten cited polling data showing that just 40% of U.S. citizens are “afraid” of climate change. That is the same percentage who gave a similar answer in 2000.

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!

How much has been spent on climate alarm messaging since that year? When Climate science critic Steve Milloy, who runs the Junkscience.org website, asked X’s AI tool, Grok 3, to provide an estimate of “the value of pro-global warming propaganda from the media since 2000,” Grok 3 returned an answer of $722 billion. Given that Grok’s estimate includes both direct spending on such propaganda as well as earned media, that actually seems like a low number when one considers that virtually every legacy media outlet parrots and amplifies the prevailing climate change narrative with near-religious zeal.

Enten’s own report is an example of this fealty. Saying the findings “kind of boggles the mind,” Enten emphasized the fact that, despite all the media hysteria that takes place in the wake of any weather disaster or wildfire, an even lower percentage of Americans are concerned such events might impact them personally.

“In 2006, it was 38%,” Enten says of the percentage who are even “sometimes worried” about being hit by a natural disaster, and adds, “Look at where we are now in 2025. It’s 32%, 38% to 32%. The number’s actually gone down.”

In terms of all adults who worry that a major disaster might hit their own hometown, Enten notes that just 17% admit to such a concern. Even among Democrats, whose party has been the major proponent of climate alarm theory in the U.S., the percentage is a paltry 27%.

While Enten and Berman both appear to be shocked by these findings, they really aren’t surprising. Enten himself notes that climate concerns have never been a driving issue in electoral politics in his conclusion, when Berman points out, “People might think it’s an issue, but clearly not a driving issue when people go to the polls.”

“That’s exactly right,” Enten says, adding, “They may worry about in the abstract, but when it comes to their own lives, they don’t worry.”

This reality of public opinion is a major reason why President Donald Trump and his key cabinet officials have felt free to mount their aggressive push to end any remaining notion that a government-subsidized ‘energy transition’ from oil, gas, and coal to renewables and electric vehicles is happening in the U.S. It is also a big reason why congressional Republicans included language in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to phase out subsidies for those alternative energy technologies.

It is key to understand that the administration’s reprioritization of energy and climate policies goes well beyond just rolling back the Biden policies. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is working on plans to revoke the 2010 endangerment finding related to greenhouse gases which served as the foundation for most of the Obama climate agenda as well.

If that plan can survive the inevitable court challenges, then Trump’s ambitions will only accelerate. Last year’s elimination of the Chevron Deference by the Supreme Court increases the chances of that happening. Ultimately, by the end of 2028, it will be almost as if the Obama and Biden presidencies never happened.

The reality here is that, with such a low percentage of voters expressing concerns about any of this, Trump and congressional Republicans will pay little or no political price for moving in this direction. Thus, unless the polls change radically, the policy direction will remain the same.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X