Connect with us

Business

Carney government’s proposed tax cut misses the mark—twice

Published

6 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

On Monday, Parliament returns to the House of Commons, and the new Carney government will now attempt to implement the policy agenda it sold to Canadians in this year’s election. The government’s first priority is to follow through on its promise to cut personal income taxes for Canadians—a change that is long-overdue at the federal level. But the proposed cut misses two important considerations that will limit its effectiveness.

Specifically, the Carney government plans to lower the bottom federal personal income tax (PIT) rate (on income up to $57,375 per year) from 15 per cent to 14 per cent. The Liberal election platform suggests this change would reduce taxes for a dual-income family by up to $825 per year.

To be clear, the government should lower the tax burden on Canadians. When you add up all taxes (income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc.) Canadians pay, the average family spends 43.0 per cent of its income on taxes—more than on food, shelter and clothing combined. In other words, taxes are the largest single expense families face.

While the Carney government’s proposed tax cut could help chip away at the staggering tax burden imposed on Canadians, the design of the tax cut (beyond the fact that this tax cut is paid for by borrowed money) limits its ability to improve overall economic growth and prosperity.

First, the proposed tax cut fails to improve economic incentives for many Canadians.

“Marginal” tax rates refer to the rate imposed on the next dollar of income earned. For example, consider an individual who earns $100 in income and owes $15 in total tax. If they are taxed at 20 cents on the next dollar they earn, they experience a 20 per cent marginal tax rate.

A wealth of research shows that marginal PIT rates influence the behaviour of individuals. Indeed, for decisions about whether to work more hours, take a new job that pays more but has a longer commute, become an entrepreneur, or whether to save your money and invest it, marginal PIT rates directly affect the rewards you receive from those decisions.

If the government lowers marginal tax rates, it provides a greater incentive for individuals to choose to engage more in these types of productive activities. As a result, Canadians and the overall economy will be more prosperous.

But by only reducing the PIT rate for the lowest federal tax bracket, the Carney government will lower marginal tax rates for some Canadians but fail to meaningfully reduce tax rates for high-skilled workers in particular. Many Canadians won’t see better incentives to work, save or invest, and the positive effect on the economy from the tax cut will be limited. Put simply, the narrow scope of the government’s proposed tax cut limits its effectiveness at improving incentives and increasing economic growth.

Second, the proposed tax cut does little to improve the competitiveness of Canada’s tax system.

In today’s interconnected world, countries must compete to attract the people (doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, scientists, etc.) and investment that help improve economic growth and prosperity. While there are many factors that determine how attractive (or unattractive) a country is, lower and more attractive taxes play a big role.

There are many things that make Canada an attractive place to live and work, but our uncompetitively high income tax rates are not one of them. If you compare combined (federal and provincial) marginal PIT rates in every Canada province with those in every U.S. state, Canadians in every province face higher tax rates than Americans in virtually every state, across a variety of incomes.

For example, in 2023 an individual earning $50,000, $150,000 or $300,000 per year (in Canadian dollars) would face a higher marginal PIT rate in every Canadian province than they would in every U.S. state. And Canada is not just uncompetitive with the United States but with other advanced countries worldwide at the top levels of income.

By only reducing a tax rate for the lowest income bracket, the Carney government’s proposed tax cut does little to make Canada a more attractive destination for doctors, entrepreneurs, scientists or other skilled workers. In fact, the rate cut will likely have little to no effect on the decisions of people to move to (or keep living in) Canada. And do little to improve our living standards and prosperity.

As the Carney government works to deliver on its campaign promise to lower personal income taxes on Canadians, it should consider that the current plan does little to meaningfully improve economic incentives and tax competitiveness. Instead, it should consider more ambitious and broad-based tax cuts that affect incentives.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

 

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

Alberta

Moving to single 8% provincial personal income tax rate would help restore the Alberta Advantage

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ergete Ferede

Moving to a single eight per cent personal income tax rate for all working Albertans would dramatically improve the province’s competitiveness among
energy-producing jurisdictions, according to a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“It’s crucial to restore Alberta’s historic tax advantage and understanding how changes to personal income tax rates affect provincial revenues is critical for informed policy decisions,” said Ergete Ferede, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Revenue Effects of Tax Rate Changes in Alberta.

The report examines two potential tax reform scenarios and their impact on provincial revenue: an immediate adoption of an eight per cent single tax rate starting in 2025; and a gradual move to that same rate over three years.

An immediate switch to an eight per cent single personal income tax (PIT) rate would decrease PIT revenue by about $6.1 billion (a 35.6 per cent reduction) in the first year.

A gradual transition over three years would start with a smaller loss of $264 million (a 1.5 per cent reduction) in 2025 increasing to $6.9 billion (37.0 per cent reduction) by 2027. However, these estimates may overstate provincial revenue losses as they do not account for the potential positive economic effect of personal income tax reductions on other revenue sources.

Alberta’s current combined federal and provincial personal income tax rate stands at 48 per cent—ranking 10th highest out of 61 jurisdictions in North America—and is significantly higher than other energy-producing regions such as Texas or Wyoming. Implementing a single 8 per cent tax rate would help re-establish Alberta as a low-tax jurisdiction, lowering its rank to the 16th lowest among the 61.

“The potential to strengthen Alberta’s economic position through tax cuts must be considered along with the revenue implications for the government,” Ferede said.

Revenue Effects of Tax Rate Changes in Alberta

  • As recently as 2014, Alberta enjoyed a significant tax advantage, which included a single 10% personal income tax (PIT) rate, the lowest in Canada. However, in 2015, the newly elected NDP government introduced a progressive five-bracket PIT system with a top rate of 15%, eroding Alberta’s tax advantage.
  • Alberta’s top combined provincial and federal PIT rate is 48%, ranking it the tenth highest in North America. As well, its tax competitiveness is lower, compared with other energy-producing regions.
  • The main objective of this study is to examine the revenue implications of replacing Alberta’s current five-bracket PIT system with a single rate of 8%. The study analyzed three alternative reform scenarios: Immediate transition to an 8% single rate starting in 2025, gradual transition to 8% over three years, ending in 2027, and an immediate 20% across-the-board tax reduction in the current five-bracket system in 2025.
  • After accounting for the positive behavioural effects of reduced taxes, this study finds that if Alberta immediately switches to a single 8% PIT rate, PIT revenue would drop by $6.1 billion (a 35.6% reduction) in the first year. Gradual transition to a single 8% rate would initially reduce revenue by $264 million (1.5%), rising to $6.9 billion (a 37.0% decline) by 2027. In contrast, an immediate 20% across-the-board cut in the current PIT system would reduce provincial revenue by $5.1 billion (a 29.5% drop) in 2025.

 

Ergete Ferede

Professor of Economics, MacEwan University
Continue Reading

Banks

Canada Pension Plan becomes latest institution to drop carbon ‘net zero’ target

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Changes to the law require companies to more rigorously prove their environmental claims.

The investment group in charge of Canada’s governmental pension plan has ditched its “net zero” mandate, joining a growing list of major institutions doing the same.

According to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Investments’ latest annual report, the entity is no longer committed to carbon “net-zero” by 2050. The CPP’s ditching of the target comes after a number of major institutions, including the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), all made similar moves in recent months.

While ditching the net-zero effort, chief executive of CPP Investments John Graham maintained that it is still “really important to incorporate climate and incorporate sustainability” in its long-term investment portfolio.

The dropping of the “climate” target comes as recent changes to Canada’s Competition Act now mandate that companies prove any environmental claims they make, with Graham insinuating these changes were a factor in the decision.

“Recent legal developments in Canada have introduced, kind of, new considerations around how net-zero commitments are interpreted, so that’s caused us to change a little bit how we talk about it, but nothing’s changed on what we’re actually doing.”

Over the past decade, left-wing activists have used “net zero” and “environmental, social & governance” (ESG) standards to encourage major Canadian and U.S. corporations to take particular stands on political and cultural issues, notably in promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism, race relations, the environment, and abortion.

Outside of Canada, many major corporations have announced they are walking back DEI and other related policies. Some of the most notable include Lowe’sJack Daniel’s, and Harley Davidson. Other companies such as DisneyTarget, and Bud Light have faced negative sales due to consumers fighting back and refusing to patronize the businesses.

Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government, first under Justin Trudeau and now under Mark Carney, has continued to push a radical environmental agenda in line with those promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called net-zero energy by as early as 2035.

Continue Reading

Trending

X