Cut Corporate Income Taxes massively to increase growth, prosperity

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The federal Liberal government’s current budget proposal to increase the inclusion rate for capital gains tax was met with justifiable criticism and opposition – primarily from business groups. There is another corporate income tax increase looming. A 2018 corporate tax reduction, intended to make Canada less uncompetitive versus the 2017-enacted tax reform and cut in the United States (which came into effect fully in 2018), is set to expire starting this year.

According to a study by University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy’s Trevor Tombe, Canada’s corporate income tax rate on new investments will jump from 13.7% to 17% by 2027. Even worse, for Canada’s high-value-added manufacturing sector, taxation will triple. For a nation that is having a hard time, encouraging both domestic or foreign investors to invest in new plant, equipment and related goods and services, to reverse meagre productivity growth – as noted by the Bank of Canada – this development is beyond questionable.

This rise will hinder future improvement in incomes and the standard of living – making it a serious issue. It should be obvious to policymakers that increasing income tax on businesses and investment should be avoided. The legislation to make the 2018 provisions permanent is, alarmingly, not urgent to politicians seeking to appease certain types of class warfare-cheering voters.

There is at least one policy that could make Canada more attractive to business, investors, and hard-pressed ordinary citizens. It would be, dramatically and substantially, slash corporate income taxes – plus make paying taxes easier, as Magna Corporation founder Frank Stronach has suggested. It may surprise some Canadians, but, Ottawa’s take from corporate income taxes is a relatively small, but fast rising proportion of federal overall revenue: 21%, in fiscal 2022-23, according to Ottawa, up from 13% in fiscal 2000-21 notes the OECD.

This may seem ‘just fine’: let companies pay the taxes and reduce the tax burden on ordinary people. However, what actually happens is that every corporate expense, including taxes, reduces cash flow. The money remaining could either be reinvested or paid out as dividends to owners. A reminder: owners are founding families; pension fund beneficiaries (employees, citizens); and ordinary individuals.

As to reinvesting available funds, the less there are, the less capital investment can occur. Investment is required to replace existing equipment, or add new equipment, devices, software and vehicles for businesses. This not only keeps companies competitive, but also makes employees more productive. This, in turn, makes the whole economy more profitable, thereby increasing taxes paid to governments.

As for the dubious reason for the tax hike, gaining more revenue – recent experience in the United States is instructive. The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act reduced corporate income tax from 39% of pre-tax income to 21%. The result: U.S. federal corporate income tax revenue rose 25% from 2017 to fiscal 2021. Capital investment rose dramatically too, by 20%, a key goal of many Canadian policymakers.

Taxes should be cut, enabling productivity improvement and bringing a future prosperity that we all yearn for. It would also keep us internationally competitive. We are currently mediocre, being around a 25% rate (OECD).

Canada has a hard time attracting investors. Now, our trading partners are leaving us in the dust.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Up Next

Randy Boissonnault Caught in Explosive Scandal – New Text Messages Expose Corruption at the Highest Levels

Don't Miss

Let’s get the facts on the graves, with a public inquiry

Todayville

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

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

International / 2 hours ago

Large US naval presence in Caribbean reveals increased interest in western security

Business / 2 hours ago

What Pelosi “earned” after 37 years in power will shock you

Business

What Pelosi “earned” after 37 years in power will shock you

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Nancy Pelosi isn’t just walking away from Congress — she’s cashing out of one of the most profitable careers ever built inside it. According to an investigation by the New York Post, the former House Speaker and her husband, venture capitalist Paul Pelosi, turned a modest stock portfolio worth under $800,000 into at least $130 million over her 37 years in office — a staggering 16,900% return that would make even Wall Street’s best blush.

The 85-year-old California Democrat — hailed as the first woman to wield the Speaker’s gavel and infamous for her uncanny market timing — announced this week she will retire when her term ends in January 2027. The Post reported that when Pelosi first entered Congress in 1987, her financial disclosure showed holdings in just a dozen stocks, including Citibank, worth between $610,000 and $785,000. Today, the Pelosis’ net worth is estimated around $280 million — built on trades that have consistently outperformed the Dow, the S&P 500, and even top hedge funds.

The Post found that while the Dow rose roughly 2,300% over those decades, the Pelosis’ reported returns soared nearly seven times higher, averaging 14.5% a year — double the long-term market average. In 2024 alone, their portfolio reportedly gained 54%, more than twice the S&P’s 25% and better than every major hedge fund tracked by Bloomberg.

Pelosi’s latest financial disclosure shows holdings in some two dozen individual stocks, including millions invested in Apple, Nvidia, Salesforce, Netflix, and Palo Alto Networks. Apple remains their single largest position, valued between $25 million and $50 million. The couple also owns a Napa Valley winery worth up to $25 million, a Bay Area restaurant, commercial real estate, and a political data and consulting firm. Their home in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights is valued around $8.7 million, and they maintain a Georgetown townhouse bought in 1999 for $650,000.

The report comes as bipartisan calls grow to ban lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks — a move critics say is long overdue. “What I’ll miss most is how she trades,” said Dan Weiskopf, portfolio manager of an ETF that tracks congressional investments known as “NANC.” He described Pelosi’s trading as “high conviction and aggressive,” noting her frequent use of leveraged options trades. “You only do that if you’ve got confidence — or information,” Weiskopf told the Post.

Among her most striking trades was a late-2023 move that allowed the Pelosis to buy 50,000 shares of Nvidia at just $12 each — less than a tenth of the market price. The $2.4 million investment is now worth more than $7 million. “She’s buying deep in the money and putting up a lot of money doing it,” Weiskopf said. “We don’t see a lot of flip-flopping on her trading activity.”

Republicans blasted Pelosi’s record as proof of Washington’s double standard. “Nancy Pelosi’s true legacy is becoming the most successful insider trader in American history,” said RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels. “If anyone else had turned $785,000 into $133 million with better returns than Warren Buffett, they’d be retiring behind bars.”

Business

Ottawa should stop using misleading debt measure to justify deficits

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Based on the rhetoric, the Carney government’s first budget was a “transformative” new plan that will meet and overcome the “generational” challenges facing Canada. Of course, in reality this budget is nothing new, and delivers the same approach to fiscal and economic policy that has been tried and failed for the last decade.

First, let’s dispel the idea that the Carney government plans to manage its finances any differently than its predecessor. According to the budget, the Carney government plans to spend more, borrow more, and accumulate more debt than the Trudeau government had planned. Keep in mind, the Trudeau government was known for its recklessly high spending, borrowing and debt accumulation.

While the Carney government has tried to use different rhetoric and a new accounting framework to obscure this continued fiscal mismanagement, it’s also relied on an overused and misleading talking point about Canada’s debt as justification for higher spending and continued deficits. The talking point goes something like, “Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7” and this “strong fiscal position” gives the government the “space” to spend more and run larger deficits.

Technically, the government is correct—Canada’s net debt (total debt minus financial assets) is the lowest among G7 countries (which include France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) when measured as a share of the overall economy (GDP). The latest estimates put Canada’s net debt at 13 per cent of GDP, while net debt in the next lowest country (Germany) is 49 per cent of GDP.

But here’s the problem. This measure assumes Canada can use all of its financial assets to offset debt—which is not the case.

When economists measure Canada’s net debt, they include the assets of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which were valued at a combined $890 billion as of mid-2025. But obviously Canada cannot use CPP and QPP assets to pay off government debt without compromising the benefits of current and future pensioners. And we’re one of the only industrialized countries where pension assets are accounted in such a way that it reduces net debt. Simply put, by falsely assuming CPP and QPP assets could pay off debt, Canada appears to have a stronger fiscal position than is actually the case.

A more accurate measure of Canada’s indebtedness is to look at the total level of debt.

Based on the latest estimates, Canada’s total debt (as a share of the economy) ranked 5th-highest among G7 countries at 113 per cent of GDP. That’s higher than the total debt burden in the U.K. (103 per cent) and Germany (64 per cent), and close behind France (117 per cent). And over the last decade Canada’s total debt burden has grown faster than any other G7 country, rising by 25 percentage points. Next closest, France, grew by 17 percentage points. Keep in mind, G7 countries are already among the most indebted, and continue to take on some of the most debt, in the industrialized world.

In other words, looking at Canada’s total debt burden reveals a much weaker fiscal position than the government claims, and one that will likely only get worse under the Carney government.

Prior to the budget, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised Canadians he will “always be straight about the challenges we face and the choices that we must make.” If he wants to keep that promise, his government must stop using a misleading measure of Canada’s indebtedness to justify high spending and persistent deficits.