Alberta
Here’s why the rest of Canada doesn’t want Alberta to leave the CPP
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill Associate Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Provincial and territorial finance ministers recently met with federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to discuss a hot topic—Alberta’s potential withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). According to Nova Scotia Finance Minister Allan MacMaster, “there was real consensus” from his peers that they want Alberta to stay in the CPP. This is unsurprising; while an Alberta pension plan would benefit Albertans, it would come at great cost to the rest of Canada.
Why might Albertans want to leave the CPP?
Albertans pay a basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent, typically deducted from their paycheques. According to a report commissioned by the Smith government, that rate would fall to 5.91 per cent for a new CPP-like provincial program for Albertans, which means each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027 (the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan) while maintaining the same retirement benefits. In sharp contrast, to keep the CPP afloat without Alberta, the basic contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent. In other words, smaller paycheques for the rest of Canada.
The report’s calculation is based on several assumptions, which some analysts have criticized, arguing that Alberta’s estimated share of CPP assets—$334 billion—is not fair or realistic. To be clear, this share (equal to 53 per cent of the CPP) is based on specific legislation that governs the withdrawal of any province from the CPP. But, even if the share of assets to Alberta were much lower, the province would benefit from reduced contribution rates with an Alberta pension plan.
For instance, if Alberta left the CPP and received merely 25 per cent of the CPP’s assets in 2025 ($150 billion), the contribution rate in Alberta would fall from 9.9 per cent to 7.8 per cent, which would mean $1,086 in savings annually per Albertan. Meanwhile, the contribution rate for the rest of Canada would have to increase. If you dropped Alberta’s share to 20 per cent ($120 billion in 2025), Alberta’s contribution rate would fall to 8.2 per cent, equivalent to approximately $836 in savings annually per Albertan.
Put differently, even if Alberta’s share of assets were less than half the report’s estimate, Albertans would benefit from lower contribution rates for the exact same benefits while the rest of Canada may pay higher contributions to maintain current benefits. Why does Alberta mean so much to the CPP? Because Alberta generally has higher employment rates and a comparatively younger population, which means more workers pay into the fund and less retirees take from it. Albertans also have higher average incomes, which means there’s a higher level of premiums paid into the fund. As such, Albertans have paid significantly more into the CPP than its retirees have received in return.
It’s not surprising that the rest of Canada doesn’t want Alberta to leave the CPP for an equivalent provincial plan because—even if Alberta’s share is less than $334 billion, Alberta’s withdrawal would come with big costs for other Canadians across the country.
Author:
From the Fraser Institute
By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill
Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.
And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.
According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.
Why should Albertans care?
First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.
For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.
Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.
Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.
In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.
By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.
Authors:
Alberta
Official statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
“The Numbers Favour Our Side”
Making Alberta a geothermal energy leader
Three Calgary massage parlours linked to human trafficking investigation
Canadian interest in electric vehicles falls for second year in a row: survey
Alberta’s vision for passenger rail
Canada’s postal service refuses to help with Trudeau’s gun ban buyback program: report
WEF panelist suggests COVID response accustomed people to the idea of CBDCs
-
International2 days agoTrump campaign says he will pardon Jan. 6 prisoners on ‘case-by-case basis’ if re-elected
-
conflict2 days agoNYPD says protesters had weapons, gas masks and ‘Death to America!’ pamphlets
-
illegal immigration1 day agoBiden’s DOJ Threatens To Sue Another State For Enforcing Immigration Law
-
Economy1 day ago‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources
-
illegal immigration1 day agoMore Chinese Illegal Migrants Apprehended At Southern Border In Two Days Than In All Of 2021: REPORT
-
ESG1 day agoTennessee Taking Lead In Protecting Civil Rights And Free Enterprise—And Stopping Political Debanking
-
Energy1 day agoMarket Realities Are Throwing Wrench In Biden’s Green Energy Dreams
-
conflict9 hours agoOver 200 Days Into War, Family Of American Hostage in Gaza Strives For Deal To Bring Son Home