It’s time for an honest conversation about the costs of new federal programs

The Trudeau government will table its next budget on April 16, and with the government’s push on the initial steps of national pharmacare, it’s important to remember there’s a cost Canadians must pay for new and expanded government services.

In March, the Trudeau government and the NDP reached an agreement to introduce the first steps of a national pharmacare program that will initially cover diabetes drugs and contraceptives, but may eventually grow to cover far more. This marks the third major national social program introduced by the Trudeau government in recent years, accompanying the $10-a-day daycare and national dental care programs promised in Budget 2022.

These policies represent an approach by the federal government to expand its role in the funding and provision of social services—an approach which has support among Canadians. Polling data from 2022, which sought to understand Canadian views on new spending programs, revealed the majority of respondents supported $10-a-day daycare (69 per cent), pharmacare (79 per cent) and dental care (72 per cent)—when there were no costs attached.

The Trudeau government has chosen to fund these new programs primarily using debt. Through planned deficits and rising debt interest costs for the foreseeable future, Ottawa is shifting much of the burden of paying for today’s services onto future generations of Canadians. Put differently, the new services are not free, and must ultimately be paid for through higher taxes in the future because debt comes with costs.

It’s therefore informative to look at what happens to the popularity of these programs when the true costs are communicated to Canadians. Polling data clearly shows these new programs lose considerable support when linked to a direct cost in the form of an increase in the federal goods and services tax (GST). Indeed, support for government-funded pharmacare, dental care and daycare plummeted to well below 50 per cent of respondents if the services are paid for by increased taxes.

This is the key difference between Canada and countries such as Sweden or Denmark, which are often used as examples of countries that maintain expansive social services and income supports. These countries have gone much further than Canada regarding government provision of services, but have paid for it through corresponding tax increases applied to individuals and families today rather than through borrowed money. Moreover, the tax burden falls primarily on the middle class, which utilizes these services the most, as opposed to concentrating tax hikes on top income earners.

For example, Swedes earning more than US$62,000 per year face the country’s top marginal personal income tax rate of 52.3 per cent. In comparison, although Canada’s top marginal rate (53.5 per cent) is roughly the same level as Sweden’s, it doesn’t kick in until earnings of nearly US$177,000. Moreover, both Sweden and Denmark maintain a national sales tax rate of 25 per cent, while Canadians face sales taxes ranging from 5 per cent to 15 per cent (depending on the province). Simply put, the Nordic countries fund expansive government through high taxes on their citizens.

To put the cost of national dental care, day care and the first steps of pharmacare in context, an increase in the GST to 6 per cent from its current 5 per cent would be insufficient to pay for an estimated annual cost of at least $13 billion on these programs.

In recent years, the Trudeau government has introduced substantial social services without the corresponding tax increases required to pay for them. But increased federal spending will require higher taxes for families either today or in the future, and Canadians must remember this when deciding if they truly want these new programs.

Authors:

Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Up Next

Proclaiming your government ‘fiscally responsible’ does not make it so

Don't Miss

Canada wallows on LNG sidelines, paralyzed by Ottawa’s onerous regulatory system

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

White House Reportedly Worried About Russia’s Sudden Momentum Months After Biden Declared Putin ‘Already Lost’ War

Censorship Industrial Complex / 7 hours ago

Jim Jordan Exposes Biden’s Censorship-Industrial Complex

Crime / 7 hours ago

Slovakian prime minister who opposed WHO Pandemic Treaty shot in assassination attempt

Automotive

Red States Sue California and the Biden Administration to Halt Electric Truck Mandates

Published on May 15, 2024

Todayville

From Heartland Daily News

By Nick Pope

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country”

Large coalitions of red states are suing regulators in Washington, D.C., and California over rules designed to effectively require increases in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Nebraska is leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a 17-state coalition suing the state of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California over its Advanced Clean Fleet rules. Both regulations would increase the number of heavy-duty EVs on the road, a development that could cause serious disruptions and cost increases across the U.S. economy, as supply chain and trucking sector experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country,” Republican Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “Neither California nor the EPA has the constitutional power to dictate these nationwide rules to Americans. I am proud to lead our efforts to stop these unconstitutional attempts to remake our economy and am grateful to our sister states for joining our coalitions.”

While specifics vary depending on the type of heavy-duty vehicle, EPA’s emissions standards will effectively mandate that EVs make up 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractors sold by 2032, according to The Wall Street Journal. The agency has also pushed aggressive emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that will similarly force an increase in EVs’ share of new car sales over the next decade.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleet rules, meanwhile, will require that 100% of trucks sold in the state will be zero-emissions models starting in 2036, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While not federal, the California rules are of importance to other states because there are numerous other states who follow California’s emissions standards, which can be tighter than those required by the EPA and other federal agencies.

Critics fear that this dynamic will effectively enable California to set national policies and nudge manufacturers in the direction of EVs at a greater rate and scale than the Biden administration is pursuing.

Trucking industry and supply chain experts have previously told the DCNF that both regulations threaten to cause serious problems for the country’s supply chains and wider economy given that the technology for electric and zero-emissions trucks is simply not yet ready to be mandated at scale, among other issues.

Neither CARB nor the EPA responded immediately to requests for comment.

Nick Pope is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Service.

Originally published by The Daily Caller. Republished with permission.

Automotive

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

Published on May 12, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WILL KESSLER

Converting America’s medium- and heavy-duty trucks to electric vehicles (EV) in accordance with goals from the Biden administration would add massive costs to commercial trucking, according to a new analysis released Wednesday.

The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.

“There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited,” Karen Jones, executive vice president at Ryder, said in an accompanying press release. “Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing. Until the gap in TCT for heavier-duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition, and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”

Due to the increase in costs for businesses, the potential inflationary impact on the entire economy per year is between 0.5% and 1%, according to the report. Inflation is already elevated, measuring 3.5% year-over-year in March, far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Increased expense projections differ by state, with class 8 heavy-duty trucks costing 94% more per year in California compared to traditional trucks, due largely to a 501% increase in equipment costs, while cost savings on fuel only amounted to 52%. In Georgia, costs would be 114% higher due to higher equipment costs, labor costs, a smaller payload capacity and more.

The EPA also recently finalized rules mandating that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric or hybrid. Around $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act has already been designated to be used by subnational governments in the U.S. to replace some heavy-duty vehicles with EVs, like delivery trucks or school buses.

The Biden administration has also had trouble expanding EV charging infrastructure across the country, despite allotting $7.5 billion for chargers in 2021. Current charging infrastructure frequently has issues operating properly, adding to fears of “range anxiety,” where EV owners worry they will become stranded without a charger.