[Northern Light]

Sure. And which politician will run on raising the GST to 9%?

I agree that won't happen, but using the 'sacrifice/tough times set up' that Carney has used in advance of the budget, a one point hike is something that could be just dropped in....maybe even 2, offset by a hiked credit for low income earners.

That's not to suggest I think that's likely either..............

 

[DirectionNorth]

Instead of basing it all on current taxation rates, howabout your family $200k pays $8,000 more in taxes but gets the $17,000, and we go back to 1949's 84% income tax rate on the top earners. Does Galen Weston, Jr. really need to be a billionaire?

The massive wealth of billionaires hides the fact that most consumption doesn't accrue to them. The assets of every billionaire in the country (assuming you could liquidate them all at current rates, which you can't) would not even fund one year of federal spending (source). Tax them to prevent them from swaying the political field too much, but this isn't some magical cure for new spending, especially if rumours of a $100 billion (!!!) deficit come to pass.


Never mind doubling the federal budget, we need tax hikes, the GST or middle-class income taxes both, just to cover current levels of irresponsible spending at both the federal and provincial levels.

Sure. And which politician will run on raising the GST to 9%?

I applaud you for at least suggesting GST. Usually, the conversations here always devolve to the suggestion that somebody else (the billionaires or corporations) pay for it. Which is of course, not how real life works.

Not just conversations here, everyone wants new programs, no one wants to pay for them (see: Poilievre tax cuts). The suggestion is always to spend more, rather than on rigorous cost control (see: our out-of-control transit costs) to get better ROI.

I think I am alone in believing that corporate taxes are fine where they are - and lowering them would actually be a positive w.r.t. our sluggish R&D, productivity, and wage growth.

I agree that won't happen, but using the 'sacrifice/tough times set up' that Carney has used in advance of the budget, a one point hike is something that could be just dropped in....maybe even 2, offset by a hiked credit for low income earners.

That's not to suggest I think that's likely either..............

If Carney actually makes the hard choices and reforms OAS and/or hikes GST, he would have my vote in the next election - someone needs to implement a version of Harper's backloaded OAS reform. But I'm not holding my breath ...

 

[Northern Light]

I think I am alone in believing that corporate taxes are fine where they are - and lowering them would actually be a positive w.r.t. our sluggish R&D, productivity, and wage growth.

Understanding that context matters, and there are multiple factors that created and enhance economic growth and productivity......

Canada's Corporate Tax rate has declined since the 1980s substantially.

Using Ontario as our provincial benchmark.

The Federal rate was 36%

Later reduced to 28 where it remained for a decade plus.

The Ontario rate was ~12% (more complicated than that as industry was taxed differently)

The combined rate was 48%, later lowered to 40%.

In Ontario, we're currently sitting at a combined rate of 26.5%

The small business rate has fallen all the way to 12% combined

All of that lost revenue and productivity growth went down, not up.

I see no evidence in the record that further reductions would change that.

****

Its difficult to raise rates in light of where our competitors are...............

But lowering them further is unlikely to show any significant gain .

To come in under a no-income tax state in the U.S. would mean dropping the combined rate to 20.5%

We're already in deficit both federally and provincially, so this would seem exceedingly imprudent to me.

 

[afransen]

Should be further noted that whenever Minimum Income plans have been proposed they are basically designed around topping up income to some kind of poverty threshold. Say LICO. They don't usually have people making six figures getting a top up.

I'm not aware of any UBI type schemes that have been seriously contemplated that don't have those with 100k pretax income as the kind of taxpayers who are net contributors (pay in more than they receive in benefits).

 

[lenaitch]

and yet about a fifth of bills introduced in senate get royal ascent (21/109)

Seems roughly the same rate as the HoC (72/303)

Interesting. I am honestly surprised at the Senate's numbers.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Sure. And which politician will run on raising the GST to 9%?

I applaud you for at least suggesting GST. Usually, the conversations here always devolve to the suggestion that somebody else (the billionaires or corporations) pay for it. Which is of course, not how real life works.

Sales tax would be passing any progressive costing onto the consumer. This is why I would prefer it be done threw income tax on a slide rule basis...

...speaking of which, real life needs to wake up to it's liberal bias IMO.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not aware of any UBI type schemes that have been seriously contemplated that don't have those with 100k pretax income as the kind of taxpayers who are net contributors (pay in more than they receive in benefits).

UBI proponents never want to get into the math. Because

1) The numbers start showing how absurd the idea is.

2) Globalized economies mean that the people who have to pay for this are basically every person who earns more than UBI. Cause companies will flee if taxed to that extent. And well, those people aren't going to vote themselves record tax increases to literally fund unconditional transfers to others.

Short of some kind of global communist uprising, I don't see how this works.

 

[zang]

UBI proponents never want to get into the math. Because

1) The numbers start showing how absurd the idea is.

2) Globalized economies mean that the people who have to pay for this are basically every person who earns more than UBI. Cause companies will flee if taxed to that extent. And well, those people aren't going to vote themselves record tax increases to literally fund unconditional transfers to others.

Short of some kind of global communist uprising, I don't see how this works.

UBI Works seems to have costed it out no problem.

How to Pay for Basic Income — Cheaper Than Poverty

We can fund basic income with just 3% of all government spending, with no new taxes on working Canadians. While there are many ways to finance it, we propose to do so with fewer tax breaks for large companies, fewer subsidies for the wealthiest, and contributions from the financial sector.

www.ubiworks.ca

Something not often mentioned by those anti-GBI/UBI are the indirect costs to the economy from poverty.

 

[guavadelic]

Carney faces historic choice between South Korea and Europe for submarine fleet

Canada’s planned purchase of 12 subs could break tradition in Indo-Pacific shift to South Korea

www.theglobeandmail.com

Get them to throw in a Hyundai car plant and we have a deal.

There won't be a new foreign owned car plant opening up in Canada anytime soon if they aren't assured tariff-free access to the U.S. market. Our market isn't big enough on our own for automakers to make that sort of investment.

Alternatively, we could strike a deal to recognize the Japanese/South Korean/European vehicle safety standards and allow the import of vehicles made there. That would make it more feasible for those automakers to build factories here if we offered them a build-where-you-sell model (the mechanism used to attract Japanese manufacturing back in the 80s).

 

[kEiThZ]

UBI Works seems to have costed it out no problem.

That's because it's not really UBI. It's min income masquerading as UBI. That's how they end up with a net cost of only $36B. They also don't pay individuals and families the same amounts. And they get to 75% of LICO. That min income programs are cheaper is not new information. Especially, if you don't push to make sure all incomes are above LICO.

And you can go back and see where I suggested that OAS should stop being a universal program and become a minimum income program for seniors tied to LICO.

PS. Interesting that UBI Works can propose $31k for a couple and that's fine. But I get flack for saying a senior with a six figure pension and millions in assets shouldn't be getting an extra $500 in OAS per month.

 

[zang]

That's because it's not really UBI. It's min income masquerading as UBI. That's how they end up with a net cost of only $36B. They also don't pay individuals and families the same amounts. And they get to 75% of LICO. That min income programs are cheaper is not new information. Especially, if you don't push to make sure all incomes are above LICO.

They get to 75% of LIM, not LICO. Different measurements. LICO is flawed for one, as it's not regional, and makes broad assumptions about spending needs.

Families are different because there are shared costs. In addition to getting larger tax breaks.

And you can go back and see where I suggested that OAS should stop being a universal program and become a minimum income program for seniors tied to LICO.

Again however, means testing has proven time and time again to be a passive bludgeon with which to create austerity. Suddenly, a government will find a different way to calculate LICO or inflation; or start doing something stupid like counting things like GST refunds or CCB towards income, etc., and voila the eligible number drops and the government magically finds some money for another corporate bailout. Or for that matter, just blatantly put caps on inflation-related increases.

I mean FFS, multiple conservative and liberal governments have failed to raise the Sunshine List threshold in Ontario; a list the PCPO created to demonize extremely high-paid government management and executives, now demonizes lifelong teachers, firefighters, small-town mayors, skilled tradesworkers, etc. The threshold has been at $100k ($186k in 2025) for almost 30 years. There were 984 people on the first list in 1996. There are 377,666 as of 2024. And it's still being wielded as political tool, allowing people to believe that the standard of living for government employees has somehow risen dramatically in three decades. Doug Ford *loves* the sunshine list. He's called it, "the list of Ontario's richest political insiders."

And ironically, failure to change it dilutes the impact of those who *do* make egregiously large salaries.

Honestly, I imagine the annual release of the sunshine list is the favourite day of staff at the Toronto Sun; they get two weeks of stories out of it after all.

PS. Interesting that UBI Works can propose $31k for a couple and that's fine. But I get flack for saying a senior with a six figure pension and millions in assets shouldn't be getting an extra $500 in OAS per month.

And I said, why not give it to them, but tax it back? What's the functional difference?

 

[Admiral Beez]

There won't be a new foreign owned car plant opening up in Canada anytime soon if they aren't assured tariff-free access to the U.S. market.

The car plant deal could be predicated on USA market access. The first submarine would not arrive until 2032 at the earliest, well after the then 86 year old Trump's mandate (let's put aside notions that he's not going to leave). By the time any Korean car plant is begun the transborder trade issue should be settled one way or another.

Alternatively, we could strike a deal to recognize the Japanese/South Korean/European vehicle safety standards and allow the import of vehicles made there. That would make it more feasible for those automakers to build factories here if we offered them a build-where-you-sell model

Absolutely. We should announce that today, at least EU standards.

Canadian Dealers Want To Blow Up Border Rules And Import Cool Cars Americans Can’t Buy | Carscoops

If dealers get their way, Canada could gain access to a lot more cars from global markets

www.carscoops.com

 

[kEiThZ]

Again however, means testing has proven time and time again to be a passive bludgeon with which to create austerity.

And yet you simply propose doing that by other means here. Your manipulation of tax rates is functionally the exact same thing.

And I said, why not give it to them, but tax it back? What's the functional difference?

Because making all kinds of clauses and holes in the tax code just makes it more difficult and bureaucratically complex for everyone.


In any event, let's stick to the topic at hand. Which was about OAS swallowing the whole budget. As pointed out by Generation Squeeze, OAS alone is now greater than Child Benefits, Defence, Infrastructure, etc. We can't fix any other problem in the country if literally a massive chunk of the federal budget goes to OAS. And if people don't see improvement in anything else, why they heck would they voluntarily vote for higher taxes? Personally, I would vote for higher taxes if I know that issues I care about are being addressed. I want high speed rail in the Corridor. I want easier access to healthcare for my family. I want to make sure my daughter's classroom has more EAs. I want to make sure our industrial strategy is properly resourced in the economic fight with the Trump administration. All of that is more important to me than giving the richest cohort in Canada more money. Yet, somehow, as shown in this thread, instead of any of the above being discussed, our political conversations always come down to how much more pogey old folks can get. No wonder young people are starting to drift to the right.

 

[kEiThZ]

The car plant deal could be predicated on USA market access. The first submarine would not arrive until 2032 at the earliest, well after the then 86 year old Trump's mandate (let's put aside notions that he's not going to leave). By the time any Korean car plant is begun the transborder trade issue should be settled one way or another.

It's just exceptionally hard to cut deals like that. You are tying companies that are not related together. How the heck would that work contractually? Especially if there's a failure on one side of the contract.

We need a broader strategy. This problem is definitely not going away with Trump. They want the manufacturing jobs. And their unions are openly resolved to turn us into Australia (zero auto assembly). Increasingly, I see pieces from our auto sector that say we should give in to preserve the parts manufacturing business. My crazy strategy suggestion is that we push to electrify really fast and force the construction of EVs here while giving the US the ICEV assembly business.

Absolutely. We should announce that today, at least EU standards.

I suspect the risk here is that the US simply starts disallowing blanket clearance to drive into the US if there's a substantial divergence on standards. If that's not a risk, it would be easier to do this.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You are tying companies that are not related together. How the heck would that work contractually?

My bad, I hadn't realized that the Hyundai Group, which included Hyundai Heavy Industries (produces the KSS-III submarine) and the Hyundai Motor Company (produces cars under Hyundai, Kia and Genesis) was broken up in the early 2000s. That scuppers my plan.