Most British Columbians would agree that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. And most assume that the wealthy pay more, not only in straight dollars, but also a higher tax rate as a share of their income.
So most would probably be shocked to learn that, in reality, that is no longer how our provincial tax system works.
Taxes and tax cuts
After a generation of comparatively high corporate income-tax (CIT) rates, Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives initiated a series of reforms in the late 1980s that were deepened by Jean Chrétien’s Liberals, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and numerous provincial governments. The cumulative result has been a drastic reduction in the statutory CIT rate (the combined federal and average provincial), falling from 50 per cent in 1986 to 26 per cent by 2012.
The new Liberal government has proposed a tax bracket trade. On one side of the trade is the creation of a new top tax bracket that will increase taxes on Canada’s richest and help reduce income inequality. On the other side is the lowering of the tax rate in the second bracket, nominally to help the middle class. However, adjusting the second tax bracket is actually of greater benefit to members of the upper class, as long as they do not earn enough income to put them in the new top bracket.
This study examines the relationship between the Canadian corporate income tax (CIT) regime and various dimensions of economic growth. The author finds that CIT cuts have not only failed to lead to faster growth, but there is evidence to suggest that—far from spawning higher levels of business investment and GDP growth—corporate income tax reform has indirectly fostered slower growth.
OTTAWA—Corporate income tax (CIT) cuts have not only failed to lead to faster growth, there is evidence to suggest that CIT rate reductions contributed to slower growth, says a study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
The study, by Unifor economist and CCPA research associate Jordan Brennan, examines the relationship between the Canadian CIT regime and various dimensions of growth and finds there is no empirical or statistically significant relationship between corporate tax cuts and growth.
OTTAWA—The new federal government has plenty of room to raise the taxes of Canada’s one percenters, according to a new study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
The study, released in the wake of a federal election that handed the Liberals a majority government, concludes there is plenty of room for the new government to make good on its election promise to raise the top marginal income tax rate on those earning $200,000 or more to 33%. In fact, the findings suggest there is room to do more higher up the income scale.
OTTAWA—Today the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) released The Harper Record 2008-2015, a detailed account of the Conservative government’s economic, environmental, social, foreign policy and democratic records through the 2008 crisis, Great Recession and ongoing economic recovery.
This book, which builds on the 2008 collection The Harper Record, continues a 25-year tradition at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives of periodically examining the records of Canadian federal governments during their tenure.
Twenty years ago, the Mike Harris "Common Sense Revolution" stormed Ontario, waging a fight with the poor, with unions, and with the idea of government itself. What remains from that era in Ontario public policy and what needs fixing: this special publication by the CCPA-Ontario goes over the key moments of the "revolution" and looks at solutions moving forward.
This report suggests that the federal budget’s claims regarding who would benefit from doubling the Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) annual contribution ceiling are erroneous. The analysis finds that the government's claims that raising the annual TFSA contribution ceiling from $5,500 to $10,000 would disproportionately benefit lower- and middle-income Canadians use misleading income groupings and excludes data to show a distributional impact that is directly opposite to the one it actually has.