Thx, excellent info and format. I am so tired of Poilievre telling me Canada is broken when I am living in a time where there are issues but broken, no way.
Smith trying to break Alberta but then she has been unsuccessful so far but folks are waking up to her plan.
I think the article raises legitimate questions about whether Canadians are getting enough value from government, but lower taxes are not the solution. What would replace the revenue lost from lower taxes, and how would the costs and risks would be distributed.
Canada is not an unusually high-tax country by OECD standards; its overall tax burden sits roughly around the OECD average. Taxes are not just money that disappears. They finance healthcare, infrastructure, education, pensions, public safety and the institutions that allow a modern economy to function.
Lower taxes may leave households with more money in the short term, but it doesn’t eliminate the underlying costs. Depending on the services affected, those costs would show up as private insurance premiums, tuition, user fees, tolls or direct household expenses. The trade-off is that costs once shared broadly through taxation now become more dependent on individual ability to pay. That’s not exactly working well in countries like the US.
That doesn’t mean every tax dollar is well spent or that governments should be shielded from criticism. Governments may not spend public money effectively or deliver the services and infrastructure taxpayers could expect. Those are arguments for better priorities, stronger accountability and improved productivity, not for lower taxes.
I’d rather focus on whether governments are competent, whether public spending delivers value and whether the economy is becoming more productive than assume prosperity follows from tax cuts. Tax reduction benefits some households and businesses, but they also need choices about which services to reduce, which fees to increase or which costs to shift, and to whom. Tax cuts aren’t cost-free. Somebody has to pay for that. The issue is do we all contribute via taxes, or do we let people drown because they can’t afford the privatization.
One big surprise I had when moving to Canada a few years ago was that I was actually paying LESS than in the USA when I considered total income tax, health insurance and local taxes. Health insurance, property taxes and sales and income taxes in the States are substantial depending on where you live. I tend to agree that these tax comparisons, even the wedge, measures hide the comparative cost of living. I guess the rest of the story is that I feel like I get good value for it in Canada.
I note that the tax wedge comparison is incomplete, not because it excludes property and sales tax, but because it excludes government services. There is no offset, for example, for medical coverage that is part of taxes in Canada (and other countries) but in the comparison country used here (the US) it is an individual expense to pay health insurance (whether it’s part of an employees benefit package or paid directly by the individual). This one fact flips the number - the tax burden for individuals is actually higher in the US and the median net income in Canada is higher.
If we want more useful comparisons - at the national level we should stick to a group of more comparable countries (Australia, Nordics, European countries). The US still matters but they are so different that comparisons are a) harder and b) less meaningful. With their high murder rates, astronomical incarceration rates, lower mortality, reserve currency, scale etc. etc. - they’re just not a good comparison. One useful approach to track trends in that relationship is to compare individual provinces with comparable states. This can exclude some of the variables that would require too much adjustment for a normalized data set.
Another outstanding piece, Bo. The CPC apparently has only one multifit analysis for every real or imagined crisis. “The sky is falling” is the message. Just insert the crisis noun of choice for sky.
The result is predictably the same each time. Radio silence or walk back when confronted by the disproving facts, sometimes within hours of Poilievre’s presser. Their credibility is long gone.
Their complete lack of nuance means they little to no meaningful contribution to make to the national dialogue. That’s a disservice to the country. Then we have to consider whether their innumeracy and functional illiteracy is willful stupidity or intentional gaslighting in their pursuit of power by any means.
What it really means is, that party needs an agressive culling from the top, starting with the Merry Band of Quislings, starting Don Quisling Quixote, the Man of La MAGA and his trio of performative Rage Lite merchants; Scheer, Jivani and Rempel who are all self disqualifying pretenders to Poilievre’s throne. Their collective malpractice would have had them all removed ages ago from any company they might run. Who is even up to the task of the cull?
We live in a time of great uncertainty + great fear, and because people are feeling so powerless in the face of so many burgeoning challenges all seemingly requiring immediate action that seems overwhelming and still impotent, it is so easy to fall into blaming + complaining + attacking + getting distracted by arguments & rabbit holes....
To speak calm groundedness to such fear-based reaction is one of the most powerful. empowering. choices. we can make.
You do this, and I am deeply grateful for your effort and your actions.
Right now, Mark Carney is taking Canada & Canadians to the next level of the commitment required to Co-Create Canada into a Strong & Free Canada, a State of National Being that holds great potential for demonstrating to the rest of world how it can be done (we are after all immersed in global community where, as we have all learned, actions and perspectives on the seemingly smallest level impacts in magnified ways on the greatest planetary level...). John Shedd, an American businessperson & philanthropist, made this well-known observation:
“A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”
He also said this:
“Opportunities are seldom labeled.”
Forging a new path is fraught with uncertainty and a need to just keep taking one step at a time in spite of that one step seemingly leading into fog and more fog. Essentially, the journey at this time is about Canadians trusting themselves to navigate this new path with fortitude, strength & that beautiful innovative Canadian spirit... Canada needs us, and we need to just keep asking: "How can I help? What can we do to help? How can I help to build upon all those opportunities that are sprouting up left, right & centre? What do I bring to this Co-Creation that is a Canada Strong & Free Shaping Its Own Destiny? What do we bring?... ..."
Your writings are a powerful example of answering those questions in a constructive, building-upon, growth-oriented, way.
Thank you so much for alll your hard work & your commitment to helping shape this great country's destiny. Thank you.
Thx, excellent info and format. I am so tired of Poilievre telling me Canada is broken when I am living in a time where there are issues but broken, no way.
Smith trying to break Alberta but then she has been unsuccessful so far but folks are waking up to her plan.
I appreciate your efforts to deconstruction thé rhetoric with rigourous as possible stats.
I think the article raises legitimate questions about whether Canadians are getting enough value from government, but lower taxes are not the solution. What would replace the revenue lost from lower taxes, and how would the costs and risks would be distributed.
Canada is not an unusually high-tax country by OECD standards; its overall tax burden sits roughly around the OECD average. Taxes are not just money that disappears. They finance healthcare, infrastructure, education, pensions, public safety and the institutions that allow a modern economy to function.
Lower taxes may leave households with more money in the short term, but it doesn’t eliminate the underlying costs. Depending on the services affected, those costs would show up as private insurance premiums, tuition, user fees, tolls or direct household expenses. The trade-off is that costs once shared broadly through taxation now become more dependent on individual ability to pay. That’s not exactly working well in countries like the US.
That doesn’t mean every tax dollar is well spent or that governments should be shielded from criticism. Governments may not spend public money effectively or deliver the services and infrastructure taxpayers could expect. Those are arguments for better priorities, stronger accountability and improved productivity, not for lower taxes.
I’d rather focus on whether governments are competent, whether public spending delivers value and whether the economy is becoming more productive than assume prosperity follows from tax cuts. Tax reduction benefits some households and businesses, but they also need choices about which services to reduce, which fees to increase or which costs to shift, and to whom. Tax cuts aren’t cost-free. Somebody has to pay for that. The issue is do we all contribute via taxes, or do we let people drown because they can’t afford the privatization.
One big surprise I had when moving to Canada a few years ago was that I was actually paying LESS than in the USA when I considered total income tax, health insurance and local taxes. Health insurance, property taxes and sales and income taxes in the States are substantial depending on where you live. I tend to agree that these tax comparisons, even the wedge, measures hide the comparative cost of living. I guess the rest of the story is that I feel like I get good value for it in Canada.
I note that the tax wedge comparison is incomplete, not because it excludes property and sales tax, but because it excludes government services. There is no offset, for example, for medical coverage that is part of taxes in Canada (and other countries) but in the comparison country used here (the US) it is an individual expense to pay health insurance (whether it’s part of an employees benefit package or paid directly by the individual). This one fact flips the number - the tax burden for individuals is actually higher in the US and the median net income in Canada is higher.
If we want more useful comparisons - at the national level we should stick to a group of more comparable countries (Australia, Nordics, European countries). The US still matters but they are so different that comparisons are a) harder and b) less meaningful. With their high murder rates, astronomical incarceration rates, lower mortality, reserve currency, scale etc. etc. - they’re just not a good comparison. One useful approach to track trends in that relationship is to compare individual provinces with comparable states. This can exclude some of the variables that would require too much adjustment for a normalized data set.
Another outstanding piece, Bo. The CPC apparently has only one multifit analysis for every real or imagined crisis. “The sky is falling” is the message. Just insert the crisis noun of choice for sky.
The result is predictably the same each time. Radio silence or walk back when confronted by the disproving facts, sometimes within hours of Poilievre’s presser. Their credibility is long gone.
Their complete lack of nuance means they little to no meaningful contribution to make to the national dialogue. That’s a disservice to the country. Then we have to consider whether their innumeracy and functional illiteracy is willful stupidity or intentional gaslighting in their pursuit of power by any means.
What it really means is, that party needs an agressive culling from the top, starting with the Merry Band of Quislings, starting Don Quisling Quixote, the Man of La MAGA and his trio of performative Rage Lite merchants; Scheer, Jivani and Rempel who are all self disqualifying pretenders to Poilievre’s throne. Their collective malpractice would have had them all removed ages ago from any company they might run. Who is even up to the task of the cull?
Thank you for this Bo, that was a brilliant, powerful presentation.
No, but Ontario is broken under Doug Ford and enough Ontario voters seem to like it
Bo, this, is SO POWERFUL.
Thank you.
We live in a time of great uncertainty + great fear, and because people are feeling so powerless in the face of so many burgeoning challenges all seemingly requiring immediate action that seems overwhelming and still impotent, it is so easy to fall into blaming + complaining + attacking + getting distracted by arguments & rabbit holes....
To speak calm groundedness to such fear-based reaction is one of the most powerful. empowering. choices. we can make.
You do this, and I am deeply grateful for your effort and your actions.
Right now, Mark Carney is taking Canada & Canadians to the next level of the commitment required to Co-Create Canada into a Strong & Free Canada, a State of National Being that holds great potential for demonstrating to the rest of world how it can be done (we are after all immersed in global community where, as we have all learned, actions and perspectives on the seemingly smallest level impacts in magnified ways on the greatest planetary level...). John Shedd, an American businessperson & philanthropist, made this well-known observation:
“A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”
He also said this:
“Opportunities are seldom labeled.”
Forging a new path is fraught with uncertainty and a need to just keep taking one step at a time in spite of that one step seemingly leading into fog and more fog. Essentially, the journey at this time is about Canadians trusting themselves to navigate this new path with fortitude, strength & that beautiful innovative Canadian spirit... Canada needs us, and we need to just keep asking: "How can I help? What can we do to help? How can I help to build upon all those opportunities that are sprouting up left, right & centre? What do I bring to this Co-Creation that is a Canada Strong & Free Shaping Its Own Destiny? What do we bring?... ..."
Your writings are a powerful example of answering those questions in a constructive, building-upon, growth-oriented, way.
Thank you so much for alll your hard work & your commitment to helping shape this great country's destiny. Thank you.
Nice to have a leader and PM looking farther ahead than the next election
That’s the key , isn’t it - looking farther than just making points for the next election … staying focused on what is important…