Canada Income Inequality: Trickle-Down Tax Policy Is Alive And Well In The True North

First Posted: 12/01/2011 6:02 am EST Updated: 01/27/2013 12:29 am EST

NDP leadership hopeful Brian Topp launched the latest salvo in the clash between rich and poor Monday. Declaring growing income inequality to be today’s central economic issue, Topp detailed a series of proposed tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy aimed at narrowing the earnings gap.

Topp's proposals would see a rollback of some $18 billion in tax breaks enacted under successive Liberal and Conservative governments. His ideas come as many on the left in Canada have begun to question the direction in which Ottawa's tax policies have taken the country. Pointing to the income gap, they argue tax policy simply isn't as good at alleviating income inequality as it used to be. And new tax breaks — Tax-Free Savings Accounts and the proposed expansion of income-splitting to families— may only make things worse.

More on income inequality at Mind The Gap: Living In Unequal Cities A Health Risk.. Canadians Earning Less As Inflation Outstrips Wage Gains.. How The Income Gap Raises Home Prices For All Of Us.. Full Coverage..

Though the ideas are timely, they are part of a wider, generations-long ideological conflict.

In 1896, William Jennings Bryan declared that “There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.”

More than 110 years later, the struggle continues between those who believe lower taxes will lead to increased investment and greater prosperity and those who argue the wealthiest in society should pay for measures to help lift the least fortunate out of poverty. Proponents of low taxes, however, are getting their way in Canada.

Those who argue against the tax-cutting agenda point to the fact that wealth in Canada is increasingly concentrated among the wealthiest few.

During the period from the late 1950s to the late 1960s, the richest one per cent took home just 8 per cent of growth in total income. Between 1997 and 2007, before the financial crisis cooled the nation’s hot economy, the richest one per cent of Canadians took home 31.8 per cent of the growth.

The wealthy aren’t just taking more of the growth, they are taking more of the total income pie as well.

[From] 1980 to the present, the top one per cent’s share changed from about 8 per cent of all income to about 14 per cent of all income,” says McMaster University economist Michael Veall.

While those at the top are taking home more than they have in 100 years, real wages are actually falling at the bottom of the income spectrum. Between 1980 and 2006, according to Statistics Canada, median income for the bottom 20 per cent fell by $4000, or around 20 per cent once adjusted for inflation. During the same period, the top 20 per cent saw their median income grow by $12,000, or more than 16 per cent.

But this trend isn’t swaying the Conservative government’s steadfast belief in low taxes as the way to stimulate the economy.

“We’ve got one of the lowest tax regimes in the world now and we have businesses coming to Canada specifically saying ‘We came here to open a business because it’s a low-tax environment.’ When they come here they hire people. It’s simple,” says Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies, pointing to the “120 different taxes” the Tories have reduced since 2006.

Quick Poll

Do you agree with Brian Topp's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Canadians?

Yes. Too few Canadians are sharing in the country's growing wealth, and this could help change that.

No. It makes no sense to raise taxes on the people who do the most to create jobs and grow the economy.

Don't know.

And not everyone agrees that income inequality really is growing -- or that it should be seen as a problem.

“The whole notion of income inequality and that it’s growing is a complete myth,” says Neils Veldhuis, senior economist at the Fraser Institute.

“When you think about income inequality you’ve got to bring in mobility. Most of us at one point in time … were in the bottom 10 per cent or 20 per cent of income earners. So we were going to school, trying to make ends meet, working one or two jobs. We get out of school … you have a low paying job, you get some experience, you save some money. Twenty years from now you’re no longer in the bottom 20 per cent of income earners.”

Got a housing story to share? Reach us on Facebook, tweet @HuffPostCanada with the hashtag #incomegap or leave a comment below.

Yet there is no doubt wealthy Canadians are paying less tax than they did in the past. In 1948, the top marginal tax rate was 80 per cent on incomes over $250,000, or $2.37 million in today’s dollars. The top rate in 2009, averaged across Canada to account for different provincial rates of taxation, was 42.9 per cent for incomes above $126,264. The last time wealthy Canadians faced a tax burden this light was in the roaring 1920s.

The income tax system has become less progressive over time. In 1948 we had 19 tax brackets, we now have four, says Armine Yalnizyan, senior economist at the Canadian Centre For Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

Today, the top federal income tax bracket of 29 per cent kicks in at $128,800. There are no further brackets for higher earners. The United States’ system is actually more progressive, with six federal income tax brackets and a top rate of 35 per cent, kicking in it at $379,151.

“We’ve turned a progressive income tax system more and more into one that is becoming increasingly regressive,” says Peter Julian, the NDP’s finance critic. Taking into account all taxes, Julian argues a lower-middle class secretary can now end up paying a higher percentage of income in taxes than her wealthy boss. “I mean that’s an absurd situation.”

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story indicated there were 17 tax brackets in 1948. There were actually 19.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA BUSINESS

 
 
  • Comments
  • 319
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
Realist2011
beware false profits....
03:00 PM on 12/23/2011
Wow, lots of anger here today.

Here's MY bottom line.
If you like the way your economy is going, then keep on lowering taxes.

If you think your economy is being destroyed by low taxes, the raise them.

As a Texan, I hate taxes. However, from a realistic point of view, the "trickle down" hasn't been successful. Perhaps it's because it was lobotomized through all the tax breaks/loopholes for the wealthy. I can't answer that as I have no way to analyze that.

Our economy is in the toilet because the corporations and the wealthy have gone about making money in a way that is clearly detrimental to everyone else. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be in a recession. The proof is certainly out there.

As for me, I think they either start "investing" that money in hiring, R&D (hiring), rebuilding manufacturing, anything that can have a chance at re-starting the economy, or just tax the hell out of them and do it through government programs. Government is inefficient.

But that's just me.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hjorlejf
11:43 AM on 12/21/2011
What ever happened to examining historical parallels to help govern the present?
We've been here before.
11:31 AM on 12/21/2011
There is a high degree of ignorance out there , regarding corporate tax rates. Firstly, corporations faced with higher taxes simply include them in the price of final goods or services, anf fire staff , in order to lower costs. The reverse is true of lower corporate taxes, savings are passed on via lower consumer prices, and hiring increases, as demand for lower priced goods and services, increases.
In addition, if corporate taxes are raised, it's rarely followed by expectations for much higher tax revenues by government.
In other words higher corporate taxes are self defeating, and unproductive .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
12:03 PM on 12/21/2011
SO. Trickle-Down theory works in your opinion...

The reason I disagree with Mr.Topp is because Canada actually has a progressive tax system... And the top 1% taking 14% of the total income pie is not really that drastic, especially when compared to the US where they take in almost 40%
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
baizhongtang
Reality has an anti-neoliberal agenda
07:38 PM on 12/21/2011
False. Higher taxes are transferred to the customer to a degree, but lower taxes are practically never transferred to the customer. It just goes to the shareholders or owners. They will provide excuses such as "customers do not like price fluctuations", such as when nobody wanted Canadian beef but the prices stayed the same. In any case, laws could very well be put in place to make the direct transfer of corporate taxes illegal. We just have to want to.

And if the corporations leave the country as a result, SMEs could simply take over their market shares. It's not like demand is just going to go away. If there is demand, somebody will come to attend to it. That is what free market should be all about, not helping the richest get richer, but having actual healthy SMEs that compete with each other on equal terms.
photo
freeSpeakr
I stand on the shoulders of giants
11:55 PM on 12/13/2011
Testify George!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
honky1234
Sweep the leg? But I'll be disqualified!
10:04 PM on 12/13/2011
I see that conservatism is an epidemic in Canada, as it is here in America. What you have to decide is whether you want to embrace social darwinism "survival of the fittest," and whether it should be every man for himself.
02:37 PM on 12/07/2011
Wow. Trickle down,trickle up. Blah, blah blah. Black is white, apples are oranges. What kind of toad do I need to lick to see taxes as a way to manipulate society. Taxes are the nations wages to enable the elected government to perform the functions we require of it. Much like our personal wages it should be what is required to run our collective household. Much like household finances to spending has to be balanced with the income. When you lose sight of the truth it's easy to start twisting the basic idea into a symbolic virgin sacrifice to improve relations with a marauding dragon or imagine it's a hammer and since reality is dead anyway set about using it to do a job that requires a wrench.

A great deal of our collective income is resources. We already have the incentive for these type of businesses to operate here. If they don't want to operate in our country without having control over our government or fouling our back yard then it's not impossible to replace them.
07:37 PM on 12/07/2011
Taxes are SUPPOSED to be a method to provide basic, essential, services.
Too many liberal politicans use them as a way to rewar d voting blocks, political donors, buy votes, punish success. A way to manipulate society as you say.

Your writing comes across as if you've licked a toad. Or a hit of acid.
03:31 AM on 12/08/2011
Not really my thing. I have enough issues without but guess that's part of being human.
08:48 PM on 12/08/2011
Taxes are supposed to be a method of paying for the infastructure of the country. And too many use the infastructure without paying for it .
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
10:38 AM on 12/21/2011
Obviously taxes pay for services, nobody is disputing that.

Taxes can ALSO be used to help balance equality. If 100% of taxes came from the poor class and none from the middle or rich, do you think that would have a big effect on society? Of course it would... Just a few seconds of thinking could have made your post entirely unnecessary.
photo
BCSLAVE
Got a key?
09:33 PM on 12/06/2011
Here is something very ironic:

Mark Milke, Alberta director for the Fraser Institute said..."When you give money to the top and then ask them nicely to distribute it to the bottom, are you really surprised that it doesn't make it to the bottom?

Straight from the horses mouth eh?
12:51 AM on 12/07/2011
.

Here is something very ironic:

Slave here has to make stuff up to make his lame point.
The only irony here is that the average HP reader would take your lie as a fact.

Mark was referring to giving money outright to corrupt leaders of hurting native tribes.
NOT letting society in general keep their own money they earned, the subject of this article. TWO different things Mr Twist The Facts.

Letting people keep money they earned, IS NOT "giving money to the top".

The only way leftloonies can make a point is distorting the point.
Mark Mike in no way would agree with this article.

Nice try, guess it must be miserable living a lie.
.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
10:41 AM on 12/21/2011
I'm curious, why are the two scenarios so different? Your assumption that tax breaks does not equal "giving money" is flawed, and your argument seems to break down when you remove that premise.

Maybe you could clarify your position.
07:28 PM on 12/07/2011
.

Crickets sounding....

That silence you hear is what happens when you catch a lefty twisting things into a lie.
.
photo
BCSLAVE
Got a key?
08:18 PM on 12/07/2011
Would you like the link to the quote. Also, I'm not a lefty if that's what your implying. As for twisting the truth, how so?
03:45 PM on 12/05/2011
"Another idea is to bring back an estate tax, or, as critics often call it, a “death tax.” The measure could come in many different forms, but the essential idea is for the government to tax inheritance at a very steep rate, perhaps as much as 100 per cent, above a certain threshold."

The idea of estate tax terrifies me. This has been talked about for years, and goes against everything I have been taught my whole life. I have worked hard, finished university with a technical degree, procured and developed a career and maintained my work ethic throughout my entire life to ensure that my children will have a much better life than I did, as did my parents and theirs. To have all that work and wealth taken away from my progeny because some people feel "it's not fair" that I have built wealth is not a good enough reason. My children stand to inherit several million at this point. Do they deserve that amount? Of course they do. They already lose half to the government. Should they lose more because some people are suffering? I think my contributions to society have been sufficient, thank you.
04:48 AM on 12/06/2011
I agree.

That being said, will you adopt me ?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
honky1234
Sweep the leg? But I'll be disqualified!
10:13 PM on 12/13/2011
Successful people tend to make a lot of assumptions about everyone's access to the tools that will enable them to be successful as well. Certainly intelligence and hard work are traits that financially successful people have, but there's also factors such as access to a quality education, a healthy body and mind, a stable home life in your youth that was free of abuse, etc.

Becoming wealthy is more than just a product of hard work. There's also a lot of luck involved. In America, about 75% of small businesses fail within the first 5 years. Is that because the owners didn't work hard enough? I doubt it. It's more likely because not everyone can be successful. Not everyone can become Bill Gates.

The fact is, the government has to redistribute wealth. If it doesn't then you have a system where a small minority control almost all the wealth. And that's not good for social cohesion.
photo
umacarrot
Life Is the only thing worth living for.
10:44 AM on 12/21/2011
At last some common sense ,thanks for that. all you have to do is look at the countries that have high taxes and good social programs like Denmark they have low crime , very low poverty and in a recent study the Danes were found to be among the most satisfied and happy people in the world, and that's no lie.
Realist2011
beware false profits....
03:51 PM on 12/04/2011
Just as in the US, if things don't change, it's a problem that will take care of itself over time.

If you continue to allow the wealth to accumulate into a smaller number of people, and the taxes which would have been paid on that wealth were it to be earned by middle class workers is removed from the system, then only two possible choices exist. The government will have to shrink every year to reduce the expenditures to correspond with the smaller amount in actual dollars that are coming in, or, the wealthy will get end up being heavily taxed.

Accounting is still a matter of money coming in and money going out. The longer this "lower taxes mean more jobs" myth continues, the larger the effective tax rates the wealthy will be forced to endure in the future. By postponing the taxation, you raise the current costs and future debt. At some point, the system either completely fails or government will require a large infusion of money. That minority of people who have the majority of the money will have a bulls-eye on their collective wallets.

The irony is that all those taxes they're saving right now will most likely be minimal compared to what will ultimately be required to pay off the spending habits of government today. As more people fall into lower categories financially, more, not less help will be required, further increasing government costs. Those costs are being financed with debt. Think Greece.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
honky1234
Sweep the leg? But I'll be disqualified!
10:22 PM on 12/13/2011
"...it's a problem that will take care of itself over time."

Eventually, it will take care of itself. In the meantime, countries will rack up more and more debt because citizens want low taxes in addition to all the government services they're used to. It's a problem that America has. It's a problem that Canada has. It's a problem that every democracy has, as people want low taxes and high government spending. Eventually the whole system will come crashing down, ala Greece. The goal of politicians is to delay that inevitable crash by kicking the can down the road as long as possible. Secure tax cuts for the wealthy to keep them happy and secure government spending for the poor to keep them happy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
10:50 AM on 12/21/2011
Realist2011,

Very intelligent points, but you're missing one crucial point: Taxes are percentage based. A progressive tax structure means that a HIGHER percentage of taxes(and more dollars) are received by the government when wealth accumulates more and more into the top tax brackets.
06:59 PM on 12/02/2011
Most of the rich deserve to be rich.

Most of the poor deserve to be poor.

Only one Gold Medal is awarded per event, go protest the IOC.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Runey
religion is why we can't have nice things.
09:48 AM on 12/03/2011
not a single clue about what you're talking about.

When you hold your morality (or lack thereof) compass up to the light of 'wheover makes the most profit is correct' you are opening your doors for all sorts of well-deserved cynicism and pointed arguments punching holes through your extremely flawed logic that holds no accountability to what they are doing to destroy the country, the world, other people's lives, let alone corrupted influence in the government spending millions of dollars lobbying to ensure the status quo is maintained and life for the rich continues as per norm. That on top of the fact the richest corporations and CEO's main objectives is to maximize profit and externalize all costs to sources they don't care about, as their main 'concern' is monetary profit, and nothing else.

Do you have any 'pertinent' information to add? probably not, being that you add such a breathtakingly naive viewpoint summarized in 3 lines.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:20 PM on 12/03/2011
$100,000.00 grand a year to drive a truck in Ft.Mac, that would put you in the top 2 or 3% of incomes in Canada.

Wanna be rich?
What is stopping you?

If you have a trade you can easily double that.
02:11 PM on 12/02/2011
.

Addendum:

Guys, you really got to get over this class envy & class warfare obsession.
This comment section filled with them.
It makes you look petty and childish.

Not to mention you end up with names like ZERO.
Or DOUBLE ZERO..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
03:18 PM on 12/02/2011
"It makes you look petty and childish."
Pot, meet kettle.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lives
The Venus Project ... look it up
11:24 PM on 12/04/2011
Fanned for trying. But it is pointless, these guys don't have a clue and can't see beyond their backyard.
01:43 PM on 12/02/2011
Sadly my brief HP career has come to an end.
Some of us have to work to pay for people sleeping in tents.

You nice people are too busy stroking each other to consider anything other then this progressive pie in the sky idealism.

Sayanora,
You to Zero.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
01:55 PM on 12/02/2011
Class starting?
01:39 PM on 12/02/2011
.

Straight facts:

1980 US revenues. 517 Billion. 70% tax rate
1990 US revenues. 1032 Billion. 28% tax rate

Zeros can twist it all he wants, doesnt make it not true.

Top 1% earn 20% percent of income, yet pay 40% of all taxes.
Top 5% pay more taxes then everyone else combined.
51% of people dont even pay taxes.

These arent progressive enough ?
The US system is more fair and easier on the poor the the Canadian system is.

Now, for the ZERO twist on facts to come.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
01:45 PM on 12/02/2011
FACTS:
GDP Under Reagan with Reagonomics: 2,788,100.0
GDP Under Obama with Obamanomics: 14,551,800.0
500% Increase under a liberal president. That disproves your silly little theory using your own twisted logic.

Straight Facts:

In 2005 dollars, tax receipts decreased from $1.25 trillion in 1981 to $1.13 trillion in 1983 and did not return to $1.25 trillion until 1985. The receipts in 1990 were $1.5 trillion in 2005 dollars, an increase of only 20%. In contrast, from 1991 to 2000, receipts increased by 90% in current dollars, or 60% in 2005 dollars.

Also, the average annual growth rate of real income-tax per person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.

Now stop twisting facts and stop ignoring the HARD facts. Your argument ignores all facts that DISPROVE reagonomics, and relies solely on misleading facts.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
04:52 AM on 12/06/2011
Amazing.
I point out you are a More On for comparing GDP 30 years apart, and it gets removed.
Ever hear of inflation ?

Confirmed. Liberals are the most open minded, tolerent people. As long as you agree with them.
06:27 AM on 12/05/2011
The 1990's were about building a bubble. The profits/taxes spin your putting on it is not genuine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Stacey
Kill guns, not children.
12:45 PM on 12/02/2011
At the beginning of the 20th century, Western governments found it necessary to use taxation to preserve democracy; the fortunes that arose out of the industrial revolution became too concentrated, and their power so great that individuals and businesses threatened good governance. Easing those taxes too far (and general deregulation) had a lot to do with the great depression.

Anyone seeing any parallels with today?
photo
Blodo
Time to build a better world
09:28 AM on 12/02/2011
This linked video is very germaine to the discussion of income inequality. There are critical societal downsides to high rates of inequality that those touting the glories of low taxattion continually ignore.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
11:45 AM on 12/02/2011
.

What makes you think high taxes leads to reducing income gap ???
Is your only solution to the gap to reduce high incomes ?
Wow.

Unless you are just going to outright GIFT the money (Marxism),
please explain how punishing achievers somehow increases incomes of people on the low end.
.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:56 AM on 12/02/2011
You have issues. You've posted a dozen ranting comments on this one thread. You are extremely biased with you own beliefs and simply blind to what others are saying. I won't bother arguing about trickle down economics, because it would be pointless. You believe in it, you embrace it, and nothing anyone can say will change your mind. You said "Reading the comments here explains why I don't read HP." But clearly you are reading it, because you've left over a dozen comments on this one thread alone. And all your comments are just taking personal shots at liberals. Clearly you have a problem, seek help.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
12:39 PM on 12/02/2011
James, the period is not meant to start a paragraph.

Sincerely, the educated.