At a time when the Canadian economy is sputtering -- with virtually no growth, weak job creation, poor job quality, large trade deficits, record household debt, and low confidence levels -- governments need to be careful in their policy choices.
What will best drive jobs and growth, and provide the most help to the largest number of those who really need help the most? Growth and fairness must be prime objectives.
One policy choice made by the Harper government is to increase the annual limit on contributions to "tax fee savings accounts" (TFSAs). Created in 2009, TFSAs currently allow taxpayers to deposit up to $5500 in after-tax money every year in a designated account, which will grow over time on a tax-free basis. Mr. Harper is nearly doubling the annual contribution maximum to make it $10,000.
According to the government's calculations, this will cost the federal treasury several hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years, and some tens of billions of dollars over the longer-term. It will also reduce provincial government revenues.
For those who readily have an extra $4500 available every year, after they've paid their taxes, this increase would be an attractive future tax break. But is a higher limit fair to taxpayers across the board? The answer to that question depends on how many taxpayers at various wealth levels will be able to benefit from the higher contributions.
At $5500/year, the benefits of TFSAs are generally accessible to a broad cross-section of taxpayers. But on the incremental amount up to $10,000 -- not so much.
Following a detailed review of this program last winter, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) said: "TFSA benefits, currently balanced across wealth groups, will become increasingly skewed toward high-wealth households over time." After the recent budget, he said: "The contribution limit increases proposed in Budget 2015 would accentuate these distributional disparities."
"Distributional disparities" is PBO lingo for "unfair". The most recent statistics on TFSAs, published by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), reinforce the PBO's warning:
In 2013, over 28-million Canadians were eligible to have a TFSA. About 10.7-million did so. That's a participation rate of just under 38 per cent.
Of those who participated, only 1.9-million contributed the maximum. That's less than 18 per cent of those who had a TFSA and, more importantly, a very small 6.7 per cent of those who were eligible to have one.
Doubling the annual maximum does nothing for the 93.3 per cent of Canadians who cannot max-out their TFSA contributions at the existing limit of $5500/year.
Significantly, the number of taxpayers who are able to maximize their annual contributions has been dropping steadily since this program's inception. At 1.9-million in 2013, it is down 39 per cent from five years earlier. To look at it another way, in 2009 more than 64 per cent of TFSA-holders maxed-out. In 2013, fewer than 18 per cent did.
It's important to note that any "unused" room to make a contribution to a TFSA in any one year can be carried forward to future years. It accumulates. CRA figures show that the average TFSA is carrying more than $13,500 in unused, available room - within existing limits.
All in all, then, it's difficult to sustain an argument to increase the maximum. More Canadians would be further ahead if the government maintained the existing TFSA limits, while also:
- Cutting the middle-class income tax rate across the board;
- Creating a single, progressive, tax-free "child benefit" that provides significantly more support each month to 9 out of 10 families with children;
- Restoring the Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement eligibility age to 65; and
- Strengthening investments in public infrastructure to drive better jobs and growth immediately, while also laying a solid foundation for a more productive, competitive and prosperous economy for years to come.
The Harper government frequently tries to concoct an argument that doubling TFSA limits would be especially helpful to Canadians earning up to $60,000 because these are the people who regularly max-out every year. Or so the Conservatives claim.
But as my Liberal MP colleague (and statistics expert) Ted Hsu recently pointed out, the issue is NOT how many of those who max-out their TFSAs have incomes of $60,000 or less. The crucial question is the other way around -- how many people earning $60,000 or less are actually maxing out their TFSAs? The answer is about five per cent. As income levels rise, a larger proportion are able to contribute the maximum. This demonstrates the skew toward higher wealth (as reported by the PBO).
Given only mediocre improvements in median family incomes over the past many years and the explosion in household debt, it's just not realistic to expect many middle-class families will have an extra $10,000 lying around every year, after taxes, to enable them to fill up a higher TFSA contribution maximum.
There are greater, more beneficial priorities to be tackled more urgently.
ALSO ON HUFFPOST:
The carbon bubble is the idea that if the world’s governments meet targets to limit climate change to 2 degrees Celsius by cutting carbon emissions, there will be a glut of fossil fuels on the market that cannot be burned. The concern is that when investors realize oil companies will have to leave much of the product they own in the ground, oil company stocks will collapse, leading to a crisis in the industry that could affect Canada. Among the people concerned about a carbon bubble is former Bank of Canada governor and current Bank of England governor Mark Carney.
Many in Canada’s oil sector have been holding their breath to see whether the U.S. approves the Keystone pipeline,which would see tarry bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands pumped south for export from the U.S. President Barack Obama did not have very nice things to say about Keystone in his year-end press conference, leading some to believe he’s bent on rejecting it. The lack of a functional pipeline capable of getting the oilsands crude to international markets has held back the price of crude produced there. There’s also massive domestic opposition to homegrown alternatives such as the Energy East Pipeline or Northern Gateway.
This promises to be a big year for elections around the world, with votes at home and abroad. The Conservatives presided over a Canadian recession that was relatively mild compared to much of the world, but after nearly a decade of Conservative rule, voters could be ready for a change. The U.K. is looking ahead to an election in May. If the U.K.'s Conservative Party wins and follows through with its promise to hold a referendum on EU membership, it would be a further blow to the Eurozone. The U.S. is looking ahead to an election in 2016, and the year before an election in that country has proven to be an often interesting, volatile ride.
Weak demand and a glut of supply are keeping prices of commodities low, and it doesn’t just affect Canada’s oil patch. The mining sector, one of the heaviest hitters on the Toronto Stock Exchange, could see a resulting slowdown in investment in projects and hiring.
Canada, along with the U.S., is on track for an interest rate hike in 2015. It would be the first since 2010 and consumers — particularly on this side of the border — have continued to pile on debt loads and take out large mortgages in the years of low interest rates. While any hike is expected to be gradual, it could be a shock to some households who are struggling to pay back debt. A higher interest rate could sink more Canadians into bankruptcy and could cause a slowdown in the housing sector, which has propped up Canada’s economy in the years since the recession.
Economists have been warning consumers for years that debt loads are growing to astronomical levels, and that could be a huge risk if interest rates rise. In Canada, the household debt-to-income ratio rose to a new record high of 162.6 per cent in the most recent quarter. And things are not much better south of the border, where consumer debt is worth a total of $3.2 trillion and where there has been a resurgence in subprime lending, the risky banking practice that helped spark the global economic crisis in 2008.
An increase in terrorism and geopolitical instability doesn’t inspire confidence in investors. Threats from ISIS and other terrorist organizations have dominated headlines in the past year and such political uncertainty could spill over into broader conflicts or destabilize markets.
Russia’s ruble has sunk by about 40 per cent in the past few weeks, and the country could soon find itself in recession, partly due to Western sanctions over its aggressive behaviour in Ukraine. As a G8 country, it is a large source of demand for Canadian exports. The country already slapped retaliatory sanctions on Canada in 2014 and the lack of trade could hit Canada’s overall trade figures.
Chinese growth has been a massive driver of the global economy but is losing momentum, affecting the entire global supply chain. Investors are hoping that China’s GDP growth does not come in worse than the 7-per-cent rate it has predicted. A chain reaction caused by the slowdown in China could be particularly concerning for Canada, which had been protected from the worst of the Great Recession, benefitting from Chinese manufacturing’s demand for commodities. In addition, the unrest in Hong Kong, one of the world’s financial hubs, is not over, posing a risk of more uncertainty in the region.
That’s right, Greece is still causing Europe, and global markets, some serious headaches five years after its sovereign debt crisis was first brought to light. It is again making headlines as the new year approaches, with legislators rejecting Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’s nomination for president, Stavros Dimas, triggering a snap election. Polls favour anti-austerity candidates, which could see the country pull away from its debt obligations under its bailout plan with the Eurozone, stoking concerns for the rest of the continent, which is already struggling with sky high unemployment and a shaky financial system. A slowdown in Europe would have knock-on consequences for Canada.
After five years of relatively stable crude prices, oil prices have dropped nearly 50 per cent since June to their lowest level in five years. The drop is a double-edged sword for the Canadian economy. The IMF says it could boost global economic growth by as much as 0.8 percentage points above the expected 3.8 per cent. It’s also good news for consumers, whose savings at the gas pump could translate into more spending elsewhere. However, if oil continues to hover between $60 to $70 a barrel, it could expose weaknesses in oil-dependent countries and companies and even push some to default on debt obligations. The tanking price is bad for Canada’s oilsands, a major source of domestic economic growth and could push the loonie lower.
Follow Ralph Goodale on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@RalphGoodale