 Average Canadian family spent more on taxes in 2018 than basic necessitiesPolitical | 206956 hits | Aug 04 10:01 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog  The average Canadian family spent more last year on taxes than on housing, food and clothing combined, according to a new study.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
/end sarcasm
2017-08-29: Title: versus the Necessities of Life: The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2017 Edition | Fraser Institute
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current- ... ilit=Taxes
2016-08-23; Title: Canadians now spend more on than on food, clothing and shelter combined, study finds | Financial Post
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current- ... ilit=Taxes
2012-04-26: Title: Canadians pay more in than basic necessities: Report
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current- ... ilit=Taxes
Let me save you some time:
There is no sweeter time of year for those perennially convinced of government�s greed and bloat than the release of the Fraser Institute�s annual Canadian Consumer Tax Index, which never lets the truth get in the way of a bit of anti-tax panic.
The numbers are again eye-popping. According to the authors, the tax bill of the average Canadian family has increased by a whopping 2,006 per cent since 1961. We now pay more in taxes than we do on housing, food and clothing combined, the report gasps, as it does every year.
As ever, however, the scandal the report purports to uncover would seem far less scandalous if only the numbers used were not so distorted and out of any context.
To take a few egregious examples: the report doesn�t account for inflation. It includes corporate taxes in the average family�s tax bill, though these are largely shouldered by richer Canadians. It presents the mean family as the typical one, though the median family, which earns less and thus pays less in taxes, would be more appropriate.
The report asserts that Canadians, on average, spend more than 40 per cent of their income on taxes. A recent study from the Broadbent Institute put the number at about half that. There are many ways to calculate these things; the Fraser Institute�s questionable methodology no doubt suits its dogmatic aversion to taxes and active government.
Nor does the report mention that Canada is increasingly a low-tax country compared to our peers. When it comes to taxes as a share of GDP, for instance, Canada is well below average among OECD nations. But saying that, we suppose, might dampen the outrage.
The study�s greatest failing, however � the omission that ultimately renders its statistics meaningless � is that it makes no mention whatsoever of what we get in return for our tax money. Nowhere does the report mention �public services� or �programs,� nowhere �roads� or �schools.� It�s true that taxes as a percentage of our income have risen over the last 56 years, by around 7 per cent, but consider what they have bought: medicare, for instance, and the Canada Pension Plan, to name just two programs established after their baseline year of 1961.
Not only are these and other aspects of our social safety net arguably central to our national identity � the civilization, you might say, for which taxes have been the price. But they have also yielded exceptional value for money.
A 2009 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that middle-income Canadians enjoy public services, from education to health insurance to pensions, worth about $41,000 annually per family � or roughly 63 per cent of their income and more than they pay in taxes. Conversely, we have watched as decades of tax cuts have led to eroding public services, but also to rising inequality, persistent homelessness, traffic gridlock and crumbling schools.
By delinking taxes from the services they buy, the Fraser Institute has long fed into a false narrative that for decades was in the ascendancy: that any tax is a bad tax and any cut a free good. In recent years, however, that view has begun to fall out of favour, and not just on the left. The IMF, the OECD, and other past champions of austerity have all made the case that the costs of tax cuts often outweigh their benefits and taxes and the collective action they pay for are essential if we are to meet our biggest challenges.
A few years ago it was almost unthinkable that a Canadian politician could run successfully on the promise of raising any taxes ever. But in the last federal election, both the New Democrats and the Liberals promised tax hikes for at least some Canadians that would have seemed political suicide in recent elections past.
The Fraser Institute�s annual anti-tax litany was always bogus. Now, thankfully, it�s starting to look out of touch.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar ... ditor.html
our wonderful Liberal government they said our taxes would go down!
The same Liberal government also told us that, 'the budget will balance itself'. We all know how well that went.
-J.
It is fake news. The propagandist Fraser institute releases this same bullshit report every year, with their phoney numbers. Here�s a few of the CKA threads on this :
People fall for all the political rhetoric. That's the reason places like The Fraiser Institute even exist; to publish this crap.
But, given the state of our infrastructure, health care, social programs, care for seniors and veterans we are continually told by the gov't that we need to pay more taxes to cover the cost of these programs because, apparently Canadian Taxpayers are asking for more than the gov't can give with the amount of money they TAKE from us annually.
Yet we have no problem sending billions of our tax dollars overseas while our own problems continue to spiral out of control? There seems to be no end to the insanity of giving our tax dollars away to 3rd world shitholes just to make our leaders look good on the world stage.
So here's what we're sending overseas and if this doesn't ring alarm bells about the state of our tax system and why it's so high then, Canadians are so dense that they shouldn't be allowed off the short bus by themselves.
from us on the truth of the many internet chain mail letters that makes claims of
outrageous government spending.
One email that gets passed into our inbox at least once a month is entitled �$15
billion given to foreign countries?� It admonishes the Canadian government for
sending billions in foreign aid to countries like Russia and Mexico, while ignoring
seniors, veterans and the homeless.
Does Canada really ship billions overseas in foreign aid? Yes it does. While the
government comes nowhere close to spending the amount claimed in the email, in
2011-2012 alone, Ottawa spent $6 billion in foreign aid � a pretty big chunk of
change.
To put things in perspective, that�s just slightly more than the feds spend on
departments of health, the environment and the Canada Food Inspection Agency
combined. Foreign aid also costs more than the cumulative budgets of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.
The bulk of the aid budget - $4 billion � goes to the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA)� which was folded into the Foreign Affairs and
International Trade department in the recent federal budget.
CIDA divides countries into three main categories: fragile, low-income, and middleincome states. The agency focuses its aid on a handful of countries in each category.
The money then gets spent on local CIDA employees, along with grants to NGOs and
businesses in the region.
But that hasn�t always been the agency�s business model. Founded in 1968, CIDA
focused its efforts on major infrastructure projects like roads and highways in the
developing world. But a lot of this government to government funding ended up in
the Swiss bank accounts of foreign dictators.
After this dismal failure, CIDA began in the late 1970s working at the local level
directly with the people they hoped to assist. But an academic study condemned the
agency for having �only marginal relevance to the needs of poor Third World
countries,� with little or no results to show for their large annual budget.
44 countries received Canadian funding in 2011-2012, with the bulk of the funding
going to a handful of targeted nations. The top three recipients of Canadian foreign
aid are Ethiopia ($208 million), Haiti ($204 million) and Tanzania ($181 million) �
three of the poorest nations on earth.
But Canada also donates to economic superpowers like China and Russia. With
economies of $8.2 and $2 trillion respectively, it begs the question: do they really
need our money?
Recently, the government has changed course on China and a handful of other
countries, shaving $377 million off the annual aid budget by 2014-15.
According to a 2004 opinion poll, Canadians are divided on whether foreign aid
should be a tool to advance the national interest or simply our moral imperative as a
wealthy nation. But regardless of what camp you fall into, it�s important to ask if
taxpayers are getting value for their dollars
The massive �foreign aid industry� of government bureaucrats, NGO workers and
local officials who have made careers out of aid funding will certainly say yes. But
there has been a growing consensus in recent years that while foreign aid is well
intentioned, it has had little to no impact on the countries it seeks to help.
Interestingly, a massive study of 6000 individuals receiving direct foreign aid in
developing countries found that while they appreciate the assistance, that the aid
has made no impact improving their lives.
The best example of the failures of foreign aid spending is Haiti. With a population of
eight million, it has received $1 billion in Canadian government funding since 2006
and billions more from the international community. This cycle of dependency on
foreign aid goes back decades. Yet the country remains the poorest in the Americas
and one of the worst governed places on earth.
Meanwhile, in the Palestinian territory of Gaza, CIDA admits that despite the
territory receiving the highest per capita foreign aid funding in the world, the
humanitarian situation is actually �regressing.� The majority of the population lives
in poverty and relies on food handouts from the UN mission in the region.
The UN estimates that 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990.
But there has been no evidence that this is connected to foreign aid. Instead,
countries that have adopted lower taxes, trade liberalization and the rule of law
have flourished.
Recognizing past failures, the government has pivoted its efforts away from
traditional humanitarian assistance towards private sector partnerships with both
Canadian and foreign businesses that will spur economic growth in developing
countries while boosting trade with Canada.
The feds seem to be basing their strategy on the old saying: �give a man a fish and
feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.�
Ottawa�s new initiative to use foreign aid to benefit the national interest may also be
the most effective way to boost the fortunes of people in developing nations.
Evidence from the last 45 years has made it clear that trade, not aid is what the
developing world needs.
So yes a lot of government money - $5.7 billion worth � gets spent on foreign aid
every year. But hopefully the recent changes will give taxpayers a better return on
their investment. Otherwise, Canada will continue to follow into the old trap, where
foreign aid transfers money from poor people in rich countries, to rich people in
poor countries.
https://www.taxpayer.com/media/$15%20Bi ... %20Aid.pdf
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm sick of propping up foreign countries and their less than ethical leaders while watching our own infrastructure collapses under the weight of neglect by our own gov'ts.
Canadian Taxpayers Federation,
Yeh, really represents us.
Where's their local chapters, who and how votes for their board of directors? Why does their every policy represent big business, never ever the working taxpayer?
Canadian Taxpayers Federation,
Yeh, really represents us.
Where's their local chapters, who and how votes for their board of directors? Why does their every policy represent big business, never ever the working taxpayer?
It's actually quite simple. If you have a problem with their numbers, prove them wrong. But it's good to know that you care more about who's on the board of directors of a watchdog agency than what's happening to your tax dollars or ever increasing tax burden.
Canadian Taxpayers Federation,
Yeh, really represents us.
Where's their local chapters, who and how votes for their board of directors? Why does their every policy represent big business, never ever the working taxpayer?
It's actually quite simple. If you have a problem with their numbers, prove them wrong. But it's good to know that you care more about who's on the board of directors of a watchdog agency than what's happening to your tax dollars or ever increasing tax burden.
Umm hate to break it to ya but CTF is not a �watchdog agency�. It�s a right wing lobby group privately funded to the tune of millions per year by unnamed, undisclosed donors and wholly controlled by a board of directors consisting of five people.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3802441
It also gets funding from US-based right wing groups.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/07/05/C ... ation-Get/
But wait, haven�t we heard from conservatives that US environmental groups providing funds to Canadian environmental groups is somehow illegal or inappropriate? Conservative Jason Kenney recently announced a witch-hunt into the alleged �foreign funding � of Canadian environmental groups. I guess that�s another one of the conservatives � made-up unwritten crimes that�s only exists when liberals do it.
It is fake news. The propagandist Fraser institute releases this same bullshit report every year, with their phoney numbers. Here�s a few of the CKA threads on this :
2017-08-29: Title: versus the Necessities of Life: The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2017 Edition | Fraser Institute
current-events-f59/taxes-versus-the-necessities-of-life-the-canadian-consumer-t119791.html?hilit=Taxes
2016-08-23; Title: Canadians now spend more on than on food, clothing and shelter combined, study finds | Financial Post
current-events-f59/canadians-now-spend-more-on-taxes-than-on-food-clothing-and-t117067.html?hilit=Taxes
2012-04-26: Title: Canadians pay more in than basic necessities: Report
current-events-f59/canadians-pay-more-in-taxes-than-basic-necessities-report-t100716.html?hilit=Taxes
Let me save you some time:
There is no sweeter time of year for those perennially convinced of government�s greed and bloat than the release of the Fraser Institute�s annual Canadian Consumer Tax Index, which never lets the truth get in the way of a bit of anti-tax panic.
The numbers are again eye-popping. According to the authors, the tax bill of the average Canadian family has increased by a whopping 2,006 per cent since 1961. We now pay more in taxes than we do on housing, food and clothing combined, the report gasps, as it does every year.
As ever, however, the scandal the report purports to uncover would seem far less scandalous if only the numbers used were not so distorted and out of any context.
To take a few egregious examples: the report doesn�t account for inflation. It includes corporate taxes in the average family�s tax bill, though these are largely shouldered by richer Canadians. It presents the mean family as the typical one, though the median family, which earns less and thus pays less in taxes, would be more appropriate.
The report asserts that Canadians, on average, spend more than 40 per cent of their income on taxes. A recent study from the Broadbent Institute put the number at about half that. There are many ways to calculate these things; the Fraser Institute�s questionable methodology no doubt suits its dogmatic aversion to taxes and active government.
Nor does the report mention that Canada is increasingly a low-tax country compared to our peers. When it comes to taxes as a share of GDP, for instance, Canada is well below average among OECD nations. But saying that, we suppose, might dampen the outrage.
The study�s greatest failing, however � the omission that ultimately renders its statistics meaningless � is that it makes no mention whatsoever of what we get in return for our tax money. Nowhere does the report mention �public services� or �programs,� nowhere �roads� or �schools.� It�s true that taxes as a percentage of our income have risen over the last 56 years, by around 7 per cent, but consider what they have bought: medicare, for instance, and the Canada Pension Plan, to name just two programs established after their baseline year of 1961.
Not only are these and other aspects of our social safety net arguably central to our national identity � the civilization, you might say, for which taxes have been the price. But they have also yielded exceptional value for money.
A 2009 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that middle-income Canadians enjoy public services, from education to health insurance to pensions, worth about $41,000 annually per family � or roughly 63 per cent of their income and more than they pay in taxes. Conversely, we have watched as decades of tax cuts have led to eroding public services, but also to rising inequality, persistent homelessness, traffic gridlock and crumbling schools.
By delinking taxes from the services they buy, the Fraser Institute has long fed into a false narrative that for decades was in the ascendancy: that any tax is a bad tax and any cut a free good. In recent years, however, that view has begun to fall out of favour, and not just on the left. The IMF, the OECD, and other past champions of austerity have all made the case that the costs of tax cuts often outweigh their benefits and taxes and the collective action they pay for are essential if we are to meet our biggest challenges.
A few years ago it was almost unthinkable that a Canadian politician could run successfully on the promise of raising any taxes ever. But in the last federal election, both the New Democrats and the Liberals promised tax hikes for at least some Canadians that would have seemed political suicide in recent elections past.
The Fraser Institute�s annual anti-tax litany was always bogus. Now, thankfully, it�s starting to look out of touch.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar ... ditor.html
I'd rep if I could.
Umm hate to break it to ya but CTF is not a �watchdog agency�. It�s a right wing lobby group privately funded to the tune of millions per year by unnamed, undisclosed donors and wholly controlled by a board of directors consisting of five people.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3802441
It also gets funding from US-based right wing groups.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/07/05/C ... ation-Get/
But wait, haven�t we heard from conservatives that US environmental groups providing funds to Canadian environmental groups is somehow illegal or inappropriate? Conservative Jason Kenney recently announced a witch-hunt into the alleged �foreign funding � of Canadian environmental groups. I guess that�s another one of the conservatives � made-up unwritten crimes that�s only exists when liberals do it.
So, I'll ask you the same question I asked herbie. Can you prove their numbers are wrong or that this all just some "right wing conspiracy" to make the Liberals look bad?
Also, if you read the last line of my post you'd have notice the term . Which denotes all of them because, TBH none of them have been stalwart stewards of our tax dollars since the day these modern day ponzi artists figured out that they could get us to give them our money and then give it back to us in dribs and drabs after they finished with their pet projects.
But, since you brought it up, could you explain how the fuck can the current gov't morally justify promising 9 billion dollars to Sub Saharan Africa and give financial aid to countries like China while denying, seniors and veterans increased and earned benefits, while screwing the middle class by eliminating tax breaks and increasing the tax burdens on average Canadians?
Hey I get it. You guys can't refute the numbers so you attack the messenger which is fair enough. It's a political forum and that's to be expected but, it still doesn't change the fact that our country is going backwards when it comes to financing our infrastructure, our health care, our social programs and our national debt all the while increasing the tax burden on he rest of us while ensuring our great grand children will be paying for the previous gov'ts largess.
It is fake news. The propagandist Fraser institute releases this same bullshit report every year, with their phoney numbers. Here�s a few of the CKA threads on this :
2017-08-29: Title: versus the Necessities of Life: The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2017 Edition | Fraser Institute
current-events-f59/taxes-versus-the-necessities-of-life-the-canadian-consumer-t119791.html?hilit=Taxes
2016-08-23; Title: Canadians now spend more on than on food, clothing and shelter combined, study finds | Financial Post
current-events-f59/canadians-now-spend-more-on-taxes-than-on-food-clothing-and-t117067.html?hilit=Taxes
2012-04-26: Title: Canadians pay more in than basic necessities: Report
current-events-f59/canadians-pay-more-in-taxes-than-basic-necessities-report-t100716.html?hilit=Taxes
Let me save you some time:
There is no sweeter time of year for those perennially convinced of government�s greed and bloat than the release of the Fraser Institute�s annual Canadian Consumer Tax Index, which never lets the truth get in the way of a bit of anti-tax panic.
The numbers are again eye-popping. According to the authors, the tax bill of the average Canadian family has increased by a whopping 2,006 per cent since 1961. We now pay more in taxes than we do on housing, food and clothing combined, the report gasps, as it does every year.
As ever, however, the scandal the report purports to uncover would seem far less scandalous if only the numbers used were not so distorted and out of any context.
To take a few egregious examples: the report doesn�t account for inflation. It includes corporate taxes in the average family�s tax bill, though these are largely shouldered by richer Canadians. It presents the mean family as the typical one, though the median family, which earns less and thus pays less in taxes, would be more appropriate.
The report asserts that Canadians, on average, spend more than 40 per cent of their income on taxes. A recent study from the Broadbent Institute put the number at about half that. There are many ways to calculate these things; the Fraser Institute�s questionable methodology no doubt suits its dogmatic aversion to taxes and active government.
Nor does the report mention that Canada is increasingly a low-tax country compared to our peers. When it comes to taxes as a share of GDP, for instance, Canada is well below average among OECD nations. But saying that, we suppose, might dampen the outrage.
The study�s greatest failing, however � the omission that ultimately renders its statistics meaningless � is that it makes no mention whatsoever of what we get in return for our tax money. Nowhere does the report mention �public services� or �programs,� nowhere �roads� or �schools.� It�s true that taxes as a percentage of our income have risen over the last 56 years, by around 7 per cent, but consider what they have bought: medicare, for instance, and the Canada Pension Plan, to name just two programs established after their baseline year of 1961.
Not only are these and other aspects of our social safety net arguably central to our national identity � the civilization, you might say, for which taxes have been the price. But they have also yielded exceptional value for money.
A 2009 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that middle-income Canadians enjoy public services, from education to health insurance to pensions, worth about $41,000 annually per family � or roughly 63 per cent of their income and more than they pay in taxes. Conversely, we have watched as decades of tax cuts have led to eroding public services, but also to rising inequality, persistent homelessness, traffic gridlock and crumbling schools.
By delinking taxes from the services they buy, the Fraser Institute has long fed into a false narrative that for decades was in the ascendancy: that any tax is a bad tax and any cut a free good. In recent years, however, that view has begun to fall out of favour, and not just on the left. The IMF, the OECD, and other past champions of austerity have all made the case that the costs of tax cuts often outweigh their benefits and taxes and the collective action they pay for are essential if we are to meet our biggest challenges.
A few years ago it was almost unthinkable that a Canadian politician could run successfully on the promise of raising any taxes ever. But in the last federal election, both the New Democrats and the Liberals promised tax hikes for at least some Canadians that would have seemed political suicide in recent elections past.
The Fraser Institute�s annual anti-tax litany was always bogus. Now, thankfully, it�s starting to look out of touch.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar ... ditor.html
I'd rep if I could.
Sorry but the Star is a left wing publication so, given the current criteria on this forum for what's to be considered a believable source they don't qualify and should be ignored.
Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that arguing taxes is like arguing gov't policy. If you're one of the lucky ones who's getting what you want from them they're great but, if you're one of the unlucky ones not getting what you want from them then, not so much.
I'd rep if I could.
Gotja covered.