The tax freedom shuffle

In a letter to the editor printed of the current issue of Maclean’s, Niels…

by Andrew Potter on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:21am - 11 Comments

In a letter to the editor printed of the current issue of Maclean’s, Niels Veldhuis, “Director of Fiscal Studies” for the Fraser Institute, accuses me of missing the point with my criticisms of tax freedom day. Of course we get benefits from taxes, he graciously concedes. The question Canadians want to know, he writes, is: “Are we getting value for our tax dollars?” As he goes on to claim, the point of tax freedom day is to provide Canadians with “an accurate and easy to understand estimate of their total tax bill.”

Of course, no sooner does he concede this then he falls back into the rhetoric of taxes as something “imposed by the government”, but let that pass.  I’ll grant that it is entirely possible that Mr. Veldhuis believes what he writes, but my argument against tax freedom day is that it simply cannot serve this educative function he envisions. Why? Because the percentage of our income devoted to public spending has absolutely nothing to do with the question fo whether we are getting value for that spending. They are two completely separate issues. It’s like wondering whether the restaurant you ate at last night was any good by simply looking at the bill.

Of course, I don’t expect any libertarians out there to take my word for the essential uselessness of tax freedom day. So why not ask… Niels Veldhuis. In a recent column typical for its combination of credulity and contradiction, Jonathan Chevreau begins by celebrating the unexpectedly early arrival of tax freedom day, and even quotes some boilerplate from Veldhuis about how taxes are blah blah family necessities blah blah. But then Chevreau turns on the federal government for deigning to take credit for the early arrival, thanks to their tax policies and so on.

Indeed, the real reason for tax freedom day come early, he says, is not good tax policy, but the tanking economy:

“When the economy slows and incomes stagnate or decline, an average family’s tax burden tends to be reduced to a greater extent than its income. The reason for this accelerated decrease in the tax burden compared to income is the progressive nature of Canada’s tax system… Under our progressive tax system, families pay more proportionately in taxes as they earn more income. The reverse is also true. It is this reverse phenomenon that is driving much of the decrease in Tax Freedom Day.”

Who said that? None other than Niels Veldhuis.

So to summarize: Sometimes tax freedom day is a tool for helping us judge whether we are receiving value for the services our tax dollars provide. Except when it’s a tool for measuring economic stagnation under a progressive taxation system.

Like I said, it’s entirely possible Niels Veldhuis believes what he writes.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

    It's not called the Fraser Institute for the Politically Deranged for nothing, Mr. Potter. Let's just say some of their treatments are . . . controversial. Yes, I mean the blistering.

    I had a random idea the other day. Divide every taxpayer's tax payment into units of $100 (TPU's or something), each of which then gets an internal code and is tracked. (I assume we have the processing power to do this.) Every time a sum of money is disbursed by Treasury Board, the purpose of the disbursement is noted, together with which TPU's were used to fund it. At the end of the year, every taxpayer is sent a code which gives access to a list of exactly what services his/her taxes were used to purchase.

    Since this is not actually the way the government's accounting works, you could of course just take total government revenue and express everyone's taxes as a proportionately identical percentage of that, but that would be extremely dull and hard to fathom (also extremely long). With my TPU system, you would see that this $100 TPU went to pay a PPCLI sergeant's pension, that TPU went to paving the Trans-Canada, another went to paying for the Oliphant Inquiry — oh, and we can't forget debt service charges! Several TPU's would go to that. The idea would be to provide ordinary taxpayers with a personalised look at what their money was used for; by way of answering Niels Veldhuis' call to tell Canadians whether they're getting value for their tax dollars. And in this day and age it would be paperless and cheap.

  • Mike T.

    Call me when they start counting capital gains as part of the money people actually receive.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    "Because the percentage of our income devoted to public spending has absolutely nothing to do with the question fo whether we are getting value for that spending."

    You can't see me, but I'm standing on my chair applauding. I don't know how three generations of conservatives have gotten away with "lower taxes" as a platform, with no pressure to account for the total impact of such a policy. Worse, they tell Canadians that their government wastes their money, then pull a fast one and sell tax cuts as the solution rather than addressing the waste the claim is rampant.

    Hopefully journalists and voters will demand more in the future – lower taxes? How low? What are you going to cut to offset the reduced revenues? Or are you going to borrow the money to finance the tax cut (*cough*GST cut*cough*)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    The question Canadians want to know, he writes, is: “Are we getting value for our tax dollars?”

    If that's the case then why doesn't the Fraser Drunkstitute or the Conservative Taxpayer's Federation ever address it. Oh right, because the answer would be Yes They Do* and that would seriously conflict with their propaganda.

    *Before any right whingers dispute this consider this. You likely received 12 years of education valued at roughly $60,000 (based on private school tuition) before you even paid one thin dime in taxes. That means it takes the average person nearly 4 years just to repay their education bill. If you total up the benefits you receive in a similar manner for every government service you'll find you're getting a truly astounding deal.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LeenieJ LeenieJ

    Because the percentage of our income devoted to public spending has absolutely nothing to do with the question fo whether we are getting value for that spending. They are two completely separate issues. It’s like wondering whether the restaurant you ate at last night was any good by simply looking at the bill.

    excellent analogy!

    a penny of cost is a dollar in benefits; the propagandist can't see the forest for the tree that its stingy self-serving nose is stuck up against apparently. I am a Canadian and So Can You.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    "Because the percentage of our income devoted to public spending has absolutely nothing to do with the question fo whether we are getting value for that spending. They are two completely separate issues. It’s like wondering whether the restaurant you ate at last night was any good by simply looking at the bill."

    You certainly got a bee in your bonnet about Tax Freedom Day, Andrew.

    You seem to be arguing that price and value are entirely unrelated. If I was charged $50 for a big mac when I went out for dinner last night, looking at the bill and deciding the restaurant wasn't very good would be appropriate as far as I am concerned.

    I also like Jack M's idea of TPUs. I think it would be great if the taxman went to every residence once a month, asked for cash and itemized what the money was going to pay for. People would quickly see how much money is wasted by government to pay for frivolities and baksheesh.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Do tell.. what are these frivolities and baksheesh you speak of? Conservative mailers perhaps?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

      "Frivolities and baksheesh" is a beautiful phrase; also, according to Google, 100% original. Glad you approve of the TPU idea, jolyon. I think it would be an interesting experiment, simply because there would certainly be many items that raised eyebrows and many others (e.g. my hypothetical PPCLI sergeant's pension) that people don't know they're paying for but which would make them feel glad if they did know.

  • Sisyphus

    It doesn’t matter whether or not he believes what he writes.

    I don’t.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    Maybe there was something in the air the other day because I had similar/same random thought as you. But I was thinking about what would happen if taxman appeared at your door once a month to collect money and gave you itemized bill on where your money was going. I wonder if there would be more outrage about, say, GM bailout if taxman appeared at your door asking for $100 per person to pay for auto workers' pensions.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

      Indeed, far more outrage on that score; though nothing like so severe as the outrage of being forced to sign a huge IOU for one's personal share of this year's deficit. Maybe that could be a twin feature of our TPU idea: what you paid for and what you pledged to pay for in future. A conservative guess of $50B for this year's deficit works out to . . . roughly $1600 for every man, woman, and child, or 16 TPU's.

      On the other hand, I would hope there would also be less outrage about the spending of trifling sums of money for things like the GG's travel budget or grants to Canadian hip hop artists. Those cost absolutely nothing compared to the size of the deficit and a bit more light on where one's taxes actually go might help to keep that kind of thing in perspective.

From Macleans