John Geddes

John Geddes

John Geddes writes on politics and policy, with occasional reporting and comment on arts and culture.

Debt and taxes: a bit of German perspective

by John Geddes on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:54am - 12 Comments

This morning, a little international perspective on Canada’s federal deficit, and the inevitable debate Canadians must have about taxes.

News from Germany is that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet has approved a budget plan today that would see Europe’s biggest national economy take on US$121 billion in debt this year, US$436 billion from 2010 to 2013.

By my arithmetic, Canada’s projected deficit of C$50.2 billion (or around US$46 billion) is a little less than 40 per cent of Germany’s, about in line with the size of the Canadian gross domestic product compared to German GDP.

The big difference, however, is the starting point. Germany’s debt, measured against the size of its economy, is now about double Canada’s. German debt-to-GDP stands at around 60 per cent, roughy where ours was back in 1995, when the Liberals began wrestling Canada’s deficits into submission. Today, Canadian debt-to-GDP is around 28 per cent, the lowest among G7 countries.

Anyone who was around Ottawa in the early 1990s will share a bit of my sense of how strange it is to think of Canada entering a tough economic slog with the advantage of a relatively clean balance sheet. Back in the late-Mulroney, early-Chrétien days, Germany was the stolid, sensible country—inflation-adverse and fiscally cautious. By comparison, we looked like maniacs or children—willing to accept absurd public spending, punctuated by bouts of awful inflation.

The point of this is not to suggest Canadian can afford to sit back now and say, ‘What the heck, we’re plunging into debt again, but not as deep as everybody else.’ The point is to suggest we have a clear advantage to exploit, courtesy of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Here’s something I think we should have learned from their years: first you fix your fiscal situation, then you reward yourself with lower taxes—not the other way around.

The debate over the relationship between tax levels and fiscal probity is about to be played out in a big way in Germany. In a few months, Germans will vote in an election, and Merkel’s Christian Democrats are promising tax cuts. Not surprisingly, Der Spiegel reports that her ruling party is now debating internally whether that could possibly still make sense, given the swelling German debt problem.

Here’s my guess: in Germany, Canada, and most other developed nations, taxes probably need to rise for a few years sometime soon after this recession ends. Governments will need the money to get their balance sheets back in shape. Given Canada’s relatively strong position going into this rough patch, a tax hike here wouldn’t need to last as long as in other countries.

Canadians learned, or should have, in the key 1995 to 1999 years that if they stomach somewhat higher taxes than they might like during a period of government fiscal retrenching, the payoff comes soon enough. Governments in Ottawa, with no more deficits to worry about, began delivering major tax cuts starting in 2000.

It’s possible, I suppose, that the recovery will be so strong that economic growth alone will spin off tax revenues sufficient to fix the federal books without any politically awkward rate increases. Usually, however, life doesn’t sort itself out so conveniently, and some projections I’ve seen are for lower tax revenue increases in the next few years than Ottawa raked in back in the good old nineties. I suspect most Canadians would accept straight talk on this likelihood.

Maybe that’s what Michael Ignatieff was trying to do when he let slip, just that once, that ruling out tax increases would be irresponsible. Maybe Stephen Harper was edging, ever so gingerly, toward a more honest rhetoric on taxes when he said, on delivering his recent economic quarterly update, not that his Conservatives pledged never to raise taxes, but only that he “does not foresee” increases.

It’s a start.

Bookmark and Share
  • Stephen

    And yet your colleague Coyne would point to fast increases in spending by Martin and Harper, which happens when you have the dough. Even under Chretien and Martin the inevitable 1/3, 1/3 1/3 was about increases in spending, decreases in taxes and debt repayment. It is the spending that was the pernicious part.

    At the stage Canada WAS at, fixing the fscal situation was the important piece because we had run out of borrowing rope. Yet the alternative was Harris or Campbell in BC. With Harris you have government revs falling slightly in the first year of tax cuts, but then increases and falling deficits leading to a surplus in 99/00. Campbell is also running surpluses.

    It is the eternal problem of governments not having discipline when they are rolling in $$, especially with a government of an ideological stripe that is pre disposed to amping up the expenditure side of the equation.

    Point: It isnt universal that you avoid cutting taxes to get your fiscal house in order. Sometimes you need to do it to provide the correct environment. BUT what is common in all the cases, is that there was focus and control of the expenditure on the spending side of the equation.

  • Wayne

    There also are other numbers that need to be considered. All gov't revenue projections are based upon an expected forecast of revenue mainly derived from commoditiy prices … if as an example the price of a barrel is 1 dollar higher than projecteed the effects cascade throughout the model – as another example say Alberta, BC, Manitoba, NFDL et all benefit just a smidegon from a higher than expected roaylty then the fed transfer is greater than expected. In otherwords at present any and all projections are almost moot and so interdependent upon imaginary numbers that they should be considered a guideline only because 1 dollar or even 1 cent a Kilowat and 1 dollar a busshel would have vast consequences – such is life as a energy and food superpower

  • hmmm

    "Here’s something I think we should have learned from their years: first you fix your fiscal situation, then you reward yourself with lower taxes—not the other way around."

    You seem to be under the misapprehension that government's interests are aligned with those of the tax paying public. They are not. Politicians are net tax money recipients and therefore are not "rewarded" by lower taxes.

    High levels of spending (patronage, welfare, etc.), accompanied by high levels of public debt and (down the road) the addressing of the debt through a combination of high taxes and currency devaluation are to the benefit of the government and their cronies, not least those in the banking and finance industries.

    These policies are of course harmful to the public, who are eventually turned into impoverished and dependent serfs.

    Discussions about why Iggy or Harper doesn't do this or that are therefore a waste of time, unless one first understands and acknowledges this difference in motivation and goals.

    Some politicians and parties are more aggressive than others in pursuing the policies of spending, debt and taxes. Trudeau for example, and now Harper (who I understand was in his younger years an acolyte of Trudeau). Chretien and Martin seemed more pragmatic – that is, they were more able to enjoy and appreciate the corrupt patronage machine they inherited rather than feeling the need to ratchet it up to another level.

    But the essential motives and interests are the same. And given the state of ignorance of the public and the media with respect to these essential facts, the long term outlook is not good.

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

      Yeah, that's why for several years both our tax burden and our debt were going down year after year, because politicians have wanted to pay themselves less.. oh wait..

      Get real. What politicians benefit from is happy people. When people are unhappy, the gov't tends to change, especially in our democratic system. Politicians all have a very real understanding of this, having gone through the electoral process. I imagine few of them make the very specious connection that you do of "If tax revenues are higher we can pay ourselves more!"

      And in reality what we should have learned with this latest recession was, "What the government's fiscal situation is is immaterial compared to the overall economy. So when the economy is going gang-busters, solidify your situation by increasing taxes and reducing services — bleeding off some of the excess — so that we can eliminate debt and build up surpluses in order to prepare for the leaner years when we'll need to decrease taxes and increase services to keep the economy humming."

      The problem is, though the government is attempting to do the right thing now, you know damn well that when the economy starts to improve, they won't have the courage to start the hard work of increasing taxes or cutting services with the same urgency.

    • Joseph

      Harper, an acolyte of Trudeau? Ahahaha… No seriously, Harper HATED Trudeau. Harper was briefly a Young Liberal in high school, before Trudeau enacted the much maligned NEP, after which he went Progressive Conservative and eventually helping Manning found the Reform party. He's an Albertan style economic conservative. The only reason he's spending like a liberal is 'cause it's the only thing keeping him in power (minority gov't compromise), as well as the fact that the rest of the world is doing stimulus (which his economics degree probably tells him functions like a massive subsidy and therefore will hurt Canada economically if we don't match).

  • Jan

    to hmmmm.
    "Chretien and Martin seemed more pragmatic- that is, they were more able to enjoy and appreciate the corrupt patronage machine they inherited rather than feeling the need to ratchet it up to another level"
    Don't you realise that Chretien was the one who presided over the most corrupt Govt in the history of this country.He refined the mechanics of it, and let others take the punishment.Some chicken,some neck.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Here’s my guess: in Germany, Canada, and most other developed nations, taxes probably need to rise for a few years sometime soon after this recession ends. Governments will need the money to get their balance sheets back in shape. Given Canada’s relatively strong position going into this rough patch, a tax hike here wouldn’t need to last as long as in other countries.

    It has become impossible to even contemplate that government spending has gotten so out of control that one might consider spending restraint. Just how much of the economy has to become government-controlled before we wake up?

    • André

      The government doesn't control the economy, it controls the people in the economy. When the markets can't stabilise themselves the government has to step whether things are going good or bad. This economic downturn is the result of a cascade of failures starting with the bursting of the housing bubble. Banks were investing using speculated money. When a series of foreclosures devalued the market to normal levels, a huge investment void was created. To prevent the overall economy from grinding to halt by feeding on itself, the governments have to fill the void with stimulus (bright word for non-existing) money and then reclaim that money from us in taxes later on. Investment is not always ownership. As for the bailouts, it's more about having a stake than having a say.

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

        André, you've done it too. Everyone feels that taxes will have to rise in future. No one is even capable of imagining that maybe just maybe governments should stop spending so bloody much. This unsustainable nonsense cannot but end badly.

        • André

          They don't have much of a choice. The populations of the western capitalistic worlds are not educated enough and are too self-serving to maintain a steady economy. The can be a conspiracy theorist and and say that's the government's fault, but I'm not that nihilist.

          If the government is proactive enough to adopt economic policy changes before recessions or stagflation happens then all the mass of baby boomers with little economic knowledge would see is big changes with little change in the economy. Things have to go bad before the governments act for the voters to see the changes were necessary. And by the time they do act, they have lots of catching up to do.

          I agree that Flaherty could have made due with less spending but I don't agree that it's unsustainable.

      • scf

        Nice theory Andre. Too bad it doesn't work, the whole stimulus theory is bunk, concocted by politicians so they can assert more power and take more of your money.

  • Stephen

    The Germans and some other Euro nations had it right when they were fighting Obama ove rhis pressure to increase "stimulus". Their argument was that their auto stabilizers, EI etc were appropriate and they need not enter into additional projects.

    The hazy backward view is that government projects gave people jobs in the depression. I wont say that wasnt true but many of those jbs were unskilled. Today…good luck building a bridge or a road and having lots of unsklilled labour.

    1) The unions would freak
    2) Are all the health and safety rules being followed
    3) Much more machinery involved, that requires training and certification

    It doesnt work the same way anymore.

    We have constructed a very complex process for visible projects. The ones being done were going to be done anyway, snce you need engineering, environmental etc, and those take time. There is lots to be criticized, constructively, in what the government did. But all agreed at the time that these needed to be quick to implement and needed to be non permanent.

From Macleans