News   Feb 19, 2026
 860     8 
News   Feb 19, 2026
 509     0 
News   Feb 19, 2026
 1.5K     1 

Globe: GST Cut Blasted by Economists

299 bloor call control.

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
70
Plan to cut GST blasted
TAVIA GRANT
Globe and Mail Update
October 24, 2007 at 8:00 PM EDT
The Conservative government's plan to trim the GST for a second time has been soundly rejected as a top tax-cutting priority by a large group of economists surveyed by The Globe and Mail.

All 20 economists said other tax cuts would be better for the country than trimming another percentage point from the goods and services tax, which represents more than $5-billion in revenue.

It's a remarkable show of unanimity on public policy, given that the responses were from organizations as diverse as the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Bank of Montreal and the Halifax-based Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.

Most economists said the government's priorities should be cutting personal income and business taxes, especially the latter.

“There is an overwhelming consensus amongst economic research that business taxes are the most economically damaging taxes and thus should be the federal government's top priority,†said Niels Veldhuis, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver.

And most said point blank that the government's proposed GST cut is a bad move, one with a negligible effect on the economic health of the nation that does nothing to boost productivity.

“In the modern, global economy, Canada has to do everything it can to make its workers and companies competitive,†said Don Drummond, chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

“The federal surpluses have offered a golden opportunity to move forward in a very decisive manner. The GST rate cuts don't move that agenda forward at all,†Mr. Drummond said.

The Conservative government said last week that it plans to cut a second percentage point from the GST, bringing the sales tax to 5 per cent, after a one-percentage-point cut last year.

Mr. Drummond and others have plenty of ideas about where that $5-billion could go.

Personal and corporate income tax reductions, “if properly structured,†would be one, he said. Another would be reversing the earlier GST tax cut and shaving every Canadian's marginal personal income tax rate by two percentage points.

All told, 16 of 20 respondents to The Globe's survey called the government's announcement to cut the GST a bad move, while two said it was irrelevant and two said it would be good for the economy.

The cut may give a small pop to consumer spending, but that's hardly an area that needs boosting, given the repeated warnings from the Bank of Canada that the economy is already running above capacity.

“Cutting the GST could encourage more consumption at exactly the wrong time,†said Patricia Croft, chief economist at investment manager Phillips Hager & North. “Domestic demand is already very strong and encouraging additional consumption could make the Bank of Canada's job tougher at this juncture.â€

A one-point GST reduction adds about 0.3 per cent to Canada's gross domestic product, “but it's one-time and there are better ways to do it,†said Sherry Cooper, chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns.

David Park, chief economist at the Vancouver Board of Trade, went further, calling the proposed reduction “the worst tax to cut in the spectrum of federal taxes,†especially when the Bank of Canada is worried about inflation.

Rather than throwing fat on a sector that's already on fire, the government should focus on supporting business investment in the face of a soaring dollar, a U.S. slowdown and Canada's gaping non-resource trade deficit, said CAW economist Jim Stanford, who would focus instead on expanding the Canada Child Tax Benefit.

Ian Munro, director of research at the Atlantic Institute, would also prefer corporate income tax reductions, saying they would provide the greatest stimulus to growth.

Other ideas ranged from cutting the capital gains tax to integrating the GST with provincial sales tax, both of which should encourage investment.

The Conservative GST cuts are nothing but political posturing and bribery to the ignorant electorate. I've always been against them, considering how little of a difference it makes when the 1-2% cut could be used for much more important matters (i.e. 1% to cities, etc.)

It's ridiculous we're living in a framework where all you hear from the Feds is cut taxes and from our cities is raise taxes.

Besides, GST cuts do nothing to help the people who need the most help. Basic necessities are already exempt from GST, the only people who benefit are those who buy high-priced taxable goods, and increasing spending on that is the last thing our economy needs.

Like I said last time, a 1% GST cut on a $3.99 McDonald's meal once a week won't even save you enough after a year to buy another $3.99 McDonald's meal.
 
Exactly. If they wanted to do something to help the economy, they should lower capital tax, and PIT and CIT. These are among the most economically harmful taxes we have, while the GST is relatively benign (in fact, we should raise it, not lower it so we can cut other, worse taxes).
 
phony stunts and trickery still work in the 21st century to buy votes... really there are plenty of good areas to use the current tax revenues, without making these empty gestures of "tax reductions" Just about the only praise I can give to the Conservative government is for their continued paying down of the country's debt using any surplus tax revenue. This is the most basic of common sense and it really floors me when the NDP is critical of this move. Even if we continue with the type of payments that have been made over the last 12 years, it could still take up to another 50 years to pay off the country's debt... still a worthy goal.
 
Redroom,

By law, any unspent government revenues are dedicated to debt retirement, regardless of the government in power. And as much as the Conservatives hate to admit it (while they were in opposition), it is frequently difficult to forecast actual surplus to within a range of a few billion. It's easy to see why: the federal government has a nearly $200 billion budget, and a slight change in economic growth can result in a significant change in corporate profits, which in turn result in a large swing in corporate tax revenue. An increase in overall tax revenues of 5% increases the size of the surplus by about $10 billion.

So, I think its unreasonable for us to expect our government to just balance the budget. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that debt repayment is the best use of those extra funds, given that interest rates are so low. We could obtain a higher return by investing those funds in infrastructure projects to bring our infrastructure back up to some semblance of good repair. We could easily sink $100 billion into infrastructure over the next 5 to 10 years.

So, all in all, I don't think we need to see an overall reduction in taxation levels. I would support a shift of taxation to more economically efficient taxes. But other than that, tossing surpluses into an arms-length fund (an accounting trick frequently used the government to perform revenue-smoothing) that municipalities and provinces could apply to for funding. Set a rough guideline of how much should be spent in each region by population to avoid overly political pork-barreling.

edit:

"Even if we continue with the type of payments that have been made over the last 12 years, it could still take up to another 50 years to pay off the country's debt... still a worthy goal."

I think you'll find that we could pay it off significantly faster. Given that current debt service costs are about $40 billion of federal spending (link), or about 16% of federal spending. Add to that average debt repayment of about 5% of federal spending for a total of about 21% on debt retirement and servicing. If we cap that proportion of federal spending into debt service and repayment, we could retire the debt in about 20 years. A few years ago debt service charges were 30% of federal spending. If we were to return to that level of debt service/retirement, that would mean about $63 billion to go to debt retirement/interest, which would mean about $20 billion in repayment per year initially, which would obviously ramp up fairly quickly. We could probably repay the debt in a bit over a decade. That, of course, assumes that repaying the debt in a significant way wouldn't be a significant drag on the economy...
 

Back
Top