The PC Party of Ontario is running a campaign to label Dalton McGuinty as the "taxman." But is it true?

Let's compare the Ontario PCs under Mike Harris and Ernie Eves (1995-2002) and Dalton McGuinty (2003-2010), two eight-year periods (the transition of government occurred part-way through 2002-2003). Please see the notes at the bottom of the post for important caveats about the Education Property Tax and Government Business Enterprises.

Bottom line: No, it's not true. Harris/Eves and McGuinty have taxed Ontarians to roughly the same extent. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 10.57% under Harris/Eves and 10.47% under McGuinty.

Tax revenue generally increases along with GDP, and we can see in Chart 1 that GDP and tax revenue have increased under both the PCPO and the OLP. For this reason, a good measure of the tax burden is tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. As Chart 2 shows, this metric has been very steady over the 16 years in question, through both PCPO and OLP majority governments. If McGuinty is a "taxman," then Mike Harris and Ernie Eves deserve that moniker, too.

So why does this myth of Dalton as a "taxman" exist?

It is an invented marketing message, created by the PCPO, designed to convince voters to turf McGuinty. Although it's inaccurate, there are elements that resonate with voters. Ironically, one true element of the myth is based on a decision by McGuinty that you would expect the PCPO to be in favour of: increased transparency in taxation.

When McGuinty introduced the health premium, he could have chosen to increase personal income tax rates instead. If he had, there would be no "health premium" for PCPO to complain about incessantly. Establishing a new tax specifically for health at least associates the revenue with a particular area of expenditure. It is worth noting that the PCPO isn't proposing to cut or eliminate the health premium.

Similarly, the PCPO rails against eco fees, which aren't a tax collected by government but a means for business to organize and fund its own recycling through a non-profit. They also complain constantly about the HST, which is more efficient, better for manufacturers and reduces the paperwork burden on businesses. They don't propose to get rid of the HST.

The PCPO calls Dalton the "taxman," but tax revenue has increased under his government as it did under the PCPO governments of Harris and Eves. They apparently hate the health premium and the HST, but they don't propose to get rid of either tax. Perhaps they should look in the mirror while they are calling McGuinty names.

Or, better yet, propose a credible and better alternative to the tax policy of the current government.

Data

Check out the data for this post in a Google spreadsheet, compiled from the public accounts of Ontario.

Summary metrics

Distribution of tax revenue (2010, %)

• Personal Income Tax (39.4%)
• Sales Tax (28.8%)
• Education Property Tax¹ (not included)
• Corporations Tax (9.5%)
• Employer Health Tax (7.7%)
• Ontario Health Premium (4.7%)
• Gasoline Tax (3.9%)
• Tobacco Tax (1.8%)
• Land Transfer Tax (1.7%)
• Fuel Tax (1.1%)
• Electricity Payments-In-Lieu of Taxes (0.9%)
• Other Taxes (0.5%)

Note 1: Previous to 2008, the Education Property Tax was netted against school board expenditures and not included in the government revenues in the public accounts. In 2008, the government moved to a simpler means of accounting for this revenue and now reports the tax revenue separately from the expenditures. For purposes of comparison, as the prior public accounts have not been restated, I've excluded it from these figures. The impact should be negligible.

Note 2: The government also receives income from Government Business Enterprises like Hydro One, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, Ontario Power Generation and the LCBO. In 2010, net income from these GBEs was $4.2 billion.

Summary

1. The LPC is advocating a corporate income tax (CIT) rate increase to fund new ongoing programs like family care.
2. Even without new programs, given the current state of federal revenues, CIT reductions are ill-advised now and in the medium term.
3. The LPC is targeting the CIT rate because it is the easiest tax, politically, to increase. Not because of how efficient it is as a tax.
4. The LPC is talking about reducing the CIT rate "when it is affordable" to keep its options open and to differentiate itself from the NDP, which sees no scenario in the medium term wherein a CIT reduction is reasonable.
5. It will take quite a while for the federal accounts to return to surplus, with the CIT increase or without. There is no reason to fear a see-saw countercyclical pattern of increasing and decreasing the CIT rate at exactly the wrong moment.

My friend and economist Mike Moffatt argues at Worthwhile Canadian Initiative against the LPC's proposed reversal and deferral of legislated CIT reductions. It's the deferral that rankles him. First, some basic facts:

• From 2000 to 2010, the federal corporate income tax rate was reduced from 27% to 18% (-35.6%). As of Jan 2011, it is 16.5% and in 2012 it will fall to 15%.
• The government reduced the GST from 7% to 6% in 2006 and from 6% to 5% in 2008. The total revenue foregone from the reduction is approx $10.8 billion per year (see Reference Sheet for Revenue Impacts Arising from Tax Adjustments [PDF]).
• The government also reduced the lowest marginal rate from 16% to 15% (revenue impact of approx $5.5 billion).
• The cost to the federal government of the reversal of planned reductions in CIT has been pegged at $6 billion, but Stephen Gordon suggests that offsetting effects on wages could make it more like $2-$3 billion.
• The federal government's revenue is basically distributed as follows: 47% personal income tax; 13.9% corporate income tax; 2.4% non-resident income tax; 18.6% other taxes & duties; 7.7% EI premiums; 9.9% other revenues.

The LPC has proposed some new programs — eg. family care — and the LPC wants to fund these initiatives without increasing the deficit/slowing the return to a balanced budget. The LPC wants to maintain and build on its reputation as a "good fiscal manager," a reputation that was established based on the budgetary surpluses of the Chretien/Martin years.

Now, I believe that restoring the GST from 5% to 7% (join the Facebook group!), thereby raising $10.8 billion or so in revenue, is smarter than raising the CIT from 15% to 18% ($3-$6 billion in revenue). But a GST increase is a loser politically, especially at a time when voters are very concerned with their own financial security. This shouldn't matter much to bureaucrats or economists with a long-term view, but it certainly matters to politicians. Political parties must choose policy options within certain constraints. Chief among these constraints is support of a given policy by citizens at a particular moment in time. Of the various sources of revenue available to the federal government, CIT is the easiest one, politically, to increase. Of course this is obvious to economists who spend a lot of time looking at incentives and behaviour.

The LPC is proposing an increase from the current rate of 16.5% to 18% rather than a reduction to 15% by 2012, as legislated (net difference 3%). Ignatieff often vaguely refers to reducing the CIT rate "when we can afford to." His most recent comment was "This party understands the benefit of competitive corporate tax. We’re not the NDP here. You can cut corporate tax in a surplus, but it’s irresponsible to cut it when you have a $56-billion deficit." Presumably the earliest that the CIT cuts would be "affordable" is after the federal deficit is eliminated. Scott Brison has said similar things about reducing CIT once the federal accounts are back in surplus.

Now Mike, being a rather smart fellow, points out that cutting CIT during fiscal surpluses (presumably growth years for the economy as a whole) and increasing during deficits (presumably low growth/contractions) is counterproductive in terms of stimulating the economy. This is a bit of a red herring, as Mike knows very well: the CIT rate shouldn't be used in the short-term to stimulate the economy and nor should it be alternately increased/decreased. The CIT should 1) raise revenue for government and 2) provide a relatively stable and attractive environment that encourages businesses to allocate capital to Canada. I doubt the proposed CIT increases would have much effect on the economy in the short-term anyway.

The LPC policy of deferring CIT cuts bothers Mike. As he points out, if the CIT rate is reduced during years of surplus, when the business cycle turns again, the federal accounts may be thrown back into deficit. For a CIT cut to be affordable, then, it should be able, at least, to withstand a full business cycle. It's a good point, one that a prudent LPC government should take into consideration when the federal accounts are in surplus. Surely no one is suggesting, or implying, that some future LPC government will immediately cut the CIT as soon as the federal budget shows a modest surplus? I would expect them to at least restore the contingency reserve first.

The CPC cut the GST by 28.5% (2006 & 2008) and the CIT by 11.8% (2008) while in surplus. They proceeded to cut the CIT by 15.3% (2008-2011) while in deficit. They also introduced tax free savings accounts and reduced the lowest marginal rate from 16% to 15% (revenue impact of approx $5.5 billion). As a result of these cuts, the federal accounts are not returning to surplus any time soon. With tax revenues reduced, contingency budgeting eliminated, and both interest payments on the debt and program spending increasing annually, the PBO is projecting deficits of $43.1, $27.9, $23.2 and $19 billion for years 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, inclusive (see Estimating Potential GDP and Government's Structural Budget Balance). Importantly, in 2013-2014, 99.5% of the projected $19 billion deficit is attributable to structural, rather than cyclical, factors. A major driver of this structural deficit is lower federal revenues.

I haven't seen projections beyond 2014, but the picture doesn't get any prettier: our aging population will likely drive down major revenue sources like PIT while driving up major federal spending such as transfers to the provinces for health care.

Given the status quo, it will be quite some time before the federal accounts are back in surplus (seven years?). With the reversal of the CIT from 15% to 18%, we will reach this point a bit sooner (five years?). But even under the latter scenario, the LPC would not be reducing the CIT rate for at least five years, and probably more. We have little to fear from a strawman LPC government that would raise the CIT rate only to reduce it, then raise it, then reduce it, ad nauseum.

The public finances of the federal government are in a sorry state of affairs. While the financial crisis originating in the United States is partly to blame, policy choices made by the government are also a major factor. Looking to the future, the federal government will have to confront the deficit and make some important decisions about how to deal with it.

The federal government is expected to run a $54.2 billion deficit in 2009-2010. The Parliamentary Budget Office projects near-term future deficits to be $43.1 (10-11), $27.9 (11-12), $23.2 (12-13), $19.0 (13-14), for a total accumulated deficit over the period of $167.2 billion. This represents a 36% increase on the $463.7 billion net federal debt outstanding at the end of 2008-2009.

Consider the demographic challenge facing Canada over the same period. At the end of the period (2014), the leading edge of the boomer cohort will be in its mid-to-late-sixties. Over the following two decades from 2014-2033, our increasingly aged population will provide the cruel combination of both a smaller income tax base and a higher demand for government services, especially health care.

Statistics Canada, 2007, Canadian Demographics at a Glance, Catalogue number 91-003-XWE.

I suppose it is good news that the PBO's projections take demographics into account. However, its projections only extend to 2014, and the picture doesn't get any brighter thereafter. Once we've cranked up the net debt to $631 billion in 2014, we will not only have to balance the budget but also run significant operating surpluses to pay back the debt to a reasonable level. We will have to do so with a smaller income tax base (see demographics, above), higher demand for many government services, and higher interest payments on the debt.

In light of this rosy scenario, we must consider what to do now to mitigate these looming budgetary problems. Clearly, some combination of revenue increases and expenditure reductions will be necessary to balance the budget and run operating surpluses to offset the debt incurred over the next few years.

The simplest and most effective change we can make immediately would be to restore the GST to its previous level of seven per cent. The Conservative government slashed this tax by 28.5% over two years. The PBO estimates that each percentage point decrease in the GST costs the government $5.4 billion in revenue. Restoring the GST to 7% would provide $10.8 billion in revenue annually, or $52.4 billion over five years. We would still have to deal with a projected $114 billion deficit over the period, but it would be a good start. Considering that the GST cut was poor tax policy to begin with, let's start putting our fiscal house in order -- again! -- by reversing the ill-advised and short-sighted tax cut that the Conservatives brought in.

Update: The GST credit system provides relief to low income Canadians who pay sales taxes.