Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes

OTTAWA—A new poll challenges conventional political wisdom by showing a majority of Canadians — including most Conservative voters and wealthy individuals — would support higher taxes to fight income inequality.

A telephone survey of 2,000 Canadians by Environics Research asked about attitudes toward growing income inequality and the role of government and individuals in addressing it.

After canvassing whether respondents see inequality as a real problem, and whether the rich should pay more, it asked directly if people would “personally be very, somewhat, not very or not at all willing to pay slightly higher taxes if that’s what it would take to protect our social programs like health care, pensions and access to post-secondary education.”

In all, 64 per cent said they would be willing to pay “slightly higher taxes,” although what exactly “slightly” higher meant was not specified. Of the 64 per cent, 41 per cent were “somewhat” open and 23 per cent were “very” willing to pay more.

Surprisingly, it found a majority of support across gender, ages, education levels, family income and employment levels, and in most regions.
Only in Quebec, the highest-taxed province, the survey found slightly less than majority support — 49 per cent — for higher taxes.

It said even a majority of Conservative voters (58 per cent) are somewhat willing to pay higher taxes to protect social programs, while Liberal and NDP voters are more supportive (72 per cent would pay more.)


“This attitude toward paying slightly higher taxes is reflected equally in high income and middle income Canadian households. It’s only their governments who are offside,” said a release that accompanies the poll to be published Tuesday. “These numbers prove that concern about income inequality cuts across partisan lines.”

Overall, 14 per cent said they were “not very willing” to pay more, 19 per cent were flatly “not willing,” while 3 per cent didn’t know or didn’t answer.

The survey tested three other scenarios: increasing the personal income tax rate on the rich with incomes above $250,000 and above $500,000; gradually increasing the corporate tax rates back to what they were in 2008 (19.5 per cent compared to 15 per cent now, though that wasn’t specified) and reinstating a 35 per cent inheritance tax on wealthy estates above $5 million, with spouses exempt.

All three options found a majority support across all groups, although Alberta’s support for increasing corporate tax rates was more tepid than other regions at 67 per cent, as was Conservative voters, although 62 per cent of Tories still supported raising corporate tax rates.

Broadbent, the former NDP leader, said the results went well beyond the “hunch” he’d had that Canadians would support not just higher taxes on the rich — “that’s not surprising,” — but would also tolerate paying more themselves. “That’s the tougher question: ‘what about your own taxes,’ ” he said in an interview.

The results also directly challenged a picture painted by the conservative Manning Centre’s recent polling which suggested Canadians want a reduced role for government in their lives, and are unlikely to believe government is able to solve the big problems of the day.

The Broadbent Institute’s survey found most Canadians (77 per cent) believe the growing gap between the rich and “everyone else” has long-term negative consequences, and want the government to make reducing the gap a high priority.

The survey, conducted between March 6 and 18, can be considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes

OTTAWA—A new poll challenges conventional political wisdom by showing a majority of Canadians — including most Conservative voters and wealthy individuals — would support higher taxes to fight income inequality.



If this report is true then most Canadians are NUTS! Before you take on more you fine tune the use of what you have............shorten up the troughs both in Ottawa and Victoria. Cut the bureaucracy in all gov't funded operations, farm out MOST gov't. operations to the private sector, to those who ACTUALLY know how business operates and how to do it. Throwing money at most problems doesn't solve them! :smile:
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
It's vague. Where in the article does it say why and what extra taxation would be used for?

Considering a majority of Canadians (including Conservatives) put confidence in an increase without knowing what services they would fuel, that's a pretty strong sign that low taxes and austerity is not going to last long.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Considering a majority of Canadians (including Conservatives) put confidence in an increase without knowing what services they would fuel, that's a pretty strong sign that low taxes and austerity is not going to last long.

There's also a strong sign that interest rates are about to rise and some Canadians could lose their houses. I wonder what their appetite would be for more taxes! :smile:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,912
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
Considering a majority of Canadians (including Conservatives) put confidence in an increase without knowing what services they would fuel, that's a pretty strong sign that low taxes and austerity is not going to last long.
Did they set out searching for stupidity or it just happened that way?
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
If this report is true then most Canadians are NUTS! Before you take on more you fine tune the use of what you have............shorten up the troughs both in Ottawa and Victoria. Cut the bureaucracy in all gov't funded operations, farm out MOST gov't. operations to the private sector, to those who ACTUALLY know how business operates and how to do it. Throwing money at most problems doesn't solve them! :smile:
For natural monopolies (of which most government services are) standard economic theory proves in short order that privatisation will raise costs.

So no, don't farm out government operations.

To be clear, I should say that privatisation will raise costs above market optimal levels.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Don't get me started on the "free market". You know, the one that is supposed to provide us with a competitive environment, but instead, we get 2-3 global conglomerates telling us what to eat.
Well, that's an issue besides. The applicability of economic theory to reality really depends on the particular case at hand. In general, economic theory is just not applicable since it just assumes a can opener. In the case of a monopoly however, the model is very easy to build and one quickly concludes that monopolies are bad.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
There's also a strong sign that interest rates are about to rise and some Canadians could lose their houses. I wonder what their appetite would be for more taxes! :smile:

Probably less than their appetite for jobs!

Did they set out searching for stupidity or it just happened that way?

The more reasonable answer is that they would like to keep some of the more notable services they have.

But, yea, when someone disagrees with you, day soooo stoooped.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
For natural monopolies (of which most government services are) standard economic theory proves in short order that privatisation will raise costs.

Don't get me started on the "free market". You know, the one that is supposed to provide us with a competitive environment, but instead, we get 2-3 global conglomerates telling us what to eat.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
It's vague. Where in the article does it say why and what extra taxation would be used for?

That is governments for you.

I still remember when the the Conservative government brought in the GST which was supposed to pay down the debt and it never made it turned out to be another slush fund for the government
 
Last edited:

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Broadbent claims Canadians happy with higher taxes. Good try, Ed



The Broadbent Institute, the new think tank started by former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, has commissioned a survey of Canadians that indicates we don’t really hate taxes the way right-wing politicians say we do.
According to the survey,
Almost two-thirds (64 per cent) of Canadians are willing to pay slightly higher taxes if that’s what it would take to protect our social programs. A majority of Conservative voters (58 per cent) are willing to pay more taxes to protect social programs, while Liberal and NDP voters are even more supportive: 72 per cent of them would pay more.
Interestingly, even high-income earners are as willing as the rest of Canadians to pay slightly more in taxes. It’s only our governments that are offside.
An overwhelming majority of Canadians favour increasing income taxes on the wealthiest — those who make $250,000 to $500,000 or more. Our research shows most Canadians support the introduction of a new 35 per cent inheritance tax on any estate valued above $5 million.
And, finally, the majority of Canadians want corporate Canada to play its part too, supporting the idea of returning corporate tax rates to 2008 levels.
Not to diss Ed Broadbent or his Institute, but there might just be some credibility issues involved in a brand new left-wing organization that conveniently discovers Canadians are actually mad keen on big government. Especially one that has somehow found that almost 60% of Conservatives are on board with tax hikes.

If I recall correctly, there was a Liberal premier in B.C. who had to quit his job after he dumped a surprise HST program on the electorate just after getting elected with no mention of said program. What was his name … Campbell something? The program itself was subject to a successful recall vote, which forced Campbell’s successor (who isn’t much more popular) to repay $1.6 billion to Ottawa. Funny way to signal an openness to new taxes.

The obvious problem with the Broadbent poll is … everything. According to Mr. Broadbent, Canadians are open to higher taxes “if that’s what it would take” to protect social programs. But run for office on that premise, and he might just discover that most Canadians don’t really think “that’s what it would take.” They’d more likely think improved efficiency, less bureaucracy, and more control on costs and salaries would do the trick.

It’s also evident, from the questions relating to an inheritance tax and corporate taxes, that Canadians are in favour of higher taxes when they only apply to other people. Tax corporations? Sure, go ahead. Tax rich people? Yeah, great idea. Tax me? Hey, wait a minute buster.

The Liberal party tried a similar strategy when it concluded, thanks in part to polls, that Canadians overwhelmingly favoured much greater efforts to protect the environment. Stephane Dion bundled it into a national strategy called the Green Shift, bet his leadership on it, and got walloped. Because Canadians really do favour more environmental protection. They just aren’t willing to pay for it with taxes, lost jobs or serious inconvenience.

I invite the Broadbent Institute to sell its higher-tax strategy to the new NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, and convince him to make it the basis of his next federal campaign. I suspect he won’t get far. Maybe that’s why Mr. Broadbent worked so hard to prevent Mr. Mulcair from winning the leadership.


National Post




Ed Broadbent's high-tax strategy won't get much traction with NDP | Full Comment | National Post
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,912
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
I remeber a guy saying he was going to nix it to get elected.

majority of Conservative voters (58 per cent) are willing to pay more
taxes to protect social programs
****ing Socialists!
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Look at federal gov't income during the Chretien years.
Mulrooney's GST is the biggest factor that allowed Chretien/Martin to balance the budget and pay off debt. And Mulrooney's free trade deals were the engine of Canada's booming economy.
Chretien et al reaped the benefits. Of course, being Liberals, they promised to scrap the GST and "renegotiate" free trade.........and did neither.
Now, before you accuse me of excessive lyin' Brian love, remember I was a REFORMER. We killed Brian, not the Liberals.

I totally agree with that. But I was very pro-GST, I'd much rather have that than the deficits they're running now. Standard VAT here is 19%, so I have totally missed out on the savings, and my country suffers for it...

Now they'll totally raise passport costs. :(
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
That is governments for you.

I still remember when the the Conservative government brought in the GST which was supposed to pay down the debt and it never made it turned out to be another slush fund for the government

Look at federal gov't income during the Chretien years.

Mulrooney's GST is the biggest factor that allowed Chretien/Martin to balance the budget and pay off debt. And Mulrooney's free trade deals were the engine of Canada's booming economy.

Chretien et al reaped the benefits. Of course, being Liberals, they promised to scrap the GST and "renegotiate" free trade.........and did neither.

Now, before you accuse me of excessive lyin' Brian love, remember I was a REFORMER. We killed Brian, not the Liberals.