Poll challenges view that Canadians oppose higher taxes

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
36
48
Toronto
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

Last night on CBC’s Power and Politics Broadbent issued a challenge to a debate on Preston Manning on his poll that showed the opposite of the NDP poll.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
72
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The pinheads in Ottawa are there because of us so we reap what we sow.

We didn't have to elect the pinheads.
Ya think, Sherlock? Voter turnout has been fairly steadily going down since 1867, though. So elected people are almost consistently elected by a minority of voters. 1979 turnout was 75.7%, 1992 turnout was 71.8%, 2000 turnout was 61.25%, and the last one was 61.1%.

This is a problem with communication and accountability in our current system.
As well as federal dumping of responsibilities to the provinces without compensation in the transfer payments. All the while increasing taxes.

We need to be able to send a message to government, and government needs to be held accountable for its mistakes.
...... or else strip Ottawa of a lot of its mandate and give it to the provinces and territories.

No, the solution is an accountability measure that ensures government acts in the best interests of the country. Two-way communication is a necessary first step to enact that accountability.
Good luck with that lone solution.

If a politician does something that is either unparliamentary, grossly misrepresented their constituents or caused considerable harm to people (fiscal or otherwise), that politician's future employment should be under some scrutiny. Unfortunately, we're not getting any of that, especially when a supposedly "fiscally prudent" government hides at least $10 Billion in expenses from us.
Since when? Short memory? Wasn't that long ago that the pinhead, Toews tried pulling some stupidity and didn't get away with it.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
We should have written into the constitution that the government is forbidden from running a deficit, on penalty of the politicians losing their pay and any assets.

Is it too late to write that in there?