Thu, 24 May, 2012, 12:33 AM EDT - Canadian Markets open in 8 hrs 57 mins

Mission improbable? Economists want Ottawa to put sales tax on food

By Julian Beltrame, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Two of Canada's leading economists want Ottawa to reopen one of the hottest issues of the last two decades by expanding the GST to include food in grocery stores.

The two economists — Michael Smart of the University of Toronto and Jack Mintz, head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary — say the way Canadian governments collect sales taxes is among the most inefficient in the advanced world.

By eliminating the exemptions such as medicines, books, financial services, tuition and especially food, governments could reap an additional $39 billion in revenue annually — about 60 per cent more than they do now.

That cash bonanza could be used to cut income taxes, fund social services, or both, or even to reduce by about 40 per cent the 12 to 15 per cent rates Canadians pay in harmonized sales taxes in most provinces.

Taking Ontario as an example, broadening the HST to treat all goods and services equally would make it possible to reduce the rate from 13 per cent to 8.5 per cent and still generate the same revenue, Smart says.

The challenge is the politics of the proposal, which even the economists admit would test the bravest of politicians.

"I'm not saying it is politically easy to do these things, I'm saying it's economically sensible," Smart said at a news conference Friday.

It's mission improbable, not impossible, agreed Mintz. He recalls that he started talking to then-finance minister Paul Martin in 1996 about the need to cut Canada's high corporate tax rate — also unpopular — and 16 years later, the country now has among the lowest rates in the G7.

"I think all these things are manageable," he said. "Tax reform takes time, but I think we can have significant GST reform over the next four or five years."

Smart and Mintz said they were sympathetic to the argument that poorer Canadians spend more as a portion of income on food, but that challenge is best solved by increasing the GST tax refund benefit specifically to those who need it. The problem with excluding food from sales taxes is that higher income Canadians also get a subsidy.

"I'd like to hear any politician try to defend that. I think it's indefensible," Mintz said, who added he had spoken about the matter to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. He did not say what response he received.

The conclusions on the effectiveness of Canada's consumption taxes stem from a paper Smart delivered to a convention in Calgary last fall and was reissued, with some modifications, at an Ottawa news conference.

The debate over taxing food arose more than 20 years ago when former prime minister Brian Mulroney first proposed creating a federal sales tax on goods and services. Although the initial proposal had called for groceries to be included, the government so feared a backlash that it backed off even though it meant a higher setting for the GST.

In the 1993 federal election campaign, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien promised to repeal the tax and later was assailed by critics when his government never did.

The Harper government has seen political advantage in promising and delivering a two-point cut to the GST to five per cent.

"There is some evidence that taxpayers respond negatively to highly visible sales taxes on day-to-day purchases like groceries," is the way Smart describes the phenomenon in his paper.

The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) ranks Canada's GST relatively highly for efficiency, but Smart says the international body has it wrong. It credits the GST with all the tax generation, whereas now provincial consumption taxes bring in more revenue.

"In reality, Canada's VAT (value-added tax) is riddled with exemptions, rebates and reduced ratings that seriously damage its effectiveness," his report states.

"This paper makes the case for an ideal VAT. Taxing consumer commodities at a single rate reduces opportunities for tax evasion, keeps revenues steady and drastically simplifies compliances for businesses."

The economists say value added taxes, or consumption taxes, are preferable to other forms of taxation, and making Canada's VAT more efficient would help the economy.

The food exemption costs the economy about $1 billion through loss of efficiency and compliance costs, the paper calculates. In essence, Smart says, Canadians wind up buying too much discretionary food and too much prepared foods because they are tax free, calculating a 10 per cent increase in the cost of food would cut consumption by two per cent.

Smart says only three countries exempt food form VAT taxes as completely as Canada, although in many it is hidden.

Aside from food, other exemptions cited by the paper includes financial services, residential rent, education, non-profits, prescription drugs and medical devices such as glasses , municipal services and small traders and other businesses. As well, new housing has rebates on values under $350,000.

Market Data

  • Currencies
    Currencies
    NamePriceChange% Chg
    0.9749-0.00-0.11%
    CADUSD=X
    0.7752-0.00-0.01%
    CADEUR=X
    0.6216-0.00-0.06%
    CADGBP=X
  • Commodities
    Commodities
    NamePriceChange% Chg
    97.410004-1.41-1.43%
    CLZ11.NYM
    3.50-0.09-2.51%
    NGX11.NYM
    1,652.00-70.70-4.10%
    GCV11.CMX
    35.3150.22+0.63%
    SIV11.CMX
  • Popular Stocks
    Popular Stocks
    NamePriceChange% Chg
    570.5613.59+2.44%
    AAPL
    11.090.03+0.27%
    RIMM
    609.468.66+1.44%
    GOOG
    10.410.22+2.16%
    F
    19.180.00+0.00%
    GE
    22.09-0.28-1.25%
    PFE
    2.73-0.15-5.21%
    NOK
 

23 comments

  • eagreen3  •  2 months ago
    Can we put an additional 15% stupid tax on economists ?
    • D S 2 months ago
      This article is really dumb. There is a reason why they have exemptions. Even if they give it back as HST. What they fail to realize is that the poor don't know how to manage money. So it's best if things are cheaper for them then if we give them more money.

      What a bunch of crock. Have tax for food so we can decrease income tax or decrease the HST rate? Wouldn't that give the rich a rebate as well. Instead of a rebate on food which is a necessity, it will be a rebate on luxury items that you don't need and can do without or have a choice to buy.
    • Stephan 2 months ago
      The best punishment for idioteconomists? Make them get a real job!
  • Charley  •  Toronto, Ontario  •  2 months ago
    it would give the government more money to squander!!!
  • Peter  •  2 months ago
    Well Donald, thing about it. You've shaved 2% off the GST, so people who buy lamborghini's, BMW, Porsches (all at record sales right now) get a huge tax break. And then when you get a huge deficit due to the lost revenues you want to slap a tax on food which of course for the poorer people might be their main expense (they got little benefit from the 2% GST cuts). It's no suprise it's political suicide regardless of what some economists think about it. And don't expect calm looking at the numbers either. All reports say more jails and harsher sentences just makes more criminals (and huge costs, California), yet Harper is still spending billions while in deficit.
    • Donald 2 months ago
      Peter: This article isn't about current economic politics but I doubt the 2% rate cut on GST in itself was the sole reason for the deficit in the last two years, basically the economy tanked.... because the USA economy tanked. That reduces the tax base significantly.
      I don't think any 'true' Canadian wants the poor to be worse off, hence the rebate program mentioned. My point is the article is about saving a lot of money in government administration ... and I'm all for that if the poor are compensated appropriately.
    • Peter 2 months ago
      No it's not all, around $10 billion per year. Also Corp tax cuts and more tax gifts to reduce revenue (they've actually been one of the biggest spenders of revenue). And yes some economy is there, but our resources are still strong and no housing or banking crysis. I understand about the government savings etc. But really it's nothing compared to the impact of the taxes. Besides if extra administration is an issue, what about all the extra they added with new tax breaks policies like tax free savings account, income sharing tax rules, home renovation tax breaks...? They certainly don't seem to mind sticking it on for the top end.

      Or Harpers Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (announced 2008), the board that costs millions to invest the EI surplus... but there is no EI surplus (it's billions in the hole) yet they still have offices and fat salaries? No talk about that being cut if they really were looking at expenses. And considering the PC talk is still getting F-35s and more jails at the same time as cutting OAS, that's a big IF when it comes to compensation. And it's not like this current government would even discuss the process openly (nothing is right now) as to what it might be, if any. Sorry, zero trust.
    • Peter 2 months ago
      And don't you dare say the business would pass any admin savings down either lol. All the Corp tax cuts are in and Rogers still raised my rates, and then boosted their dividends 11% to boot. Now just waiting to see this years CEO bonus increase.
  • A Yahoo! User  •  2 months ago
    Sure, why not. Better tax water & air too. Just let the underwater schmucks go bankrupt, and let us move on.
  • L  •  Brantford, Ontario  •  2 months ago
    Tax the hell out of luxury items and junk food, not necessities.Those economists should be flogged for even suggesting such an idea.I would not put it past them to try and tax water or air next. Make governments accountable for how they manage the revenue they receive from all the taxes we pay to them so we never have to consider such assinine ideas.If municipal governments are required to produce a balanced budget each year then provincial and federal governments should be required to do the same.Hell lets make the rule world wide, so we do not have to bail out the governments who screw up big time.That is what economists should be concentrating on.Besides, we all ready are taxed for food.When you break down the cost of what it takes food to get from its source to the grocery store, there are taxes paid by the producer, the transportation costs, and even the tax on utilities paid by the grocery store among other costs.Do you think for a minute the cost of those taxes paid are not "passed through" to the consumer by everyone in the process?Keep your greedy hand off my groceries!
  • peter2156  •  2 months ago
    What next ? How about a Death Tax , unless you pay the tax , you are not allowed to die . Or a tax on Tax Refund Checks , a Tax on Air ,Water , Tax on being Human , Tax on being Taxed , Tax on Standing , Sitting , Using your Five Senses , Tax if You are Carbon Based Life form and additional tax if You are a Silicon Based Life Form .
  • MICHAEL P  •  Vancouver, British Columbia  •  2 months ago
    I don't get it you make food MORE expensive and this will help poor people?
  • Donald  •  Calgary, Alberta  •  2 months ago
    When the GST was being evaluated our 'wise men' checked out other countries who used it and got a tip from Australia, keep the rate low and apply it to everything. Looks like they were wiser than us. It makes sense to have a simpler system with a lesser overall rate and rebate those who need it. But what a political minefield. The first 4 comments here clearly illustrate that. I'm not sure some of them read the article past the first paragraph. Rage can be blinding. But really, saving administration costs is a good thing... looks like it's substantial savings too.. Cutting Ontario's HST from 13 to 8.5 may even stimulate the economy.
  • over 50  •  Vancouver, British Columbia  •  2 months ago
    The article mentions 1 reduced rate for everything... In Europe there are at least 2 VAT rates & exceptions in various countries. France recently hiked their VAT, overnight may I add, to 22.5%! Want to give a quarter of your tourist dollars to the French government?

    $39 billion is over $1,000 per breathing Canadian: if there are 4 in your family, that's $4-5,000 a year on top of the 6 months to Tax Day we are already paying. ax Day is around the end of June; this means we are paying taxes for half the year already & the inefficient irresponsible governments want more. The more they have the more they overspend: that's the rule of government financial planning, predicated on the premise that the idiot taxpayers can always be gouged for a bit more.

    All food should be exempted - grocery stores, restaurants, school cafeteria - & promote this in tourism advertizing; (wink) we should start taxing alcohol. VAT should be applied to lottery winnings & politicians' slush funds.

    These economists make too much money, have too much time on their hands to come up with this crap.

    They've just told King Harper that he can have $43 billion more to waste ($39 + 10% overspend).
  • I AM ME !  •  Toronto, Ontario  •  2 months ago
    I CAN'T BELIEVE THESE AHOLES 85%ALL THE COUNTRIES IN THIS WORLD ARE STARVING & DIE'N OF LACK OF FOOD AND FREEZING TO DEATH NOT BEING ABLE TO SHELTER THEMSELVES AND ALL THEY CAN THINK ABOUT IS RAISING TAXES , PRETTY SAD WHEN CHILDREN ARE DIE'N AND ALL THESE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND FOOD COMPANIES CAN DO IS LINE THEIR POCKETS AND MAKE IT EVEN HARDER FOR THE POOR TO EAT AND LIVE .
    • Donald 2 months ago
      Boy, that's an over reaction. Did you miss the point that the idea was to SAVE MONEY. That is, reduce the costs of the inefficant VAT tax system and then pass the savings and extra tax base, back via lower over all tax rate? Did you miss the proposal to SUBSIDIZE THE POOR to ensure they don't end up worse off .... we all would pay tax on more stuff, but at a lower rate, and less gov't wastage..
  • dasa  •  2 months ago
    Censors removed comments here as part of the brainwash program.
  • dbl-nkl  •  Vancouver, British Columbia  •  2 months ago
    Apply sales taxes to lottery winning... talk about value added!
  • D S  •  2 months ago
    What a bunch of crock. Have tax for food so we can decrease income tax or decrease the HST rate? Wouldn't that give the rich a rebate as well. Instead of a rebate on food which is a necessity, it will be a rebate on luxury items that you don't need and can do without or have a choice to buy.
  • Stephan  •  Delta, British Columbia  •  2 months ago
    Yep, that'll work. Tax food and lower the rate of income tax. Happens every day, government keen to reduce taxes.
    How about you voodoo doctors (that's what 'economics' is - mumbo 'n jumbo and smoke 'n mirrors) suggest something rational for a change, like raise corporate taxes and cease with the bulltwaddle 'trickle down' nonsense. Take money from the rich, for Chrissake, and put a value on resource extraction instead of pretending there are no 'input' costs involved in pumping oil, clear cutting our forests and pulling water out of the system to supply industry - at no cost.
    Kill the lawyers first, I think it was Shakespeare said. Had he have to contend with Economists, he'd have written otherwise.
  • dasa  •  2 months ago
    Hang them
  • Seedaview  •  2 months ago
    It just goes to show you that economists can also be crackpots. What needs to be corrected is the mentality of tax and spend. Future politicans need to think slash and cut if we are going to survive.
  • I AM ME !  •  Toronto, Ontario  •  2 months ago
    JUST LIKE THE BIG OIL COMPANIES ,
    FORD HAD AN ELECTRIC CAR IN 1912, BUT BIG OIL PUT A STOP TO IT REAL FAST , ( YES AN ELECTRIC CAR IN THE 1912 )
    ( http://youtu.be/qIxn68IHCU4 ) THE CRAZY THING IS NO1 IS SMART ENOUGH TO PUT 2&2 TOGETHER
    NO WONDER ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE CUTTING SCHOOLING ( THE SMARTER YOUR ARE THE MORE QUESTIONS YOU ASK )
  • Norm  •  2 months ago
    People, People. Anybody ever researched the Laffer curve. Economics 101. It basically stipulates that the more you raise taxes (which is what this article suggests), the less revenue you will generate. Reagan got it right in the 80's.
    • Peter 2 months ago
      Well obviously you haven't as that's not what it says at all lol, unless you listen to Fox news or GOPs rendition of it. Look it up yourself. The basis is that after a certain point (which is not zero) it can be counter productive and not raise revenue. Not that any raise from any point will lower revenue which would have to be the case if you want to say 'any tax rise lowers revenue'. Should research more if you're going to be spouting economics 101.
    • Norm 2 months ago
      Peter, Peter. That's no reason to get excited.
  • Economics is a form of br ...  •  2 months ago
    Given the record of the economists who have guided and advised the fiscal policies of various nations over the past few decades, if economists say that a tax on food is good, we can be guaranteed that it will only make things worse for the average person, and that the only ones to benefit will be the very wealthy.
  • Meche  •  2 months ago
    just blow up the whole world,then everyone will be happy......especially the devil....