Shopping Discussion

Well it's official..we pay more taxes than food, shelter and clothing combined

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 24th, 2016 4:22 pm
Banned
May 12, 2004
9756 posts
4136 upvotes
Ottawa

Well it's official..we pay more taxes than food, shelter and clothing combined

Not sure about you guys, but I find this quite alarming...we give the government more money than we use to keep ourselves alive.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/23/ca ... ined-study

Canadians are spending more of their income on taxes than they are on basic necessities.

Families likely already know this from doing their own budgeting. But a new study from the Fraser Institute offers cold comfort and confirms it as fact.

This is one of the saddest lines to come out of a public policy report in a long time: "It is clear that taxes have become the most significant item in family budgets, and that taxes have grown more rapidly than any other single item."

The 2016 edition of the Canadian Consumer Tax Index, that the institute regularly compiles, doesn't just look at income taxes. It tallies the total impact of all taxes including income, payroll, sales, liquor and fuel. It's a list politicians have been adding to over the years and have given no indication it's going to get any shorter.

In 1961, the average family shelled out a third of their income on taxes and just over half on basic necessities like food and housing. Today we pay just under half on taxes and a third on those necessities. More of our money now goes to the government than it does to feed, clothe and shelter our family.

The cost of pretty much everything has gone up since the 1960s. That's no surprise. But taxes have increased much more than inflation. They've gone up three times more than the price of food, for instance.

In the '60s, the average family shelled out $1,675 in taxes and $1,259 for food. Today, our annual food costs are $9,374. But the tax portion has skyrocketed to $34,154.

This sad story makes you wonder: Does the government work for us? Or do we work for the government? It's looking more and more like the second option.

In their own words

"Taxes have grown much more rapidly than any other single expenditure for the average Canadian family."

- The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2016 edition

Increase in expenses since 1961 to 2015:

Food: 645%

Clothing: 746%

Shelter: 1,425%

Taxes: 1,939%

Total percentage of family income spent on taxes:

1961 - 33.5%

2015 - 42.4%
27 replies
Deal Guru
Nov 15, 2008
12993 posts
8360 upvotes
Oh give me a break. Free schools, roads to drive on and pipes for our water, police, courts and the army, free health care...could you imagine if we were on our own in terms of health, education and infrastructure?

All these things help us keep alive, yet somehow they are supposed to be provided at ZERO cost, with ZERO credit to the government?

The government works for us...although I suspect you may have skimped on picking up on your free education. But you can always go back to school to make up for this - and it's free to you - because of taxes paid.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
21786 posts
4903 upvotes
Toronto
Fraser Institute. That's all you really need to know.

According to their figures the 'average' family spends, per month:
$1436.40 on shelter
$781.17 on food
$306.83 on clothing
Based on a $6,716.08 gross income (before income taxes, payroll & health spending, etc)
Per their taxation figures on page 2, the average family also spends $38,253.85 on things that sales taxes apply to.

This is just a 5-minute lunch break perusal, but as always the figures used by this biased propaganda factory are highly suspect.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/d ... x-2016.pdf
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 9, 2007
15620 posts
13284 upvotes
Think of the Childre…
Oppa! We just love paying taxes!

WOULD SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 22, 2007
9280 posts
3006 upvotes
London
Piro21 wrote: Fraser Institute. That's all you really need to know.
Don't get me wrong, I think Kelsey Grammer is very entertaining, but their reports are a little biased.
Deal Expert
Aug 2, 2001
18945 posts
10527 upvotes
This is one of the side effects of electing the left-wing governments we do.

One great example is their new child benefit. If you are a stay-at-home parent(s) with under $30,000 in income, you will received $6400 / year for each child under 6 ($5400 when over 6). Think about that for a second - if you have two children under 6 you could receive $12,800 / year (and it's not taxed) if you decide you want to stay at home and not work (or work only a little). For someone with very little education / spotty work history, you could live on this (as at this income level you will get heavily subsidized housing - again coming out of our tax dollars).
Deal Guru
Nov 15, 2008
12993 posts
8360 upvotes
TrevorK wrote: This is one of the side effects of electing the left-wing governments we do.

One great example is their new child benefit. If you are a stay-at-home parent(s) with under $30,000 in income, you will received $6400 / year for each child under 6 ($5400 when over 6). Think about that for a second - if you have two children under 6 you could receive $12,800 / year (and it's not taxed) if you decide you want to stay at home and not work (or work only a little). For someone with very little education / spotty work history, you could live on this (as at this income level you will get heavily subsidized housing - again coming out of our tax dollars).
The alternative is of course that someone with very little education / spotty work history and two children under 6 could enjoy wretched poverty and despair, with no hope of improving their lot.

Love the right reminding us that the world would be a better place if more single mothers and their children lived in abject poverty.
Deal Expert
Aug 2, 2001
18945 posts
10527 upvotes
lecale wrote:
TrevorK wrote: This is one of the side effects of electing the left-wing governments we do.

One great example is their new child benefit. If you are a stay-at-home parent(s) with under $30,000 in income, you will received $6400 / year for each child under 6 ($5400 when over 6). Think about that for a second - if you have two children under 6 you could receive $12,800 / year (and it's not taxed) if you decide you want to stay at home and not work (or work only a little). For someone with very little education / spotty work history, you could live on this (as at this income level you will get heavily subsidized housing - again coming out of our tax dollars).
The alternative is of course that someone with very little education / spotty work history and two children under 6 could enjoy wretched poverty and despair, with no hope of improving their lot.

Love the right reminding us that the world would be a better place if more single mothers and their children lived in abject poverty.
You are putting words in my mouth - I never said I supported the left or the right. I merely pointed out the downsides to supporting left-wing governments in the increased social assistance programs. This is why we are paying more tax.

But hey, keep on ignoring that even our right wing governments still took great care of those who would otherwise be in poverty. Interesting to see you have a completely one-sided view of the country rather than a realistic one.
Deal Guru
Nov 15, 2008
12993 posts
8360 upvotes
TrevorK wrote:
lecale wrote:
TrevorK wrote: This is one of the side effects of electing the left-wing governments we do.

One great example is their new child benefit. If you are a stay-at-home parent(s) with under $30,000 in income, you will received $6400 / year for each child under 6 ($5400 when over 6). Think about that for a second - if you have two children under 6 you could receive $12,800 / year (and it's not taxed) if you decide you want to stay at home and not work (or work only a little). For someone with very little education / spotty work history, you could live on this (as at this income level you will get heavily subsidized housing - again coming out of our tax dollars).
The alternative is of course that someone with very little education / spotty work history and two children under 6 could enjoy wretched poverty and despair, with no hope of improving their lot.

Love the right reminding us that the world would be a better place if more single mothers and their children lived in abject poverty.
You are putting words in my mouth - I never said I supported the left or the right. I merely pointed out the downsides to supporting left-wing governments in the increased social assistance programs. This is why we are paying more tax.

But hey, keep on ignoring that even our right wing governments still took great care of those who would otherwise be in poverty. Interesting to see you have a completely one-sided view of the country rather than a realistic one.
You just said you supported the right, right there.

I am sorry that you feel that way.
Deal Addict
Nov 25, 2014
1739 posts
960 upvotes
Newton Brook, ON
Piro21 wrote: Fraser Institute. That's all you really need to know.

According to their figures the 'average' family spends, per month:
$1436.40 on shelter
$781.17 on food
$306.83 on clothing
Based on a $6,716.08 gross income (before income taxes, payroll & health spending, etc)
Per their taxation figures on page 2, the average family also spends $38,253.85 on things that sales taxes apply to.

This is just a 5-minute lunch break perusal, but as always the figures used by this biased propaganda factory are highly suspect.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/d ... x-2016.pdf
Could this be where they're padding their numbers?
Average Canadians also pay the taxes
levied on businesses. Although businesses pay
these taxes directly, the cost of business taxation
is ultimately passed onto ordinary Canadians.
They support this with a reference in the footnote to "a discussion of who actually pays business taxes". The "discussion" would appear to be nothing but an opinion posted by the president and vice president of the institute in an article for the Vancouver Sun:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article ... enjoyed-us
Unfortunately, the 2003 Federal Budget failed to provide these growth enhancing economic policies. For that, average Canadians will pay as our productivity and thus our incomes continue to languish beyond our southern neighbours.
"Because we said so."
You need someone with an umbrella not a fork
Sr. Member
Feb 10, 2008
656 posts
309 upvotes
Toronto
lecale wrote: Oh give me a break. Free schools, roads to drive on and pipes for our water, police, courts and the army, free health care...could you imagine if we were on our own in terms of health, education and infrastructure?

All these things help us keep alive, yet somehow they are supposed to be provided at ZERO cost, with ZERO credit to the government?

The government works for us...although I suspect you may have skimped on picking up on your free education. But you can always go back to school to make up for this - and it's free to you - because of taxes paid.
I think the point of articles like this is to emphasize that these things are NOT free. You call everything FREE...and then follow up with "because of taxes paid". The real question should be if the value we get from these services is worth the high taxes we pay in Canada.

Oh...and they had all of that stuff in the 60's as well, so why is the amount of tax we pay now so much higher?
Deal Guru
Nov 15, 2008
12993 posts
8360 upvotes
mrwally wrote:
lecale wrote: Oh give me a break. Free schools, roads to drive on and pipes for our water, police, courts and the army, free health care...could you imagine if we were on our own in terms of health, education and infrastructure?

All these things help us keep alive, yet somehow they are supposed to be provided at ZERO cost, with ZERO credit to the government?

The government works for us...although I suspect you may have skimped on picking up on your free education. But you can always go back to school to make up for this - and it's free to you - because of taxes paid.
I think the point of articles like this is to emphasize that these things are NOT free. You call everything FREE...and then follow up with "because of taxes paid". The real question should be if the value we get from these services is worth the high taxes we pay in Canada.

Oh...and they had all of that stuff in the 60's as well, so why is the amount of tax we pay now so much higher?
In the 60's birth control wasn't even legal in Canada, now the health service provides surgical abortions. Things change, more support is added, the bill gets larger. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be living in 60's Canada.
Banned
User avatar
Jun 8, 2008
3977 posts
1423 upvotes
Toronto
In 1961 there was no CPP, OAP or OHIP (or similar provincial medical care program) so yeah, I bet our share of taxes would have risen since the adoption of those programs.
Sr. Member
Feb 10, 2008
656 posts
309 upvotes
Toronto
wirebound wrote: In 1961 there was no CPP, OAP or OHIP (or similar provincial medical care program) so yeah, I bet our share of taxes would have risen since the adoption of those programs.
And no Gas plant, Orange, or E-health scandals...or MetroLinx or politicians spending thousands of dollars on Limo rides and Air Canada lounge passes. :)
Banned
May 12, 2004
9756 posts
4136 upvotes
Ottawa
mrwally wrote:
wirebound wrote: In 1961 there was no CPP, OAP or OHIP (or similar provincial medical care program) so yeah, I bet our share of taxes would have risen since the adoption of those programs.
And no Gas plant, Orange, or E-health scandals...or MetroLinx or politicians spending thousands of dollars on Limo rides and Air Canada lounge passes. :)
Let's not forget the 1B gun registry that took all these guns off our streets.

I don't think anyone can disagree that our elected officials have never been this wasteful and careless with our money. In the 60's they worked to find solutions to various problems. Nowadays it's easier to raise taxes or create a new tax than to solve anything. It's the who gives a shit I'm outta here and getting a pension in 4 years attitude.
Deal Guru
Nov 15, 2008
12993 posts
8360 upvotes
Cas77 wrote:
mrwally wrote:
wirebound wrote: In 1961 there was no CPP, OAP or OHIP (or similar provincial medical care program) so yeah, I bet our share of taxes would have risen since the adoption of those programs.
And no Gas plant, Orange, or E-health scandals...or MetroLinx or politicians spending thousands of dollars on Limo rides and Air Canada lounge passes. :)
Let's not forget the 1B gun registry that took all these guns off our streets.

I don't think anyone can disagree that our elected officials have never been this wasteful and careless with our money. In the 60's they worked to find solutions to various problems. Nowadays it's easier to raise taxes or create a new tax than to solve anything. It's the who gives a **** I'm outta here and getting a pension in 4 years attitude.
How old are you that you can remember the 60's with such clarity, 90?
Penalty Box
User avatar
Nov 13, 2010
7814 posts
1867 upvotes
Scarborough
everyone is feeling the pinch, specially shelter costs and food/grocery/necessities costs have just skyrocketed in recent years.
things are getting very costly, hence we see more mental illnesses and stress on people in all walks of life.
Fees going up, taxes up, food shelter up, transit cost up, gas price up......only thing that doesn't is the wages they're not going up

there is so much waste and mismanagement going on yet no accountability at all from these govts/politicians
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 5, 2001
11979 posts
3170 upvotes
Edmonton
Simple solution:

Work and save all you can, move that money offshore or into investment vehicles the government can't get their claws into.

Live a lean and healthy lifestyle and consume as little disposable/taxable products as possible.

Eventually it makes sense to quit your job and walk away from your permanent residency in Canada, and follow your savings offshore. It doesn't make sense to be a contributing member of the canadian workforce unless you have family ties keeping you here.


Otherwise you are destined to retire poor with all government hands in your nearly empty pockets. And when you expire they are there to tax the Lions share away before it is divided among your lifelong tax enslaved offspring.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 16, 2004
9779 posts
2050 upvotes
Toronto
Possibly the most mismanaged taxes as well.

I don't however mind paying taxes if it's put to good use.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)