Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Boom, Bust and Consolidation November 9, 2018
    The five largest bitumen-extractive corporations in Canada control 79.3 per cent of Canada’s productive capacity of bitumen. The Big Five—Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil and Husky Energy—collectively control 90 per cent of existing bitumen upgrading capacity and are positioned to dominate Canada’s future oil sands development. In a sense they […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • A new Director for CCPA's BC Office: Message from Mary Childs, Board Chair October 24, 2018
    The CCPA-BC Board of Directors is delighted to share the news that Shannon Daub will be the next BC Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Last spring, Seth Klein announced that, after 22 years, he would be stepping down as founding Director of the CCPA-BC at the end of 2018. The CCPA-BC’s board […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Who Owns Canada’s Fossil-Fuel Sector? October 15, 2018
    The major investors in Canada’s fossil-fuel sector have high stakes in maintaining business as usual rather than addressing the industry’s serious climate issues, says a new Corporate Mapping Project study.  And as alarms ring over our continued dependence on natural gas, coal and oil, these investors have both an interest in the continued growth of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Pharmacare consensus principles released today September 24, 2018
    A diverse coalition representing health care providers, non-profit organizations, workers, seniors, patients and academics has come together to issue a statement of consensus principles for the establishment of National Pharmacare in Canada. Our coalition believes that National Pharmacare should be a seamless extension of the existing universal health care system in Canada, which covers medically […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice September 19, 2018
    The CCPA is pleased to announce the creation of the Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice.This Fellowship is created to honour the legacy of senior researcher Kate McInturff who passed away in July 2018. Kate was a feminist trailblazer in public policy and gender-based research and achieved national acclaim for researching, writing, and producing CCPA’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

The Benefits of Public Spending

A year and a half ago I published an updated study on tax incidence in Canada. It found that the Canadian tax system is progressive up to the middle of the income distribution, then flattens out before becoming regressive at the very top. (Interestingly, a short piece on the US tax system by Citizens for Tax Justice just came out the other day. They come to a roughly similar conclusion, although the US system is progressive further up the distribution before becoming regressive; ultimately it is hard to compare due to differences in methodology.)

Of course, taxation is only one side of the equation. How progressive is the other side – public spending – in Canada? The CCPA revealed an answer to this question (that has been keeping bureaucrats at the Ministry of Finance awake in the middle of the night) by Hugh Mackenzie and Richard Shillington. Canada’s Quiet Bargain: The Benefits of Public Spending finds that, on average, Canadians benefit by $17,000 per year from public services, with more than half of that coming from health care, education and transfer payments. The benefit is much higher than that for the lowest income groups, then the average benefit (in dollar terms) flattens out through the remainder of the distribution. The authors also break these numbers down by level of government and category of public spending.

My only complaint is that the authors do not present their results by deciles and as a percentage of income, although the latter is easily approximated from the figures. Combined with my study, it shows that taxes, transfers and public spending together are highly progressive through a good chunk (up to the seventh or eighth decile) of the distribution. After that it is harder to tell if the progressive result vis-a-vis income is enough to offset the regressive taxation incidence within the top decile. This next step would enable what is called a “full incidence” framework of the impact of the public sector on distribution in Canada.

Anyway, the authors deserve a big hand, as this exercise is more complicated than one might think at first glance. And this is the first such study of expenditure incidence published in Canada (please tell me if I missed something). Plus, there is a neat calculator on the webpage linked above that allows you to calculate the benefits you receive from public spending.

Here is the CP story on the study via the Globe.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Andrew Jackson
Time: April 15, 2009, 10:15 am

I forget the details but I believe the Department of Finance did a similar study many moons ago

Comment from Marc Lee
Time: April 15, 2009, 10:40 am

There was an internal study (I have a hard copy of it) but I do not think it was ever publicly released. If it was, I would like to know.

Write a comment





Related articles