Just Not ready

[Topper]

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAVE HOMELESS FREE CAMERAS
"Housing Minister Gregor Robertson’s department budgeted $1.2 million for a camera giveaway to homeless people to take photographs for an “arts-based exhibition,” Access To Information records show.
"The grant was approved under a Veteran Homelessness Program: “With your camera, take pictures of your surroundings.”
— Blacklock's Reporter, April 16, 2026

why not put the homeless in a zoo rather than an art gallery?

[Cookie La Rue]

Because the animals would eat them?

[UWSaint]

the numbers are soaring now though because of increased taxation and reduced private sector jobs.

Is there really increased taxation?

Using the Fraser Institutes measure of the Canadian Consumer Tax Index, which tracks the total tax burden of the average Canadian family, it's been relatively unchanged for the last 45 years:

1961: Income ≈ $5,000; tax bill ≈ $1,675 → 33.5% of income.
1981: Income ≈ $28,000; tax bill ≈ $11,429 → ≈41%.
1990: Income ≈ $43,200; tax bill ≈ $18,693 → ≈43%.
2000: Income ≈ $54,400; tax bill ≈ $25,268 → ≈46%.
2010: Income ≈ $74,100; tax bill ≈ $31,233 → ≈42%.
2019: Income ≈ $92,600; tax bill ≈ $39,394 → ≈42.6%.
2020: Income ≈ $96,700; tax bill ≈ $37,905 → ≈39.2% (pandemic‑related temporary dip).
2022: Income ≈ $103,500; tax bill ≈ $46,662 → ≈45%.
2024: Income ≈ $114,300; tax bill ≈ $48,306 → 42.3%.

Relatively unchanged? lol. I don’t know about you, but if I were paying 7-10% more of my income in taxes I wouldn’t say “taxes are about the same.” The linked report notes that taxes have increased more every other category of expenditure, including housing. (Granted much of the increase seems to be in the 60s and 70s). So as other commodities and needs become a smaller percentage of what a median income can buy, government service costs increase, impervious to the various efficiencies that technology and what not bring to nearly every other industry. And those industries likely have some of those efficiencies absorbed in form of new regulatory compliance.

I think it’s kind of hard to get a true average of all tax costs for Americans, especially because of the variations in local taxes, but the interwebs seem to tag the average all tax (income, social security, property, local, sales) it at around 27-29% for the median income American household. That means the median American family has a tax burden that allows them to save or spend about 15% of their income more than the median Canadian family. That is no small difference.

[Cornuck]

That means the median American family has a tax burden that allows them to save or spend about 15% of their income more than the median Canadian family. That is no small difference.

Would the average american mind spending that 15% to get universal health care?

[UWSaint]

[quote=UWSaint post_id=612845 time=<a href="tel:1776376237">1776376237</a> user_id=17943]
That means the median American family has a tax burden that allows them to save or spend about 15% of their income more than the median Canadian family. That is no small difference.

Would the average american mind spending that 15% to get universal health care?
[/quote]

I wouldn’t think so. The average family contributes less than $7000 toward their health care costs annually. Which is less than 15% of the median income. (And at that median household income, if you have enough kids, you might qualify for subsidy). And for that, you are getting some of the best doctors and specialists in the world. I don’t know whether Canada has any issues with specialized treatment, scheduling appointments, etc, but my experience with health care here is that if you have insurance, it runs very well — except when insurance denies claims. But from a patient-service perspective?

Plus for the older folks in the us they have their cake and eat it too with Medicare.

But honestly this question is a red herring. The us spends more public dollars on health care per capita than Canada. The difference is that the us spends it on Cadillac health care for the older folks and on below median income individuals.
The lower tax isn’t due to the lack of public health care.

[5thhorseman]

the numbers are soaring now though because of increased taxation and reduced private sector jobs.

Is there really increased taxation?

Using the Fraser Institutes measure of the Canadian Consumer Tax Index, which tracks the total tax burden of the average Canadian family, it's been relatively unchanged for the last 45 years:

1961: Income ≈ $5,000; tax bill ≈ $1,675 → 33.5% of income.
1981: Income ≈ $28,000; tax bill ≈ $11,429 → ≈41%.
1990: Income ≈ $43,200; tax bill ≈ $18,693 → ≈43%.
2000: Income ≈ $54,400; tax bill ≈ $25,268 → ≈46%.
2010: Income ≈ $74,100; tax bill ≈ $31,233 → ≈42%.
2019: Income ≈ $92,600; tax bill ≈ $39,394 → ≈42.6%.
2020: Income ≈ $96,700; tax bill ≈ $37,905 → ≈39.2% (pandemic‑related temporary dip).
2022: Income ≈ $103,500; tax bill ≈ $46,662 → ≈45%.
2024: Income ≈ $114,300; tax bill ≈ $48,306 → 42.3%.

Relatively unchanged? lol. I don’t know about you, but if I were paying 7-10% more of my income in taxes I wouldn’t say “taxes are about the same.” The linked report notes that taxes have increased more every other category of expenditure, including housing. (Granted much of the increase seems to be in the 60s and 70s). So as other commodities and needs become a smaller percentage of what a median income can buy, government service costs increase, impervious to the various efficiencies that technology and what not bring to nearly every other industry. And those industries likely have some of those efficiencies absorbed in form of new regulatory compliance.

I think it’s kind of hard to get a true average of all tax costs for Americans, especially because of the variations in local taxes, but the interwebs seem to tag the average all tax (income, social security, property, local, sales) it at around 27-29% for the median income American household. That means the median American family has a tax burden that allows them to save or spend about 15% of their income more than the median Canadian family. That is no small difference.

Mëds said that emigration is soaring now because of increased taxation to which my response was that 45 years ago taxes were 41% of the average income, and now they are 42.3%, so an average increase of 0.03% per year. So I highly doubt it's a cause.

But taking your observation of 7 to 10% increase since 1961, if Mëds is right then we should have seen mass emigration in the '60s and '70s.

[Topper]

Have private sector wages kept pace with tax increases that are passed to consumers?

What happens when public sector is removed. We know the public sector has had a massive hiring in the past several years (latest report is near 1 million federal employees added in the past 10 years), and the union friendly deals that have been signed to keep the ballot box happening (12% over 3 years is the current BC signing rate).

I'm currently looking at a 7% increase in my billing to clients for additional PST. It means 7% less work occurring from our budget.

Remove the government meddling stat padding, what is the inflation rate?

[Meds]

Have private sector wages kept pace with tax increases that are passed to consumers?

What happens when public sector is removed. We know the public sector has had a massive hiring in the past several years (latest report is near 1 million federal employees added in the past 10 years), and the union friendly deals that have been signed to keep the ballot box happening (12% over 3 years is the current BC signing rate).

I'm currently looking at a 7% increase in my billing to clients for additional PST. It means 7% less work occurring from our budget.

Remove the government meddling stat padding, what is the inflation rate?

12% over 4 years actually.....but who cares about 1% per year.

And no to wage pace, wages in both public and private have lagged. Example: Primary Paramedics in BC would be making $56/hour before premiums/diffs if wages had kept pace with inflation when converting 1997 wages to 2026 dollars.

I would imagine private sector has lagged similarly.

[UWSaint]

Mëds said that emigration is soaring now because of increased taxation to which my response was that 45 years ago taxes were 41% of the average income, and now they are 42.3%, so an average increase of 0.03% per year. So I highly doubt it's a cause.

But taking your observation of 7 to 10% increase since 1961, if Mëds is right then we should have seen mass emigration in the '60s and '70s.

Fair point that the majority of tax increase as a percentage of the median income was from the 60s decade. But I think the broader point stands over the last 4 decades: *Everything* is less a percentage of median income than it was previously. Everyone recognizes a housing crisis (I am sure far more pronounced in Vancouver and Toronto), and yet people aren’t paying more of their median income as a percentage for shelter, but they are paying more for government. So you’d think there’d be consensus there is a government crisis…. Unless people think their government is providing extraordinary value that wasn’t being provided 40 years ago. Do you have this perception?

For other goods and necessities the difference is alarming. It’s easiest to see historically; before the Industrial Revolution, a family’s spent about half their income on food, and over 10% on clothing. Because it cost a lot more to grow stuff and make stuff.

Our economy has been transformed in the past 40 years with the digital revolution, but simultaneously there have been great improvements in non digital spaces (whether aided or unaided by computers). Add a peace dividend (no more Cold War, US control of the seas, freer trade, more trade partners) to the equation, and every single commodity is cheaper as a percentage of the median income. It’s why our groceries seemingly always have full shelves. It is why we have these supercomputers in our pockets and yet, it is relatively easy to manage a median income (or any above poverty income) to make them part of our lives. TV’s used to be a big ticket purchase? Today? Only if you are getting a movie theater set up.

Put simply, our money goes way further today than 50 years ago, and certainly way way further than 500. What was out of reach and exotic became part of everyone’s life; what was unimagined are easily added on top of the necessary things we used to struggle to make ends meet with (food, shelter, energy). And yet there is this one segment of the economy—tax—that consumes as much or more of our incomes, entirely impervious to the “everything is cheaper, most stuff is better” trend that is ubiquitous every where else. And that despite the fact the private economy swims upstream against increasing government rules and regulations, the hidden taxes (which provide some collective benefit at times, to be fair, but many don’t).

To me, the problem is obvious and clear and it is the natural result of monopoly, and government is the most powerful monopoly in any country. There is no pressure for government to compete, and accordingly, no market incentive to provide better and less expensive services. There is not even the incentives to work through the dubious-value red tape it erected against itself (like civil service). It survives just as well providing a crap product at an inflated price with nasty customer service as it does taking full advantage of the modern tech and industrial revolutions. The only pressures it faces are the voters (who will simply be replacing the governance of the same structurally inefficient model) and other nations.

[5thhorseman]

I agree UW, most of the disparity is due to the government being a monopoly and lack of incentive to innovate or improve.

That said, there's also the fact that while technology is deflationary and goods are produced cheaper and cheaper every year, most government expenditures are on benefit and services, which tend to be salary/wage-based, so will always track median income. EI, CPP, and OAS are never going to be cheaper as a percentage. Similarly, healthcare costs are largely salaries/wages and so track income as well. Also, aren't more life-saving/improving drugs covered nowadays compared with 40 years ago so yes, we are getting much better value from the government in that respect?

I enjoy reading your posts UW and wish I could look into this further, but it's a sunny day today

[Meds]

I wouldn’t think so. The average family contributes less than $7000 toward their health care costs annually. Which is less than 15% of the median income. (And at that median household income, if you have enough kids, you might qualify for subsidy). And for that, you are getting some of the best doctors and specialists in the world. I don’t know whether Canada has any issues with specialized treatment, scheduling appointments, etc, but my experience with health care here is that if you have insurance, it runs very well — except when insurance denies claims. But from a patient-service perspective?

Canada has horrific wait times at every level. You don't get quick access to a specialist until you emergent.....Canada claims they put a focus on preventative healthcare, but it's far from true. The terror up here over a two-tiered or private system is almost comical.