Stupid question, if I may.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
Would you like to pay more tax? Be honest…
Nearly 60% of Quebecers say they pay too much. Another 40% consider the taxation adequate, according to what reports the Chair in taxation and public finance of the University of Sherbrooke (CFFP)1 and 2. Those who want to pay more fit within the margin of error.
So it’s no surprise that the Liberal Party got the ball rolling on Saturday with the first-ever pre-campaign tax cut promise.3.
It’s even more popular than you think.
In 2019, the CFFP noted our strange relationship with taxation. It varies little by income or tax rate.
Among those who earn less than $20,000 a year, nearly half believe they pay too much tax. Yet they hardly pay any.
Among those who earn between $20,000 and $40,000, dissatisfaction is 55%. For those making over $100,000, it’s 59%. Almost the same thing.
Surprisingly, Quebecers have almost the same perception of the tax burden as the rest of Canadians. Including Albertans. The difference with them is only 4 percentage points.
In a subsequent study, the CFFP checked whether taxpayers’ opinions changed when they were told what their taxes were used for and how much they paid compared to others. Only one in five changed their mind. Some became more critical, others less.
We must look elsewhere to find the factor that influences the perception of taxpayers. It is age.
Young people and seniors are more likely to find taxation acceptable. Because they are the ones who use public services the most, such as education and health. So they see where their money is going.
Those aged 25-64 are more critical. It is also a more volatile electorate than the elders, and more mobilized than the young.
This is a first reason which explains the promise of Mr.me Anglade: it is profitable.
However, there is a paradox.
In 2018, Repère Communication asked voters if they preferred a tax cut or an improvement in public services. Barely a quarter of respondents chose tax relief.
Why then do the parties promise both at the same time, at the risk of contradicting each other?
Because talking only about public services does not win.
On the one hand, the major parties are proposing solutions that are too similar. On the other, they are not believed. It is both a problem of visibility and credibility.
The Liberal platform is proof of that.
The proposals of M.me Anglade in terms of services do not differ greatly from those of the caquistes. True, she criticizes the third link and the cost of seniors’ homes and is wary of the resources granted to 4-year-old kindergartens. But for the rest, his ideas are as relevant as they are consensual.
Here is an overview.
In health: strengthen home and first-line care, promote interdisciplinarity, add hospital beds, abolish compulsory overtime, depoliticize the Ministry and recruit foreign employees while recognizing their diplomas.
In education: accelerate the renovation of schools, improve air quality and complete the network of daycare centers within five years.
These commitments are hard to sell. Citizens have heard them too often, and they are now struggling to believe them.
So that’s the second reason for Ms.me Anglade: She had to attract attention with something else.
Contrary to popular belief, parties deliver on the majority of their promises. The Laval University Polimeter has demonstrated this for MM. Couillard and Legault. Still, those on access to a general practitioner and on the quality of schools and education are the exception. The shortage of personnel in education and health will be difficult to solve, regardless of the party.
It is the opposite with taxation. With the stroke of a pen, a tax reduction can be achieved. Moreover, it is in terms of the cost of living that the Coalition avenir Québec has achieved the highest rate of its commitments.
Mme Anglade wants to overtake her on her field. It multiplies the measures targeting the portfolio such as the end of the QST on electricity and essential products, the exemption from transfer duties (“welcome tax”) for the purchase of a first property as well as free public transit for students and seniors.
Is this responsible, with the risk of recession and the demographic shock? The report expected in August from the Auditor General on the state of public finances will help to answer. But already, a clue is in the liberal platform.
On the very first page revealing the commitments, it says: “We have to face the facts: the economy is fragile. We must, collectively, take off our rose-colored glasses”…
3. The PLQ wants to lower taxes by 1.5 percentage points for the first two tax brackets (less than $46,295, and $46,295 to $92,580). Above $300,000, the tax rate would increase by 2 percentage points.