Vote No
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act
The bill offers targeted affordability relief but does not advance long-term prosperity, productivity, or pro-growth tax reform, and it risks raising marginal effective tax rates for working households. Without clear fiscal offsets, it may add to deficits and inflation pressures, conflicting with a strategy centered on growth and competitiveness.
What is the total fiscal cost of the 50% GSTC increase in 2025–26 and the 25% top-up for the subsequent five years, and what specific spending offsets or savings will ensure it is not deficit-financed?
Will the government adjust GSTC phase-out thresholds or rates to avoid higher marginal effective tax rates for modest earners created by the larger means-tested credit in this bill?
What is the CRA’s implementation timeline and administrative cost to deliver the enhanced GSTC, and what safeguards are in place to prevent overpayments and fraud without adding red tape for Canadians?
Provides short-term relief to lower-income households but does not enhance long-run growth drivers; potential fiscal and inflation risks if unfunded.
Leverages an existing credit with minimal new administrative layers, but it does not reduce regulatory or tax complexity more broadly.
No measures to improve productivity or competitiveness; primarily a transfer unrelated to investment, skills, or capital deepening.
No trade or export provisions; impacts are indirect at best.
Does not affect capital formation or innovation incentives; purely an income support change.
Delivery through the CRA is efficient, but total program costs rise and there is no service modernization or cost reduction.
Increasing a means-tested credit can raise marginal effective tax rates in phase-out ranges, weakening work and upward-earning incentives.
This is incremental, time-limited relief rather than a structural reform that would shift Canada’s growth trajectory.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email hi@buildcanada.com