Canada's Fraser Institute has just released its Economic Freedom of the World report for 2014. The index, compiled annually by the Fraser Institute and public policy think tanks in the USA and Germany, uses 76 indicators of personal, civil and economic freedoms.
Why do they do this? Because economic freedom has been shown in numerous peer-reviewed studies to promote prosperity and other positive outcomes. It is a necessary condition for democratic development. It liberates people from dependence on government in a planned economy, and allows them to make their own economic and political choices.
And what is economic freedom? The 1996 report defines the concept this way:
Individuals have economic freedom when property they acquire without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical invasions by others and they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others. An index of economic freedom should measure the extent to which rightly acquired property is protected and individuals are engaged in voluntary transactions.
The 2014 report (see link at end of this post) puts Hong Kong at the top of the league table. This surprises me a bit, as virtually every month sees demonstrations and protests in the streets of Hong Kong against rule from Beijing and the absence of universal suffrage. However, we must remember that the EFW report concentrates on economics, not politics.
Second on the list is Switzerland, followed by Finland, Denmark and New Zealand. Canada, in spite of the virtual dictatorship of Steve Harper (now campaigning hard for his fourth term as Prime Minister) is in sixth place. The Disunited Kingdom is ninth, and Germany twelfth.
But (I hear you ask) what about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? After nearly eight years of the Obama maladministration and ever-increasing statism -- the misguided notion that the government must regulate every aspect of business and personal life -- it's not surprising to find the USA in twentieth (20th) place. Fred McMahon, the editor of the study, says the data on America shows a "significant weakening of the rule of law", an erosion of property rights and "an expansion of quasi-judicial regulations".
The least free country in the EFW index is... wait for it... Iran, with whom the USA is about to sign a treaty which will (according to Messrs Obama and Kerry) solve all the problems of the Middle East and the world. The Undemocratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Yemen round out the bottom five.
Further reading: Economic Freedom of the World -- 2014 Annual Report. The whole thing -- 282 pages in .pdf format.
Showing posts with label Fraser Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fraser Institute. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Think tank calls immigrants and refugees huge burden on Canadians
The elephant in the room can be ignored no longer. The metaphor is very appropriate, considering the number of immigrants and "refugees" -- notice the quotes -- allowed to enter Canada from lands full of elephants, such as Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.
According to a report published today by the Fraser Institute, a conservative Canadian think tank, bandaid-like reforms by the Harper government will only make a minor dent in the "fiscal burden" on society imposed by the newcomers unwanted and unwelcomed by the majority of Canadians.
How much is that burden, I hear you ask. It's C$20,000,000,000... per annum! That's $19 billion in real money, a truly huge sum for a country with a population of just 34 million, of whom perhaps a third pay no federal income tax.
In his essay, Herb Grubel -- a former caucus colleague of the Dear Leader -- says Mr. Harpoon's government should take more "radical" steps. He suggests phasing out the sponsorship of parents and grandparents -- the so-called "family class" -- and bringing in an employer-driven system to attract economic immigrants who might actually contribute something to the fiscus, rather than sponge off Canuck taxpayers.
"The economic performance of recent immigrants is substantially below that of other Canadians," Mr. Grubel notes, saying their average total income is 70% of that of other Canadians. Worse still, immigrants pay just over half (54%) of the taxes paid by others.
Mr. Grubel says there’s no consensus on the reason for immigrants’ poor performance, though he noted that both refugees and parents-grandparents clearly didn’t need to pass the government’s test for economic migrants that require certain levels of education, training and language proficiency. No surprise there!
His report praises some of the new federal policies on economic and family-class immigration, and especially Ottawa’s somewhat tougher approach to asylum-seekers. He says it will have some success in reducing the burden caused by immigrants who cost more in social services and general government expenses than they contribute in taxes.
He goes on to state another stone truth, that the "large-scale" intake of immigrants since the late 1980s has raised "serious concerns" over effects on "Canadian culture, religious tolerance and national security". Another non-surprise.
Mr. Grubel argues that Canadians should be allowed to debate the broader question of just how many new Canadians are needed in coming years. Should the Canuck government close the doors completely, or leave them slightly ajar? That's the real elephant in the room. He concludes that a broad public policy debate would at least ensure there is a "better informed and more rational Canadian immigration policy." Now that would be a surprise!
According to a report published today by the Fraser Institute, a conservative Canadian think tank, bandaid-like reforms by the Harper government will only make a minor dent in the "fiscal burden" on society imposed by the newcomers unwanted and unwelcomed by the majority of Canadians.
How much is that burden, I hear you ask. It's C$20,000,000,000... per annum! That's $19 billion in real money, a truly huge sum for a country with a population of just 34 million, of whom perhaps a third pay no federal income tax.
In his essay, Herb Grubel -- a former caucus colleague of the Dear Leader -- says Mr. Harpoon's government should take more "radical" steps. He suggests phasing out the sponsorship of parents and grandparents -- the so-called "family class" -- and bringing in an employer-driven system to attract economic immigrants who might actually contribute something to the fiscus, rather than sponge off Canuck taxpayers.
"The economic performance of recent immigrants is substantially below that of other Canadians," Mr. Grubel notes, saying their average total income is 70% of that of other Canadians. Worse still, immigrants pay just over half (54%) of the taxes paid by others.
Mr. Grubel says there’s no consensus on the reason for immigrants’ poor performance, though he noted that both refugees and parents-grandparents clearly didn’t need to pass the government’s test for economic migrants that require certain levels of education, training and language proficiency. No surprise there!
His report praises some of the new federal policies on economic and family-class immigration, and especially Ottawa’s somewhat tougher approach to asylum-seekers. He says it will have some success in reducing the burden caused by immigrants who cost more in social services and general government expenses than they contribute in taxes.
He goes on to state another stone truth, that the "large-scale" intake of immigrants since the late 1980s has raised "serious concerns" over effects on "Canadian culture, religious tolerance and national security". Another non-surprise.
Mr. Grubel argues that Canadians should be allowed to debate the broader question of just how many new Canadians are needed in coming years. Should the Canuck government close the doors completely, or leave them slightly ajar? That's the real elephant in the room. He concludes that a broad public policy debate would at least ensure there is a "better informed and more rational Canadian immigration policy." Now that would be a surprise!
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Canadian think tank says immigrants "huge drain" on economy
Canada's QMI Agency reports a study by that country's conservative Fraser Institute, which says that recent immigrants are a huge drain on the country's economy. Immigrants who arrived in Canada between 1987 and 2004 received about $6,000 more in government services per per person in 2005 than they paid in taxes. The cost to Canadian taxpayers? Between $16 and $23 billion a year!
Before 1987, in the days when immigrants were... errr... lighter, immigrants made more money, so paid more in taxes than those who have arrived in this quarter-century. So say the report's authors, Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady, explaining their analysis of data from Statistics Canada.
"As a result of Canada's welfare-state policies, social programs and progressive income tax system, these [newer] immigrants impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers," said Grubel.
But doesn't Canada need immigrants to take up all those jobs that native-born Canadians can't or won't do? Not according to Messrs Grubel and Grady. And, they add, children of new Canadians, even if they are working, are not likely to be able to earn enough to make up for the taxpayers' money their parents received.
The researchers conclude that in order to alleviate the fiscal strain on taxpayers, Canada’s immigration selection process should be reformed to emphasize a reliance on market forces to replace the existing, failed system of using points to select immigrants. In other words, let the market decide which types of workers and professionals are needed.
Before 1987, in the days when immigrants were... errr... lighter, immigrants made more money, so paid more in taxes than those who have arrived in this quarter-century. So say the report's authors, Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady, explaining their analysis of data from Statistics Canada.
"As a result of Canada's welfare-state policies, social programs and progressive income tax system, these [newer] immigrants impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers," said Grubel.
But doesn't Canada need immigrants to take up all those jobs that native-born Canadians can't or won't do? Not according to Messrs Grubel and Grady. And, they add, children of new Canadians, even if they are working, are not likely to be able to earn enough to make up for the taxpayers' money their parents received.
The researchers conclude that in order to alleviate the fiscal strain on taxpayers, Canada’s immigration selection process should be reformed to emphasize a reliance on market forces to replace the existing, failed system of using points to select immigrants. In other words, let the market decide which types of workers and professionals are needed.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Immigration costs Canada billions, says think-tank
According to the Fraser Institute, a leading public policy think-tank, Canada’s immigrant selection process needs to be revamped to focus on admitting people with Canadian job offers and skills needed by employers.
Prof. Herbert Grubel, of Simon Fraser University and a co-author of a report released today, says, “Recent immigrants earn incomes that are, on average, just 72 per cent of those earned by other Canadians and pay only about one-half of the income taxes paid by other Canadians. At the same time, they absorb nearly the same value of government services and transfers as other Canadians.
“As a result of Canada’s welfare-state policies, our progressive income taxes, and universal social programs, these immigrants impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers.”
Using publicly available government statistics, the report, Immigration and the Canadian Welfare State 2011, calculates that the difference between immigrants’ tax payments and the value of government services they absorb was about $6,051 per immigrant in 2006, representing a total cost to Canadian taxpayers of $16.3 billion to $23.6 billion annually.
"This is a substantial amount and is expected to continue to grow for as long as the present immigration policies remain in place," according to economic consultant Patrick Grady, a co-author of the report.
Follow this link to see an abstract of the report. You can download the complete report, free. A hard copy version is also available for purchase.
Prof. Herbert Grubel, of Simon Fraser University and a co-author of a report released today, says, “Recent immigrants earn incomes that are, on average, just 72 per cent of those earned by other Canadians and pay only about one-half of the income taxes paid by other Canadians. At the same time, they absorb nearly the same value of government services and transfers as other Canadians.
“As a result of Canada’s welfare-state policies, our progressive income taxes, and universal social programs, these immigrants impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers.”
Using publicly available government statistics, the report, Immigration and the Canadian Welfare State 2011, calculates that the difference between immigrants’ tax payments and the value of government services they absorb was about $6,051 per immigrant in 2006, representing a total cost to Canadian taxpayers of $16.3 billion to $23.6 billion annually.
"This is a substantial amount and is expected to continue to grow for as long as the present immigration policies remain in place," according to economic consultant Patrick Grady, a co-author of the report.
Follow this link to see an abstract of the report. You can download the complete report, free. A hard copy version is also available for purchase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)