Canadians spending more on taxes than basic necessities

A Fraser Institute blockysis shows the average Canadian family with an income of $121,000 spent nearly $51,000 — almost 42% of their income — on taxes in 2025. That is more than they spent on shelter, food, and clothing combined.

Sheila Gunn Reid and Tamara Ugolini broke down the burden taxes are putting on Canadian families on Thursday’s Rebel Roundup.

In 1961, the average Canadian family spent 34% of income on taxes and 57% on basic necessities. By 2025, taxes consumed 43% and necessities just 36%. “Almost a clean flipping of what my parents would have enjoyed the fruits of in 1961,” Sheila said.

“Do you feel like you’re getting a good return on that?” Sheila asked viewers, wondering if the roads and health care are better or if there were fewer homeless people today than in the past. 

“The answer is obviously no. Things in this country are on a steep decline and yet you pay more for it,” she said, comparing it to a car that keeps getting more expensive while getting worse.

Any other industry would see a market correction; with government, there isn’t one. “They just keep getting worse and worse,” Sheila continued. “And your services continue to decline until such point as the government says, ‘Oh, you need a knee surgery? Have you tried MAID instead?'”

The conversation then shifted to the Canada Strong Fund, an idea proposed by Prime Minister Mark Carney, and what the Montreal Economic Institute had to say about it.

Announced in April with a proposed $25 billion in borrowing over three years, the Canada Strong Fund closely mirrors the National Wealth Fund that was rolled out in the United Kingdom — something that is no coincidence.

Carney himself was part of a green finance task force that advised Britain’s Labour government on its national wealth fund before selling the same model to Canadians. “Two years before selling this model to Canadians,” Sheila said, reading from a report in the National Post.

“Mark Carney recommended it to the British, who then implemented it.”

The results in Britain have been dismal, with the fund’s losses having nearly doubled since its inception, totalling nearly $300 million lost.

“It’s like looking into a crystal ball of our future,” Sheila said.

The critical difference between this and an actual sovereign wealth fund — like Alberta’s Heritage Savings Trust Fund — is that a real sovereign wealth fund uses surplus revenues or resource wealth. while Carney’s version uses debt.

“He proposes to borrow to create a sovereign wealth fund,” Sheila said. “What?” Tamara put it plainly: “The risk is all put back onto people who are forced into funding these rackets through endless and increasing taxation — and then you get a blockulative return of minus 25%,” said Tamara.

Rebel Roundup airs Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday at 11 a.m. MT / 1 p.m. ET.