Kelly McParland: Eugenie Bouchard refuses to do her part for Quebec's social programs

Article content

Eugenie Bouchard is in bad odour with politicians in Quebec.

Bouchard was born in Montreal but, like a lot of professional athletes, has been living in Florida due to low taxes and year-round sunshine. Early this year she became a resident of the Bahamas, which also has tax advantages and a pleasant climate. This has upset some political leaders, who see it as a sort of betrayal.

We all know how testy Quebec can get when it feels its honour has been offended. It doesn’t take much: an English-language sign that’s marginally larger than the officially sanctioned standards of the language police. The slightest hint that the province’s annual equalization haul — closing in on $12 billion, or a billion a month — might be a tad excessive.

Bouchard has managed to provoke this finely-honed sense of provincial dignity. François Legault, who stands a good chance of becoming the next premier, declaimed on the outrage of the tennis player seeking a home where she could fork over less of her earnings than would be required in Quebec. “I think we should live where we were born, where we learned to play tennis and pay taxes in our country,” he said.

Hmmm. If we all lived where we were born, Quebec would not exist, because all good French citizens would have insisted on residing in France rather than sailing off to some godforsaken colony on the St. Lawrence, no?

Bouchard has managed to provoke this finely-honed sense of provincial dignity

But nevermind. A spokesperson for Quebec Solidaire, the lefty party that holds three seats in the legislature, found it “deplorable” that anyone would take advantage of tax breaks. “It’s because complacent governments have put in place loose laws that allow rich individuals to easily transfer their funds to tax havens.”

It seems a bit odd that Bouchard would be singled out for criticism. Celine Dion lives and works mainly in Nevada, which has no state or corporate tax, and until last year had a second home in tax-friendly Florida, which she sold for a knock-down $38 million, barely half of asking. In 2016 she unloaded her mansion on a private island in Laval, which would have impressed a Bourbon prince, for a reported $25.5 million. Yet Dion, as far as can be told, remains as much a fixture in the hearts of Quebecers as she ever was. Criticize Celine and you could really have some provincial outrage on your hands.

Highly-paid professional athletes and performers rarely stick to their birthplace, or get criticized for it. It’s been a long time since Wayne Gretzky called Brantford home, but they still love it any time he visits, and enjoy naming streets and sports complexes after him. I can’t speak for Edmonton, but I suspect his fans there are no less fervent than they ever were, even though the Great One spends far more time in California than Alberta, and presumably employs skilled accountants to minimize his taxes. He’d be nuts not to.

But it’s true that some countries do deliberately design their tax structures to lure high-income individuals. Why would they not? Governments design revenue-generating systems around whatever advantages they enjoy. Alberta has no sales tax because it’s usually earned enough from energy production to avoid one. (That blessing may not last forever, but we won’t get into that.) U.S. states like Florida and Nevada rely on tourism or gambling rather than taxing income. It’s not illegal, and hardly nefarious. What’s perplexing is that politicians seem incapable of grasping this simple reality, and insist on claiming that high taxes on “the rich” will bring more money to the treasury and allow for additional spending on whatever pricey programs they advocate.

What’s perplexing is that politicians seem incapable of grasping this simple reality

Quebec’s leaders are far from alone in this inability. Justin Trudeau campaigned hard on a promise to make the rich pay “their fair share,” as if they didn’t already do that. The top one per cent earners in Canada pay almost a quarter of all income taxes, while the top 10 per cent contribute more than half. Yet one of Trudeau’s first budget acts was to raise the rate higher in the belief he could make them pay even more. Some provinces have acted similarly: Ontario premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne both jacked up top rates in search of the elusive “fair share.”

It hasn’t worked. The most recent tax records show that, rather than raise an extra $3 billion as promised, Canada’s top tax take actually declined by $4.6 billion. Tax the rich more, and you end up with less less income. Because rich people aren’t all stupid — and even the stupid ones can hire smart accountants — and once they feel they’re paying too much, they tend to go looking for a means to pay less. It’s not rocket science, yet seems beyond the grasp of many elected leaders.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau insists the Liberal plan remains solid. He says that once he announced his intention to raise their taxes, high earners shifted some income to avoid handing it over right away. But they can’t avoid it forever, and the windfall will show up sooner or later, he maintains.

Well, maybe. Unless those same folks have continued looking for ways to avoid being soaked, much like Morneau did before entering politics in setting up a numbered company in low-tax Alberta despite living and working in Ontario. The fact remains that the Liberals were elected three years ago, yet — with the next election just a year away — the promised bonanza still hasn’t materialized. Meanwhile the promised balanced budget has become an annual deficit in the $20 billion range.

Intriguingly, Quebec is one of the few governments able to boast a balanced budget. This will be the fourth consecutive year it can do so, even without whatever moderate amount Eugenie Bouchard might have been able to contribute. It underlines yet again just how hollow the “tax the rich” argument remains. Not that politicians will stop trying to make it.