Ghana's Economy Grows 5.3% as Slump in Cocoa, Gold Sectors End
Gross domestic product expanded an annual 5.3% in the three months through March, compared with 3.6% in the prior quarter, Government Statistician Alhassan Iddrisu told reporters in the capital, Accra, on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Japan Stock Futures Steady After Coalition Set to Lose Majority
Japanese stock futures were little changed in early trading after the nation's ruling coalition was projected to lose its majority in the upper house election. Cash equity trading in Tokyo is shut Monday for a national holiday.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
How to fix Canadians' unfairly high tax burdens under progressive rates
If you think tax rates are too high, now is your chance to share your views with the government as it prepares its 2025 fall federal budget. This week, Minister of Finance and National Revenue, François-Philippe Champagne, launched the government's annual pre-budget consultations, giving Canadians until Aug. 28 to share their thoughts on a variety of key issues directly with the government online, via email or through written submissions. In a media release, the government noted that part of the consultations will focus on bringing down costs for Canadians, building on its recent 'middle-class tax cut,' which saw the lowest federal tax bracket drop to 14.5 per cent (from 15 per cent) as of July 1, with a further cut to 14 per cent scheduled for Jan. 1, 2026. While Canadians of all income levels will benefit from the rate cut to the lowest bracket, such a cut further magnifies the extreme progressivity inherent in our tax rate structure. Let's take a closer look at tax progressivity and what steps the government might consider to reduce the impact of such progressivity on certain taxpayers. As a refresher, we have five federal tax brackets in 2025: zero to $57,375 of income (14.5 per cent); above $57,375 to $114,750 (20.5 per cent); above $114,750 to $177,882 (26 per cent); above $177,882 to $253,414 (29 per cent), with anything above that taxed at 33 per cent. Each province and territory also has its own set of provincial tax brackets and rates. For example, an Ontario taxpayer currently pays a zero rate of tax on any income up to the basic exemption of $16,129. For income above that, the combined federal and Ontario marginal rate rises through over a dozen successive income brackets (including two levels of Ontario provincial surtax) until it reaches a top marginal rate of 53.53 per cent with income over $253,414. If we go back 15 years, Ontario's top marginal tax rate was a mere 46.41 per cent, meaning both the degree of progressivity as well as the top marginal rates have since increased sharply. And, this is not just an Ontario problem, as eight out of 10 provinces now have top marginal tax rates over 50 per cent. The other problem with our top rate is that it kicks in way too soon at $253,414. Contrast that with the top federal rate in the United States of 37 per cent, which was just made permanent (rather than reverting back to the 39.6 per cent rate for 2026) by the recent passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), and only starts to apply with income over US$626,350 — equivalent to about $860,000 in Canadian dollars. While there are many arguments for progressivity in the tax system, such as the more you make, the greater your ability to pay, having a tax rate so high can be a disincentive to earn more money since in most of Canada, you can't even keep half of it for yourself. And, while there's a common misperception in Canada that top income earners do not pay their share of taxes, a new report out this week by the Fraser Institute entitled Measuring progressivity in Canada's tax system, 2025, finds that high-income families already pay a disproportionately large share of all Canadian taxes, with the top 20 per cent of income earning families paying nearly two-thirds (64.5 per cent) of the country's personal income taxes. While it seems unlikely our current government will proactively lower the top bracket any time soon, perhaps the government could instead focus on a couple of targeted measures in the area of tax policy that would help reduce the sting of this sharp progressivity. A recent article by Geoffrey Turner, a law professor and tax lawyer with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP in Toronto, entitled Mitigating the inequities of high progressivity: Income averaging and spousal unit taxation, puts forth those two ideas for consideration. Turner maintains that tax reform should focus on alleviating the unfairly high tax burdens that our current progressive rate structure imposes on two specific categories of taxpayers: individuals whose income is irregular over time and families in which spouses or partners earn dissimilar incomes and therefore fall into different tax brackets. Of course, these ideas are not new as they were originally contained in the 1966 Carter Royal Commission Report on Taxation which recognized these inequities and proposed solutions, which were never permanently adopted. But, given the progressivity inherent in today's rates, Turner argues that the time has come to introduce these measures into our tax system. Let's start with income averaging. Under our personal income tax system we measure income annually and report it based on the calendar year. As a result of this 'convenient but arbitrary time frame,' taxable income is measured discretely each year, without reference to taxable income in prior or subsequent years. This means taxpayers with 'lumpy' income, who experience high income in one year but low income the following year, end up paying unfair amounts of tax in those high-income years relative to their actual ability, over time, to pay. The Carter commission recommended addressing this problem by allowing income averaging, which we did have in some form or other in Canada until 1988. The other recommendation proposed by Turner was to change the taxing unit from the individual to the couple. The Carter commission concluded that a better measure of ability to pay is the consolidated income of families because they constitute the basic economic grouping in Canadian society. Although the family unit was never adopted as part of the 1972 tax reform, family income is used today to income-test various social programs and credits, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, and the GST/HST credit. But notwithstanding this, the individual, rather than the family, remains the basic taxing unit in Canada, despite the fact that family income may better gauge one's ability to pay. Our current system is particularly unfair for families in which one spouse earns most of the income, as that family's tax burden is significantly higher under our progressive rate structure than if that income were evenly divided between each individual in a couple. Rather than force couples to be taxed together, however, Turner is in favour of allowing couples to elect to be taxed as a spousal unit. This would be similar to the elective 'married filing jointly' option available to couples in the U.S. As an added bonus, it would also 'help simplify the complex income-splitting rules, which might be rendered redundant by such a measure,' writes Turner. Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Private Wealth in Toronto. If you liked this story, in the FP Investor newsletter. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hanoi scooter riders baulk at petrol-powered bikes ban
Vietnam's plan to bar gas-guzzling motorbikes from central Hanoi may clear the air of the smog-smothered capital, but riders fear paying a high toll for the capital's green transition. "Of course everyone wants a better environment," said housewife Dang Thuy Hanh, baulking at the 80 million dong ($3,000) her family would spend replacing their four scooters with electric alternatives. "But why give us the first burden without any proper preparation?" grumbled the 52-year-old. Hanoi's scooter traffic is a fixture of the city's urban buzz. The northern hub of nine million people has nearly seven million two-wheelers, hurtling around at rush hour in a morass of congestion. Their exhausts splutter emissions regularly spurring the city to the top of worldwide smog rankings in a country where pollution claims at least 70,000 lives a year, according to the World Health Organization. The government last weekend announced plans to block fossil-fuelled bikes from Hanoi's 31 square kilometre (12 square mile) centre by next July. It will expand in stages to forbid all gas-fuelled vehicles in urban areas of the city in the next five years. Hanh -- one of the 600,000 people living in the central embargo zone -- said the looming cost of e-bikes has left her fretting over the loss of "a huge amount of savings". While she conceded e-bikes may help relieve pollution, she bemoaned the lack of public charging points near her home down a tiny alley in the heart of the city. "Why force residents to change while the city's infrastructure is not yet able to adapt to the new situation?" she asked. Many families in communist-run Vietnam own at least two motorcycles for daily commutes, school runs, work and leisure. Proposals to reform transport for environmental reasons often sparks allegations the burden of change is felt highest by the working class. London has since 2023 charged a toll for older, higher pollution-emitting vehicles. France's populist "Yellow Vest" protests starting in 2018 were in part sparked by allegations President Emmanuel Macron's "green tax" on fuel was unfair for the masses. - 'Cost too high' - Hanoi authorities say they are considering alleviating the financial burden by offering subsidies of at least three million dong ($114) per switch to an e-bike, and also increasing public bus services. Food delivery driver Tran Van Tan, who rides his bike 40 kilometres (25 miles) every day from neighbouring Hung Yen province to downtown Hanoi, says he makes his living "on the road". "The cost of changing to an e-bike is simply too high," said the 45-year-old, employed through the delivery app Grab. "Those with a low income like us just cannot suddenly replace our bikes." Compared with a traditional two-wheeler, he also fears the battery life of e-bikes "won't meet the needs for long-distance travel". But citing air pollution as a major threat to human health, the environment and quality of life, deputy mayor Duong Duc Tuan earlier this week said "drastic measures are needed". In a recent report, Hanoi's environment and agriculture ministry said over half of the poisonous smog that blankets the city for much of the year comes from petrol and diesel vehicles. The World Bank puts the figure at 30 percent, with factories and waste incineration also major culprits. Several European cities, such as Barcelona, Paris and Amsterdam have also limited the use of internal combustion engines on their streets -- and other major Vietnamese cities are looking to follow suit. The southern business hub Ho Chi Minh City aims to gradually transition delivery and service motorbikes to electric over the next few years. But with the high costs, office worker Nguyen My Hoa thinks the capital's ban will not be enforceable. "Authorities will not be able to stop the huge amount of gasoline bikes from entering the inner districts," 42-year-old Hoa said. "It simply does not work." tmh/sjc/jts/fox Solve the daily Crossword
