文章《当选总统的税收威胁加拿大的竞争力》探讨了税收对加拿大竞争的影响。从加拿大的角度来看，如果唐纳德·特朗普没有在选举中获胜，这将是一个好处(Bedard, 2016)。然而，他赢了，这已经威胁到美国的竞争力，否则美国将不得不根据特朗普为企业制定的税收计划进行调整。从本文的角度来看，制定碳税是一个关键问题。这是由于新当选的总统对气候变化政策的观点产生了强烈的怀疑。这也表明，加拿大的竞争力将继续下滑，因为省级税收政策提高了税收超过投资(Bedard, 2016)。加拿大经济效益的下降是近年来省级税收政策的反竞争导致投资成本上升的结果。最值得注意的是，这还包括不列颠哥伦比亚省的决定，即在GST联邦批准下，取消省级销售税的统一，以及最近不仅在不列颠哥伦比亚省，而且在新布伦瑞克地区(Bedard, 2016)提高企业所得税。在这种情况下，大多数拥护者认为，正如文章所暗示的那样，马尼托巴省、萨斯喀彻温省和不列颠哥伦比亚省等州应该朝着统一销售税的方向发展，以提高加拿大的竞争力。从这篇文章的角度也可以明显看出，加拿大在不考虑在其体系内建立税收中立的情况下，正在纵容自己犯下错误(Bedard, 2016)。这是针对我国矿业、林业和制造业与各省份的服务业相比，其薪酬较低的事实。
文章概述了政府的低所得税作为政府收入增加的结果。因此，由于雇佣的经济顾问对这一事实的强烈认同(Bedard, 2016)，特朗普总统将这一概念整合在一起。据认为，加拿大的税种包括联邦公司税和公司税。而美国的企业所得税免税国家则强调，在经合组织国家中，加拿大是第三低的，而美国是最后的。然而，联邦和省级税率的组合将其排在第23位，预计在减税后将上升至第12位(Bedard, 2016)。还强调，特朗普提出的税收计划为该组织提供了10%的税收激励，而不是利润汇回国内。据估计，由于将利润转移到海外，有超过2.3万亿美元由企业保护，不受美国税收的影响。因此，某些ceo和组织负责人表示，可以利用一次性回扣，让各种企业将其在美国的业务迁回美国(Bedard, 2016)。此外，某些组织之间的合并交易是为了享受加拿大对企业利润汇往国外的税收优惠和组织友好条例。因此，文章中明显强调，如果加拿大的税率不变，则有利于组织将业务从加拿大转移到美国(Bedard, 2016)。这篇文章还建议在美国南部边境成立新的组织，同时迎合加拿大的要求，因为特朗普推行的商业友好提议。因此，加拿大的竞争力面临投资下降和商业创造损失的恐惧和威胁(Bedard, 2016)。如果实施特朗普的计划，情况尤其如此，因为它将抹杀整个加拿大的财政优势。由特朗普设计的定制节目所引入的各种功能越来越吸引企业。此外，正如文章所暗示的，碳税的支持者主张这些措施将有助于促进加拿大经济，但事实并非如此。
The article, “President Elect’s taxes threaten Canadian competitiveness”, engages in exploring the influence over competition of Canada. From Canada’s perspective, it would have been a benefit if Donald Trump did not win in the election (Bedard, 2016). However, he won and this has led towards threatening the competitiveness in the nation or else the nation will have to adjust with the tax plan prepared by Trump for businesses. Enacting a carbon tax is a key issue identified from the perspective of this article. This is due to the stark scepticism of newly elected president’s perspective on climate change policy. This also indicates that the competitiveness of Canada will continue to slip due to the policies of provincial taxes that enhance the taxes over investment (Bedard, 2016). The fading benefit of Canada is the consequence of recent provincial tax policies related anti-competitiveness that enhanced the investment cost. Most notably this further is inclusive of the decision by British Columbia to undertake reversing of provincial sales tax harmonization with the GST federal approval along with the recent hikes in corporate income taxes not only in B.C (British Columbia) but also in New Brunswick region (Bedard, 2016). In such a scenario, most advocates believe as implied from the article that states such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C should move in the direction of sales tax harmonization for improving the competitiveness in Canada. It is also evident from the perspective of this article that Canada is indulging in making a mistake when not considering establishing neutrality of tax within its system (Bedard, 2016). This is pointed towards the fact that mining, forestry and manufacturing industries in the nation have engaged in paying lesser in comparison to the service based industries in various provinces.
Considering the service industry significance, it also is not usual to be supportive towards older industries at the cost of growing sector of service. Canada should take this as a warning that competitiveness of tax is a target of moving nature and there might be higher latitude for the region to lower its taxes for corporates (Bedard, 2016). For example, recently U.K has made plans and announced the same in regard to reducing its rates of corporate income taxes to a percentage of 20. This has threatened the global ranking of Canada on the overall outlook.
It is outlined in the article that low income taxes for the government results as increased governmental revenues. Hence, this notion is integrated by President Trump due to the strong agreement to this fact by the economic advisers employed (Bedard, 2016). It is considered that the varieties of taxes are in place at Canada inclusive of federal corporate tax and corporate tax. While the corporate income tax Free states of United States are highlighted with the assertion that Canada is third lowest for OECD nations, while US is last. However, the combination of federal and provincial tax rates placed them on 23rd and it is estimated to rise at the 12th position within this rank after the cuts of tax (Bedard, 2016). It is also emphasized that the tax plan articulated by Trump offers the organization with incentive of 10 per cent tax over the repatriation of profit. It is estimated that more than $2.3 trillion is guarded by the corporations from the taxman of United States due to moving the profits overseas. Therefore, it is indicated by certain CEOs and head of organizations that one time rebate can be taken advantage of by variety of corporations to move back their operations in United States (Bedard, 2016). Moreover, the merger deals among certain organizations had taken place to enjoy the tax benefits and the organization friendly regulations of Canada over the corporate profits repatriation accumulated abroad. Hence, it is evidently highlighted in the article that if the tax rates of Canada do not change, it will be advantageous for the organizations to shift their operations from Canada to United States (Bedard, 2016). The article also suggests that newer organizations will be formed at the border’s south within the United States while catering to the Canadian demands due to the business friendly proposition enforced by Trump. Therefore, it is fear and threat for the competitiveness of Canada to experience investment drops and loss of business creation (Bedard, 2016). This is particularly the case if the application of Trump’s program is performed, as it will remove the fiscal merits across Canada. The variety of features introduced by the customized program devised by Trump is increasingly attracting the corporations. Furthermore, carbon tax supporters, as can be implied by the article, have advocated that these measures will help enhance Canadian economy, but this is not the case.