I’ve spent most of my professional life thinking about how systems, especially in housing, are built, and where they break down in serving people. One thing I’ve noticed is that centralized decision-making often fails to meet people where they are. The most tragic example is the downfall of communism, where centralized planning completely ignored the reality on the ground in favour of idealized principles of how things ought to be. There are echoes of that today in how we redistribute wealth through taxation.
Why do we assume that the government is the only entity capable of deciding how our tax dollars should be used?
With Mark Carney elected Prime Minister and the Liberals extending their hold on power past the decade mark, these questions are more urgent than ever. I respect Carney’s economic credentials – he’s been a steady hand and has already moved quickly with a 1% tax cut for middle-income Canadians. That cut, which drops the lowest federal income tax rate from 15% to 14%, will help millions. However, it won’t fundamentally change the disconnect many people feel between what they pay and what they receive in return.
Meanwhile, housing affordability continues to spiral. The tax relief may put a few hundred dollars back into people’s pockets, but it won’t make a dent in the reality that housing in this country is still wildly unaffordable for too many. Too many towers in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal stand half-empty, priced beyond what average Canadians can afford, while homelessness grows. Real estate sales are slowing, not because we lack demand, but because we’ve priced regular people out of the market.
I’ve argued for years that we need new models of ownership and shared equity. But I think we need to go further. I believe Canadians should have the right to direct 10% of their income taxes to registered Canadian charities of their choosing. If even a small fraction of what we pay could be directed by us, based on our own values and experiences, we could bring innovation and flexibility into areas where bureaucracy often fails us.
This isn’t about dismantling the government. We still need centralized planning for healthcare, education, and infrastructure. But we also need space for individual agency. A 5% allocation model would keep government control over the majority of tax spending, while giving people a meaningful say in how a significant portion of their money is used.
Imagine what that could do for housing. People could fund organizations that build affordable units, offer rent-to-own options, or support youth aging out of care. Others might support food security programs, addiction recovery, or local environmental projects. The point is, we’d be choosing. We’d be engaged.
Mark Carney’s government has stated that it aims to restore trust in institutions. I believe one way to do that is by giving people more control over their contributions. Let’s stop treating taxpayers like passive funders. Let’s give them a voice in the solutions they’re working hard to finance.