March 18, 2025 – Page 2 – Consumer Choice Center

New tax bill is a facelift, not a fix

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s recent tabling of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, marks a significant shift in India’s tax landscape. The government claims the bill simplifies compliance, reduces ambiguity, and modernizes the tax system. However, while the effort to de-clutter tax laws is commendable, the bill fails to address key concerns that directly impact consumers, particularly regarding tax predictability, dispute resolution, and incentives for economic growth.

The government promoted the new bill as a victory for simplification, fewer words, forty per cent reduced redundancy of provisions and a streamlined structure overall. The replacement of “assessment year” with “tax year” aligns the Indian system with global norms, promising much-needed clarity for taxpayers and businesses. But below this new coat of paint lies the same rust. The bill does not truly significantly overhaul the tax structure. Plenty of provisions from the 1961 act remain intact under new labels, forcing taxpayers to navigate through a maze of cross-references. Words don’t cut complexity, especially if the system remains convoluted.

Tax Litigation remains the biggest headache for Indian taxpayers, with unresolved disputes piling up to 13.4 trillion rupees as of March 2024. Yet, the new bill makes no major attempts to introduce a fast-track dispute resolution model to address the pressing issue. For instance the UK’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System provides taxpayers and authorities room to negotiate, removing expensive legal proceedings and clearing backlogs. A similar model can be implemented in India to reduce judicial backlog and boost the confidence of taxpayers.

Foreign investors remain wary of India’s tax system due to its unpredictability. The bill does little to change that; it fails to introduce effective mechanisms to address complicated cases, such as the Rs 1.4 billion tax demand against Volkswagen, which exemplifies the perils of prolonged tax disputes. If India wants to stay relevant and maintain its competitive edge, it must offer a framework that is not just simplified on paper but also predictable, stable, and fair enough to attract investors. For a nation aspiring to be a global tech hub, the new Income Tax Bill fails to support start-ups and innovation driven sectors.

The USA, for example, promotes investment through R&D tax credits, encouraging growth in emerging industries. Singapore goes a step further with generous tax exemptions to start-ups allowing them to reinvest in job creation and expansion. Yet, India’s new bill keeps a rigid framework, providing no meaningful incentives or financial push for budding start-ups. If innovation is the goal, the tax system needs to fuel it, not stifle it. The bill also misses a crucial opportunity to promote green energy. Tax incentives could have encouraged investment in renewables, making India a leader in clean technology. Instead, it remains silent on how taxation can drive sustainable consumer choices, another lost chance to align policy with progress.

The Income Tax Bill 2025 is definitely a step towards tax simplification, but it should not come at the cost of overlooking key economic drivers, innovation incentives, investor confidence, and dispute resolution. The system remains a roadblock rather than a catalyst for growth. If the government wants to empower businesses and consumers, it must ensure tax laws are enablers of economic growth rather than an administrative burden. India has the opportunity to create a transparent, efficient, and globally competitive tax system. However, in its current form, the new tax bill risks being more of a cosmetic update rather than the structural reform India truly needs. If policymakers aim to make India an attractive destination for investment and economic prosperity, they must go beyond word count reductions and focus on real, substantive change.

Originally published here

Tariffs on Imports From Canada and Mexico Are Still a Terrible Idea

During a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, President Donald Trump acknowledged that Americans don’t like high prices.

“We have to get the prices down,” Trump told reporters. “The prices of eggs and various other things. Eggs are a disaster.”

Part of his administration’s solution to the high price of eggs? More imports. As part of a $1 billion plan to combat the bird flu, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced this week that it would seek to expand imports of eggs, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The U.S. is a major global supplier of eggs, so reversing those supply chains is not easy (and eggs are perishable goods, which makes it more difficult), but the maneuver is evidence that at least some members of the Trump administration grasp that prices are the result of supply and demand. A sudden constraint on supply—in this case, the bird flu—has pushed prices higher, and finding alternative suppliers might help ease the pain.

Read the full text here

Houston charts path forward on interprovincial trade

Leaders across Canada have talked a good game about eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is putting his money where his mouth is.

There can be no doubt about it: Interprovincial trade barriers are holding Canada’s economy back. The rules and regulations preventing the free flow of goods, services and workers across provincial borders is costing our economy more than $200 billion a year.

With U.S. President Donald Trump promising to bring in sweeping tariffs as soon as next week that would devastate the Canadian economy, it’s never been clearer that we need to trade more at home and boost economic activity within our borders.

Enter Houston.

At a campaign stop in support of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s re-election bid, Houston announced plans to table a bill called the Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada Act in the Nova Scotia Legislature.

The legislation would take a reciprocal approach to trade barriers: According to Houston, Nova Scotia will eliminate any barriers standing in the way of trade with another province so long as that other province responds in kind.

In other words, so long as any other province is willing to drop its trade barriers and allow Nova Scotia’s goods, services, and workers to flow freely across its borders, Nova Scotia will do the same.

Canada’s internal trade barriers now represent the equivalent of a 21% tariff. Eliminating those barriers is critical.

Houston’s new legislation could be a game changer for the Canadian economy. Once Nova Scotia passes this bill into law, the onus will be on other provinces to reciprocate: if they want more access to the Nova Scotia market, all they have to do is remove trade barriers of their own.

In the past, provinces have been reluctant to remove trade barriers for a number of reasons. One is that even if a province removes a trade barrier, there’s no guarantee that other provinces that benefit from the elimination of that barrier will respond in kind.

Houston’s legislation would require Nova Scotia to reciprocate action taken by any other province, offering a guarantee that a gesture of goodwill won’t go unmatched.

The proposed legislation could lead to a domino effect. Ontario, for example, might see the benefits of reciprocal trade with Nova Scotia and could choose to introduce similar legislation to facilitate more reciprocal trade with other provinces.

By having politicians commit to matching each other’s moves toward freer trade, they don’t have to take a leap of faith when they stand up to special interest groups and tear down trade barriers.

Houston’s move comes at a critical time. Trump is threatening to introduce punishing across-the-board tariffs as soon as next week. Canada needs to be doing everything possible to strengthen the domestic economy to head off the impact of those tariffs.

Exports represent more than one-third of Canada’s GDP and 77% of Canada’s exports go to the United States. It’s hard to overstate just how devastating U.S. tariffs would be on Canada’s economy.

That’s why strengthening internal trade, in concert with growing Canada’s exports to markets other than the United States, will be crucial in the months ahead.

But unlike trading with other countries, where complex bilateral agreements must be negotiated, internal trade barriers in Canada could be eliminated tomorrow. All that’s been missing is the will to make it happen.

Houston is showing that eliminating internal trade barriers can be done swiftly. With a single piece of legislation, Houston is laying the groundwork for eliminating Nova Scotia’s trade barriers with other provinces, so long as they do the same.

Provincial governments across the country should follow Houston’s lead, introduce reciprocal domestic trade legislation, and unleash the true potential of Canada’s domestic economy.

Interprovincial trade barriers are holding Canada back at a time when we can least afford it. Canada’s premiers should embrace Houston’s plan to fix it.

Originally published here

Canada’s telecom feud heats up

Canadians want more competition when it comes to internet access and pricing. But Ottawa might be trying to stand in the way.

Here’s the deal: in most areas of the country, consumers have just two major internet providers to choose from.

The CRTC, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, has long argued that it is in the best interest of consumers to allow for cross-regional competition. That would encourage more of Canada’s major regional internet providers to participate in markets in other areas of the country.

It’s something the Competition Bureau has also advocated for.

To that end, the CRTC recently upheld a decision to require big internet companies to share their fibre networks with others, with competitor access sold at prices the telecommunications regulator determines.

Network sharing would facilitate competition and ultimately help drive down prices for consumers.

That initial decision by the CRTC was made a few years ago. But Bell, through some corporate maneuvering, filed a cabinet petition and managed to get the federal government in November 2024 to order the CRTC to reconsider this pro-competition directive.

Bell claimed its rationale for doing so was to protect smaller companies and improve telecom access for Canadians. But the reality is that, had the CRTC ruled in Bell’s favour, the duopolies that exist in most Canadian markets would have been cemented in place.

From a consumer perspective, it’s great that the CRTC didn’t cave to Bell’s lobbying, because doing so would have been a wrongheaded interpretation of competition policy.

The CRTC’s move to uphold its initial decision is technically temporary: a final decision still has to be made, so the debate is not over. In fact, Telus just filed a motion in court, alleging that Ottawa is intentionally withholding lobbying documents.

According to the motion, Ottawa is purposely withholding lobbying documents and activities from public scrutiny, which demonstrates a lack of transparency on how its directive to get the CRTC to reconsider its initial pro-competition decision was made.

The motion cites a few grounds for review, with two focusing on procedural fairness, or lack thereof. First, Telus argues that there were dozens of closed-door meetings between Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s office and Telus’ competitors, which potentially violates the Telecommunications Act’s provisions for a fair review and response. It also argues that the Minister failed to properly consult with provincial counterparts, which is required under Section 13 of the Telecommunications Act.

Essentially, Telus wants Champagne to produce materials in his possession, and Ottawa is objecting. If you care about government transparency, this is quite concerning. Failing to produce the documents insulates the decision from proper judicial review, and raises suspicion about procedural unfairness and, ultimately, Ottawa’s motives.

This legal spat is problematic because this government doesn’t have a good track record of being transparent with its decision-making process. The list is long, but includes being accused of political interference in the SNC-Lavalin Affair, sole-sourced contracts in the We Charity Scandal, delaying the release of key financial reports in 2024 like the Annual Financial report, the decision making over the use of the Emergencies Act, improper accounting and transparency with pandemic aid, and the general erosion of Canada’s access to information system.

To say that Ottawa, under this government, has a transparency problem, is an understatement.

Beyond transparency, the push from Ottawa for the CRTC to reconsider couldn’t come at a worse time. U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats could soon upend the economy. With a renewed focus on tearing down interprovincial trade barriers, why would Ottawa at the same time push to build virtual walls around Canada’s telecom space and cement in place duopolies and the lack of consumer choice that comes with it?

It’s also not what consumers want, with polling showing that the vast majority of Canadians support the CRTC’s decision to enable cross-regional competition, and that nearly two-thirds of Canadians would question Ottawa’s commitment to affordability if they restricted internet choice.

Right now, we have a strange directive from Ottawa, going against the spirit of competition, masked in a veil of secrecy, and that should worry just about everyone.

Originally published here

Lee introduces the Saving Privacy Act for 119th Congress

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Saving Privacy Act, a bill to end government abuse of Americans’ financial information. For years, federal agencies have been overreaching in their surveillance, collecting vast amounts of personal financial data from law-abiding citizens without just cause. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) is an original co-sponsor of the bill.

“The federal government has no business surveilling the financial activities of millions of innocent Americans,” said Senator Lee. “The current system erodes the privacy rights of citizens, while doing little to effectively catch true financial criminals. My Saving Privacy Act ensures that Americans’ personal information is protected and that government agencies operate within the bounds of the Constitution.”

“Big government has no place in law-abiding Americans’ personal finances. It is a massive overreach of the government and a gross violation of their privacy,” said Senator Rick Scott. “That is why I am teaming up with Senator Lee so that we can protect Americans’ personal financials for good. Our Saving Privacy Act will allow federal agencies to go after criminals while also protecting innocent Americans’ data. This is commonsense legislation, and I am urging my colleagues to support its immediate passage.”

“For decades, outdated banking regulations have subjected citizens to excessive financial surveillance, compelling institutions to enforce intrusive measures that directly led to the debanking of innocent Americans spending their own money. The Saving Privacy Act offers comprehensive reforms, striking a balance that restores consumer rights, establishes sensible standards for innovators while curbing illicit activities, and reinvigorates the commitment to sound consumer financial privacy. –Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director at the Consumer Choice Center.

Read the full text here

Europe’s agriculture regulations a cautionary tale for Canada

Don’t be like Europe.

That was the message to farmers during a keynote speech at this year’s CropConnect Conference in Winnipeg in mid-February.

“The European approach in general is that, ‘We have gotten things absolutely right,’” said speaker Bill Wirtz. “Essentially, ‘You have no idea what you’re doing. It’s only us.’”

“When have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?” he added, to audience laughter.

Why it matters: European farmers have chafed under the bloc’s strict environmental regulations and policies, which have sparked protests in several countries.

Wirtz, originally from Luxembourg, is a senior policy analyst with the think tank Consumer Choice Center. His organization has been critical of European Union authorities, including EU food and agricultural policies.

Read the full text here

Day: March 18, 2025

New tax bill is a facelift, not a fix

Tariffs on Imports From Canada and Mexico Are Still a Terrible Idea

Houston charts path forward on interprovincial trade

Canada’s telecom feud heats up

Lee introduces the Saving Privacy Act for 119th Congress

Europe’s agriculture regulations a cautionary tale for Canada

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA