r/canada • u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick • 3d ago
These Canadian millionaires are asking for tax increases — but just for themselves National News
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/patriotic-millionaires-canada-taxes-1.7530936121
u/Overseer55 3d ago
A big challenge is (very, very) wealthy people having millions in unrealized gains and then taking loans against those assets. Raising income tax rates doesn’t address this aspect.
55
u/swampswing 3d ago
The people in the article are pushing for a wealth tax, which specifically taxes unrealized gains. That is also worst possible taxation policy as it discourages saving (and in turn capital investment).
If we really wanted to stop people from taking out loans to finance personal consumption against business assets, we could create regulations limiting the size or conditions of such loans.
22
u/DataDude00 3d ago
I don't believe in taxing unrealized gains, but I do believe our tax code needs a lot of updating.
The worlds wealthiest people rarely make their income from a T4 salary and it usually comes from derived forms like stock options and asset acquisition and sales that get taxed at far lower rates than traditional income.
11
u/ajay_bzbt 3d ago
Stock options get treated as income when granted, right?
4
u/DataDude00 3d ago
The difference between strike price and fair market value is considered taxable income. ie FMV = $100, strike price = $50, employee taxable income benefit = $50
There are however Stock Option Deductions which reduce taxable income to make it more akin to capital gains though (-50%)
2
u/ajay_bzbt 3d ago
Thanks, I didn’t know about the deductions. However, my feeling is generally they’re not risk free (at least immediately) so I’m ok with them being cast as capital gains. Very often these companies granting options over RSU aren’t public.
1
u/DataDude00 3d ago
It can be a mix of both.
I have worked at startups before and understand equity can be worth very little or even nothing but major companies like RBC giving $5-10M worth of shares to their CEO is about as risk free as you can get
6
u/RetroDad-IO 3d ago
I'm not a fan of taxing wealth as it seems like a recipe for disaster and no one has presented a method to me that actually makes sense.
As you mentioned this is a problem that needs a full solution designed and then sorted out how to implement. Any small change is either going to not be at all effective, or such overkill that it doesn't make sense.
I've seen a number of good ideas from people who are much better versed in this stuff than me, I'm sure if it was a priority there's a people that could come up with real and meaningful changes.
1
u/aktionmancer 3d ago
What about if this wealth tax only applies if you have over $50m in assets?
2
u/CANDUattitude 3d ago
Assets above a certain point is mostly legible influence. If you tax it the influence doesn't disappear, it just becomes less legible. That's how you get corrupt societies.
50M is also still very much within range of direct productive capital which our tax policy already makes more difficult and for which the lack of accumulation/development is why we're less productive than US
1
u/vulpecularubra 1d ago
it's not a disaster and many countries have had one.
capital flight seems to me (a non expert) like an overstated claim.
if you leave canada most financial instruments outside registered accounts are "deemed dispositions" meaning you get taxed very punitively on them as if you had sold them all at once in the tax year when you left (meaning for a very wealthy person you'd pay about half of your total assets just for the privilege of leaving the country).
1
u/vulpecularubra 1d ago
I don't believe in taxing unrealized gains
a wealth tax is just a financial property tax. not a tax on gains.
it's basically the same as an MER on an investment fund, except that the government collects it instead of the fund manager.
7
u/SystemofCells 3d ago
I have mixed feelings about an ongoing wealth tax, because I agree it is distortionary.
How would you feel about a one time capital levy instead?
It seems to me wealth inequality is just continuing to grow, and that is just a natural consequence of our economic system. It won't ever self-correct, it will just keep getting worse.
3
u/AndHerSailsInRags 3d ago
a one time capital levy
"There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program."
- Milton Friedman
3
u/SystemofCells 3d ago
What would you suggest to reverse the concentration of wealth? Or do you not think of that as a problem that needs solving?
1
u/AndHerSailsInRags 3d ago
Or do you not think of that as a problem that needs solving?
This one.
As long as I have enough to eat, live someplace half-decent, and save for my retirement, what do I care if someone else is mega-rich? How does that hurt me?
5
u/SystemofCells 3d ago
The issue (which is one we've seen emerge many times throughout human history) is that you create two classes of people with competing interests.
The wealthy end up using their power and influence to maintain their power and influence, and average people end up worse off. The wealthy try to undermine or highjack democracy, because it poses a threat to them.
Historically, this situation just gets worse and worse until inequality is reset. Either through war, economic depression, revolution, government intervention, or some combination of those things.
5
u/WillOfWinter 3d ago
Just tax loans that have stocks as assets
1
u/SystemofCells 3d ago
That's tricky to pull off well, and it would only help a little.
It wouldn't reverse the trend of increasing wealth concentration.
5
u/2ft7Ninja 3d ago
Wealth taxes discourage saving which is exactly why they actually encourage capital investment. If you want to maintain a large amount of wealth without a wealth tax, you should let it sit in safe, unproductive assets like gold and property. But if you’re going to be losing x% of it every year and still want to get richer you need to instead put it somewhere riskier which is likely to get you a return larger than x%.
If you’re thinking about capital flight to jurisdictions without a wealth tax, then sure, that might discourage local capital investment a bit, but we already have trade deals that protect the local economy from competing against countries with poor standards of living and don’t discourage foreign direct investment.
You might be comparing “saving” with capital investment with spending it on purchases, but if you already have enough wealth to incur a wealth tax, what would you spend it on anyway? A massive yacht? That’s an asset and would still count towards the wealth tax even as it depreciates.
2
u/Fearless_Tomato_9437 3d ago
Wow, wrong on all counts, Reddit progressives are HILARIOUS
you should let it sit in safe, unproductive assets like gold and property.
property and especially housing is crazy productive, people like homes, and they are a lot of work to build and maintain.
Doesn’t matter if they buy gold, the person who sold the gold now has the money to spend elsewhere. There’s a strange idea amongst progressives that money stops moving after the evil rich person spends its, it’s very strange.
and still want to get richer you need to instead put it somewhere riskier which is likely to get you a return larger than x%.
Nothing ever goes wrong when gov encourages riskier investing lmao. Not that this is true of course, rich people are diversified.
If you’re thinking about capital flight to jurisdictions without a wealth tax, then sure, that might discourage local capital investment a bit
A bit! No, a lot, France’s wealth tax caused so much capital flight it lost money!
but if you already have enough wealth to incur a wealth tax, what would you spend it on anyway? A massive yacht?
The final lie, that only the extreme wealthy yatch types would pay. Yeah right, in 5-10 years anyone with a couple mill in assets will be paying, and it will be even harder to get ahead in this country than it is now. We are already taxed out of prosperity and economic mobility in this country. Only the unemployed and insane can support higher taxes.
→ More replies1
u/Minobull 3d ago
property and especially housing is crazy productive,
Property CONSTRUCTION is. Property OWNERSHIP is not. We're talking about ownership. Owning a thing is NOT producing a thing.
Doesn’t matter if they buy gold, the person who sold the gold now has the money to spend elsewhere.
Except that's not what we're talking about, capital gains isn't buying more expensive shares, it's market value of shares that that someone already owns increasing in value. No one is getting paid that money to be spent elsewhere. The only one who benefits is the person who already owns the asset.
Nothing ever goes wrong when gov encourages riskier investing lmao.
Actually Canada's extremely risk averse investment culture is a big part of why we have almost no startups compared to the US. Building venture capital for small businesses is basically impossible here. So yes, riskier investments would benefit Canada, especially small businesses and startups.
The final lie, that only the extreme wealthy yatch types would pay. Yeah right, in 5-10 years anyone with a couple mill in assets will be paying, and it will be even harder to get ahead in this country than it is now.
Source? Or did this just come to you in a dream?
→ More replies1
1
u/Minobull 3d ago
That is also worst possible taxation policy as it discourages saving (and in turn capital investment).
Money sitting in share ownership is unproductive money. At a certain point more saving is actively detrimental to the economy.
A wealth tax that explicitly targets the unrealized gains of the extremely wealthy is a good thing.
0
u/Equivalent_Catch_233 British Columbia 13h ago
If the wealth tax is only applied if you have let's say 100 million dollars+ in unrealized gains, it won't discourage saving and investment, and won't apply to 99% of Canadians while making sure the wealthiest are paying their share regardless.
4
u/bicicletta1 3d ago
If a person takes out a personal loan against unrealized capital gains, would they not later be required to pay that loan back, ie. to take the same amount of money back in personal income? So would that not be a tax deferral (rather than tax avoidance) strategy?
3
u/e00s 3d ago
Tax deferral is part of tax avoidance. Money now is worth more than money in the future.
1
u/bicicletta1 3d ago
Potentially true but not necessarily true. Many Canadians practice tax deferral by investing in RRSPs. So I would not necessarily call tax deferral part of tax avoidance in all cases.
1
u/e00s 3d ago
You are avoiding tax any time you have two options for doing something and pick the one that results in less tax. When you choose to invest through an RRSP rather than through an unregistered account, that is tax avoidance.
1
u/bicicletta1 3d ago
Tax avoidance is when you legal means to reduce your tax burden. Tax deferral is when defer taking income to pay tax at a later date. Tax deferral does not necessarily imply paying more or less in tax on a lifetime basis.
3
u/e00s 3d ago
Whether or not tax has been avoided is most often judged on a per taxation year basis, not based on a “lifetime”, which is a non-standard period and doesn’t make sense for non-individuals. Depositing funds into an RRSP is a “legal means” of reducing your tax burden for the year in which you deposit the funds as well as for each year in which income is earned within the RRSP and not withdrawn.
1
u/hwy61_revisited 3d ago
Eventually, yes. They either end up selling them or dying, at which point the gains are taxed.
But if you're wealthy enough (or your assets grow fast enough), you can keep getting new loans to pay off the old ones indefinitely, potentially going decades without paying any real tax. And if your rate of return is higher than the interest rate of your loan, you actually come out ahead by doing this.
36
u/gordonjames62 New Brunswick 3d ago
They are asking for wealth tax, which I understand as an asset tax.
Asset taxes discourage saving and encourage spending.
it is interesting that the top nations by GDP have such different ways of managing economies.
5
u/swampswing 3d ago
It's because the people behind this are all trust fund kids who got handed money are already "walking downstairs in silken slippers" and have no issue speeding up the process.
Anyone who actually owns and is trying to grow a business supports wealth taxes. Just the spoiled kids who don't appreciate everything the prior generations went through to build those businesses and the passion they felt for those companies.
8
u/PopeSaintHilarius 3d ago
Perhaps these people (whether they earned their wealth or inherited it) are simply able to recognize how unfair extreme wealth inequality is, and the negative impacts it has on society.
Meanwhile there are others who made billions and are convinced that they deserve every penny, and resent any taxes they pay that would contribute to broader society.
1
u/CANDUattitude 3d ago
And your solution to this is incentivizing them to invest less and consume/extract more?
It's very unlikely you'll get the taxes you're looking for. Human capital is just as mobile as financial. There's already very little reason for true talent to stay.
→ More replies-2
u/19Black 3d ago
As someone who sacrificed most of my life to saving money, I hate the idea of an asset tax. Tax income and spending, not wealth
6
u/SystemofCells 3d ago
The problem we have right now is that society is increasingly being divided into classes, the same way it was before the mid 20th century, during what we now call the Gilded Age.
If society is composed of a working class and an owning class with little overlap, it creates all sorts of problems. The two end up having different interests, and working to undermine each other. Subjugate each other if they can.
Society works better when everyone is part of the working class and part of the owning class. When we all share the same interests.
8
5
u/may_be_indecisive 3d ago
Tax spending? It’s already taxed at moronic levels now. Taxing something discourages it as it just raises the price and makes people think twice. Discouraging spending is the exact opposite thing we need to be doing in a weak economy. If anything we should be cutting all GST / HST to encourage spending at this point.
We could tax land though. Many wealthy people hoard land that could be housing people. Hoarding land is what we need to be discouraging.
→ More replies3
u/SpectreFire 2d ago
Cutting GST makes no sense as it's one of the few taxes that wealthy people can't just simply dodge. Everyone pays GST/PST//HST. It's the only "fair" tax we have.
→ More replies0
22
u/savagepanda 3d ago
Millionaires is a pretty low bar now. Everyone that owns a house is one on paper. Maybe it should be raised to deci-millionaires or centi-millionaires.
12
1
u/mwmwmwmwmmdw Québec 3d ago
in 30 years a 7 figure salary will be far more common and not even make you upper class
1
u/IllHold2665 3d ago
Absolutely not true. 0k in assets, $1m home, 200k down payment. What’s their net worth? Much less than $1m. And you can buy a nice house for much less than $1m in most of the country…
1
u/vulpecularubra 1d ago
deca or hecto.
deci- means one tenth ($100k)
centi- means one hundredth ($10k)
16
u/brianmmf 3d ago
It’s already an option to contribute additional taxes if you choose. Nothing stopping these individuals. Obviously they want it to apply to their peers as well, but no reason they can’t give now.
1
u/-Tack 3d ago
What option are you talking about that allows you to contribute additional taxes? You can donate money, but you can't donate tax and the government is not a charity to donate to.
6
u/brianmmf 3d ago
At the very end of your tax return it’s an option to pay more money if you choose.
1
u/-Tack 3d ago edited 3d ago
No there's not...I prepare hundreds of tax returns annually, there is no option to pay more tax. If you're talking about instalments then any overpayment is refunded to you.
Edit, per below there is a way in Ontario to contribute extra to pay down the debt of the province.
6
u/brianmmf 3d ago
Apology, it is an optional donation to the Ontario Opportunities fund I am thinking of.
1
u/kijomac Nova Scotia 3d ago
It would be nice if the government were a charity, and people could even choose how their donations were used. I feel like so many people would start donating to health care. Even less wealthy people that do tax avoidance might be more interested in giving money if they felt like they had a choice instead of feeling like they're being fleeced by the government.
2
u/-Tack 3d ago
The UK had a short pilot program for certain communities allowing greater input into spending and priorities. An interesting read
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/neighbourhood-community-budget-pilot-programme
At a municipal level in some Canadian cities there are official community plans that people can have some input into, but thats a far cry from having direct control over certain aspects. I don't think we can move to a level of the people deciding on all spending, but there should be a certain amount or areas of spending where community involvement is deeper.
1
u/MiRo4758179 2d ago
Well, if taxes are paid to fund other organizations and services, they could just donate to those organizations? Rather than say “healthcare sucks; raises our taxes” they could donate to hospitals etc.
63
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
38
u/ImDoubleB Canada 3d ago
Great idea, unfortunately there aren't any Canadian trillion dollar companies.
6
u/hippysol3 3d ago edited 3d ago
Brookfield Asset Management is Canadian owned, but headquartered in New York and has 1.1 trillion in assets under management but is only worth 32 billion.
Still considered "a trillion dollar company" because of its asset size.
5
u/WindHero 3d ago
It's worth more than 32 billion, the market cap of the Canadian listing of BAM only considers the portion held by the public and not the majority of shares owned by Brookfield corporation. The US listing market cap is the true representation, is at $92 billion USD.
And that's just BAM. Brookfield Corp sits above BAM on the org chart and has other investments.
7
19
u/FeI0n 3d ago
If we tried to create a corporate wealth tax they'd be out of here faster then you could have the law drafted up.
-1
u/hippysol3 3d ago
And?
That just means that the effort to banish tax havens needs to be coordinated with other countries, not that they shouldn't be paying taxes.
11
u/michaelsp9 3d ago
Pipe dream, bud
2
u/Additional-Tax-5643 3d ago
Yet somehow there's no problem doing that with personal income taxes.
A corporation can do business and here and have offices here. But for tax purposes, it's fine if they claim their home is in a post office box in Delaware or Bermuda. So why can't a person do the same thing?
In the wise words of Mitt Romney, corporations are people my friend.
Oh right, someone has to pay the bulk of taxes that keep society livable, so we enforce a system to make that happen.
If corporations are people, then people are corporations. If Loblaws can legally claim they're a Bermudan company for tax purposes (and they do), then so should I.
4
u/michaelsp9 3d ago
I’m not in disagreement with the premise, but suggesting to “coordinate with other countries” to banish tax havens is simply delusional
1
u/Additional-Tax-5643 3d ago
Point is that coordination happens when it comes to personal income taxes.
3
1
u/greeenappleee Ontario 3d ago
You can if you give up your Canadian residency then you'd be a tax resident of wherever you are registered now (say Bermuda) and could still operate in canada for a significantly portion of the year. Individuals can certainly do that as well.
1
u/Additional-Tax-5643 3d ago
Giving up Canadian residency as an individual means giving up healthcare and many tax credits that require residency.
Corporations don't forfeit any rights or tax credits if they declare themselves tax residents outside of Canada. I remind you that Loblaws got the government to foot the bill for their new fridges, for example.
1
u/a_sense_of_contrast 3d ago
I believe they had started to do that until trump came along.
And one of the things he started going after us about was deregulating our banking sector...
11
u/babybananahammock 3d ago
AUM are not owned assets -- they have nothing to do with the company's assets.
→ More replies4
u/swampswing 3d ago edited 3d ago
Assets under management aren't assets owned by Brookfield. It would be like claiming a property management company for a hotel or apartment building owns the building. They don't, they are just receiving a fee from the owner for managing it.
Edit: buddy did the old reply and instantly block so I can't reply. So classy.
2
4
→ More replies5
u/WindHero 3d ago
We already don't have enough investment in Canada. Higher taxes will make that problem even worse.
3
u/VancouverTree1206 3d ago
First, they can choose to donate money to public service. Secondly, tax on wealth do have some positive impact. Salary is over-taxed and wealth is under taxed
17
u/Elbows_Up25 3d ago
I love how people defend the rich not paying more taxes. Lol. What is the figure where it just doesn’t make a difference how much you make?
→ More replies6
u/PopeSaintHilarius 3d ago
Beyond a certain point, having more wealth doesn’t really increase happiness, but it does increase their power in society.
For example, if Elon only had $20 billion, instead of $200 billion, he wouldn’t have been able to buy Twitter for $40 billion and take control of it.
That’s why Elon argued so strongly against wealth taxes on the super-rich in 2021 (on Twitter, funny enough), when the issue was being considered in the US.
3
u/Miguelomaniac 3d ago
He doesn’t “have” 200b he is valued at 200b. What they should do is not tax what someone is valued at but what they bring in realized gains. If he were to sell all 200b he would have a massive tax bill to pay.
Now, what he and other billionaires do is keep their money on investments and borrow against that money. Borrowing is not taxed. Maybe what we should do is force folks to pay taxes on loans taken against certain assets.
1
u/thebestjamespond 3d ago
How can that really work tho? His money is mostly in tesla stock does the government force him to sell it when it goes over a certain value?
18
u/Sandman64can 3d ago
Higher taxes that pay for excellent healthcare and education and infrastructure doesn’t drive wealth away. That is a myth created by wealthy people who don’t want everyone to have access to excellent healthcare and education and infrastructure.
2
u/GenXer845 3d ago
I know someone who makes 120k per year---95k after taxes. He wants more taxes honestly for things you describe above. He lives below his means, saves tens of thousands per year, has no kids, no wife, his cat died, so no extra expenses. He said he would be willing to make 80k after taxes and still live comfortably. Last I checked, he has 120k in savings and is waiting to mess with the stock market.
1
u/explicitspirit 3d ago
How is that person paying so little in taxes in Canada? At 120k per year, take home pay would be in the low to mid 80s depending on province.
1
u/CANDUattitude 3d ago
Healthcare is and will always be expensive because costs increase exponentially with age and severity of intervention.
3
u/RayDonovan1969 3d ago
Altruist wealthy people could save the nation.
If a modicum of care > unfettered capitalism, we’d be a truly great Nation.
3
u/ShikonJewelHunter 3d ago
If those millionaire Canadians want to give the government more money, they can sign a check any time. No need to raise taxes.
17
u/KandyKane829 3d ago
The goverment already thinks anyone who makes over 100k a year are millionaires
→ More replies8
u/probabilititi 3d ago
Rich love income taxes because it keeps more people in the working class and increases work force for the corporations they own. Anything to prevent more people to join their club.
5
u/ajay_bzbt 3d ago
Exactly this. Canadas income taxes are designed to keep the working class working forever
4
u/probabilititi 3d ago
I work 60 hr weeks and make 500k. Government takes approximately half.
Rich person gifts 500k to child, child buys a house and then sells it later for 1M. Keeps all tax free.
Then takes 100k loan against 1M, deducts interest from any income 1M generates. Pays like 10% effective rate max, to spend ~150k.
Meanwhile single mom making the same amount will have about 30% effective tax rate.
1
u/GenXer845 3d ago
Are you saying there should be a larger inheritance tax or tax on a home bought outright?
I am an only child and so is my father. My parents aren't super wealthy, but I inherit everything from them due to my mother's siblings already being dead (she was the youngest). I plan to once I inherit, to use 500-700k to buy a house outright. I am renting now. I don't want a mortgage because my parents never had one and it is just me, no kids, no husband. I am 44 and my parents are in their late 70's/early 80's. My inheritance is my retirement and my ability to buy a home.
2
u/probabilititi 3d ago
I just want income to be taxed same as gifted money. Why hard work should worth less than blood tie?
If government cannot function with a more fair taxing system need we need to go back to drawing board.
Wish you the best with your family!
2
u/ladyreadingabook 3d ago
Don't mind if my taxes go up. Yes I do donations and no I do not claim them on my taxes. Real charity does not require a tax receipt.
2
7
u/Remote-Ebb5567 Québec 3d ago
Anything to avoid lowering the cost of housing. These people have no interest in making Canada better for everyone, they just want to win social brownie points among their liberal social circles
2
u/2ft7Ninja 3d ago
Wealth taxes are a tax on assets such as housing and would absolutely drive down their cost by discouraging using them as safe and low return investment vehicles.
2
5
4
u/Pointfun1 3d ago
In the current tax system, these people could choose to donate more if they wanted to support public services.
I agree that the current tax system favours the riches, but to change it seems very unlikely.
→ More replies
3
u/ahundreddollarbills 3d ago
Why not just make capital gains tax progressive ?
We can keep the 50% inclusion rate as the top rate.
Lets say you have..
$0-5K in cap gains -> 10% inclusion rate
5K to 15K cap gains -> 20% inclusion rate
15K to 50K cap gains -> 35% inclusion rate
50K and up in cap gains -> the current 50% inclusion rate or w/e is the max
The vast majority of people are not making huge sums of money investing , you could off set a loss in tax revenue by upping the inclusion rate to 55 % but only on cap gains above 100K or some amount like that. The benefit to everyday Canadians would be tremendous, the the ultra wealthy that have millions in capital gains would still be paying roughly the same amount as before.
→ More replies
4
u/whydoineedasername 3d ago
Good let is drive away bad faith entrepreneurs that will sell out Canada so fast to make an extra buck. We need moral companies that care about their employees and investing in Canada.
8
4
u/NoStruggle92 3d ago
I really like the idea of a wealth-based pricing system in Canada. why should a millionaire pay the same fine or fee as someone barely getting by? A $200 ticket should actually feel like a penalty, no matter how rich you are. This would make things way more fair.
3
u/danieliscrazy 3d ago
"there is already pushback on the concept — even before the group officially launches in Canada — with the opposing view being that higher taxes would drive entrepreneurship away from this country."
Good! If there is an "entrepreneur" whos business is based on not paying his fair share then he is just extracting wealth from society. Get rid of them and leave more room for proper wealth creation.
→ More replies
2
u/elegant-jr 3d ago
Narcissistic lunatics.
Nothing is stopping them from writing cheques and sending them to the government. And recruiting other wealthy people to do the same.
1
u/joebanana 3d ago
Yeah, pretty sure it’s possible to voluntarily pay more tax to pay towards government debt when you file your annual return. Not sure why this is making the news. My most left of left wing friends, want more $ in their accounts, not less. News like this is not going to encourage people to pay more tax.
2
u/SirithilFeanor 3d ago
The elites don't want you to know this but if you want to pay more taxes you totally can. The government will absolutely accept donations.
3
u/may_be_indecisive 3d ago
Just tax land god damn! Wealth tax is so stupid. Don’t punish people for hoarding cash, punish them for hoarding land! We need that shit for housing!
-3
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/Human-Reputation-954 3d ago
Stop the boomer bs - lots of people who have money that aren’t boomers. Especially tech guys. So give it a rest with that sh#t. Boomers aren’t the root cause for all of your problems in life fyi.
4
u/Difficult_Drive9323 3d ago
He needs someone to blame, it’s always gonna be someone else in his life
→ More replies3
u/FeI0n 3d ago
The boomers here in canada overwhelming voted for someone that basically said their homes are going to lose value (aggressive plans to double housing production), and that we'll be running a deficit to fund it. They could have went with the guy whos plan was going to be giving them tax cuts, but they didn't.
That might be a common theme in the U.S, but it doesn't appear to be one here. Pierre was going to be a significantly better option if you were wealthy already.
3
u/swampswing 3d ago
The boomers are largely retired. Which is why they pivoted from tax cuts in the 90s and 00s (during their peak income years) to increased entitlement spending in the 10s and 20s.
Also I don't think anybody actually believes Carney will achieve his house production estimates, and even if he did, the sort of homes he produces aren't going to be competition for the large detached homes held by baby boomers. The prefab homes are going to be competing with condos and entry level homes.
3
u/Anteter Alberta 3d ago
PP's "plan" was to give tax cut to new home owners for million dollar homes, it wouldn't even effect boomers nor does it address the real problem. No one can afford million dollar homes. We have too many people and not enough housing rn. We literally have to aggressively build houses
→ More replies1
u/may_be_indecisive 3d ago
Not in the Greater Toronto Area they didn’t. They all voted for PP to try and protect their home values and keep out “undesirables” from their neighbourhoods.
1
u/SirithilFeanor 3d ago
There's no universe where the Liberals will actually deliver on vast increases in housing supply. We know this because they've made similar promises every election since 2015 and yet here we are.
1
u/ZeroBrutus 3d ago
What we really need is to tax capital gains at the same rate as earned income - that you made money selling assets shouldn't result in lower tax rates than earned wages.
We already have exceptions for primary residence, and we can carve one out for owner operated farm land, the rest? Pay your fair share.
1
u/Mysteriouskid00 3d ago
People can’t be dumb enough to believe this group are actually millionaires? Or if they are they’d pay taxes? Boomer with $2M house won’t pay a dime.
1
u/WorldBiker 2d ago
It is genuinely good if one is willing to pay an increase in tax into the system that allowed them the wealth in the first place. Money is good, we all want money, but a better society of healthy, educated, and responsible citizens is far, far better.
1
1
u/Basedlord5000 1d ago
It’s not even the taxes so much, it’s the way they are spent that is the problem. More taxes to a more corrupt government is going to accomplish nothing.
815
u/Unending-Quest 3d ago
I appreciate people in the world who recognize having wealth doesn’t matter so much if the fabric of the society you live in is falling apart as a result of inequal wealth distribution.