This Black History Month, it’s important to recognize that economic injustice—both in Canada and around the world—is deeply rooted in racism. The property system in Canada was founded on the forced displacement and exclusion of Indigenous peoples from their land and immigration policies that prevented non-white immigration, effectively barring many thousands of people from accessing property in Canada. These racialized colonial systems laid the foundation for the current racial wealth gap, where racialized Canadians have about half as much wealth as their non-racialized counterparts.
Unlike the United States, where constitutional barriers have historically shielded the ultra-rich from direct taxation, Canada faces no such constitutional legal obstacles—only political ones. And those political excuses are running out.
A wealth tax enjoys overwhelming public support. Nearly 90 percent of Canadians back it, yet successive Liberal and Conservative governments have refused to act. Their refusal isn’t due to legal constraints but to the immense influence of corporate lobbyists and billionaire donors who oppose any effort to make them pay their fair share.
Just last year, powerful corporate interests mobilized to kill a progressive tax measure that would have primarily targeted Canada’s wealthiest citizens and corporations: the partial closure of the capital gains loophole.
I agree but I think that that actually enforcing it will be even harder than enforcing the existing income and capital gains taxes. We should still try, but we should spread our net wider.
And stop allowing corporate monopolies, bigger companies buying smaller ones has never made it cheaper for Canadians.
What sort of numbers are people expecting for this? I read somewhere that the NDP proposed a tax of 1-2% on assets above $10M, does that sound right?
I was curious about specifics but couldn’t find any in the article.
Both leading Canadian parties are not going to allow it, they are still both economically conservative. The last 14 years of Liberal Party rule allowed for housing crisis to spiral out of control because both wealthy liberals and conservatives benefit from it. So, why would they even allow to tax the wealthy more? Canadians have the same duopoly problem as the US, as well as having the same oligarchy problem.
The most promising counters to big money:
- Canadians for Tax Fairness
- Council of Canadians
- Democracy Watch
- PressProgress
- Protecting Canada
- Fair Vote Canada
- Bluesky Starter Pack: Ontario journalists that cover work & wage issues.
And come join us over at [email protected]
Edit: bigger list here.
Thank you for the great links! I will be bookmarking those!
Having only subscribed to 2 of the above, I appreciate this list.
“If you tax me, I’ll have less to bribe you with.”
Politicians don’t bite the hand that feeds them. We need more tax brackets at the upper levels; our highest one is $246,752 and over, which only faces a 33% progressive tax rate.
There are so many people in Canada that make way more than this who just aren’t paying their fair share. We should also be doing more to tax assets other than income.
There are so many people in Canada that make way more than this who just aren’t paying their fair share. We should also be doing more to tax assets other than income.
People who take a salary – even a high salary, are most paying their fair share. I think they could make a reasonable argument that they pay way more than most (above 246752, 33% which is more than most people in the country).
Compare that with the wealthy:
From here
CEO Tobias Lütke (who was paid a $1 salary but received more than $26 million in option-based awards).
1$, meaning he pays ZERO income tax (he likely pays some taxes on his options).
This is somewhat common for wealthy people, adding more brackets on income isn’t going get them paying their fair share.
What I believe we non wealthy people want to see is a wealth tax.
You’re mad about the wrong thing. He’s going to pay an effective tax rate of about 25% when he exercises those options. (Capital gains)
Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
Assuming he pays 25% tax, which i’d be very suspicious about, he’s about 2 million short of his current “fair share”.
26 000 000 * 0.25 = 6 500 000
26 000 000 * 0.33 = 8 580 000
If he’s deferring till retirement, then likely his tax rate is less, and the bank is lending him money which he can spend freely and call a capital loss lowering his effective tax rate when he does incur those taxes.
The thing about being this wealthy is you can afford to pay people to find ways to lower this rate.
I don’t think i’m “mad” about this, but concerned. This kind of inequality leads to violent upheaval, and is currently the cause of a whole pile of unnecessary suffering. If we didn’t have people that were this wealthy and some of that money was distributed to say education, healthcare, UBI, we could all have a much healthier pleasant life.
Totally fair. One thing that’s super clear in this country is that the tax laws favour the rich. IMHO even RRSPs are of greater benefit to people who don’t pay rent or have paid off their mortgages.
your first position is correct; however,
1$, meaning he pays ZERO income tax (he likely pays some taxes on his options).
This is factually incorrect unless Canada has a special regime to make it work which would not make sense.
He earns 1$ income, the rest is options, his income is below the minimum taxable. The taxes he pays on options aren’t income tax.
Why do you assume that equity would not be treated as income once vested?
-
I’ve exercised options from a company in canada, they were taxed distinctly (and more favourably) from income.
-
He’d have no reason to take his payment this way otherwise. (FWIW Every CEO (both canadian and american) of a wealthy company i’ve seen has taken their pay in a manner similar to this: most of the comp is in stocks)
Stock grants among any other in kind payment are treated as ordinary income as general rule.
I’ve exercised options from a company in canada, they were taxed distinctly
Can somebody confirm this?
The wording is a bit vague.
The only way I can see this working if tax was paid when option was granted hence once it was exercised it would be subject to a more favourable capital gains treatment for the proceeds from exercising.
You don’t pay taxes on the option, because you haven’t bought the option till you exercise it.
Anyway the amount was kinda fixed (it’s been awhile) like 25%, it was also years ago, so things may have changed. They are also distinct from RSU’s which i believe aren’t taxed as low, but still better than top marginal tax rate for income.
Anyway it doesn’t seem like those are really the whole story (https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36l575/eli5_how_can_it_be_that_ceos_often_pay_an/) – it looks like the tax escape mechanism is to get deferred stocks - which admittedly for the Tobias case we’d have to see how those stocks were awarded. I still think my point 2 applys - why would he take compensation in this mostly stocks manner (and like every other CEO i’ve seen) unless there was some benefit.
-
Some what true but 250k is essentially the upper class likely top 10%?
The real money is with the owner class, not wage earners.
People are focused so much on income, no realizing the core issue is that tax code discriminates against labour to favour capital.
Yeah, I think a tax bracket from 250k-500k and then 500k and above would be helpful to get at the people who are in the top 1% of earners. The ownership class, as you say. A big challenge comes from the fact that a lot of these people do not have liquid assets, it’s often stocks or some other kind of investment product.
It’s not a solution at all but it’s a start. I agree that labour is inherently undervalued in Canada, this manifests itself in various ways across our laws, policies, cultural attitudes, labour relations, etc. It seems like untangling that would be a lot more difficult than changing the tax code, since a lot of MPs and MPPs have a vested interest in labour organizations and workers being powerless.
It seems like untangling that would be a lot more difficult than changing the tax code
I think you got this a bit backwards tbh I would posit that we can’t untangle unless we change the tax code.
Tax code arguably is the most effective policy tool a government has outside of guns which are dicey. If you notice, a lot of hand out to rich and corpos happen via the tax code. Straight state aid in sheep’s wool.
Capital has to be decentralized so people can regain some autonomy and economic security. But we are in catch 22 or whatever scenario where labor has no capital to affect tax code reform. Labour will not get capital unless tax code is reworked.
Some people would argue that higher wages would help which I won’t argue against but again… the rich will generate capital that is inherently taxed at lower rate over labour. So over long enough period of time, they will always get ahead.
Capital should be taxed at a higher rate than wages at least to obtain a distribution that provide social cohesion. So this will need to be in place to sustain a balanced system. And it woudl take too long to fix current inequality.
So the solution we need right now is tax on property owned by the rich. Tax stock as the way people pay taxes on houses and cars. Pedons already do it why did the rich get this nice little exemption?
Now all of this is easy to say and consensus is being built around the issue. But mark my word, if this gets a critical mass to try to force a policy change, we will get a civil war.
A wealth tax would be great. I was surprised at how effectively rich assholes shut down the tiny fixes to the capital gains loophole. Expect a flight.
If rich people can avoid paying taxes through the use of loopholes (see the Canadian list in the Panama Papers) I don’t understand why gov’ts would worry about them leaving. I mean they’re not paying their fair share anyway, so fuck 'em.
They aren’t paying their fair share of taxes. The wealthy pay politicians both monetary and non-monetary bribes a significantly smaller sum than the taxes they avoid. If the bribes were more than the taxes they would just pay the taxes.
The tax code architecture is inherently flawed… labour income is taxed higher than capital income. Capital income surplus is than accumulated in stocks. Most of labour does not get much if any surplus income to invest.
But you are not wrong, you are just looking at the shit the rich try to steal on top of this inherent privileged treatment. But even if close ALL of the loops holes, the system is flawed esp at the wealth concentration we currently have across developed economies but esp US.
Call it a property tax so pedons can understand it
For some weird reason they are allergic to taxing rich people’s stock but pay property taxes on their houses and cars with out any complaints lol
That’ll yield the opposite outcome when one of the top complaints from homeowners is their property taxes and how they should remain frozen or cut for the rest of time
Well currently property taxes scale very nicely with housing inflation…
Property taxes are never getting cut, they won’t even adjust people’s bills even property start to devalue, see Detroit post 2008. They were forcing people paying in 2012 based on 2008 valuation. Then proceed to forcefully remove people once they taxes went delinquent. Lien, kicked out, can’t sell the house… then municipality has to pay to clear the slots due to blight.
They can have fund demanding that all day to play as a dilatory clown OR they could demand that owners of stocks and other assets pay their taxes to increase the tax revenue in era of massive government debt that twas largely used to acquire these stocks and other assets.
Detroit isn’t a good example for Canadian property tax. Ontario reasseses property taxes every 4 years, and as far as I can tell, it’s 100% possible for them to go down as they are tied to the specific property and municipality, not national inflation.
You can get ta reassessment in US too…
not national inflation.
I did not say national inflation, i said housing inflation which is reflected in local comparables in year over year basis whichpart of government uses to asses property values for tax.
So in US it is theoretically possible to challenge the assessment and have it reduced but look doing that without a proper counsel and an actual good case.
What happened in Detroit was malfeasance tough because they kept relying on old valuation despite property values tanking because municipal budget was border line in default on their bonds and i think they eventually BK’ed anyway. But not before gutting entire neighborhoods and ruining peoples lives. Because fuck the poor. That’s why.
I’m wasn’t really talking about reassessments, which is up to the property owner to request. The property value is updated every 4 years automatically, and the change in taxes are spread out gradually over those 4 years. If there was a massive drop in value 3.5 years ago, then sure, that sucks a little, but the next 4 years will compensate. Ontario has a lot of steps to go through before your unpaid tax debt turns into asset forfeiture, I can only assume tenants have more protections in Canada. Evicting someone from their primary residence has its own huge list of rules.
Gary Stevenson explained it, so long as inequality grows, the rest of us will be struggling more and more.
Capitalism does not inherently specify that 5 fat old cucks should own everything.
The system created by the rich does that. If capital was decentralized, i bet we would have a lot less social issues.
Capitalism doesn’t “specify” anything, it’s a mode of production characterized by the private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labour.
That’s the infrastructure we have been left with historically. We also know that radical revolution that replaced with old systems with novel systems did not work out either. USSR failed, China backtracked on "the private ownership of the means of production.
Also. Labour was exploited under all and every system to ever exist that support civilization grade societies. There is nothing inherently exploitation of the labour about “capitalism”, that comes from power structure and regime being degenerates goons who hate common people.
Decentralizing private ownership would weaken the exploitation of labour since it is a lot harder to fuck over somebody all the time if they got resources and agency to fight back OR opt out.
Exploitation is the key term here. Things like Co-ops and Crown corporations work to put capital back in the hands of the workers/customers/tax payers, but they can have a hard time competing with private industry. People like the idea of supporting local/sustainable/family owned/etc. but budgets are tight and Walmart or Loblaws fill your grocery cart for 10% less than the local Co-op. This all snowballs, the chains can pay less because they’ve got more positions to fill, they keep things cheap through economy of scale or negotiating power and keep that scale because they’re a bit cheaper then the socially responsible options. People work for the chains because there’s not enough jobs available at the local stores and they can only afford to shop at the chain because they’re being paid chain wages. If we could get enough people together we could enact a change, but that’s hard to do when so much of the population is one missed paycheque away from not being able to pay rent or groceries.
That kind of leaves regulatory or Crown-corps as the better solutions.
We can’t walmarts the grocery store but we can all avoid McDonald’s…
It ain’t much but that’s a start and something everyone can do today.
Capital abhors decentralization and always works towards centralization and monopolization.
That means 5 people owning everything on a long enough time scale. Then 4, then 3, etc.
Capital is a tool fundamentally i know we collectively have label modern aristocracy as capital but that’s because we can’t envision a world where we all own a proper share of country’s economy and have it pass through generations.
I think closest concept people can understand is “middle class” aint people who had some assets that insulted them from ups and downs of the clown economy.
We literally can’t share the economy under capitalism. Capitalism is a tool, but it’s a tool limited by its purpose.
Just like you can’t use a hammer to solder a circuit board, you can’t use capitalism to create a sharing economy.
Why start a pitch for wealth equality by talking about racism? Pragmatically, it seems like a good way to double the number of reasons for people to disagree with you. Which issue are you trying to combat?
And while I do not debate the historical backdrop of your thesis, is racism really an explanation for wealth concentration at the top of our society today?
For starters, the richest person in Canada by far is Asian, as are many other Canadian billionaires. Racism does not explain who is or is not on the list of tech or pharma titans. Not everybody is named Thomson.
Is the problem you are trying to solve that most indigenous Canadians are less well off than a typical Canadian of European descent? Or that both groups find themselves close together at the bottom of the graph—far below the one percent?
Anyway, I am not trying to dissuade you from fighting racism. Please do. My question is simply if you feel that combining the two issues is the best way to make progress on either one of them.
It’s right there in the first four words:
This Black History Month,
News sites typically try to associate stories with current events. Black History Month is scheduled, so it’s really easy to commission or pitch something like this.
I agree with your point, but it has more to do with how news organizations expect their readers to act than anything else.
It doesn’t seem like the article ever explains what a wealth tax is?
It’s a tax on assets and net worth.
Typically taxes are on income, but the stupidly wealthy pay accountants to do weird financial tricks so it looks like they don’t have income, even though they have incredible lifestyles and wield outsized influence thanks to their money. A wealth tax theoretically sidesteps that crap.
(not op) I’m against a wealth tax, but what you mentioned is a serious problem that does need to be fixed.
The best I’ve come up with is taxing use of collatorlized assets. Are you a founder in a company that went public and you have a lot of money in stock? Great, well done! Oh, you want to buy a house without selling any of that stock and take out a loan against that stock, that you don’t pay back for decades or until you die by simply adding more collateral? Tax that. Don’t let them use it indirectly without taxing it. If they repay the collateralized loan, let them get a refund and tax however that gets paid back. They have the money to make sure all the paper work is handled correctly.
I’m sure there’s other tricks that would need to be addressed, but it should be doable without a blanket tax on unrealized gains.
Edit: also let the tax agencies investigate the lavish lifestyles and have them show how they are paying for things, and when it ultimately comes to this or other ways, tax that. Short of offsetting their yearly spend with donations to charity, tax it. Don’t let this $0 income/capital gains shit continue through trickery.
I’m not sure how effective it is, but it seems like CRA has been tightening up on some kinds of business expenses, or at least my previous employer interpreted it that way. When people have things like company vehicles or phones, or get comparable benefits from work the value of those things being used for non-work related purposes is taxable. That’s also why there’s standards for things like mileage or per-diems so people can be compensated for realistic expenses, but not use it as a way to avoid income taxes.
We should also be careful about how we close some “loopholes”. Like it makes sense that a person can mortgage their personal property and use that to fund their business. It also makes sense that they can claim the interest on that mortgage as a tax deduction since it’s kind of a business related expense. It feels different when someone with a net worth less than a million does that compared to someone worth more than a billion, so I don’t think it’s closing the loophole altogether but putting limits like only claiming interest on something like $300k of debt (or something close to the average amount owed on a home of an average valuation).
I’ll also add that the idea behind reduced taxation on capital gains is it encourages people to invest in businesses and grow the economy. That makes sense economically. Canada also does better than some places(USA) in this way because capital gains are considered realized and paid on death so there’s not really a way to avoid them altogether, at best you’re putting it off for 60ish years. We also have things like the TFSA, which allows us to invest without being subject to capital gains tax. A person able to max out their RRSP/TFSA/CPP contributions would have a very comfortable retirement, while people earning significantly more have more limited options in deferring/eliminating their tax burden.
This is one of those problems where I don’t really care about the exact nature of the solution, just that it’s addressed. Individuals hoarding wealth and power to the detriment of society is bullshit.
I don’t really care about the exact nature of the solution
The issue that people who hate the solution got a bunch of useful idiots mobilized to fight their for them along the left/right circle jerk axis.
Works similar to property taxes you pay on a house or a car…
We can point people to Gary Stevenson for down-to-earth explanations on how this should work. He’s been campaigning for wealth taxes in the UK, but also acknowledges the issue is global. He has a playlist you can point people to that want to understand the issues better. Long story short though, he emphasizes taxing difficult-to-move physical assets like commercial properties.
Recently, clips have circulated where he debated Piers Morgan and Dave Rubin at the same time on why excess wealth must be taxed. That said, I think he explains things just as well and in better detail on his own channel.
A tax on wealth only with zero loopholes to avoid it.
It needs to cover capital gains because of how many measure their wealth by unrealized stock gains.
Also estate tax loopholes need closing so generational inequality doesn’t worsen
Ok. But poor people never have capital gains or pay estate taxes.
I simplified my explanation by putting it in easy-to-understand terms.
You can’t make yourself taller by cutting off other people’s legs.
Hey take a load of this guy who doesn’t understand what money is.
he pontificated to the peasantry living in the damp muck of the quarry, his tongue black of polish, defending his masters atop the stone tower whose top could not be seen. He himself did not live in the tower, but had a horse upon which he sat, which granted his wisdom authority over the common rabble.
I know you think this sounds smart but…
I don’t think a wealth tax is smart. I think the current slate of billionaires that are aligned with fascism should be rounded up and executed. But I am pretty sure every economist agrees that a wealth tax doesn’t make any sense mathematically. People have a bunch of stock either because of founding companies or investing early, and then the public gets to buy the stock, if the public thinks a company is valuable the stock rises and people become wealthy. It doesn’t mean that they actually have that much money that they can deploy. I think it makes more sense to have rules that prevent people using their stock as collateral for loans.
Your parents witnessed the fall of communism. We are here to witness the fall of capitalism. Your stocks will be worthless. Don’t worry about taxes.
??? wont the taxes also be worthless then? Do you think I am against taxes or something?
But I am pretty sure every economist agrees that a wealth tax doesn’t make any sense mathematically
I find it difficult to believe you could come to this conclusion in good faith, given how many serious economists advocate for wealth tax.
This economist wrote an award winning book on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century, where he advocates for a wealth tax.
If you think it’s “bad faith” to be against a wealth tax, then I know for a fact you have not looked into any debate about the topic, because there absolutely no consensus. Maybe you have a book that argues in favor of a wealth tax and that’s fine, I am open to arguments in favor of it. But saying I’m bad faith, when I suggested an alternative, is fucking removed.
Your supposition that “every economist agrees that a wealth tax doesn’t make any sense mathematically”, I find in bad faith, not that you are against it. It’s obvious that you are against it.
Maybe you have a book that argues in favor of a wealth tax
I don’t see how you could talk about economics and not know about that book.
ok good 1 chief
lol you’ve clearly been bested here. take the L and rephrase your claims to be less provably false next time.
Yes totally I have been bested I admit it. There is no contention around a wealth tax. Economists generally agree its a good idea and will be a successful policy.
Hey champ check this one out…
We all pay property taxes on houses we own or rent… so why can’t owner of stock pay a property tax?
Asking for a friend.
Okay so how would it work? Would you tax once a year based on the value of their portfolio?
