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.
“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 $246,752 and over, which only faces a 33% progressive tax rate.
There are so many people in Canada that make way more than this who just aren’t paying their fair share. We should also be doing more to tax assets other than income.
People who take a salary – even a high salary, are most paying their fair share. I think they could make a reasonable argument that they pay way more than most (above 246752, 33% which is more than most people in the country).
Compare that with the wealthy:
From here
1$, 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,
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.
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.
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.