Printable View
With respect to wealth taxes.
Something we should do. but the oh so important, million dollar question is where/how.
15 years ago I would have been utterly, dead set against changes to capital gains. These days, I'm more open to them. Especially principle residences. In part, part, because or due to inflation and how it affects things, or doesn't affect assets. And who/what causes inflation.
I am dead against capital gains and would like to see income splitting come back - you want more jobs this is one way to do it.
Is it not still available for one spouse over 65 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by 410001661
I have mixed feelings on income splitting. There are very good arguments for and very good arguments against. If I had to make the call I would be "for" but with caps. Meaning income to a certain ceiling.
The big thing with capital gains and Pollieve ( sp?) touched on it, is that assets ( many) are immune to inflation. The rich get richer, the middle class which predominately live off cash lose ground. Just look at how much Real estate has appreciated over the past 10 years. And the reality is, most of the middle class is now priced out of home ownership.
Conversely and I know this with tick Gilroy off. Harper changed the tax treatment on REITS and he did so because bright people, like the kind I worked with saw a way to take advantage of way dividends are taxed. Every company and their uncle started to structure REITS, costing tax payers untold amounts.
I wonder what would happen if we banned government borrowing?
Not all government borrowing is bad. Some things we just couldn't write a cheque for like defense weapon programs or scientific research vessels/vehicles that cost billions,but,are very necessary and can't normally be deferred. If we banned borrowing,a lot of stuff would grind to a halt. We could,however,legislate exactly what a government could borrow money for,then,tightly control it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
Wealth taxes are inherently counter-productive because all that does is force private money out of the country. France and Germany abandoned their wealth tax policies in the last two years,specifically,just for that reason.
So Only good if you need it?
Against anymore taxes. In fact Canadians need a 20% tax break across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 410001661
Pretty sure it is still available for over 65 or if your a multi millionaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Possibly. I was referring to people in their late 40's early 50's. I know of several couples that would like to start gearing down but do not want to drop the one income because of their tax level so they keep working. If they could split the larger income between the two of them (for a tax break) I know there would be more jobs available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
That's one reason why I think it might be worth exploring 4100. Keep in mind, the people/class that are struggling, and that theres a boatload of Boomers. When they leave the workforce, it will create job openings, but also reduce tax revenue. There's also a lot, and more and more, who cant afford to retire. Working into their late 60s, 70s, to the grave. Lol, just look at how many "seniors" are Walmart Greeters, working at Tims, McDonalds, the LCBO........more and more and more...
But also keep in mind the sheer mind boggling amount of money socked away in RSPs and TFSAs. Great for the well off and for some arguably needed given tax loads. But for many, just another way to shelter money that's doing little to help grow GDP. Its "tucked away" and out of the economy.
If people could split incomes, it would reduce the tax load on the higher earner, keep the money in the economy and not socked away. But as mentioned, after a certain point or level of income, it's going to be abused. Heavily.