Wealth Tax

Good article on wealth tax in todays FP.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...ng/ar-BB1cAjvC

First Paragraph:

The NDP can salivate all it wants over the prospect of a wealth tax, but eating the rich would hardly satisfy Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s appetite for spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says a wealth tax might have brought in $5.6 billion this year. But the Trudeau government is currently spending $1.8 billion per day. In any given week, it would burn through the wealth tax by Wednesday.

... lots of other good stuff

I didn't know Europe had abandoned wealth taxes. I knew they had them decades ago and assumed they were still in place:
Perhaps most troubling is the very real prospect of an exodus of capital out of Canada as the wealthy react to the imposition of the tax. That’s a key reason why many European countries that had wealth taxes in the 1990s have since abandoned them. France was the only EU member that still had one until President Emmanuel Macron ended it in 2017. “My predecessor taxed the wealthiest and those who succeeded like never before. What happened? They left,” explained Macron. The wealthy grow their money by investing it. Some investments go to entrepreneurs that grow businesses and spur the economic growth needed for Canada’s recovery.

Last Paragraph:
Like most get-rich-quick schemes, the NDP’s fixation on taxing the “ultra-rich” is not only too good to be true; it could also have nasty side effects. A wealth tax is not a serious solution to fixing the fiscal mess. The government needs to control its spending instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

The government needs to control its spending instead

---

That would require a budget...HaHa....

If there is no budget, you can't be accused of overspending it.

How true .
96 % need to budget why not the government lol.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

If there is no budget, you can't be accused of overspending it.

---

As long as "the budget will balance itself", as Trudeau claims, they can spend all they want..😆

And spending is what they will do......
The answer is pretty simple, we all need to realize that we need less government not more.

We need to abolish the outdated tradition of the general coffers we are presently using. We would not run a company this way so why would we run a country this way? We need to run the country as a business and issue every dept a budget and have them held accountable for that budget (ex) healthcare, defense & education. This will force each cost center to make the best decisions for their dept based to a pre-defined performance level they need to maintain.

As a country we are bleeding out financially and we need to have a better idea where we are bleeding out and where we are not. Without doing this how can our government make educated decisions on how to get us on track moving forward?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huntervinni

And spending is what they will do......
The answer is pretty simple, we all need to realize that we need less government not more.

---

They tried the less government model in the Regan years ,de regulate Wall Street, make it easier to borrow and we had the bankers and Wall Street guys run amok and had an orgy for a few years and then collapse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 410001661

We need to abolish the outdated tradition of the general coffers we are presently using. We would not run a company this way so why would we run a country this way? We need to run the country as a business and issue every dept a budget and have them held accountable for that budget (ex) healthcare, defense & education. This will force each cost center to make the best decisions for their dept based to a pre-defined performance level they need to maintain.

As a country we are bleeding out financially and we need to have a better idea where we are bleeding out and where we are not. Without doing this how can our government make educated decisions on how to get us on track moving forward?

---

I agree with your post and I know I budget and have all my life.

But while they are at it we need the Provinces to also have their own budgets and stop asking the Federal Government for cash.

Now I know its all the TAXPAYERS money but I can see some area's where Province's should be calling the shots, like in the USA.

How about we start with the Firearms laws, the Federal Government hands the entire authority over to Provinces to decide on their own gun laws?

Quote:

---

We need to abolish the outdated tradition of the general coffers we are presently using. We would not run a company this way so why would we run a country this way? We need to run the country as a business and issue every dept a budget and have them held accountable for that budget

---

My fiance has worked at a nameless University for years. They have budgets, and like most businesses, make a point of using it all. If you don't use them, you lose them. They all have 2 screens whether they need them or not, many have ergonomic stand up desk, top end chairs, and on and on and on and on. Then the various education boards cry poor every year.

But for the most part, what is any level of gov't but a business or even a household. With revenue and expenses.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 410001661

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkB

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.
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

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.

---

Pretty sure it is still available for over 65 or if your a multi millionaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Is it not still available for one spouse over 65 years old.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Is it not still available for one spouse over 65 years old.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

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.

---

I'm sure you know that funds in RRSP's,TFSA's etc. are never static (ie: converted to cash and stashed in a sock). Funds on deposit to the finance sector are immediately put back into circulation throughout the economy in the form of investment vehicles, consumer loans and mortgages. generating interest.

Yes Trimmer, but it's not the same as a "cash" economy. We could for example, suggest/argue that's it's little different than the government taking money out of the economy vis a vie taxes, ( some will argue that taxation itself is a means to control monetary supply/inflation) and then paying Public Servants, who in turn contribute tens of thousands to their pensions, rsps. :) Cant suck and blow at the same time. :)

Back in the day, given it was our business, to generate wealth for others, as bend tax law every imaginable way we could find. And Im telling you, I worked with very bright people.......
What did we really do?
We don't make anything...We take $$, and make it into "more".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

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.

---

I'm not talking about an unlimited cap but high enough to make it worth while for a couple to peruse. Not talking about millionaires here I'm talking about mid to higher income earners. A guy that makes $175k and his wife would make $50k if she dropped to part time. If they can drop his taxable income by $45k and transfer it to his wife putting her at $95k (just under the max of that income bracket). He drops a tax bracket and his wife stays in her tax bracket (at the higher end of that lower % tax bracket) and she gets to work part time and it makes sense.


15% on the first $48,535 of taxable income, and
20.5% on the portion of taxable income over $48,535 up to $97,069 and
26% on the portion of taxable income over $97,069 up to $150,473 and
29% on the portion of taxable income over $150,473 up to $214,368 and
33% of taxable income over $214,368

Net tax savings is going to be around $3,000 for a household with gross income of call it $225,000

If they live modestly, there’s no or little reason the high income earner wouldn’t be maxing out an RSP. Deferring around 28% on $20,000, or about 5,500 and both could be taxing out TFSA for tax free growth on another $10,000 per year.

Depending on lifestyle specifics. Without IS she shouldn’t contribute to an RSP. There’s little upside.

With IS and depending on specifics she could and should be maxing her RSP, deferring 26% on $20,000. Call it $5,400

So per year that very well off household. Is reducing their tax load and govt revenue by $14,000 and saving an additional $10,000 that grows tax free. Roughly 10% of household rev.

Meanwhile the middle class can’t find 2 nickels for even $1,000 to a TFSA and can’t find a GP........

As I said, I am for it. But not who I would be helping first.