As you stated earlier it is a deduction from income so effectively the credit is larger the greater your income and therefore marginal rate. But the flipside is that when you collapse the plan and start taking income it is taxable at your marginal rate so the wealthy who got the larger break will pay tax at a higher marginal rate when the plan is converted to annuity or RIFF.
Canadians want a wealth tax and are willing to vote for it
- Thread starter Claudia Love
- Start date
The trick is to have a young wife. Then you can base the rrif withdrawals on her age.
True, but the proper way to address loopholes is to close the actual loopholes. In addition, if the goal is derive more revenues from the wealthy, it should be a tax on current incomes, not a retroactive tax on previous incomes. That's punitive. They operated within the system the government established for them (unless they're doing something criminal), and now we're after them? Doesn't make sense to me.
I do support higher top tax brackets though.
Actually the principle of your wealth tax is "Pay according to ability to work hard, put capital at risk, provide a product or service in demand and manage your financial affairs responsibly." For this you get a penalty
The other half of your insanity plan is "receive according to need"
Other loonies describe this as 'Income for those unable or unwilling to work"
And we all know how much the loonies like to slide down the slippery slope
How long before irresponsible government spends the revenue from taking just the "Tippy Top" from the 1% ? Two years , three maybe?
You have bragged how successful you are (odd how so many lefties claim to be so successful) , how long before one of the comrades starts eyeing your savings?
Last edited:
Wow a billion dollars in tax savings
Robert Reich
Talk about giveaways to the rich: In just the first year after the former guy's tax cut, 82 ultra-wealthy households got more than $1 billion in total tax savings.
What was the original tax bill ? $3,or 4 billion?
Funny thing about wealthy corporate executives:
when you extreme tax them, they move the corporate headquarters to a country or state that benefits them, not the company.
It is not a good long term strategy.
when you extreme tax them, they move the corporate headquarters to a country or state that benefits them, not the company.
It is not a good long term strategy.
Yeah, that doesn't work for two reasons:
(1) You tax the hard workers heavily based on their "ability", then they work harder to make up the short-fall, in which case you tax them more based on their "ability", then they work harder, and that cycle continues until they're burnt out and realize no matter how hard they work they can't get ahead because the government will just extract the extra.
(2) What defines need? As anyone who's currently hiring can attest, there are a plethora of jobs available, but workers don't want to do them. They'd rather sit and collect unemployment and pandemic benefits. Those people are not in need. So I would agree with the principle "receive according to need", but the way we assess that has to be radically different. Such benefits should be going to people truly in need, and not to people who simply don't want to work.
I agree with you that the current tax code is slanted in favor of the wealthy. It's also slanted in favor of the lazy. It's the middle class, and the hard working lower class, that are getting screwed.
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Darts".
Obviously the old coot Darts, was hatched as a centenarian, but is now a fetus.
The first white man (other than the Vikings) landed in what is now Canada in the 1500's. For the next 380 years we managed without an Income Tax and. Yes, we had roads.
The Income Tax was supposed to be temporary.
The rate was 4%. Yes, 4%.
"Canada's federal personal income tax arrived Sept. 20, 1917, with a 4-per-cent tax on all income of single people (unmarried persons, widows or widowers without dependent children) over $1,500. For everyone else, the personal exemption was $3,000."
Last edited:
That's all great but who built the road on which the your house was built.
And comparing Canada today to the Vikings or 1917 is just silly.
That would have been a municipal tax that paid for that, most likely.
Municipal taxes brought in more revenue than federal taxes before income tax came in, right?
(I would have to look it up.)
I would also think municipal tax and/or maybe the developers built it and the cost is imbedded in the price of the house.
"As reported by Rosalsky, in 1990, twelve European countries levied a wealth tax. Today, there are three: Norway, Spain, Switzerland"
Why Wealth Taxes were Repealed in Europe – RSF (schalkenbach.org)
Why Wealth Taxes were Repealed in Europe – RSF (schalkenbach.org)
I have not studied so-called wealth taxes in other countries, however, I still do not believe they work in practice. Not because I believe that people with money will flee but because generally speaking when you mark to market for the purpose of calculation it would have to work in both directions. Every time Amazon or Tesla go up or down the wealth of Bezos or Musk swings by billions of dollars. if the tax is based upon incremental changes in the event of a recession the government would go bankrupt. Apart from that people with great wealth unrelated to i come do not necessarily have the liquid assets to pay the tax.
There are better more effecinet ways of making the tax system more equitable.
Two lifetimes ago, I was a young professional working for a consulting firm and we were tasked with doing a survey on "wealth in Canada". We were surprised that so many farmers were considered among the very wealthy. This was primarily due to the value of their land. So, they were land rich but cash poor. Maybe these "wealthy" farmers can pay their "fair share" of the wealth tax by deeding an acre of their land to Ottawa.
