A Modest Wealth Tax Would Raise$36.3 B over 10 years

[Darts]

"The top 1 percent of income earners is often targeted as the group that should pay higher taxes, so this group warrants special focus. However, the top 1 percent’s collective share of total taxes paid (14.7 percent) is greater than its share of total income earned (10.7 percent). is amounts to a gap of 36.9 percent between the share of taxes paid and the income earned by the top 1 percent. Notably, over time, the top 1 percent’s share of total taxes paid has increased from 11.3 percent in 1997 to 14.7 percent in 2017."

The problem is that the unwashed masses believe politicians like Jagmeet Singh when he gets on his soapbox and repeats the same falsehood over and over and over.

 

[TimeOutCalled]

The unwashed masses, as you so colourfully refer to them Darts, put their faith in ideology rather than facts. Most exceptionally rich people took great risks, worked long hours and provided useful employment as a means to acquiring their wealth. Yes, there is a small subset of "inheritance" rich, but for the most part rich people earned their wealth in accordance with the rules and laws we live under.

As I mentioned in a previous post this OP never considers reducing government spending in any way. It's just "gimme, gimme, gimme".

We all enter the world naked and crying and certainly some are born into a better environment than others. But what I see in the OP, and many others of her ilk, is a recognition that she has failed to provide for her own financial security and therefore believes she is entitled to a greater share of someone else's hard work. It is vile form of selfish hubris.

"The top 1 percent of income earners is often targeted as the group that should pay higher taxes, so this group warrants special focus. However, the top 1 percent’s collective share of total taxes paid (14.7 percent) is greater than its share of total income earned (10.7 percent). is amounts to a gap of 36.9 percent between the share of taxes paid and the income earned by the top 1 percent. Notably, over time, the top 1 percent’s share of total taxes paid has increased from 11.3 percent in 1997 to 14.7 percent in 2017."

The problem is that the unwashed masses believe politicians like Jagmeet Singh when he gets on his soapbox and repeats the same falsehood over and over and over.

 

[Darts]

I cannot and will not claim credit for coining the term "unwashed masses".

"Unwashed Masses is an idiom. It is one of the most commonly used expressions in English writings. Unwashed Masses stands for (idiomatic) The collective group ("mass") of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated, uninformed, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in the speaker's elite circles."

I think our SP should refuse service to anyone she considers "rich".

 

[fall]

Wrong again ... like usual. Here's an excerpt from a report by the Fraser Institute along with the link to the entire article, which you won't read because, well, you can't be bothered to be informed. I welcome sarcasm too, but I despise the willfully ignorant. Stop pulling numbers like "10%" out of your ass and do some actual research.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/measuring-the-distribution-of-taxes-in-canada.pdf

"When examining all taxes from all levels of government in Canada, the paper finds that the top 20 percent of income-earning families is the only group that collectively pays a greater share of total taxes than their share of total income earned. Speci cally, the top 20 percent earns 49.1 percent of the nation’s income but pays 55.9 percent of total taxes—a di erence of 13.9 per- cent. By contrast, families in the bottom 20 percent earn 4.1 percent of the nation’s income while collectively paying just 1.8 percent of all taxes.

The top 1 percent of income earners is often targeted as the group that should pay higher taxes, so this group warrants special focus. However, the top 1 percent’s collective share of total taxes paid (14.7 percent) is greater than its share of total income earned (10.7 percent). is amounts to a gap of 36.9 percent between the share of taxes paid and the income earned by the top 1 percent. Notably, over time, the top 1 percent’s share of total taxes paid has increased from 11.3 percent in 1997 to 14.7 percent in 2017.

When looking at a subset of total taxes, namely personal income taxes, the imbalance between taxes paid and income earned is even larger for both the top 20 and top 1 percent. The imbalance is larger primarily due to the progressivity of Canada’s personal income tax system, which taxes higher levels of income at higher marginal tax rates.

Specifically, the top 20 percent pays nearly two-thirds of all income taxes (64.4 percent) while earning approximately half of all income (49.1 percent). Put differently, the share of income taxes collectively paid by the top 20 percent is 31.2 percent larger than the share of income earned. Meanwhile, the bottom 20 percent pays 0.6 percent of all personal income taxes even though its share of total income is nearly six and half times larger (4.1 percent). The share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent (17.9 percent) is more than two-thirds (67.1 percent) larger than the share of total income earned (10.7 percent) by this group.

Canada’s top income earners currently pay a disproportionate share of taxes relative to the share of income that they earn. Those who advocate higher taxes on top income earners are, in effect, arguing that top earners should be paying an even more disproportionate amount of taxes. This raises the ques- tion of how much is enough in terms of taxes paid by top income earners."

Do not try to use logic when talking to lefties. They do not understand the difference between wealth and income and they believe that a rich person must pay taxes even if he had no income but just because he has money. They do not understand that the money he has now was his income in the past and he already paid taxes on it. They want double-taxation (not even double but repeated until all the money are taken away)

 

[fall]

The unwashed masses, as you so colourfully refer to them Darts, put their faith in ideology rather than facts. Most exceptionally rich people took great risks, worked long hours and provided useful employment as a means to acquiring their wealth. Yes, there is a small subset of "inheritance" rich, but for the most part rich people earned their wealth in accordance with the rules and laws we live under.

As I mentioned in a previous post this OP never considers reducing government spending in any way. It's just "gimme, gimme, gimme".

We all enter the world naked and crying and certainly some are born into a better environment than others. But what I see in the OP, and many others of her ilk, is a recognition that she has failed to provide for her own financial security and therefore believes she is entitled to a greater share of someone else's hard work. It is vile form of selfish hubris.

I want to add in defence of "inheritance rich": money belong to the family and if parents want to give them to their children - it is their right to do so and there is nothing wrong about it.

 

[The Fox]

People need to be taxed on per household and not individuals. If you are married or common law, your collective salaries should be taken into consideration.

 

[TimeOutCalled]

Maybe Stalin's term "useful idiots" is a better description.

"In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders."

I cannot and will not claim credit for coining the term "unwashed masses".

"Unwashed Masses is an idiom. It is one of the most commonly used expressions in English writings. Unwashed Masses stands for (idiomatic) The collective group ("mass") of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated, uninformed, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in the speaker's elite circles."

I think our SP should refuse service to anyone she considers "rich".

 

[TimeOutCalled]

Yeah, I guess when I used the term "inheritance rich" in a slightly disparaging way, I was thinking of Justin and how his inherited wealth allows him to brainwash useful idiots to his cause. Mea culpa.

I want to add in defence of "inheritance rich": money belong to the family and if parents want to give them to their children - it is their right to do so and there is nothing wrong about it.

 

[rhuarc29]

"When examining all taxes from all levels of government in Canada, the paper finds that the top 20 percent of income-earning families is the only group that collectively pays a greater share of total taxes than their share of total income earned. Speci cally, the top 20 percent earns 49.1 percent of the nation’s income but pays 55.9 percent of total taxes—a di erence of 13.9 per- cent. By contrast, families in the bottom 20 percent earn 4.1 percent of the nation’s income while collectively paying just 1.8 percent of all taxes.

While I disagree with a "retroactive" tax such as a wealth tax, the above is how it should be. Taxation should be progressive. The reason being that every dollar a low-income earner gets to keep goes a long way, whereas every dollar an ultra-rich person makes is a pittance. Those low income earners are more likely to put that dollar back into the system by purchasing necessities. The ultra-rich typically re-invest their dollars in investments that already have an overabundance of capital.

 

[fall]

While I disagree with a "retroactive" tax such as a wealth tax, the above is how it should be. Taxation should be progressive. The reason being that every dollar a low-income earner gets to keep goes a long way, whereas every dollar an ultra-rich person makes is a pittance. Those low income earners are more likely to put that dollar back into the system by purchasing necessities. The ultra-rich typically re-invest their dollars in investments that already have an overabundance of capital.

Well, where the real investment (i.e., machinery) come from? How economy can survive without investment? When the firm borrow money or issue new equity to raise capital for an expansion, where these capital come from? It comes from people who do not have to spend all of their money. High-income people put all of their money back to economy too, it is just their money goes toward long-term investment and capital and technological growth. Noone keeps their money in a mattress.

 

[Danny46709394]

I would never understand how one accumulated so much money and yet so cheap to pay tax. Yes, they will pay a lot, but even 50% they are still the top 0.01% in the world. Like whats different between 1billion and 100millions? Guess I am too poor to understand

 

[james t kirk]

A modest wealth tax would raise $363B over 10 years: new analysis ⋆ The Breach

A slightly higher tax than the NDP’s would raise huge sums for public services and climate transition

breachmedia.ca

So what are they waiting for ? I know I know permission from the billionaires lol

Says the girl who works in an fully under the radar industry that only functions in CASH.

So when you to step up and pay ALL of your income taxes that you're supposed to pay, then you can lecture the rest of us.

 

[rhuarc29]

Well, where the real investment (i.e., machinery) come from? How economy can survive without investment? When the firm borrow money or issue new equity to raise capital for an expansion, where these capital come from? It comes from people who do not have to spend all of their money. High-income people put all of their money back to economy too, it is just their money goes toward long-term investment and capital and technological growth.

I never said they didn't. I'm saying there's an overabundance of capital already, and that our tax system hasn't kept up with changes to the economy brought on by globalization and tech that has fueled ever more wealth to the top earners.

 

[james t kirk]

I would love that - I paid over 50% of my income in taxes in 2020. I would love to pay only what Candee Apples paid

Beat me to it, but I see we're both thinking the same thing.

 

[Darts]

I mentioned this before, tax the underground economy.

Instead of raising income tax and/or implementing some wealth, I would prefer they raise the GST/HST rate. Since the wealthy presumably spend more, then they are the ones paying more HST.GST. Also good for the economy.

 

[contact]

First the rich will move their money out and second 10 years of that tax that would barely cover a month or two of what the liberals are currently spending. what needs to happen is significant cuts to the government They need to spend less not tax more

 

[fall]

I would never understand how one accumulated so much money and yet so cheap to pay tax. Yes, they will pay a lot, but even 50% they are still the top 0.01% in the world. Like whats different between 1billion and 100millions? Guess I am too poor to understand

They give a lot to charity and they establish their own charities. I guess, they are kind enough to spend lots of their own money on poor even when they do not have to and smart enough to do it directly instead of simply giving money to the government. And teh difference between $100M and $1B is huge: $100M will allow you to buy only about 20 nice houses in Toronto or a few floors in a biulding.

 

[oil&gas]

I would never understand how one accumulated so much money and yet so cheap to pay tax. Yes, they will pay a lot, but even 50% they are still the top 0.01% in the world. Like whats different between 1billion and 100millions? Guess I am too poor to understand

How much money you need to have for you to be willing to split
off 50% of it to the government?

 

[Danny46709394]

How much money you need to have for you to be willing to split
off 50% of it to the government?

To a point where I don't have to work for the rest of my life.

 

[Danny46709394]

They give a lot to charity and they establish their own charities. I guess, they are kind enough to spend lots of their own money on poor even when they do not have to and smart enough to do it directly instead of simply giving money to the government. And teh difference between $100M and $1B is huge: $100M will allow you to buy only about 20 nice houses in Toronto or a few floors in a biulding.

Let me rephrase that. How much money/things you really need. I doubt the life style would be a lot different between 1billion and 100millions.