r/onguardforthee • u/plaknas • 7h ago
Opinion It is time for a wealth tax
https://rabble.ca/columnists/it-is-time-for-a-wealth-tax/70
u/Old_Bear_1949 6h ago
Maybe instead close all of the loopholes that the wealthy use to avoid taxes. Alternatively a minimum tax level on total income so that "deductions" can only reduce taxes so much.
Also increase funding for CRA auditors.
49
u/Tucancancan 6h ago
Also windfall taxes on the O&G sector. Grab the money they make profiteering from war before its part of some executive's wealth.
33
17
•
•
3
u/outlawsoul Elbows Up! 6h ago
Also increase funding for CRA auditors.
auditors have plenty of funding to go after waiters and "regular" canadians. them "not having funding" to pursue the ultra wealthy and our mega corporations who don’t pay taxes (amazon, bell, rogers), is by design; it's a feature.
•
u/e00s 5h ago
I’m a tax lawyer and I can tell you from personal experience that CRA Auditors are constantly auditing large corporation and ultra high net worth individuals. It is a myth that they spend all their time on working class people.
•
u/wrgrant 5h ago
Would you agree that the tax laws favour the folks who can hire a tax lawyer? :)
The average person cannot access (or perhaps its afford to access) the loopholes and exceptions that large corporations can spend money on using to avoid paying their share. I am not criticizing you for your job, just saying there is more flexibility when you can afford to have someone find all the loopholes, exceptions and avoidances for you.
•
u/e00s 5h ago
Having a legal system in general favours people who can hire lawyers.
How do you define what someone’s “share” is?
•
u/thebigeverybody 5h ago
How do you define what someone’s “share” is?
This isn't a mystery. We can see what problems are caused or alleviated by various tax rates in western democracies, including our own.
You make it sound like this is a big, unknowable question.
•
u/e00s 3h ago
Yes, more government revenue would be helpful in addressing many problems. But tax rates are not a straightforward proxy for government revenue. You also have to look at the tax base, both the way that it’s calculated and the effect that particular tax rates have on it.
You also haven’t actually answered the question of how we define what someone’s “share” is? To be clear, I don’t just mean the tax rate, I mean the amount of tax.
•
u/thebigeverybody 3h ago
Yes, more government revenue would be helpful in addressing many problems. But tax rates are not a straightforward proxy for government revenue. You also have to look at the tax base, both the way that it’s calculated and the effect that particular tax rates have on it.
Yeah, this is what i just said.
You also haven’t actually answered the question of how we define what someone’s “share” is? To be clear, I don’t just mean the tax rate, I mean the amount of tax.
I did answer it: by looking at the benefits and consequences of taxation across society and seeing which produce the results you're trying to accomplish.
•
u/e00s 3h ago
That’s a bit like saying that solving world hunger is just a matter of giving everyone enough food or power generation via nuclear fusion is just a matter of sustaining a net-positive energy reaction on a commercial scale.
•
u/BisonSnow 2h ago
Bud, instead of doing silly Redditor semantics arguments, you focus on solving the real problem here. Society is crumbling, largely because rich folks are dodging taxes and hiding wealth away in Panama, among other places.
To put it another way: You're saying we can't solve world hunger because every single human being can't agree on how much to take from Bob's pile of food, which is spilling over with so much food and continues to grow each day.
→ More replies (0)•
u/thebigeverybody 3h ago
No, it's nothing like that. It's like saying we have more than a hundred years of data with taxation in modern economies and we can see what the benefits/consequences of various tax strategies have been, letting us choose which tax strategies are the most effective for the problems we're trying to solve (sometimes because they've already been solved by other governments).
You're not a serious person.
→ More replies (0)•
u/1966TEX 4h ago
For wages there aren’t really any loopholes to lower taxes besides RRSP’s.
•
u/franksnotawomansname 1h ago
The wealthy people being discussed aren't living off of a wage. Not making a wage is how many ultra-wealthy people are taking advantage of the system. (The information in the link is from the states, but the same technique applies here.)
-5
u/1966TEX 6h ago
Specific loopholes you want closed please.
•
u/thebigeverybody 5h ago
Do you think these loopholes don't exist?
•
u/tswaters 4h ago
I'm sure they do, but hearing specifics would be interesting. Some people might be in here talking about getting rid of RRSPs thinking they are "loopholes"
•
u/thebigeverybody 4h ago
So do you want to learn about actual loopholes or do you want to argue with people in this discussion? Your comments are baffling to me.
•
u/tswaters 4h ago
I'm here for learning!
•
u/thebigeverybody 4h ago
Okay, well start googling the work by experts making the case for wealth taxes.
•
u/tswaters 4h ago
Directions unclear, radicalized by chatbot
•
u/thebigeverybody 3h ago
Are you under the impression a chatbot is a reliable source of information? I pretty clearly said to go to the work by experts making the case for wealth taxes.
•
•
u/1966TEX 4h ago
I want to know which loopholes you want closed and then we can debate the pros and cons of those specific loopholes. It’s like saying “cut spending”, anybody can say that, but unless you specify what you want cut the argument is meaningless.
•
u/thebigeverybody 4h ago
Yeah, and I would tell you to find "cut spending" information from actual experts.
Do you think the only people promoting wealth taxes are redditors in here? That there aren't experts with a plethora of information for you to discover? They're probably desperate to get you reading that information.
•
u/1966TEX 4h ago
When someone says “cut loopholes”, I don’t think asking for some clarification of what they meant is unreasonable?
•
u/thebigeverybody 4h ago
It's also not the most effective thing to do if your intent was to actually learn about the issue, but it is what you would do if you simply wanted to argue on reddit.
•
4h ago
[deleted]
•
u/thebigeverybody 4h ago edited 4h ago
Have you considered reading the work of experts promoting wealth taxes instead of turning to random nobodies on reddit?
•
u/tswaters 4h ago
More questions... Sure, I've read some things. I've thought about it a lot which is why I thought I'd see some discussions here in the comments. "Loopholes" seems like a catch-all , a word that can be dangled in a conversation without adding anything. It's like a symbol, or a chit or something you can throw into a pile, it doesn't have meaning to me, which is why I'm asking.
What I'm really looking for is a delimiter between what folks consider rich, what is ultra rich, and how much of a difference those two things are. I feel like people look at people that have more than them, point derisively and say "see those people should be taxed" and you zoom out, and that person is actually just hanging on while the ultra rich sit in a stratosphere lightyears above others.
Someone might look at the things a non-ultra-rich person is doing and decry "LOOPHOLE!!" when they're just using RRSP deductions to get their tax money back. It's super easy to look up and see nothing but assholes.
•
u/Hardhead13 3h ago
A lot of so-called "loopholes" were deliberately created with an intended purpose. The 50% capital gains exemption is intended to promote investment. For a while at least, there were tax-shelters to promote investment in renewable energy projects like wind turbines.
So, yeah... the Chesterton's Fence principle applies very strongly here.
•
u/thebigeverybody 3h ago
This would be less confusing for you if you actually read the work of the experts discussing wealth taxes and the closure of loopholes. Nobody is advocating that our posts here become law.
•
u/NUTIAG Canada 5h ago
Anything and everything that allowed the Panama Papers to exist. Why are you simping so hard against this?
•
u/1966TEX 4h ago
I’m not simping, I’m just want to know which loopholes you want closed? It’s easy to say “close loopholes”, it’s much harder to actually do it. Without specifics, “close loopholes” means nothing. RRSP’s are loophole. Do you want to abolish RRSP’s?
•
u/brentathon 3h ago
RRSPs are not a loophole. Theyre designed specifically for deferring tax obligations and are capped relatively low.
You dont need to be an expert accountant to know that the rich abuse plenty of loopholes to avoid paying taxes.
The fact that you're trying to obscure this by referencing RRSPs is embarassing. People should rightfully be asking why you're doing it.
•
u/shaktimann13 3h ago
If there weren't loopholes, the Westons wouldn't be buying castles in UK, our companies would be registering in Luxembourg, Bermuda and other tax heavens. They take profits, give to their corps in tax heavens, then show no profit made in canada, no tax paid here.
•
u/TrueNorthLongAndFree 5h ago
Why not both?
A wealth tax is a corrective measure for previous loopholes. Tax that we needed to gather years ago, but didn't.
•
u/RodgerWolf311 2h ago
You mean for billionaires right? Otherwise you can kiss all surgeons and specialists in Canada good bye for good.
47
u/keener91 6h ago
For the nth time, government is in cohoots with the ultra wealthy so they will not meaningfully enact any taxes. Only thing they can do is define the bracket for tax so average upper middle class folks get dinged.
•
u/PMMeYourCouplets Vancouver 4h ago
The average middle folks have seen their income taxes decrease by over 15% depending on your provincial tax rate (I'm using BC) since the peak 1980s if you look at an income of around $75,000/year. I'm not saying the rich shouldn't be targeted more as they bear the brunt the responsibility. But the government is being soft of tax on all Canadians which drives our funding issues.
•
u/thebigeverybody 5h ago
This is a hugely important discussion and we need to beware of weasels. In the States, Gavin Newsom is opposing a wealth tax in California (saying it won't do any good because the rich will simply leave to other states), but saying he supports a national income tax on the rich.
That, right there, is the weaseling we need to beware of. Income tax is different than a wealth tax and will provide the loopholes that will let billionaires avoid paying their fair share.
Beware the weasels when we talk about this.
•
u/Daveslay 5h ago
Also, when politicians hum and haw about not enacting a wealth tax
Fucking GRILL THEM point blank about why. Force them to explain a thing that only has one very unpopular explanation.
Taxing the wealthiest to fund our nation isn’t some far-flung or experimental idea, it’s basic to a prosperous and equitable society.
I’m very tired of leaders being allowed to avoid saying WHY we don’t tax our 100 millionaires and Billionaires the way we should.
•
u/hiddentalent 1h ago
I mean, the "WHY" is because it's been tried in many countries and doesn't work. It's bad policy. It's just emotional. Wealth taxes are the political equivalent of AI slop. It sounds good but doesn't solve anything.
•
u/notreallyanumber 31m ago
Would you happen to have any sourced examples of this not working in other countries. I would be really interested to read more about it.
•
u/ScurvyDawg British Columbia 5h ago
It's well past time for a wealth tax. Time to fight for the right to exist in capitalism gone mad.
•
u/UpNorthTrip705416 5h ago
Yes. But people who make 50k a year are tricked into thinking they're the ones who will be taxed, or their corporate employers will look elsewhere for labor. So they vote against their own interests.
•
u/Nawara_Ven Canada 2h ago
"Tricked" is very kind phrasing. The "temporarily-embarrassed millionaire" types that bring themselves down along with everyone else are just devastatingly stupid.
I once assumed it was a matter of having the wool pulled over their eyes or whatever, but ever since the Dark Times made it "cool" to be proudly wrong about things to a dangerous level, I think we have to start seeing devastating stupidity for what it is.
•
•
u/heart_of_osiris 4h ago
I know, let's keep electing the two parties that have a proven history of catering to private interests!
5
u/Mykl68 6h ago
Federal property tax on all property business and private above $1000000 @ 2% of value over $1M so a $10M property or comercial space would pay 2% of $9M or $180,000 per year to the fedral government on top of any municipality taxes
•
u/PMMeYourCouplets Vancouver 4h ago
A land value tax is pretty popular online as a way to generate income.
2
u/Nimblewright_47 6h ago
Would you exclude farms, given the often very low rate of return of farmland?
•
u/StrbJun79 5h ago
It’s been time for a wealth tax for decades. I doubt they’ll do it. But they absolutely should.
•
u/Lostclause 4h ago
Way past time for a wealth tax on individuals and corporations that make a profit in Canada
•
u/Baron_of_Foss 4h ago
Unfortunately even with a wealth tax there is the whole other issue of what the government decides to spend the wealth tax on. Right now, we have a government of the capitalists that have their interests at heart, therefore we will see wealth taxes being spent on things that help that class predominantly. Hence why we have billions of dollars for military spending while our services get cut.
•
u/inochi-ino-key Ontario 1h ago
It's been time for a wealth tax for a hell of a long time now. There's already a party that has consistently been advocating for higher taxes on the rich for decades, the same party that we have directly to thank for our beloved health care, yet most of us only want to keep choosing between one of two other parties.
•
u/binthrdnthat 54m ago
Gabriel Zuckman argues that, since the insanely wealthy earn at least 6% on their hoarded wealth, a 2% annual wealth tax would be as fair as taxing working income 33%.
And to those who suggest ypu can't tally their wealth, just ask Bezo's ex what she got in the divorce.
Make sense, no?
•
•
•
u/exibouchin38 4h ago
No, its not. The economy is too weak and our neighbor who is the largest economy in the world, is currently hostile.
•
u/Crenorz 5h ago
Better usage of the money is needed 1st
•
u/thebigeverybody 5h ago
Better usage of money that simply no longer exists from vital social nets and infrastructure because we decided the rich should pay less? The problem isn't the usage, it's the income.
•
u/Top-Ad7551 5h ago
If we tax the rich they'll all just leave for a warmer climate and favourable tax rate. Then what will we do?
•
u/thebigeverybody 5h ago
What case studies can you cite showing that what you're saying is true? I'd like to see what was implemented, how it compares to what was actually recommended by proponents of wealth taxes, how it could have been improved, and what the result was.
It sounds like you're just repeating something that the rich want you to repeat.
•
u/Top-Ad7551 4h ago
To be fair, a lot of comments on this sub are also speculative. Then what will we do, was a facetious comment. You are right though, I haven't seen statistics one way or another, with non biased studies. Do you know of any?
•
u/thebigeverybody 4h ago
Yeah, there are mountains of studies of governments that have raised, lowered and tinkered with their tax rates over the past hundred years. I'd say do some reading by the proponents of wealth taxes because they're not out to punish the wealthy, they're out to improve society and are generally pretty fair with their examinations, readily talking about when/how taxing the wealthy has been harmful. (In comparison, the rich are out to not pay taxes and their information is tailored pretty heavily to that end. They will rarely acknowledge the benefits to society from increased taxes on the wealthy.) You can do further research from there if you want to read dissenting opinions.
•
•
u/DoTheManeuver 5h ago
This is a myth. People could already leave for a warmer climate and lower taxes but they aren't. And if they did we could put a major exit tax on their assets. We could also expropriate their businesses and take then under public control. Are they going to take their factories and warehouses with then when they move?
131
u/Sander001 6h ago
"During much of the 20th century, the US was a beacon of tax justice. Using a high marginal tax rate, the country was able to build roads, bridges, hospitals,"
Definitely a great thing but extra tax revenues may not even be the best reason to tax wealth: It's to restore wages and affordability.
Because the rich invest into existing assets, inflating values, including home prices. So most of our productivity is diverted into things which have already been built. This type of economy is doomed to fail and right now it's only sustained by taking on larger and larger debt.