Freeland to Scrap Canada’s Capital Gains Hike If She’s Elected
-
Do I smell austerity for the working class?
-
I'm fine with a lower inclusion rate if we cap it at a fixed dollar threshold.
If you make $1M in a year from capital gains, just tax it 100% as income.
The real problem with this is executives getting paid primarily in stocks and paying a lower average tax rate than the middle class because 50% (currently 33%) is excluded.
Also, Freeland being the #2 in Trudeau's government, and all her policies being to undo the things they did looks bad to me. I can't shake that either she was ineffective or they were just bad ideas.
-
There's nobody good to vote for.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
If you make $1M in a year from capital gains, just tax it 100% as income.
Capital gains don’t accrue until you actually sell your shares. If you try to tax people like this then they’ll just never sell the shares. Instead, they’ll use their shares as collateral for loans and lines of credit if they need cash.
Extremely high taxes lead to very low tax revenues since people do everything possible to avoid paying them. Conversely, lowering a tax rate can and does increase tax revenue as people start paying the tax instead of trying to get around it (often because the cost of getting around the tax makes it no longer worth it).
-
Singh it is, then.
-
The capital hains tax is a double tax, not a seperate tax.
A person gets paid, government taxes the person for making money. With the money the person has left, they invest that money, they withdraw or sell their investment, they get taxed on that money again, the capital gains tax.
Capital gains tax serves as a punishment for being smart in business and financial management, typically from people who are envious and jealous that other people are successful and they are not, so take it away through taxes to oppress all people equally.
For that reason, some people turn a blind eye to anyone who commits tax evasion. -
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
They only get taxed on the gain you made on that money. It's a tax on the additional revenue an investment provides.
Capital gain tax is already a measure for the rich, since it is only taxes on 50% of the gain. People that can have significant revenues from investments (eg people with money), will be taxed at much lower rate than if they would make that same money through a job.
Let's give you an example:
You have a salary of 100 000$ and have 1 000 000$ in investments. Your marginal tax bracket is 40% (for this exercise let's also consider there is no additional tax bracket). After tax, your salary is 60 000$. With your investment, you make 10% annually, so that is an additional 100 000$! If it were taxed as revenue it would cost you 40 000$ in taxes, but since capital gain is only taxed at 50%, you only pay 20 000$ in taxes. That leaves you with an additional 80 000$! So even if you're making the same revenue from your salary than from your investments, you have more money left in your pocket from the money made from an investment than from your salary.
That's why it's considered a measure for the rich, you need to be able to have a significant investment to be able to be taxed at a lower rate than you should.
-
Well done keeping your composure while explaining!
-
Perhaps not good but less bad is what we look for.
-
While I do not want to vote for Singh, the leader, I would vote for the NDP candidate in my riding if the polls don't show them far behind.
-
For better or worse, in Canada we don’t vote for PM, it goes to the leader of the party.
Both the other parties are clearly in the pocket of corporations. The NDP held the Liberal’s feet to the fire and got us dental care.
That alone is reason enough to vote for them in my opinion.
-
No disagreement.
-
We tax the theoretical assessed value of houses, why not stocks?
-
How would that work? Stocks go up and down all the time. Sometimes people hold them for years, sometimes they trade them rapidly throughout the day.
Suppose we tax people on a percentage of the increases in their stocks when they go up. Are we going to give them a tax refund when the stocks go down? Or is it just going to be a ratchet that drains away all their money as the stock rapidly goes up and down throughout the day?
There’s a lot of different things you can do but at the end of the day the question is: will people still want to keep investing after you make the change? If the answer is no, then why not simply shut down the stock market altogether? Of course the answer to that is that everyone will start investing through a black market.
The really hard part about tax policy is that you can’t just look at the way things are now and then assume they’ll stay the same while you collect a tax off the top. In reality, people change their behaviour to avoid taxes as much as possible so taxes on specific things tend to have distortionary effects on the market.
If you want a very good example of a non-distortionary tax, look at land value taxes. The beautiful thing about them is that you can’t take your ball and go home. You can’t move the land with you to another country (not without an army anyway). You can’t even destroy the value of the land (for LVT purposes) by say, burning down the buildings, because LVT is based on the value of the land without any buildings or other improvements. All you can do is pay the tax or sell.
-
C [email protected] shared this topic
