The problem is, we shouldn't be choosing. Random selection of representatives would ensure that billionaires didn't have the influence they have now.
But I have to say, billionaire is a pretty high (and arbitrary) cutoff, why not say quinquagintamillionaire (50 million)?
Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks also write a book in 2010 called The Trouble with Billionaires. It's worth reading.
The problem with our tax system is that it favours capital over labour. I don't have any problem with wealth, I just think it should be treated the same as labour. Because wealth also benefits from the same security that government provides to people - why should it be provided at less cost to wealth? (i.e. why should only 50% of capital gains income be taxable) And wealth doesn't need the government to encourage investment, that's done with ROI, and it's the market's job to provide it, not the government's.
And you can make the same point that inheritances and gifts are a form of income and should also be taxed. The Carter Commission thought so in 1966 - they used the term comprehensive income and recommended that the then current estate tax should be replaced by an inheritance/gift tax.
They also recommended 100% capital gains inclusion with no CPI adjustment. I disagree with their reasoning on that one, I think capital gains should be adjusted for CPI, otherwise you're taxing inflation, not income. You can use a deemed realization to tax those who would use the increased value as security for some other transaction.
That commission also recommended that principal residence gains be taxed after allowing for a 25,000 lifetime exemption (that's about 237,000 now).
On the other hand, it was that same commission that led to the dividend tax credit because corporation income should only be taxed once, but that implies that all the benefits of incorporation should be free to the corporation. I can't agree with that. Corporations and their shareholders are distinct, and should be taxed as such. Let the market decide how corporate tax is distributed amongst those it does business with.
Do you know you’re lying or do you really believe this stuff? You earnestly believe taxing capital gains would do anything beyond sending more money off shore? Exile on main street, anyone? Corporate accounts love guys like you. Billionaires do not horde anything. They chase returns by reinvesting their money everywhere they see opportunity. This is where the bulk of medical advancement has come from. Of agriculture technology. Of green energy advancements. Of international supply chains that have lifted the world further from poverty than it has ever been. Yes—rentiers are bad, they slow progress and technology and raise prices of goods through local monopolies. But you aren’t talking about government capture or rentiers or freeing the market from monopolists. You talk of billionaires as if estimates of net worth equal hard cash locked away in a vault. It isn’t.
Thank you for sharing your work, David. I appreciate you highlighting the decisions that Carney's Liberals have made since being elected. I voted for the Liberals because the NDP were/are in shambles, and Polievre is the least desirable option. The case against billionaires needs to be a much more prominent talking point amongst all of us.
I read Linda McQuaig's and Neil Brooks's 2026, "Cancelling Billionaires Before They Cancel Us" this past summer. It was an informative and quick read. They're proposing the need for a progressive wealth tax. Their book also does a great job of explaining the problems with our foundation system in Canada. The ultra wealthy have zero issue with plopping their wealth into foundations that they create that sees no real expectations for actually dispersing that money for the greater good of society. The wealth that sits in these foundations is tax exempt!
When the ultra wealthy make donations to institutions of higher learning they want their name/legacy plastered on buildings and structures. They get a tax break on their donation, so that public money tax break then gets dumped into their foundation(s) of choice. Essentially, there is public money, McQuaig's estimates hundreds of millions - maybe billions of Canadian tax break money sitting in the foundations of the ultra rich that can and should certainly be put to better use for the benefit of all Canadians. By progressively taxing the ultra wealthy and billionaires society and our democracy would be in a much better place. As you said, with all this public money actually going back into society, we could, "heal sick people, feed the poor, house the unhoused, support the elderly, build public-owned and controlled infrastructure, take on climate change, and educate the next generation."
The case against billionaires needs to be a voting platform issue at every election going forward.
We have chosen ... poorly.
The problem is, we shouldn't be choosing. Random selection of representatives would ensure that billionaires didn't have the influence they have now.
But I have to say, billionaire is a pretty high (and arbitrary) cutoff, why not say quinquagintamillionaire (50 million)?
Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks also write a book in 2010 called The Trouble with Billionaires. It's worth reading.
The problem with our tax system is that it favours capital over labour. I don't have any problem with wealth, I just think it should be treated the same as labour. Because wealth also benefits from the same security that government provides to people - why should it be provided at less cost to wealth? (i.e. why should only 50% of capital gains income be taxable) And wealth doesn't need the government to encourage investment, that's done with ROI, and it's the market's job to provide it, not the government's.
And you can make the same point that inheritances and gifts are a form of income and should also be taxed. The Carter Commission thought so in 1966 - they used the term comprehensive income and recommended that the then current estate tax should be replaced by an inheritance/gift tax.
They also recommended 100% capital gains inclusion with no CPI adjustment. I disagree with their reasoning on that one, I think capital gains should be adjusted for CPI, otherwise you're taxing inflation, not income. You can use a deemed realization to tax those who would use the increased value as security for some other transaction.
That commission also recommended that principal residence gains be taxed after allowing for a 25,000 lifetime exemption (that's about 237,000 now).
On the other hand, it was that same commission that led to the dividend tax credit because corporation income should only be taxed once, but that implies that all the benefits of incorporation should be free to the corporation. I can't agree with that. Corporations and their shareholders are distinct, and should be taxed as such. Let the market decide how corporate tax is distributed amongst those it does business with.
Do you know you’re lying or do you really believe this stuff? You earnestly believe taxing capital gains would do anything beyond sending more money off shore? Exile on main street, anyone? Corporate accounts love guys like you. Billionaires do not horde anything. They chase returns by reinvesting their money everywhere they see opportunity. This is where the bulk of medical advancement has come from. Of agriculture technology. Of green energy advancements. Of international supply chains that have lifted the world further from poverty than it has ever been. Yes—rentiers are bad, they slow progress and technology and raise prices of goods through local monopolies. But you aren’t talking about government capture or rentiers or freeing the market from monopolists. You talk of billionaires as if estimates of net worth equal hard cash locked away in a vault. It isn’t.
Thank you for sharing your work, David. I appreciate you highlighting the decisions that Carney's Liberals have made since being elected. I voted for the Liberals because the NDP were/are in shambles, and Polievre is the least desirable option. The case against billionaires needs to be a much more prominent talking point amongst all of us.
I read Linda McQuaig's and Neil Brooks's 2026, "Cancelling Billionaires Before They Cancel Us" this past summer. It was an informative and quick read. They're proposing the need for a progressive wealth tax. Their book also does a great job of explaining the problems with our foundation system in Canada. The ultra wealthy have zero issue with plopping their wealth into foundations that they create that sees no real expectations for actually dispersing that money for the greater good of society. The wealth that sits in these foundations is tax exempt!
When the ultra wealthy make donations to institutions of higher learning they want their name/legacy plastered on buildings and structures. They get a tax break on their donation, so that public money tax break then gets dumped into their foundation(s) of choice. Essentially, there is public money, McQuaig's estimates hundreds of millions - maybe billions of Canadian tax break money sitting in the foundations of the ultra rich that can and should certainly be put to better use for the benefit of all Canadians. By progressively taxing the ultra wealthy and billionaires society and our democracy would be in a much better place. As you said, with all this public money actually going back into society, we could, "heal sick people, feed the poor, house the unhoused, support the elderly, build public-owned and controlled infrastructure, take on climate change, and educate the next generation."
The case against billionaires needs to be a voting platform issue at every election going forward.
Thank you for your work and discourse, David.
Agree. How?