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.
I suggest a wealth tax is a measure of last resort.
There are income tax measures as I mention above that would do a lot of good in reducing wealth concentration - in particular a gift/inheritance tax that would have a lifetime exemption of some amount, anywhere from say 25K to 2M per beneficiary (depending on what's politically feasible), so that people are encouraged to spread their wealth around (to maximize the tax free portion). The tax itself would depend on the recipients tax situation, but I suggest a progressive system with only 2 rates, 0 and 40%. So the gift/inheritance would attract a 40% for most people on the portion (if any) that exceeded the lifetime exemption.
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.
If Peter Thiel sees his goals as incompatible with democracy, then the system that gives him the power to achieve his goals is ultimately incompatible with democracy as well.
Your piece about the Gordon Howie bridge is interesting. But there’s a point you didn’t get. ‘Net’’. There are no net profits until the debt is paid. Trump fought like Tyson to win a totally worthless deal and Canada just managed to keep the smile off its face. Never ever take a percentage of the net. There is no net- ever.
Leftists hate billionaires…they hate success. They would see a society where we clip the wings of founders in the interest of useless income redistribution. The real threat to democracy is the complex configuration of NGOs and contributions of anti-west anti-
Democratic groups like Soros, Tides and Rockefeller bros. NGOs siphoning off money meant for social programs going to Liberal insiders. Look at the US in numerous states and in Canada with the green slush fund. You blame the collapse of the proposed Capital gains increase on billionaires?! Regular citizens would have revolted. More wasted money going to Liberal insiders and pet projects.
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.
The wealth flight hypothesis has been disproven by the evidence countless times. Billionaires like to claim that they will, but it never actually happens.
lol no. Have you read any of that supposed evidence? Liquid capital can and does move, even preemptive of tax code changes. Not only that, but capital inflows can cut off dramatically. Any guess why the US stock market sucks in so much of the world’s investment dollars? Low taxes and great tax havens
Sure, if you could count on their motives on where to invest and/or spend as in the best interests of society.
Of course, you can't count on anyone's, but with enough people, it averages out, like a democracy of the market. Billionaires concentrate the consequences of bad (socially dysfunctional) decision making.
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.
I suggest a wealth tax is a measure of last resort.
There are income tax measures as I mention above that would do a lot of good in reducing wealth concentration - in particular a gift/inheritance tax that would have a lifetime exemption of some amount, anywhere from say 25K to 2M per beneficiary (depending on what's politically feasible), so that people are encouraged to spread their wealth around (to maximize the tax free portion). The tax itself would depend on the recipients tax situation, but I suggest a progressive system with only 2 rates, 0 and 40%. So the gift/inheritance would attract a 40% for most people on the portion (if any) that exceeded the lifetime exemption.
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.
If Peter Thiel sees his goals as incompatible with democracy, then the system that gives him the power to achieve his goals is ultimately incompatible with democracy as well.
I had about four substack subscriptions, got upset at the time I was spending here, and dropped everybody but Wells.
I just re-subscribed to you. That was just too good to go unrewarded.
Your piece about the Gordon Howie bridge is interesting. But there’s a point you didn’t get. ‘Net’’. There are no net profits until the debt is paid. Trump fought like Tyson to win a totally worthless deal and Canada just managed to keep the smile off its face. Never ever take a percentage of the net. There is no net- ever.
Thanks! I can’t afford to subscribe, but look forward to reading what you’ll share on SubStack.
Thanks so much‼️
Leftists hate billionaires…they hate success. They would see a society where we clip the wings of founders in the interest of useless income redistribution. The real threat to democracy is the complex configuration of NGOs and contributions of anti-west anti-
Democratic groups like Soros, Tides and Rockefeller bros. NGOs siphoning off money meant for social programs going to Liberal insiders. Look at the US in numerous states and in Canada with the green slush fund. You blame the collapse of the proposed Capital gains increase on billionaires?! Regular citizens would have revolted. More wasted money going to Liberal insiders and pet projects.
What a stupid selfish comment, Keith maybe write down what you said and research about wealth. Just because your life is awesome doesn’t mean ours is
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.
The wealth flight hypothesis has been disproven by the evidence countless times. Billionaires like to claim that they will, but it never actually happens.
lol no. Have you read any of that supposed evidence? Liquid capital can and does move, even preemptive of tax code changes. Not only that, but capital inflows can cut off dramatically. Any guess why the US stock market sucks in so much of the world’s investment dollars? Low taxes and great tax havens
Sure, if you could count on their motives on where to invest and/or spend as in the best interests of society.
Of course, you can't count on anyone's, but with enough people, it averages out, like a democracy of the market. Billionaires concentrate the consequences of bad (socially dysfunctional) decision making.
I have some land in Florida to sell. Cheap.
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/Millionaire_Migration_and_the_Taxtion_of_the_Elite.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.17310/ntj.2011.2.02?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Agree. How?