this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Canada

7256 readers
601 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm annoyed they uncritically quoted the Frasier institute guy. We could raise the upper tax brackets to pay for it, that's an option too, just saying.

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rich people don't have "income" to tax like that.

Tax their wealth.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

That's right. If I remember right, one of the top ways that the 1% earn their wealth is by taking bank loans with things like stocks as collateral. Since they never cash in the stocks, they technically have zero income.

If you don't directly tax assets, or otherwise broaden the definition of income to include assets (though that'll take some serious lawerying to make ironclad), no amount of taxing the wealthy will make a serious difference. Only those that have shitty accountants.

Even then, you'll always have to watch out for those wealthy just fleeing the country selling off any asset they can't take with them, screwing over the entire country.