211
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Who and how much:

Consider an annual tax on the net wealth of families with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

This means the first $10 million of any family’s wealth is entirely unaffected by the wealth tax. Based on modelling of the first year of this wealth tax, the bottom 99.4 per cent of Canadians would pay nothing, while only the richest 0.6 per cent would pay any amount. This means that only about 100,000 families across the country would pay any amount under the wealth tax, with 10,000 wealthy enough to fall into the second-highest bracket and 3,700 in the highest bracket.

This narrow tax on the wealthiest few would raise an estimated $39 billion in its first year, $62 billion by its 10th year and $495 billion cumulatively over a 10-year window.

How:

an effective wealth tax must make use of extensive third-party reporting of assets, particularly from financial institutions, rather than relying too heavily on self-reporting as in the case of some older wealth taxes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago

with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

If someone has hoarded that much money, taxation at that rate will have absolutely zero impact on their lifestyle.

They have no valid complaints about a system like the one being proposed.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Even if they complain, they'd get laughed out of the room. That's why the actual go-to tactic is threats.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago

Wealth isn't often in cash. It could be a founder of a company, and their stocks make their networth over 10 million.

In order to pay 1% they'd have to come up with another 100k, but the only way to do that is sell the stock. Selling the stock erodes the founders say in the company (shares = voting power) and will further incur taxes so it's more than 100k.

So if by nothing you mean slowly erode a person's ownership in their business over many years, then sure, nothing.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

We agree that taking money from them would in fact take money from them. Want a cookie?

this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
211 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9889 readers
764 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

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


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS