369

Ontario billionaire under fire for arguing poor people shouldn't be able to vote (www.blogto.com)

submitted 2 days ago by avidamoeba@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's Shopify's Tobi Lutke.

A reminder that he's behind Build Canada and Build Toronto, and that Build Toronto's Eric Lombardi is running for the Ontario Librral Party leadership as we speak.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago

I just want world wide wealth caps. 10 million is the max that any person canboen or control. Any additional income after that goes 100% straight to taxes.

This simple rule has wide spread implications from ending poverty to likely ending wars, removing power from narcissist politicians, and souch more

[-] WasabiWabbit@lemmy.ca 3 points 16 hours ago

Yes. but corruption always exists. Caps just push that wealth underground. There are no simple answers like that.

[-] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

In the 1970's, $1 million and you were rich.Today, it's $10 million and even that is less than a lottery win. The limit would have to be $100 million.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

The multimillionaires would end inflation very quickly.

[-] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

The hell they would. Inflation is what makes them multimillionaires. Once you become that rich, inflation does not affect you. 89%of your income gores to investments, things you WANT to increase in price.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

Inflation would steadily decrease their real wealth cap. Wealth includes investments.

[-] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Wrong.Inflation increases the value of their investments. The stock market relies completely on inflation to increase profits. Every inflationary increase directly results in increase profits. That is the purpose of inflation.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Right, but I'm talking about the hypothetical in which their wealth is capped at a fixed number of dollars. They'd reach the cap and then raise the ladder up after them.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

On it's own that won't end poverty, but coupled with something like a basic income it could. It would definitely end all the extreme wealth stupidity, and if it was retroactive nobody could really flee with their wealth, like they might manage to with a lesser wealth tax.

You might want to go up to 15, though. There's bound to be some sympathetic retiree couple with a house in inner Vancouver.

[-] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 day ago

A 100% income tax means there's no incentive to remove profits from a business beyond that income, since you can't spend any of it, so it will just encourage increased accounting trickery to justify "business expenses" for things like purchasing private islands, sports cars, and luxury vacations.

80% is high enough; for every $10 million they withdraw for personal spending, they keep 2, and the other $8 million would go to pay for the services requested to run the rest of the country that enables them to produce their wealth. (Including all their employees and customers.)

Then we still benefit from the efficiencies inherent in the profit motive while having the ultra wealthy pay their fair share.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That was a wealth tax, not a tax on income. So, nobody would be worth more than 10 million, and earning 10 million is almost out of the question. That means you can't own a huge business by yourself, to start with.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

Get a high salary, "lose it" on crypto, retire in Belize.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 hours ago

Well, the "get a high salary" part is definitely doing most of the hard work.

That being said, yes, there'd still be a way, if you're patient, have the income and don't care about legality. There'd be a risk of getting caught, which always scales with the amount you've hidden. But, maybe you're smarter than the next white-collar criminal.

If the point is to flatten out the class system, this policy would do it, though.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I might argue that if any single individual is in the position to collect $10M+/year, the economic system is already dysfunctional. That individual is operating as a gatekeeper rather than a value center and the position they occupy needs to be broken up and reorganized.