Apr

23

Looks like someone in Can Gov was listening in for ideas (Tax rate to rise from 50% of reg to 67% of reg):

Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen brain drain

In the 2024 budget unveiled Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said the government would increase the inclusion rate of the capital gains tax from 50 per cent to 67 per cent for businesses and trusts, generating an estimated $19 billion in new revenue. Capital gains are the profits that individuals or businesses make from selling an asset — like a stock or a second home. Individuals are subject to the new changes on any profits over $250,000.

Big Al is sanguine:

No worries - it only affects a few:

The government estimates that the changes would impact 40,000 individuals (or 0.13 per cent of Canadians in any given year)…

H. Humbert writes:

With 67%, the government clearly thinks that either it both needs and deserves the profits of some people more than they do OR that those people need to be treated like one would treat an enemy, without any regard for their needs or feelings. Let's see, would a Communist think that way (both ideas) about his or her class enemy?

William Huggins explains:

It's a move back towards the status quo ante 1980s tax cut. The idea that tax cuts are only good is just silly. As silly as the notion that government is efficient with those same taxes. This isn't revolutionary, simply the slow reduction of a subsidy we -thought- would lead to more investment. Turns out future demand is a larger determinant of that than current taxes. We gave too much to capital back in the early 80s when we rebalance last time and now were rebalancing again. Cap gains will still pay less tax than working folks. No need for enemies or "communists".

H. Humbert replies:

I apologize William, the problem was my reading comprehension as I wasn't familiar with the meaning of the term "inclusion rate" in the Canadian tax system and interpreted it incorrectly after, to be honest, spending about 20 seconds to "read" the article. With your explanation and the tiniest bit of research, this makes sense. As I mentioned before, I'm against special cap gains rates, but only if (a) the losses aren't capped (b) there is no special "investment gains" tax as currently exists in the US.

Asindu Drileba adds:

David Graeber once mentioned that the most productive period in American industry was when the tax rates were highest (65%). The referenced the advances made by Bell Labs as a example. He claimed that the productivity occurred because corporations were nudged by the high taxes to invest more money into research and development.

H. Humbert provides context:

Very few people paid the top marginal rate as tax shelters were highly prevalent and a lot easier to use than they are now.

Hernan Avella comments:

True MMT’rs would argue that rates should be 0 and the tax rate higher, as needed to curb inflation.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search