More people are discovering they are ‘rich’ in the eyes of Liberals

Article content material

I just lately had a fast chat with a younger pal of mine who works within the public sector and leans closely left, so we regularly get into pleasant however vigorous debates about tax and financial coverage. The subject d’jour, in fact, was the proposed capital gains inclusion rate increase.

Overly simplified, his remark was that the results of the proposal could be that as a substitute of the wealthy “consuming caviar,” they could must eat one thing cheaper. One other individual, who additionally works in the identical public-sector business, chimed in and mentioned the wealthy would nonetheless have the ability to sit on their “piles of money,” however they’d have somewhat bit much less.

Article content material

Feedback comparable to these drive me loopy. I began my rebuttal by asking them in the event that they knew how a lot the “wealthy” paid in general private tax revenues. Neither of them knew, so I shortly offered the next 2021 statistics:

• The highest 0.01 per cent of revenue earners, 2,930 people, had a median revenue of $7.73 million and paid three per cent of all federal and provincial taxes collected by the relevant governments.
• The highest 0.1 per cent, 29,260 people, had a median revenue of about $2.1 million and paid 8.9 per cent.
• The highest one per cent, 292,560 people, had a median revenue of $579,100 and paid 22.5 per cent.
• The highest 5 per cent, about 1.46 million people, had a median revenue of $259,600 and paid 41.7 per cent.
• The highest 10 per cent, about 2.93 million people, had a median revenue of $190,000 and paid 54.4 per cent.
• The highest 50 per cent, about 14.6 million people, had a median revenue of $90,700 and paid 93.8 per cent.

The response is normally constant after I listing the above statistics: most are shocked that the common incomes are that low for sure teams. As well as, there may be usually a recognition {that a} very small group of wealthy individuals pay a big and disproportionate quantity of tax. Sure, that’s what occurs when you will have a progressive taxation system comparable to Canada’s.

Article content material

Article content material

I’m in favour of a progressive taxation system, but when the asks develop into an excessive amount of, there’ll clearly be detrimental behavioural reactions. These reactions embody a lot of wealthy — and even not so wealthy — Canadians leaving the nation. It was just lately introduced that the emigration of Canadians to america has reached a 10-year high. That’s not shocking since I’ve been ringing this alarm bell for years.

With the above statistics in thoughts, you must simply have the ability to respect that it doesn’t take many losses within the high 0.01 per cent to 5 per cent to have a particularly detrimental affect on the remaining inhabitants to exchange the misplaced tax income. It additionally actually doesn’t assist enhance Canada’s productivity challenges.

Beneath this federal authorities, the latest asks of the wealthy have included a 4 per cent enhance in private tax charges, an assault on small companies and their capability to revenue break up with members of the family, main amendments to the Alternative Minimum Tax and a number of different “changes.”

As well as, it’s clear from the above statistics who pays for Robin Hood packages comparable to Pharmaccare, the Dental Care Plan and a complete host of different wasteful spending. Yep, these darn wealthy individuals. Once more, if the wealthy really feel that their hard-earned cash isn’t being put to good use, there will likely be detrimental reactions.

Article content material

That’s the place the capital positive aspects inclusion charge enhance proposal is available in. The proposal to extend the inclusion charge from 50 per cent to two-thirds (with people capable of preserve the 50 per cent charge for annual capital positive aspects of $250,000 or much less) isn’t concerning the vacuous talking factors pumped out by the Prime Minister’s Workplace and repeated by Justin Trudeau and others who attempt to recommend that the rise is sweet coverage (vital for “equity,” “fairness,” “intergenerational equity” and the “capital positive aspects benefit”).

Nope, this can be a easy tax revenue-generating measure since this authorities has no need to materially cut back spending and attempt to appease the value-for-money-spent crowd. As an alternative, it wants the income in an effort to proceed to recklessly spend.

Sadly, although, the capital positive aspects inclusion charge enhance impacts far more than the wealthy. Common Canadians are waking as much as the straightforward indisputable fact that they don’t should be wealthy to be instantly or not directly impacted in a detrimental approach.

Those that have second properties (comparable to rental or trip properties), taxation on loss of life (which impacts inheritances), small-business homeowners who understand capital positive aspects individually or via their firms, pension holders whose investments embody shares of publicly traded firms that pay dividends, those that develop into non-residents of Canada and others will all be impacted.

Article content material

“Your private experiences with cash make up possibly 0.00000001 per cent of what’s occurred on the earth, however possibly 80 per cent of the way you suppose the world works,” enterprise capitalist Morgan Housel mentioned in his e-book The Psychology of Cash. I very a lot agree.

Accordingly, whereas my socialist buddies’ experiences with cash would possibly make them suppose that the so-called wealthy are all “consuming caviar” and sitting on piles of money, they’re positively not. They rise up within the morning and put their pants on one leg at a time, similar to all of us do.

Whereas the wealthy would possibly make more cash than most, a lot of them are creating jobs, supporting households, making giant charitable donations, supporting their communities in a disproportionate approach and making an attempt to make Canada higher for all.

The capital positive aspects inclusion charge is just poor coverage launched at a time when our nation wants extra profitable individuals. We have to encourage and help success somewhat than assault it. Our nation’s future financial success depends upon this.

Article content material

Kim Moody, FCPA, FCA, TEP, is the founding father of Moodys Tax/Moodys Personal Shopper, a former chair of the Canadian Tax Basis, former chair of the Society of Property Practitioners (Canada) and has held many different management positions within the Canadian tax group. He will be reached at kgcm@kimgcmoody.com and his LinkedIn profile is https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimmoody.

_____________________________________________________________

If you happen to like this story, join the FP Investor Publication.

_____________________________________________________________

Bookmark our web site and help our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information you could know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters here.

Article content material