BC Political Discussion: Election 2024 & 43rd Parliament

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by chowhou

... the rate you would like to tax seniors' retirement accounts, farmers, and mining investors simply for existing. What should the tax rate be on my chequing account?

Wealth tax usually has a minimum threshold. One proposal would put it at $10 million net worth for Canadians with a 1% rate and 3% if over $100 million. This would raise about $39 billion in its first year, (after deducting a generous $795 million in the first year for enforcement, while accounting for levels of tax avoidance and evasion).
source: https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/06/04/Overwhelming-Case-Wealth-Tax/

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Problem is capital/wealth is very footloose. Tax the wealth (double taxation which is already super problematic) and it just leaves.

There is evidence that the migration due to a wealth tax is not as significant as many assume:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122416639625

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The wealthy have proven time and time again that they can hide their money.

There is also evidence that well designed policy can prevent evasion:
https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2019BPEA.pdf

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

Wealth tax usually has a minimum threshold. One proposal would put it at $10 million net worth for Canadians with a 1% rate and 3% if over $100 million. This would raise about $39 billion in its first year, (after deducting a generous $795 million in the first year for enforcement, while accounting for levels of tax avoidance and evasion).
source: https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/06/04/Overwhelming-Case-Wealth-Tax/

It's the Tyee so I don't expect much critical thinking, but this assumes that a tax has zero effect on behaviour. I hate to bring out the Laffer curve but this is one of the most basic economics concepts that this "senior economist" seems to have forgotten. If you see your citizens producing $1B of income and decide to create a 100% income tax, you can't just assume you're going to be making $1B in tax revenue the next year. Taxes change behaviours, they're market distorting. Not always a bad thing, but something a "senior economist" should know about. $39 billion year one. What are we thinking for year two and beyond?

His ideology is clear though:

As for those among the extremely wealthy who remain intensely resistant to chipping in to build a stronger and more just society, we might be better off if they choose to leave. We can focus instead on unleashing the talents and productive potential of Canadians who care about building the country.

In other words, yeah the business leaders and investors will dry up but — capitalists anyway!

Originally Posted by b5baxter

There is also evidence that well designed policy can prevent evasion:
https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2019BPEA.pdf

This study is from an American protectionist viewpoint. According to the authors a "well designed policy" means heavily restricting or taxing capital leaving the country, and having a national wealth tax (or optimally a global wealth tax) to prevent tax competition between states/provinces. BC having a provincial wealth tax definitely cannot do that, and Canada as a whole definitely should not do that.

Right now what we really don't need is to tell foreign investors that Canada will — you sideways if they dare bring their money into our country.

Originally Posted by b5baxter

There is evidence that the migration due to a wealth tax is not as significant as many assume:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122416639625

And this is about income taxes not wealth taxes.

When it comes to wealth taxes such as estate taxes, the literature is actually pretty clear.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fpol.20200258

https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abst...ion-of-the-Rich-Migration-in-Response-to

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20220615

Maybe I was the only one paying attention, but we literally saw day by day the tech CEOs of California leaving when a wealth tax was only proposed...

[chowhou]

In other news, Milobites now number 7.

https://globalnews.ca/news/12058723/bc-party-peter-milobar-donegal-wilson-joins/

B.C.’s new party led by Milobar gains 7th member as Donegal Wilson joins

The new party led by former B.C. Conservative legislator Peter Milobar has gained a seventh member.

Donegal Wilson, member of the legislature for Boundary-Similkameen, made the announcement on Monday after she said she spent the last week talking with residents of her riding in the southern Interior.

She said she did not plan to join the new party when she quit the Conservatives on Sept. 2 but found many areas of agreement with the other MLAs.

“When I left the BC Conservative caucus, I left because I could no longer support the leadership of Kerry-Lynne Findlay. I said then that I was leaving a caucus, not my principles, and that has not changed,” she said in a statement.

Wilson said both the governing NDP and B.C. Conservatives parties are largely focused on ideological issues, leaving many British Columbians politically homeless.

“As a fiscal conservative, I saw an opportunity to get in and help form the new party,” she said in an interview. “So, that is why I chose to go now.”

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Not quite, it was more like one and a half billion.

https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-now-pro...llion-amid-errors-on-natural-gas-revenue

They didn't "lose" anything, they just made mistakes estimating revenue.

It shows what a sweetheart deal these gas companies are getting.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by djmk

the richest guy in BC has about $10B in assets. What do you want to do? Force him to sell his shares in Save on Foods so he can pay taxes?

Some taxes on unrealized gains over, say, $500M is entirely reasonable.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by djmk

the richest guy in BC has about $10B in assets. What do you want to do? Force him to sell his shares in Save on Foods so he can pay taxes?

Yes.

Next question?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Some taxes on unrealized gains over, say, $500M is entirely reasonable.

How is it reasonable if it discourages wealth being created or transferred here?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

How is it reasonable if it discourages wealth being created or transferred here?

I see you're in the "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" camp.

Wealth creation for who? Wealth inequality is at all time highs. — these Billionaire ghouls.

[chowhou]

Didn't think you were a degrowther, unless I'm seeing a different conclusion than you are.

What right minded person invests somewhere where their capital is under threat of being seized? We have plenty of examples of countries where the leadership enacted "— these rich ghouls" policies and none of them are doing particularly well.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Didn't think you were a degrowther, unless I'm seeing a different conclusion than you are.

What right minded person invests somewhere where their capital is under threat of being seized? We have plenty of examples of countries where the leadership enacted "— these rich ghouls" policies and none of them are doing particularly well.

So you have no solution to growing wealth inequity? If you look in history the "solution" is usually revolution. The US appears to be speed running it this time around.

Asset taxes exist for real estate, why not for other assets?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So you have no solution to growing wealth inequity? If you look in history the "solution" is usually revolution. The US appears to be speed running it this time around.

Asset taxes exist for real estate, why not for other assets?

Because you can move other assets. Also, source on growing wealth inequality? In my very brief research just now it seems like Canadian wealth inequality hasn't changed much at all in the past 100 years, and is not at an all time high.

I'm actually a pretty big proponent of land value taxes, but no one here means that when they talk about wealth taxes.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Because you can move other assets. Also, source on growing wealth inequality? In my very brief research just now it seems like Canadian wealth inequality hasn't changed much at all in the past 100 years, and is not at an all time high.

I'm actually a pretty big proponent of land value taxes, but no one here means that when they talk about wealth taxes.

Of course LVT would be part of the discussion. The tax code is current set up to punish wage earners and let capital-rich individuals pay far less while contributing nothing to society. End stage capitalism isn't where we want to be.

StatCan has lots of data on in.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/260413/dq260413a-eng.htm

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Of course LVT would be part of the discussion.

When people say "tax the rich" they're never talking about homeowners. C'mon, you know this.

The tax code is current set up to punish wage earners and let capital-rich individuals pay far less while contributing nothing to society. End stage capitalism isn't where we want to be.

I guess I still believe capitalism is demonstrably a good thing and countries that have decided they don't want capitalists have not had good outcomes.

StatCan has lots of data on in.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/260413/dq260413a-eng.htm

There is wealth inequality, how can there not be? The doctors and lawyers of Canada have always had more wealth than the construction labourers and window washers and even North Korea has wealth inequality. Where's the proof of the growing wealth inequality? I don't accept quarterly changes as trends.



The trend seems to have been pretty flat for the past 100 years. There was a gradual downwards trend from the 20s until the 90s, with a possible slight upturn until 2020, but really I don't think there's any noticeable difference for the past 100 years.

The most recent data I could find was that in 2023 the 1% owned 23.8% of the wealth. No growth there; The PBO has measured a gradual decline since 2016.

https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/R...trimoine-familial-canada-mises-jour-2025

If you want to talk about the US it's a different story, but I'm not convinced of your argument that there's this huge growing wealth inequality that needs wealth seizure to solve.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

When people say "tax the rich" they're never talking about homeowners. C'mon, you know this.

It would be a start. There would be a lot of support for progressive taxation on property value.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I guess I still believe capitalism is demonstrably a good thing and countries that have decided they don't want capitalists have not had good outcomes.

Who said I'm not a capitalist? The problem is the 1% have captured lawmakers. It's crony capitalism at this point.

Originally Posted by chowhou

If you want to talk about the US it's a different story, but I'm not convinced of your argument that there's this huge growing wealth inequality that needs wealth seizure to solve.

Canada always follows the US. If you don't see the warning signs I don't know what to tell you.

Let's pretend Canada was in the same state as the US. You agree there's a problem? What's the solution?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Who said I'm not a capitalist? The problem is the 1% have captured lawmakers. It's crony capitalism at this point.

Source for this? Everyone's favourite local billionaire Chip Wilson has been pretty vocal about how little he controls lawmakers.

Canada always follows the US. If you don't see the warning signs I don't know what to tell you.

Yeah source for this as well? Everyone said this about interest rates, look at them now. Are we reversing federal abortion policy? Are we putting tariffs on our close trading partners? Are we bombing Iran?

Let's pretend Canada was in the same state as the US. You agree there's a problem? What's the solution?

Hmm, well I'd start with implementing Canadian election finance laws, then probably ensure each Canadian province had roughly equivalent income taxes and also probably ensure each Canadian province had roughly equivalent capital gains taxes to limit tax avoidance strategies, ideally ensure each Canadian province had roughly equivalent sales taxes as well but maybe I'll let one not have any, and I would see if I can have more than two political parties and better yet implement a Westminster style of government rather than a presidential style.

What do you think?

What OECD countries do you think have the highest wealth inequality by the way?



Greece and Italy are in the "democracy saved" and Denmark and the Netherlands are in the "democracy doomed" territory or something, right?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Source for this? Everyone's favourite local billionaire Chip Wilson has been pretty vocal about how little he controls lawmakers.

Were you asleep for the officially designated Chip Wilson Day?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Were you asleep for the officially designated Chip Wilson Day?

You can apply for your own here:

https://vancouver.ca/your-government/request-a-proclamation.aspx

There's a reason this wasn't publicised anywhere other than Chip Wilson's Instagram.

Maybe you can fit your day in between Chip Wilson Day and Dwayne the Rock Johnson Day

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Source for this? Everyone's favourite local billionaire Chip Wilson has been pretty vocal about how little he controls lawmakers.

LOL are you for real? Be serious.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Hmm, well I'd start with implementing Canadian election finance laws, then probably ensure each Canadian province had roughly equivalent income taxes and also probably ensure each Canadian province had roughly equivalent capital gains taxes to limit tax avoidance strategies, ideally ensure each Canadian province had roughly equivalent sales taxes as well but maybe I'll let one not have any, and I would see if I can have more than two political parties and better yet implement a Westminster style of government rather than a presidential style.

So a bunch of magic stuff not allowed by our constitution?

What if we had a capital gains inclusion rate of 100%? So capital appreciation is taxed as much as labour? Would that make sense?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL are you for real? Be serious.

So you think the NDP are beholden to Chip Wilson? Be serious.

So a bunch of magic stuff not allowed by our constitution?

Clearly you missed that everything I just said is already done in Canada.

What if we had a capital gains inclusion rate of 100%? So capital appreciation is taxed as much as labour? Would that make sense?

Well economic consensus is that taxing capital disincentivizes investment in a country so if that's what you'd like I guess it makes sense. I don't see a reason to increase capital gains right now given the "problem" you claim to exist doesn't seem to exist. I'm all for lowering income taxes though, productivity should ideally not be taxed.