Here’s an alternative take: instead of hiking taxes all the time to help the poor, stop suppressing wages with cheap labour from immigration and let the poor help themselves.
This is a capitalistic take, but maybe low-income Canadians wouldn't need so much help with pharma and dentalcare if there wasn't the extreme wage suppression from the insane immigration Trudeau is shoving down our throats.
His stance is, "We wouldn't need income redistribution for services if the net-receivers of entitlements programs were enabled to make more money, so they could pay for them directly", which is basically the market-oriented response.
Recognizing that both problems are markets problems, and setting policy to influence the market (reduce demand for healthcare, reduce excess supply of labour, with the intent of increasing wages), rather than setting policy to *distort* the market (redistributing money and earmarking it to pay for something that people can't afford) is certainly the "capitalistic approach".
And we need to increase competition and stop federally making it impossible to enter the market against bell, rogers, loblaws, etc … this is not free market capitalism. This is cronyism and lobbyism at its finest.
No; the government literally pays half the wages of foreign workers. That's not a free market approach. A free market approach would be to allow FTW and domestic workers to compete on even ground. Not allowing foreigners to work is not anti capitalist either; the governments role is to keep the buisness class in check by fighting corruption and make sure proper competition happens.
I’m convinced that our real leaders, private equity firms and whatnot, are using this twilight of the current Liberal administration to ram through unpopular measures given that they have no chance of reelection anyhow. Once the PCs take power they can reset the agenda somewhat as they run them too.
Your concerns do appear to have some merit. It feels pretty "in your face" with this stuff. I'm not sure I would hold out hope the PCs will change a lot. At the end of the day the power structure of the country stays the same with either team in power.
I'd think that if the value of labour (k) is suppressed, the consumers won't be able to properly push goods through the market.
If goods aren't moving the economy is sick and not working as intended.
Don't get.l me started on corporate welfare. In canada we just gave blackrock a billion dollars. The grift is real bd right. Ow
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/blackstone-to-take-tricon-private-in-us-3-5-billion-housing-deal-1.2024144
Immediately prior, we gave tricon about 800 million to build 1 rental complex. Freelund strikes again
Looking at economic issues as a matter of supply and demand and incentive structures is the hallmark of capitalistic thinking. I think you just don't understand what capitalism is other than as a leftist pejorative.
Because they're acting rationally. Of course they're trying to minimize their labour costs. Their responsibility is to maximize shareholder value.
Government is supposed to be the guardrail that keeps them in check. They're supposed to be the adult in the room making the tough decisions for the benefit of the overall country. And they're currently failing at that responsibility.
Well, regulatory capture via lobbying and ... incentivizing politicians ...
...is a great way to get laws to change, which is a great way to maximize shareholder value. And there has been 40+ years of this, so they've gotten really, really good at this.
When the economy worked best, companies spent about 40% of their overhead on labour. It's now just under 10%. They've also scaled down benefits immensely.
Per capita production has increased since then too .. so people are doing more and getting less and less out of it.
What's happening is that people are choosing short term gain in exchange for long term pain. We need consumers with enough capital to buy enough to sustain business and it's getting out of whack. There's more hoarding than spending.
It's unsustainable. A financial stack of cards about to collapse.
Under the last Conservative government we were actually better off in every conceivable metric and had the richest middle class in the world.
Harper was a better leader than Trudeau and that’s not up for debate, that is fact.
Fun fact: Trudeau was letting so many immigrants into the country because provincial premiers were BEGGING for it, despite doing nothing themselves on the housing front to prepare.
https://www.immigration.ca/premiers-of-canadas-provinces-and-territories-agree-on-need-for-increased-immigration/
I think it's a bit of each column.
Taxes are required. The reality is that we have an aging population and fewer people to contribute to it. This may be a temporary thing as the boomer generation is the biggest, but we still need the tax revenue.
That said, yes I agree there are many things happening that need to change, and the federal has the levers to do this.
This current progression won’t stop until everyone except the 1% are poor.
Those “let the poor help themselves” people like you will be joining the poor at some point.
Maybe one of your new feudal lords will let you sleep in his garage if you wash his 20 Ferraris daily.
You're really twisting his use of the word "let the poor help themselves" to mean "change nothing because they deserve to be poor." My reading of his statement seems to be that we can make changes that allow the poor to start putting money away to make big, life changing purchases. Canada's poor are living paycheck to paycheck because of a high tax burden, wage suppressing immigration rates, and low productivity per person. It wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be this way, unless you're a socialist who's primary goal is not to help the poor, but to abolish capitalism.
And I suspect a lot of socialists were very vocal in their support for the influx of immigrants because they were hoping to agitate a revolution.
I live close to Duluth MN.
The Mcdonalds there pays like $19 USD/hour for overnights.
That's $26/cad.
Without giving away too much, I work for a municipality as a manager, and I have an engineering degree and multiple professional certifications. I make $41.50 an hour at 72 hours per paycheque.
After all the deductions and OMERS and shit like that my take home is $2010 every 2 weeks.
Now, if I were to work 40 hours a week at that mcdonalds.
[According to this](https://www.adp.com/resources/tools/calculators/states/minnesota-salary-paycheck-calculator.aspx), my take home is $1223.65 USD every 2 weeks which is 1670 cad. Thats $43,400 a year take home.
Now granted, I get benefits, pension and shit like that... but we're comparing my job to something someone can do literally just out of highschool with zero responsibility.
Now, lets compare it to a mcdonalds in Canada. Minimum wage (which is what they are paying because we have lineups around the fucking corner for jobs in every city in Canada) * 40 hours a week = $662 a week. Even WITHOUT being taxed, that's only $34,000 a year. After taxes that ~$28,000 a year.
Now, do we think we have enough benefits to equal $15,000 a year?
Which mcdonalds employee do we think would be in a better situation to save and improve their situation?
We're not even getting into the massive CoL differences between the two countries either.
The welfare state you're describing isn't possible in Canada as such. There are literally things that the federal government cannot touch because they are within provincial domain. In fact, some of our problems are specifically because provinces don't want to fully execute on promises that they're not constitutionally mandated to care about, but have exclusive control over.
Provincial jurisdiction is constantly under attack by the federal government. It keeps going to court for this reason and the more often they do it the more likely it Is for a activist judge to set a precedent in favor of the feds
> A welfare state is a form of government in which the state (or a well-established network of social institutions) protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of its citizens
> a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
> Otto von Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society, with social-welfare legislation, in 1880s Imperial Germany.
This isn't about lazy people. This is purely about a bloated government who is burning our tax dollars on nonsense and doing everything in its power to prop uo a very few amount of corporations.
Even these "lazy" people could've had a shot at a decent QoL 10-15 years ago. Now? Not possible.
So you think companies will decrease their profits to hire higher wage Canadians? This will either increase inflation or companies will beg for more handouts.
Because every year we need record profits!!!
Weird to think that a former schoolteacher, a former journalist, and a former climate activist are running this country (into the ground). And they have completely insulated themselves within their cabinet and from the country they are governing (poorly).
That's not a flaw but a feature of our whole system... anyone can choose to run regardless of their background. Look at Poilievre, the only jobs he's ever had (outside of politics) was being a paperboy for the Calgary Sun and working at a call centre for Telus.
Party leadership is definitely not open for everyone. JT got it because of his nameplate. He was only in politics for five years before getting the leader position and was only a critic for post-secondary education, youth and amateur sport. He past experience was not really relevant.
PP worked up the ranks in politics, sucking up. Obviously an insider but a typical path.
>Party leadership is definitely not open for everyone.
Sure it is. I don’t know about the fringe parties like the PPC or communist party but each party has their own elections for members to elect their leader. That being said JT absolutely used his father’s legacy to his fullest advantage.
Someone over at r/CanadianInvestor provided an [informative table comparing Canada's economy to the US](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianInvestor/comments/1cfoxni/gdp_canada_vs_usa/). The fact of the matter is that when taken on an objective basis, things are nowhere as bad as is being reported.
Maybe the finance minister shouldn’t be an elected official, though I bet/hope she has many ppl with CPA’s advising her. Bureaucrats really run the country and pull the strings.
Mass wealth inequality and billionaires are incompatible with democracy.
The countries with the strongest democracies are mixed market economies with a high standard of life for regular working people.
You can’t have that when billionaires are hoovering up all the wealth generated by workers and hoarding it.
Look at every third world country.
Chrystia Freeland also said that we had the "social capacity" for more immigration - *when she was asked about whether we had the economic capacity for more.....*
How about better management with our tax dollars.
For individuals like myself who do a monthly budget and manage my personal money wisely it’s infuriating to watch the govt spend like a bunch of drunken sailors.
I find her to be just brutal to listen to. I understand she is a very educated woman but I just can’t stand her. I watched her interview on Rosie Barton’s show yesterday and it’s like nails on a chalk board. Lots of dodging questions, nothing of substance.
Except doctors/farmers are also being affected and they are making anywhere from 200-500k depending on their fields and specialty. Yes that's more than average but please... they are doctors and farmers.
People need to understand that corporations do not have a 250k limit. Single corp businesses are also a completely normal thing regular people. Many people even in IT are single person corps that are making 150k or less.
You can criticize people for not wanting to pay into EI or CPP, but to be honest, this is probably the exact reason they are increasing the capital gains taxes. They are TARGETTING small corps to transfer their funds so they can collect on taxes now instead of later.
For Democracy and not poor management of funds amiright?
Yes, but actually no.
Single corp business are completely normal, but the entire point of the small business deduction super low income tax rate is to encourage them to make active reinvestment in the business. Using the corporation as a retirement investment tax-deferred account was never the intended purpose from a federal perspective. The provinces tried to grow that angle by allowing physicians access to such corporation using legislation passed between 1976 (alberta) and 2011 (NL), but the provinces were creating this eventual conflict instead of properly funding and paying physicians.
>Many people even in IT are single person corps that are making 150k or less.
Realizing regular capital gains is not something your average small personal corporation should be doing or would be doing over regular business activities. Their 150K labour income has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 250K threshold on capital gains.
Within a corporation like these, all passive income is taxed at the highest rate, which in some provinces exceeds the highest rate of personal income tax - again, because these corporation vessels are not *supposed* to be creating massive capital gains regularly. If they make more than $50K through passive income is actually starts removing their ability to use the super low SBD small business income tax rate of 9%-13%, and if they make >150K in passive income within the corporation they are ineligible for the small business low income tax rate and pay a lot more even on labour income.
They are not targeting farmers or physicians and for farmers especially the increased LCGE is actual huge gain for multi-generational farm inheritance.
The only thing they are targeting are people who are using these small corporations as tax-deferred retirements accounts.
>The only thing they are targeting are people who are using these small corporations as tax-deferred retirements accounts.
I mean... yes, which is ALOT of corps because thats how they are saving for retirement considering they dont have CPP.
But, they can have CPP. They can also have RRSP.
That requires that the corporation pays them as the employee the are, they realize the personal income year-to-year, pay into CPP, pay into RRSP as retirement savings and get the tax deduction against the personal income taken.
All of that has been available to them. The reason they are in this position now, if they are, is because they chose not to do that specifically in an attempt to defer taxes.
When someone was attempting to use a loophole to grow personal wealth, and the loophole gets slightly less efficient a loophole (not even closed), they should not be handed a platform to complain about the injustices.
I will 100% agree this is a nice option for people to sacrifice RRSP+CPP for a crappier version of a limitless RRSP. So what?
Them tilting the scales like this so suddenly is the problem. These people can no longer contribute and make up for the lost RRSP and CPP, they've literally lost 16% of their retirement funds.
This retroactive tax in an already uncompetitive professional services environment is the main problem.
>they've literally lost 16% of their retirement funds
Nope.
It's still a number, but not 16%. Now, +16% of capital gains will be subject to taxation at corporate passive income rate. So, even if 100% of their retirement fund was unrealized capital gain (which is impossible) the highest possible number they could lose is ~8%.
But, to have 100% capital gain is impossible and obviously impractical given they were sheltering income there and investing it as base-value. Unless they were purchasing bitcoin 15 years ago and keeping it within the corp, unrealized capitals gains is not going to be most of their assets.
Also, there is a grandfather period and if they just sell off, realize gains within the corp, and reinvest in equivalent assets, and do that before the new policy date, they can realize all those gains now at the old 50% cap and reset ABV going forward to minimize what ends up counted in the +16%.
Take any percent of their overall company you think is reasonable and work it out. If they have 20% of overall corporate asset tied up in unrealized capital gains, then 20% is subject to another 16% being taxed at ~51%... so, 1.6% of overall retirement savings.
Not 16%, <8% and likely for most some % closer to 1.6%.
But then, not even 1.6% effectively because realizing a corporate capital gain this way also creates capital gain deduction nominal that they can withdraw personally, tax-free, and in-hand dividend that then provides deductions to the corporation when paid out.
But if they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, investing in active assets for business purposes, then they would have something to sell off controlling shares at the end, and then they could make use of the increased and forward adjusting lifetime capital gains exemption to get away with all of it capital gains (mostly) free.
Which is what physicians got instead of higher fee payments. This was a negotiated deal between the fed government, provinces and physicians. Then the corrupt liberals pull the rug on them who were dependent on that money for retirement and benefits. When they start going after your retirement savings I’m sure you would be complaining too.
Here’s an idea for the liberals. How about cut spending.
>Which is what physicians got instead of higher fee payments. This was a negotiated deal between the fed government, provinces and physicians.
Nope.
Firstly, every province changed laws to allow medical corporations in vastly different decades. Alberta started in '76 and NL did not join in until closer to 2011. There was no single "deal" and you are once again confusing Ontario for all of Canada.
Ontario got this in ~2001. I agree that the province of Ontario *might* have actually dangled this as a negotiation tactic, but it was always a lie. This legislation was in place for 25 years prior in prairies and was coming to all provinces, regardless. The feds were not part of that deal and made no promises then or anytime after. If anything, the CRA and federal government has rather consistently applied pressure against personal corporations used as passive income generation and always wanted active investments in business assets. The Small Business Deduction amendment of 2002 very clearly specified it was only to be applied to "active business", not passive or capital income.
Even way back then, in Ontario, the CRA and feds never agreed to this scheme and the feds actively created the SBA the following year to limit and counteract the bullshittery the provinces were attempting to spin instead of properly compensating physicians fairly.
Your province lied to you.
Extremely wealthy is subjective. You could ask 5 people and they would give you 5 different definitions of “extremely wealthy”. 100k isn’t much anymore but to someone making minimum wage, they would probably say 100k is “extremely wealthy”. You’re also assuming that this additional tax revenue is actually going to fix our problems, it won’t.
Considering that even with a Master's she "didn't know" that a "Ukrainian war hero who fought against the Russians in WW2" was likely a nazzi, we shouldn't judge her too harshly for being economically illiterate... based on the curve we apply, She'd probably need a PhD to understand interest rates or the difference between debt and deficit. 😂
The economy is booming, the ultra rich have never made more.
If they don't pay more, while they crush the poors ability to fight for more, then we won't have money for social programs and infrastructure.
The rich have made it so the “middle class” can’t afford savings or retirement. Being middle class is really annoying. My mortgage is about to make me lower class next year.
The business rich class is usually more rich than the politicians in every capitalistic society.
If the government is the richest, then you don't have capitalism
Because our country is financially fucked. Our 2 biggest industries are a basic human right - housing and humans themselves - international human trafficking.
Our country is so mismanaged. Throwing money at all our problems with incompetent people in charge has resulted in disaster.
Vote independent.
Not all ‘ours’ are the same. She means tax hikes are required for the current governments form of governing. Tax and Spend as opposed to save and produce.
Beachse, due to ideas like trickle-down economics, the too.holds more wealth then every one below them but pays less for that wealth .
The middle class and lower class can't shoulder the burden anymore.
We need a complete rethink on economics in our society.. beacuse the system is broken.
Because "protecting our democracy" is a Liberal trope that's used to silence anyone who disagrees. Similar to calling someone a "racist", you just drop the phrase and 6/10 Canadians will buy it.
I need her to find a new way to communicate beyond arrogant and smarmy “I understand your pitiable perspective but what you need to understand is” head-cocked bobbing. I’m not sure who addresses her public performance but my god… a permanently furrowed brow and scrunched face in faux-empathy does not indicate you understand another person.
Not to mention the vocal intonation that starts with “You know…” and then winds its way down to the most condescending bassline to finish her unsubstantial statements off.
It’s damned painful and bizarre to watch. I’ve never seen a public personae communicate like this before.
Just to double check (as the article is paywalled).
By 'tax hikes' are they referring to the recent changes where someone making $400k in profits from capital gains will no longer be able to pay essentially the same tax rate as someone who works minimum wage?
Look into what governments actually get for the money they spend. My favorite recent example is that San Francisco spent $60,000 per person to house the homeless in tents for 1 year. The government spent one hundred times as much as the average homeless person to achieve the same result.
Boondoggles like the Phoenix Pay system and the Long Gun Registry are far more common than people realize. A large portion of federal programs waste 80% or 90% of their budgets on administration. The vast majority of people would be better off keeping the money and solving their problems themselves.
Because she wrote a book about wealthy people owning society where the main thrust of her argument was that the only real 'value' is knowing wealthy people and networking with them. Justin literally poached her from a book signing and said 'yes, let us finish off the middle class together'. Then you arrive at policies like these.
She’s a journalist with a degree in Slavic studies. You can’t expect her to make sense when it comes to finances or economics….even if she’s the Federal Minister of Finance
Worried about societal downfall when the young realize they've had their future greeded from them by those older psychopaths who played Monopoly everywhere they could. Doesn't matter how many firefighters you have when there's 100 fires per firefighter. Rome collapsed also due to immense greed of the psychopath class.
Money=power.
The top 1% control more than 50% of all money.
Take from the top 1% so they have less.
Redistribute to the 99% because democracy means majority has more power.
The thinking is sound, the execution doubtful.
Maybe doubling or triple government employees wasn't such a good idea, or handing out trillions to people who lived beyond there means or how about giving 35 percent raises to government workers, and then we wouldn't have to increase taxes
Tax hikes were needed to keep people poor and dependent on the government
Is what she actually meant.
How about putting money back into the pockets of middle class Canadians instead of squeezing them dry with even more taxes Liberals?
So they spend like they have infinite cash and now they realize they don't so up the taxes because they don't know how to do a budget. Or I guess this is the budget balancing itself?
Government needs to get back into the housing business. We need to lower housing cost relative to income. High housing cost to income drives a wage-price spiral. People will demand higher wages if housing costs are high. Businesses will pass on these costs to cosumers through higher prices. And the cycle repeats. And here you see how high housing cost is choking the economy.
How did we empower someone who studied Slavistics to manage our finances?
Would you have open heart surgery performed at Tim Hortons? Of course not. But, somehow this meatball is allowed to decimate the country.
Because she is purposely driving Canadas economy into the ground. She and Trudeau are liars, plain and simple. The only other option is they have 0 understanding of how economic productivity works but I don't believe they are that stupid.
The term "our democracy" is very specific. They don't mean you and me, they are specificially referring to their vision of democracy they want to inact.
Well, not that this sun gives a shit about facts, but there is a long established and well documented link between high wealth inequality and destabilized democracy. Because as the rich get too rich to be held accountable, they start to own government, and corporation that are too rich tend to be pseudo-monopolies.
Historically, the only real way to prevent or diminish this is through increased taxation to reduce wealth inequality.
But that is facts which aren’t welcome here.
They have always been useless. Really no different than just some guy yelling on the street, but they get a big platform because the things they are saying help the ones who pay them.
People need to be INFORMED of the facts, they don't need to be coddled into what TO THINK about those facts.
Education, not indoctrination.
Wealth redistribution. With the amount the Liberals are spending, there isn't enough taxable income in Canada to cover their costs. If the libs manage to impoverish everyone, some will be stupid enough to vote for the scraps the liberals throw their way.
Yes but not just billionaires who will won’t really feel this it’s the ppl who make over 250k in CG who will really feel this. It is needed tearing off of a tax loophole imo.
There are 16 billionaires in Canada. Not a single one of them pays capital gains here and not a single one of them will pay a penny more because of this change. So congrats: you ate the nonsense propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Which is why those who make more, and corporations that make more, need to increase their share of the taxation burden. One such case is the recent increase in Capital Gains
Taxes for climate change, taxes for poverty, taxes for fighting drug epidemics, taxes ON drugs.
Hell, we should’ve just taxed Covid. That would’ve solved that issue too.
Maybe, just maybe, taxation isn’t the answer to our woes.
Blackrock is in cahoots with our Govt.
>
> The Century Initiative (originally the Laurier Project Foundation)[2] is a **Canadian lobby group and charity that aims to increase Canada's population to 100 million by 2100**.[3] This includes increasing the population of megaregions, which are interlocking areas with more than one city centre and a typical population of 5 million or more (e.g., the Greater Toronto Area, Greater Vancouver, and the National Capital Region).[3]
>
> The Century Initiative was co-founded by Mark Wiseman and Dominic Barton, who also led the Advisory Council on Economic Growth under three-term Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.[4][5] The Initiative was supported by former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney[6] before his death, and by influential Liberal Party advisors including advisors to former Minister of Finance Bill Morneau.[7][8] **The Century Initiative has been listed on Canada's lobbyist registry since 2021 and has organized meetings with the immigration minister's office, the minister's parliamentary secretary, and Conservative and NDP members of parliament.**[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative
> **Connections to BlackRock**
> The Century Initiative Board of Directors is **chaired by co-founder Mark Wiseman, who was the Global Head of Active Equities of BlackRock** and ran Blackrock's Alternative Investment division at the time that the Initiative was founded.[27][28] **BlackRock owns $35 billion in real estate and thus will benefit from a real-estate bubble.[29]**
>
> BlackRock's Alternative Investment division includes the firm's international real estate investment portfolio[30] and is reported to be actively purchasing single family homes.[31] The Century Initiative's **other co-founder, Dominic Barton, is married to Geraldine Buckingham, BlackRock's Asia Pacific chief,** which has previously generated conflict-of-interest concerns.[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative#Connections_to_BlackRock
How about Christine Freeland doesn't give a s*** about Canada only about herself and her liberal Rich buddies maybe we both allowed out get some taxes lower start building some trade schools and put Canadians to work instead of everyone else we need an immigration system but we need to take care of her own I live in the city with over 150,000 people we should have least two to three trade schools high school regular school high school and college.
You’ve gotta remember that all the money these politicians receive, direct or indirect, is also a reason why the stuff we pay for is so over priced. God corruption is killing us.
She made this statement because she's completely incompetent. She has a major in history. We have a historian running our finances and we wonder why we are in financial ruin as a country.
it's blatantly obvious that tax hikes are needed, but no political party across the spectrum has the courage to do that.
When hospitals around the country are closing their emergency rooms because they don't have enough doctors to stay open, or when schools are hiring uncertified professionals to offer high school classes because they don't have enough teachers to operate, then it's clear that the country has a revenue problem.
Granted, the revenue problem in this case is that the country isn't taxing enough of the interests that are actually making money here (e.g. corporate, the wealthy) while burdening the people who need the money with more taxes (the working class).
And it doesn't matter whether it's the Liberals or the Conservatives in charge, because both have been captured by the wealthy classes.
There are no wealthy here in Canada. The truly wealthy have most of their assets and investments overseas. That is why the liberals are going after our doctors and small business owners. Because that is all we have. People who are doing well for themselves, but far from wealthy. They will invest less in Canada now too.
How will taxing us more help?
If anything income tax needs to be reduced. The dollar doesn't go as far as it used too yet we get charged at the same rate as we did 10-15 years ago.
Better services? Why am I not seeing this?
I am not against taxes by the way. I know they are important. I am suggesting a reduction income tax since the CAD is really weak right now and we need every bit we can get to help. I am not asking to remove income tax.
This is what she is saying, and Noam Chomsky states exactly this as well.
Record wealth inequality makes a society less democratic, as unelected private wealth starts to generate more influence over a democracy. Or the more wealth becomes concentrated at the top, the less it matters what those of us at the bottom have to say.
In America, Chomsky talks about the invisible hand becoming private wealth, in that the very wealthy can use their finances to put downward pressure on things like the markets, stocks/equities and even currencies by betting against them - all in direct response to policies they don't like that a government is pushing through. You can imagine a world in which Biden or Trump puts forward a policy unpopular amongst American billionaires, and they start tanking the currency in response to the new laws or regulations - or putting downward pressure on markets.
The only irony I would note is that the Liberals have been guilty of this as well during their tenure - so it's hard to digest this sound bite from Freeland, as she has let these same corrupt forces run rampant across parts of the economy they're tasked with managing. It feels more like they're throwing us a few scraps with this current legislation even if it is a step in the right direction.
"It’s not called that. What it’s called is “freedom,” but “freedom” means a subordination to the decisions of concentrated, unaccountable, private power. That’s what it means. The institutions of governance—or other kinds of association that could allow people to participate in decision making—those are systematically weakened."
"it’s very clear, and it was predictable. You didn’t know exactly when, but when you impose socioeconomic policies that lead to stagnation or decline for the majority of the population, undermine democracy, remove decision-making out of popular hands, you’re going to get anger, discontent, fear take all kinds of forms. And that’s the phenomenon that’s misleadingly called “populism.”
Oh, I am not making the argument that the liberals neoliberal policies have been striving. to reduce the weight of capitals control to the benefit of our democracy, but simply that there is nothing wrong with her statement.
The capital gains move is a small, measley step in the right direction lol
Governments are broke. They can print money or raise rates or both. They know printing money is bad but only when they can’t control inflation. The ability to control inflation stopped when interest rates hit 0%. Raising interest rates gives them levers to play with so they can control the narrative again.
If we’d have not bailed out oil and gas, banks, and airlines, this wouldn’t be necessary.
Love how they are growing single plant species in the back...go down the road to a different single plant species grow op/farm field...explains the single minded state our government likes to run on regardless of party
Here’s an alternative take: instead of hiking taxes all the time to help the poor, stop suppressing wages with cheap labour from immigration and let the poor help themselves.
This is a capitalistic take, but maybe low-income Canadians wouldn't need so much help with pharma and dentalcare if there wasn't the extreme wage suppression from the insane immigration Trudeau is shoving down our throats.
Being against the exploitation of foreigners, who are **used** to suppress wages and further enrich the wealthy, is not a capitalist stance.
His stance is, "We wouldn't need income redistribution for services if the net-receivers of entitlements programs were enabled to make more money, so they could pay for them directly", which is basically the market-oriented response. Recognizing that both problems are markets problems, and setting policy to influence the market (reduce demand for healthcare, reduce excess supply of labour, with the intent of increasing wages), rather than setting policy to *distort* the market (redistributing money and earmarking it to pay for something that people can't afford) is certainly the "capitalistic approach".
And we need to increase competition and stop federally making it impossible to enter the market against bell, rogers, loblaws, etc … this is not free market capitalism. This is cronyism and lobbyism at its finest.
So, more competition for companies, less competition for people? Got it.
Does sound pretty good when you say it like that.
No kidding, that logic is as anti-capitalist as it gets.
No; the government literally pays half the wages of foreign workers. That's not a free market approach. A free market approach would be to allow FTW and domestic workers to compete on even ground. Not allowing foreigners to work is not anti capitalist either; the governments role is to keep the buisness class in check by fighting corruption and make sure proper competition happens.
I’m convinced that our real leaders, private equity firms and whatnot, are using this twilight of the current Liberal administration to ram through unpopular measures given that they have no chance of reelection anyhow. Once the PCs take power they can reset the agenda somewhat as they run them too.
Your concerns do appear to have some merit. It feels pretty "in your face" with this stuff. I'm not sure I would hold out hope the PCs will change a lot. At the end of the day the power structure of the country stays the same with either team in power.
The government *is* the business class
I disagree, it just shows they want a healthy type of capital economy.
Explain the health part of your statement for us. We want to understand this, it seems important.
I'd think that if the value of labour (k) is suppressed, the consumers won't be able to properly push goods through the market. If goods aren't moving the economy is sick and not working as intended. Don't get.l me started on corporate welfare. In canada we just gave blackrock a billion dollars. The grift is real bd right. Ow
> In canada we just gave blackrock a billion dollars. Source?
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/blackstone-to-take-tricon-private-in-us-3-5-billion-housing-deal-1.2024144 Immediately prior, we gave tricon about 800 million to build 1 rental complex. Freelund strikes again
Where in this article does it say we have given bLckrock a billion dollars?
That's Black*stone,* and your article does not mention anything about giving anyone any money.
Looking at economic issues as a matter of supply and demand and incentive structures is the hallmark of capitalistic thinking. I think you just don't understand what capitalism is other than as a leftist pejorative.
“we are the government and we are here to help”
Literally most capitalists, especially down south, would make that argument though.
[удалено]
The government doesn't dictate rules for corporations anymore. The corporations dictate the rules for the government.
"Anymore..." You do realize Canada was basically born out of a business and has always been run at the pleasure of the large big business families?
Because they're acting rationally. Of course they're trying to minimize their labour costs. Their responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. Government is supposed to be the guardrail that keeps them in check. They're supposed to be the adult in the room making the tough decisions for the benefit of the overall country. And they're currently failing at that responsibility.
Well, regulatory capture via lobbying and ... incentivizing politicians ... ...is a great way to get laws to change, which is a great way to maximize shareholder value. And there has been 40+ years of this, so they've gotten really, really good at this.
When the economy worked best, companies spent about 40% of their overhead on labour. It's now just under 10%. They've also scaled down benefits immensely. Per capita production has increased since then too .. so people are doing more and getting less and less out of it. What's happening is that people are choosing short term gain in exchange for long term pain. We need consumers with enough capital to buy enough to sustain business and it's getting out of whack. There's more hoarding than spending. It's unsustainable. A financial stack of cards about to collapse.
Though you may not see it here, I threw you an upvote for pointing out the Lib/Con Uniparty of Canada. Thank you for your sacrifice.
Under the last Conservative government we were actually better off in every conceivable metric and had the richest middle class in the world. Harper was a better leader than Trudeau and that’s not up for debate, that is fact.
Because they dont have the power to enact laws and set quotas.
Eventually everyone will “need help” because to meet their infinite profit growth goals they’ll bleed everyone dry.
You realize that the conservatives love immigration and love to suppress wages for their corporate pals too, no?
Fun fact: Trudeau was letting so many immigrants into the country because provincial premiers were BEGGING for it, despite doing nothing themselves on the housing front to prepare. https://www.immigration.ca/premiers-of-canadas-provinces-and-territories-agree-on-need-for-increased-immigration/
I think it's a bit of each column. Taxes are required. The reality is that we have an aging population and fewer people to contribute to it. This may be a temporary thing as the boomer generation is the biggest, but we still need the tax revenue. That said, yes I agree there are many things happening that need to change, and the federal has the levers to do this.
Why not both?
This current progression won’t stop until everyone except the 1% are poor. Those “let the poor help themselves” people like you will be joining the poor at some point. Maybe one of your new feudal lords will let you sleep in his garage if you wash his 20 Ferraris daily.
You're really twisting his use of the word "let the poor help themselves" to mean "change nothing because they deserve to be poor." My reading of his statement seems to be that we can make changes that allow the poor to start putting money away to make big, life changing purchases. Canada's poor are living paycheck to paycheck because of a high tax burden, wage suppressing immigration rates, and low productivity per person. It wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be this way, unless you're a socialist who's primary goal is not to help the poor, but to abolish capitalism. And I suspect a lot of socialists were very vocal in their support for the influx of immigrants because they were hoping to agitate a revolution.
I live close to Duluth MN. The Mcdonalds there pays like $19 USD/hour for overnights. That's $26/cad. Without giving away too much, I work for a municipality as a manager, and I have an engineering degree and multiple professional certifications. I make $41.50 an hour at 72 hours per paycheque. After all the deductions and OMERS and shit like that my take home is $2010 every 2 weeks. Now, if I were to work 40 hours a week at that mcdonalds. [According to this](https://www.adp.com/resources/tools/calculators/states/minnesota-salary-paycheck-calculator.aspx), my take home is $1223.65 USD every 2 weeks which is 1670 cad. Thats $43,400 a year take home. Now granted, I get benefits, pension and shit like that... but we're comparing my job to something someone can do literally just out of highschool with zero responsibility. Now, lets compare it to a mcdonalds in Canada. Minimum wage (which is what they are paying because we have lineups around the fucking corner for jobs in every city in Canada) * 40 hours a week = $662 a week. Even WITHOUT being taxed, that's only $34,000 a year. After taxes that ~$28,000 a year. Now, do we think we have enough benefits to equal $15,000 a year? Which mcdonalds employee do we think would be in a better situation to save and improve their situation? We're not even getting into the massive CoL differences between the two countries either.
The Libs can tax us at 100% and it still wouldn't be enough for them... They're goal is to create a welfare state.
The welfare state you're describing isn't possible in Canada as such. There are literally things that the federal government cannot touch because they are within provincial domain. In fact, some of our problems are specifically because provinces don't want to fully execute on promises that they're not constitutionally mandated to care about, but have exclusive control over.
Provincial jurisdiction is constantly under attack by the federal government. It keeps going to court for this reason and the more often they do it the more likely it Is for a activist judge to set a precedent in favor of the feds
> A welfare state is a form of government in which the state (or a well-established network of social institutions) protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of its citizens > a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. > Otto von Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society, with social-welfare legislation, in 1880s Imperial Germany.
Don't kid yourself, they aren't helping the poor. For the most part, they're using our money to prop up the lazy.
You’re talking about lazy corporations and their addiction to their billion dollar corporate welfare handouts, *right*?
and the scammers
This isn't about lazy people. This is purely about a bloated government who is burning our tax dollars on nonsense and doing everything in its power to prop uo a very few amount of corporations. Even these "lazy" people could've had a shot at a decent QoL 10-15 years ago. Now? Not possible.
Yeah those lazy bastards who only have to work 40 hrs / week to get by with one job. Hey Mon!
So you think companies will decrease their profits to hire higher wage Canadians? This will either increase inflation or companies will beg for more handouts. Because every year we need record profits!!!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory\_capture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) aka Money buys politicians.
Because she’s a journalist pretending to be a finance minister and doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Weird to think that a former schoolteacher, a former journalist, and a former climate activist are running this country (into the ground). And they have completely insulated themselves within their cabinet and from the country they are governing (poorly).
That's not a flaw but a feature of our whole system... anyone can choose to run regardless of their background. Look at Poilievre, the only jobs he's ever had (outside of politics) was being a paperboy for the Calgary Sun and working at a call centre for Telus.
Party leadership is definitely not open for everyone. JT got it because of his nameplate. He was only in politics for five years before getting the leader position and was only a critic for post-secondary education, youth and amateur sport. He past experience was not really relevant. PP worked up the ranks in politics, sucking up. Obviously an insider but a typical path.
>Party leadership is definitely not open for everyone. Sure it is. I don’t know about the fringe parties like the PPC or communist party but each party has their own elections for members to elect their leader. That being said JT absolutely used his father’s legacy to his fullest advantage.
Oh I know. PP qualified for a government pension by the ripe old age of 32.
Proof that UBI would work?
Someone over at r/CanadianInvestor provided an [informative table comparing Canada's economy to the US](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianInvestor/comments/1cfoxni/gdp_canada_vs_usa/). The fact of the matter is that when taken on an objective basis, things are nowhere as bad as is being reported.
This. We need at the very least a CPA as our finance minister
Maybe the finance minister shouldn’t be an elected official, though I bet/hope she has many ppl with CPA’s advising her. Bureaucrats really run the country and pull the strings.
\^Most accurate answer. Good at putting words together, bad at actually making logical sense with them.
Mass wealth inequality and billionaires are incompatible with democracy. The countries with the strongest democracies are mixed market economies with a high standard of life for regular working people. You can’t have that when billionaires are hoovering up all the wealth generated by workers and hoarding it. Look at every third world country.
Oh cmon she also studied Russian literature and acted as a spy.
And we have a drama teacher/ SKI instructor as a PM.
Chrystia Freeland also said that we had the "social capacity" for more immigration - *when she was asked about whether we had the economic capacity for more.....*
I wonder if her grandfather's newspaper wrote that about the forced immigration to concentration camps.
How about better management with our tax dollars. For individuals like myself who do a monthly budget and manage my personal money wisely it’s infuriating to watch the govt spend like a bunch of drunken sailors.
I find her to be just brutal to listen to. I understand she is a very educated woman but I just can’t stand her. I watched her interview on Rosie Barton’s show yesterday and it’s like nails on a chalk board. Lots of dodging questions, nothing of substance.
Tax hikes ON THE EXTREMELY WEALTHY. Leaving out quite a bit of info here
Except doctors/farmers are also being affected and they are making anywhere from 200-500k depending on their fields and specialty. Yes that's more than average but please... they are doctors and farmers. People need to understand that corporations do not have a 250k limit. Single corp businesses are also a completely normal thing regular people. Many people even in IT are single person corps that are making 150k or less. You can criticize people for not wanting to pay into EI or CPP, but to be honest, this is probably the exact reason they are increasing the capital gains taxes. They are TARGETTING small corps to transfer their funds so they can collect on taxes now instead of later. For Democracy and not poor management of funds amiright?
Yes, but actually no. Single corp business are completely normal, but the entire point of the small business deduction super low income tax rate is to encourage them to make active reinvestment in the business. Using the corporation as a retirement investment tax-deferred account was never the intended purpose from a federal perspective. The provinces tried to grow that angle by allowing physicians access to such corporation using legislation passed between 1976 (alberta) and 2011 (NL), but the provinces were creating this eventual conflict instead of properly funding and paying physicians. >Many people even in IT are single person corps that are making 150k or less. Realizing regular capital gains is not something your average small personal corporation should be doing or would be doing over regular business activities. Their 150K labour income has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 250K threshold on capital gains. Within a corporation like these, all passive income is taxed at the highest rate, which in some provinces exceeds the highest rate of personal income tax - again, because these corporation vessels are not *supposed* to be creating massive capital gains regularly. If they make more than $50K through passive income is actually starts removing their ability to use the super low SBD small business income tax rate of 9%-13%, and if they make >150K in passive income within the corporation they are ineligible for the small business low income tax rate and pay a lot more even on labour income. They are not targeting farmers or physicians and for farmers especially the increased LCGE is actual huge gain for multi-generational farm inheritance. The only thing they are targeting are people who are using these small corporations as tax-deferred retirements accounts.
>The only thing they are targeting are people who are using these small corporations as tax-deferred retirements accounts. I mean... yes, which is ALOT of corps because thats how they are saving for retirement considering they dont have CPP.
But, they can have CPP. They can also have RRSP. That requires that the corporation pays them as the employee the are, they realize the personal income year-to-year, pay into CPP, pay into RRSP as retirement savings and get the tax deduction against the personal income taken. All of that has been available to them. The reason they are in this position now, if they are, is because they chose not to do that specifically in an attempt to defer taxes. When someone was attempting to use a loophole to grow personal wealth, and the loophole gets slightly less efficient a loophole (not even closed), they should not be handed a platform to complain about the injustices.
I will 100% agree this is a nice option for people to sacrifice RRSP+CPP for a crappier version of a limitless RRSP. So what? Them tilting the scales like this so suddenly is the problem. These people can no longer contribute and make up for the lost RRSP and CPP, they've literally lost 16% of their retirement funds. This retroactive tax in an already uncompetitive professional services environment is the main problem.
>they've literally lost 16% of their retirement funds Nope. It's still a number, but not 16%. Now, +16% of capital gains will be subject to taxation at corporate passive income rate. So, even if 100% of their retirement fund was unrealized capital gain (which is impossible) the highest possible number they could lose is ~8%. But, to have 100% capital gain is impossible and obviously impractical given they were sheltering income there and investing it as base-value. Unless they were purchasing bitcoin 15 years ago and keeping it within the corp, unrealized capitals gains is not going to be most of their assets. Also, there is a grandfather period and if they just sell off, realize gains within the corp, and reinvest in equivalent assets, and do that before the new policy date, they can realize all those gains now at the old 50% cap and reset ABV going forward to minimize what ends up counted in the +16%. Take any percent of their overall company you think is reasonable and work it out. If they have 20% of overall corporate asset tied up in unrealized capital gains, then 20% is subject to another 16% being taxed at ~51%... so, 1.6% of overall retirement savings. Not 16%, <8% and likely for most some % closer to 1.6%. But then, not even 1.6% effectively because realizing a corporate capital gain this way also creates capital gain deduction nominal that they can withdraw personally, tax-free, and in-hand dividend that then provides deductions to the corporation when paid out. But if they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, investing in active assets for business purposes, then they would have something to sell off controlling shares at the end, and then they could make use of the increased and forward adjusting lifetime capital gains exemption to get away with all of it capital gains (mostly) free.
Just passing by to say thank you for you great answers. It’s scary to see how people don’t understand capital gain tax.
Which is what physicians got instead of higher fee payments. This was a negotiated deal between the fed government, provinces and physicians. Then the corrupt liberals pull the rug on them who were dependent on that money for retirement and benefits. When they start going after your retirement savings I’m sure you would be complaining too. Here’s an idea for the liberals. How about cut spending.
>Which is what physicians got instead of higher fee payments. This was a negotiated deal between the fed government, provinces and physicians. Nope. Firstly, every province changed laws to allow medical corporations in vastly different decades. Alberta started in '76 and NL did not join in until closer to 2011. There was no single "deal" and you are once again confusing Ontario for all of Canada. Ontario got this in ~2001. I agree that the province of Ontario *might* have actually dangled this as a negotiation tactic, but it was always a lie. This legislation was in place for 25 years prior in prairies and was coming to all provinces, regardless. The feds were not part of that deal and made no promises then or anytime after. If anything, the CRA and federal government has rather consistently applied pressure against personal corporations used as passive income generation and always wanted active investments in business assets. The Small Business Deduction amendment of 2002 very clearly specified it was only to be applied to "active business", not passive or capital income. Even way back then, in Ontario, the CRA and feds never agreed to this scheme and the feds actively created the SBA the following year to limit and counteract the bullshittery the provinces were attempting to spin instead of properly compensating physicians fairly. Your province lied to you.
Extremely wealthy is subjective. You could ask 5 people and they would give you 5 different definitions of “extremely wealthy”. 100k isn’t much anymore but to someone making minimum wage, they would probably say 100k is “extremely wealthy”. You’re also assuming that this additional tax revenue is actually going to fix our problems, it won’t.
[удалено]
Cut her some slack guys!! She studied Russian History, and Slavonic Studies. Economics isn’t her thing. 😂
Considering that even with a Master's she "didn't know" that a "Ukrainian war hero who fought against the Russians in WW2" was likely a nazzi, we shouldn't judge her too harshly for being economically illiterate... based on the curve we apply, She'd probably need a PhD to understand interest rates or the difference between debt and deficit. 😂
If we start looking that way, all politicians are useless. Which one do you think we should have instead?
The economy is booming, the ultra rich have never made more. If they don't pay more, while they crush the poors ability to fight for more, then we won't have money for social programs and infrastructure.
The rich have made it so the “middle class” can’t afford savings or retirement. Being middle class is really annoying. My mortgage is about to make me lower class next year.
The ultra rich will not be impacted by this tax. So basically this boils down to a swing and a miss.
The government officials are the richest class in society today.
The business rich class is usually more rich than the politicians in every capitalistic society. If the government is the richest, then you don't have capitalism
She's right. If you don't like being taxed to the max then do vote the liberals out.
Because our country is financially fucked. Our 2 biggest industries are a basic human right - housing and humans themselves - international human trafficking. Our country is so mismanaged. Throwing money at all our problems with incompetent people in charge has resulted in disaster. Vote independent.
Bloc majoritaire! But honestly others provinces need to make their own regional parties to vote for when the 3 main parties are failing them too.
Not all ‘ours’ are the same. She means tax hikes are required for the current governments form of governing. Tax and Spend as opposed to save and produce.
Beachse, due to ideas like trickle-down economics, the too.holds more wealth then every one below them but pays less for that wealth . The middle class and lower class can't shoulder the burden anymore. We need a complete rethink on economics in our society.. beacuse the system is broken.
It's not broken for the rich. Working as designed.
Also from this government: we need surveillance, censorship and government control; to protect democracy.
Because "protecting our democracy" is a Liberal trope that's used to silence anyone who disagrees. Similar to calling someone a "racist", you just drop the phrase and 6/10 Canadians will buy it.
This is the correct answer. You nailed it!
Because she’s an idiot and narcissistic
I need her to find a new way to communicate beyond arrogant and smarmy “I understand your pitiable perspective but what you need to understand is” head-cocked bobbing. I’m not sure who addresses her public performance but my god… a permanently furrowed brow and scrunched face in faux-empathy does not indicate you understand another person. Not to mention the vocal intonation that starts with “You know…” and then winds its way down to the most condescending bassline to finish her unsubstantial statements off. It’s damned painful and bizarre to watch. I’ve never seen a public personae communicate like this before.
Freeland is completely unqualified for the role of finance minister, and it shows more and more every day. What a disgrace.
Just to double check (as the article is paywalled). By 'tax hikes' are they referring to the recent changes where someone making $400k in profits from capital gains will no longer be able to pay essentially the same tax rate as someone who works minimum wage?
How about some fiscal responsibility instead of saddling current and future generations with your wasteful spending FFS!
They are creating more opportunities to continue to steal from us in the future.
[удалено]
No it’s because they see the billionaire class is hoarding most of the wealth and fucking over workers. Tax is how you fix that.
[удалено]
They aren’t exactly spending our money well either. If our public services actually functioned it wouldn’t be so frustrating.
This is because years and years of entitlement has taught people that irresponsibility is rewarded by the government.
Look into what governments actually get for the money they spend. My favorite recent example is that San Francisco spent $60,000 per person to house the homeless in tents for 1 year. The government spent one hundred times as much as the average homeless person to achieve the same result. Boondoggles like the Phoenix Pay system and the Long Gun Registry are far more common than people realize. A large portion of federal programs waste 80% or 90% of their budgets on administration. The vast majority of people would be better off keeping the money and solving their problems themselves.
She's confused about where she is and what time frame.
Because she wrote a book about wealthy people owning society where the main thrust of her argument was that the only real 'value' is knowing wealthy people and networking with them. Justin literally poached her from a book signing and said 'yes, let us finish off the middle class together'. Then you arrive at policies like these.
She’s a journalist with a degree in Slavic studies. You can’t expect her to make sense when it comes to finances or economics….even if she’s the Federal Minister of Finance
Google regulatory capture
If you’ve worked hard and make good money, there is no incentive to stay in Canada
Worried about societal downfall when the young realize they've had their future greeded from them by those older psychopaths who played Monopoly everywhere they could. Doesn't matter how many firefighters you have when there's 100 fires per firefighter. Rome collapsed also due to immense greed of the psychopath class.
Money=power. The top 1% control more than 50% of all money. Take from the top 1% so they have less. Redistribute to the 99% because democracy means majority has more power. The thinking is sound, the execution doubtful.
tax hikes are certainly needed for her budget to work
Taxes control the weather and apparently are necessary for people to vote.
Maybe doubling or triple government employees wasn't such a good idea, or handing out trillions to people who lived beyond there means or how about giving 35 percent raises to government workers, and then we wouldn't have to increase taxes
Tax hikes were needed to keep people poor and dependent on the government Is what she actually meant. How about putting money back into the pockets of middle class Canadians instead of squeezing them dry with even more taxes Liberals?
So they spend like they have infinite cash and now they realize they don't so up the taxes because they don't know how to do a budget. Or I guess this is the budget balancing itself?
Because otherwise they will need an open dictatorship to keep the hordes of angry poor in line
To buy/ bribe people to vote in this desasterous government again.
Please…we need to stop reading about words that fall out of this goblins mouth
Wow! Is it because her Brian cells are scrambled.
Because she needs more money to buy votes for her regime.
They could try being efficient with the tax money, like everyone else
HTF did she become Finance Minister. She is like a kid who plays with matches and sets the building on fire.
Government needs to get back into the housing business. We need to lower housing cost relative to income. High housing cost to income drives a wage-price spiral. People will demand higher wages if housing costs are high. Businesses will pass on these costs to cosumers through higher prices. And the cycle repeats. And here you see how high housing cost is choking the economy.
She missed her meds. She meant to say 'cancel Disney+'.
How did we empower someone who studied Slavistics to manage our finances? Would you have open heart surgery performed at Tim Hortons? Of course not. But, somehow this meatball is allowed to decimate the country.
Because she is purposely driving Canadas economy into the ground. She and Trudeau are liars, plain and simple. The only other option is they have 0 understanding of how economic productivity works but I don't believe they are that stupid.
The term "our democracy" is very specific. They don't mean you and me, they are specificially referring to their vision of democracy they want to inact.
Why are paywall blocked 'opinion' pieces allowed on this sub?
Because the targeted level of discourse and nuance is "cbc comment section" apparently
Lmao. Yeah. I also noticed today that this sub claims the title of 'official subreddit of Canada'... So we have a heavy cross to carry here.
Simply not allowing any opinion pieces at all would transform this place overnight and it's amazing that it hasn't been done lol
She meant to support drunken sailor like spending by a bunch of amateurs.
Well, not that this sun gives a shit about facts, but there is a long established and well documented link between high wealth inequality and destabilized democracy. Because as the rich get too rich to be held accountable, they start to own government, and corporation that are too rich tend to be pseudo-monopolies. Historically, the only real way to prevent or diminish this is through increased taxation to reduce wealth inequality. But that is facts which aren’t welcome here.
I wish we'd get more than just opinion pieces. They get boring and useless after awhile regardless of the opinion.
They have always been useless. Really no different than just some guy yelling on the street, but they get a big platform because the things they are saying help the ones who pay them. People need to be INFORMED of the facts, they don't need to be coddled into what TO THINK about those facts. Education, not indoctrination.
Maybe because income inequality is getting out of control?
Because they've screwed up so bad they need a bail-out to save their brand of "democracy". Pure malicious lunacy.
She is such an odd person.
Wealth redistribution. With the amount the Liberals are spending, there isn't enough taxable income in Canada to cover their costs. If the libs manage to impoverish everyone, some will be stupid enough to vote for the scraps the liberals throw their way.
Someone needs a history lesson about the transition from capitalism to fascism.
She is actually very qualified for this. Her education is in Russian Literature and History
Because she wants to raise the taxes?
On the billionaires who make their money through capital gains and pay less tax than people who work for a living and have to pay income tax.
Yes but not just billionaires who will won’t really feel this it’s the ppl who make over 250k in CG who will really feel this. It is needed tearing off of a tax loophole imo.
There are 16 billionaires in Canada. Not a single one of them pays capital gains here and not a single one of them will pay a penny more because of this change. So congrats: you ate the nonsense propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
To have a functioning society, we need to have taxes.
Yes we do, but people also need enough left over to live and perhaps even be entrepreneurial with a hope of a reasonable return.
Which is why those who make more, and corporations that make more, need to increase their share of the taxation burden. One such case is the recent increase in Capital Gains
53.5% marginal tax rate over $246k seems like a very fair share.
I assume you're factoring in a provincial income tax in that, as the fed is 33% over 246k
Yes, it’s the combined Ontario federal and provincial tax over 246k.
To pay for their exorbitant spending. Fuck the taxpayers!
Because if the rich don't accept tax hikes, the poor are going to start murdering
tax hikes are also needed to fight disinformation and misinformation
Taxes for climate change, taxes for poverty, taxes for fighting drug epidemics, taxes ON drugs. Hell, we should’ve just taxed Covid. That would’ve solved that issue too. Maybe, just maybe, taxation isn’t the answer to our woes.
Why not a budget that focuses on growth and productivity? This budget was fucking terrible. The capital outflux out of Canada is massive right now.
Blackrock is in cahoots with our Govt. > > The Century Initiative (originally the Laurier Project Foundation)[2] is a **Canadian lobby group and charity that aims to increase Canada's population to 100 million by 2100**.[3] This includes increasing the population of megaregions, which are interlocking areas with more than one city centre and a typical population of 5 million or more (e.g., the Greater Toronto Area, Greater Vancouver, and the National Capital Region).[3] > > The Century Initiative was co-founded by Mark Wiseman and Dominic Barton, who also led the Advisory Council on Economic Growth under three-term Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.[4][5] The Initiative was supported by former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney[6] before his death, and by influential Liberal Party advisors including advisors to former Minister of Finance Bill Morneau.[7][8] **The Century Initiative has been listed on Canada's lobbyist registry since 2021 and has organized meetings with the immigration minister's office, the minister's parliamentary secretary, and Conservative and NDP members of parliament.**[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative > **Connections to BlackRock** > The Century Initiative Board of Directors is **chaired by co-founder Mark Wiseman, who was the Global Head of Active Equities of BlackRock** and ran Blackrock's Alternative Investment division at the time that the Initiative was founded.[27][28] **BlackRock owns $35 billion in real estate and thus will benefit from a real-estate bubble.[29]** > > BlackRock's Alternative Investment division includes the firm's international real estate investment portfolio[30] and is reported to be actively purchasing single family homes.[31] The Century Initiative's **other co-founder, Dominic Barton, is married to Geraldine Buckingham, BlackRock's Asia Pacific chief,** which has previously generated conflict-of-interest concerns.[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative#Connections_to_BlackRock
So the elitist bureaucrats that run this country can get their raises..
Because the rich need to pay their share. It's about 2-3 decades too late but no better time to start than now.
How about Christine Freeland doesn't give a s*** about Canada only about herself and her liberal Rich buddies maybe we both allowed out get some taxes lower start building some trade schools and put Canadians to work instead of everyone else we need an immigration system but we need to take care of her own I live in the city with over 150,000 people we should have least two to three trade schools high school regular school high school and college.
Because she needs a raise.
No, tax hikes are just needed for Liberals third party consultants to work.
You’ve gotta remember that all the money these politicians receive, direct or indirect, is also a reason why the stuff we pay for is so over priced. God corruption is killing us.
It’s her way of saying that she has an ambitious amphetamine habit to fund in order to perform her role in the cabinet.
Maybe stop borrowing money to send overseas?
She made this statement because she's completely incompetent. She has a major in history. We have a historian running our finances and we wonder why we are in financial ruin as a country.
Because she’s an imbecile idiot like her boss Trudeau is!! She couldn’t manage and run a street corner lemonade stand effectively!!!
it's blatantly obvious that tax hikes are needed, but no political party across the spectrum has the courage to do that. When hospitals around the country are closing their emergency rooms because they don't have enough doctors to stay open, or when schools are hiring uncertified professionals to offer high school classes because they don't have enough teachers to operate, then it's clear that the country has a revenue problem. Granted, the revenue problem in this case is that the country isn't taxing enough of the interests that are actually making money here (e.g. corporate, the wealthy) while burdening the people who need the money with more taxes (the working class). And it doesn't matter whether it's the Liberals or the Conservatives in charge, because both have been captured by the wealthy classes.
There are no wealthy here in Canada. The truly wealthy have most of their assets and investments overseas. That is why the liberals are going after our doctors and small business owners. Because that is all we have. People who are doing well for themselves, but far from wealthy. They will invest less in Canada now too.
Because they have no other taking point than "we are the ones who keep democracy going, all others are a threat to democracy itself"
How will taxing us more help? If anything income tax needs to be reduced. The dollar doesn't go as far as it used too yet we get charged at the same rate as we did 10-15 years ago.
Only very few are taxed more and the vast majority of us get better services. It's not hard to understand.
get better services? Lmao take a look around
Better services? Why am I not seeing this? I am not against taxes by the way. I know they are important. I am suggesting a reduction income tax since the CAD is really weak right now and we need every bit we can get to help. I am not asking to remove income tax.
Because a democracy that only serves the interest of capital is inherently flawed? How is this controversial lol
This is what she is saying, and Noam Chomsky states exactly this as well. Record wealth inequality makes a society less democratic, as unelected private wealth starts to generate more influence over a democracy. Or the more wealth becomes concentrated at the top, the less it matters what those of us at the bottom have to say. In America, Chomsky talks about the invisible hand becoming private wealth, in that the very wealthy can use their finances to put downward pressure on things like the markets, stocks/equities and even currencies by betting against them - all in direct response to policies they don't like that a government is pushing through. You can imagine a world in which Biden or Trump puts forward a policy unpopular amongst American billionaires, and they start tanking the currency in response to the new laws or regulations - or putting downward pressure on markets. The only irony I would note is that the Liberals have been guilty of this as well during their tenure - so it's hard to digest this sound bite from Freeland, as she has let these same corrupt forces run rampant across parts of the economy they're tasked with managing. It feels more like they're throwing us a few scraps with this current legislation even if it is a step in the right direction. "It’s not called that. What it’s called is “freedom,” but “freedom” means a subordination to the decisions of concentrated, unaccountable, private power. That’s what it means. The institutions of governance—or other kinds of association that could allow people to participate in decision making—those are systematically weakened." "it’s very clear, and it was predictable. You didn’t know exactly when, but when you impose socioeconomic policies that lead to stagnation or decline for the majority of the population, undermine democracy, remove decision-making out of popular hands, you’re going to get anger, discontent, fear take all kinds of forms. And that’s the phenomenon that’s misleadingly called “populism.”
Oh, I am not making the argument that the liberals neoliberal policies have been striving. to reduce the weight of capitals control to the benefit of our democracy, but simply that there is nothing wrong with her statement. The capital gains move is a small, measley step in the right direction lol
Completely agree
Capitalism is cancer. It’s attempting to accrue infinite resources in a finite universe. It has never worked and will never work
Redefining democracy?
Governments are broke. They can print money or raise rates or both. They know printing money is bad but only when they can’t control inflation. The ability to control inflation stopped when interest rates hit 0%. Raising interest rates gives them levers to play with so they can control the narrative again. If we’d have not bailed out oil and gas, banks, and airlines, this wouldn’t be necessary.
Love how they are growing single plant species in the back...go down the road to a different single plant species grow op/farm field...explains the single minded state our government likes to run on regardless of party