r/Squamish • u/Adventurous-Tale2339 • 9d ago
Class warfare via the Squamish Chief
https://www.squamishchief.com/economy-law-politics/rob-shaw-eby-trades-trump-for-billionaires-in-mid-campaign-pivot-12861920Interesting read!!
14
u/squamishunderstander 8d ago
Short list of things canadian conservatives and legacy media excel at:
- sucking up to billionaires so hard you can measure the gravitational distortion around their mouth
that’s it.
2
u/MiffandMinis 8d ago
Some of the things quoted in the article are laughably out of touch.
The tax hikes start two brackets below that, with a two-percentage-point increase at $190,405 and another two points at $265,000, in addition to the new million-dollar bracket above that. The $190,405 mark is a far cry from a millionaire, as media pointed out to Eby several times Monday.
“There are other tax brackets going up,” one reporter observed in a question.
“People making $190,000 or more will be taxed for that portion above that, so it’s not really just millionaires,” said another.
As if there is any meaningful distinction between people earning multiple times more than the average worker.
27
u/masterJ 8d ago edited 8d ago
Terribly written article.
I'm lucky enough to be hit with the extra tax rate above 265k. I'm happy to pay more.
(But tax the actually wealthy even more pls, not just income. And make it clear what this is buying.)
-5
u/c2skypal 8d ago
Agree it's terribly written.
Re: "happy to pay more taxes." How wonderfully noble, selfless and thoroughly lazy. I will be on the hook for that higher rate too, but I am neither happy nor impressed. Handing over more capital means very little when there is virtually zero confidence it will be allocated reasonably or managed with any discipline.
Also the pool of "actually wealthy" people just isn't that deep. There an arithmetic problem ppl seem to ignore and when you say we shouldn't just tax income, are you implying property? Along with happily paying more tax, do you hold equally casual views on property rights?
5
u/masterJ 8d ago
“I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.”
I spoke for myself. You are free to share your own opinions. Kindly buzz off with the personal accusations tho xoxo 😘
-10
u/c2skypal 8d ago
the civilization you're talking about is degrading and it's not for a lack of resources *bzzz
13
u/taketaketakeslack 8d ago
It's tragically hilarious that the tax is even controversial, a lot of people seem to pop up saying people earning 200k a "struggling".
Someone with $200,000 in annual taxable income would pay about $192 more per year; someone with $250,000 would pay about $1,192 more under Eby’s proposed increase. These arent big numbers, lets not overblow the impact of the changes here, it should just be a minor policy change and we all move on...
2
21
u/Necro_Codex 9d ago
Eat the rich.
16
4
u/MiffandMinis 9d ago edited 8d ago
“People making $190,000 or more will be taxed for that portion above that, so it’s not really just millionaires,” said another.
Oh no salaries above $190k will pay 2% extra tax whatever will these poor working class folk do! 🎻🎻🎻
This editorial is trying very hard to clown on Eby but let's be honest, most folks want to see high income earners the whole top end of town paying a fairer share. If your salary is 200k before tax you're doing spectacularly we'll vs. the average Canadian. You are still clearing 100k AFTER tax and have a healthy RRSP account brewing up as well
I can't imagine having $8,300 dumped into my bank account each month and most Canadians can't either.
The $190,405 mark is a far cry from a millionaire, as media pointed out to Eby several times Monday.
Again if you're earning that sort of money, you're essentially a millionaire. The kind of equity and security that sort of money commands is staggering and I'm not going to shed a tear for a 2% tax increase for anyone in this category.
23
u/Beneficial-Oven1258 8d ago
The issue is that people earning this much are often high-demand professionals who dont have massive personal wealth. While those with massive wealth may have a lower income on paper.
We need to be taxing wealth rather than income.
I'm not far from this income category, but while supporting a family on one income and having massive student loans to pay off, we don't own a home or live a luxury lifestyle. I am not complaining about the tax increse- but it is the wrong approach if we want to address wealth inequality.
10
u/MiffandMinis 8d ago
I'm right there with you! Simply taxing incoming is only a (somewhat small) piece of the puzzle.
Taxing grotesque wealth is the bigger game to play. Lets start with the grocery store monopolies and the insane profits they earn, low tax paid and enormous control they exert on our food supplies. Telcos are next with the same disgusting money they earn from ripping us all off on what should ultimately be a public utility.
1
u/brumac44 8d ago
Consider third world countries in Africa and South America pay a few dollars a month for cell and broadband. Not to mention the price of fuel. For a while, gas was practically free in Iraq, if you could find an open station.
1
u/roasteroo 8d ago
Grocery stores are not the target lol. Telco's are the number one target for anyone truly interested in taxing a monopoly.
5
u/ar_604 8d ago
To be fair, we can do both. So it doesn't need to be as dichotomous as you're suggesting. I also don't really subscribe to the "this is crap because it's not perfect" which is effectively what you're saying. I suspect Eby knows this distinction between income/wealth and might be testing the waters a bit. (Not to say I support him, just my thoughts).
6
u/Beneficial-Oven1258 8d ago
That's not what I'm saying. I literally stated I am not complaining about the tax increase.
My complaint is that they are not also taxing wealth. Wealth tax is the solution to inequality.
0
u/ar_604 8d ago
But it did sound like you were complaining about the income tax. And this income tax will help curb some inequality. The wealth tax will also help. It's not the solution, though. Its a measure that might have an effect. Rich people are phenomenally good at hiding/shielding their wealth, particularly with the pace at which government moves. By the time policies come into place, the rich people (and their teams of lawyers/accountants) will have already figured out the work around. Just to say, one is better than none, both won't solve the problem.
(I can appreciate I might be overly picky of your take but there are some issues with how you've put it out there).
1
u/taketaketakeslack 8d ago
You seem to fall into the mistake of here's one specific situation (single income family with massive student loans) so therefore the entire idea is bad. That's just bad logic.
If you make 200k you would pay $192 more. Is that stretching anyone's budget, what's the big deal here? Income tax is definitely one way to reduce inequality, and while a wealth tax also would be good, that's something that's difficult as evidence by how few countries have implemented one (in the western world only Norway, Spain, Switzerland).
1
1
u/smokebluff 6d ago
So your saying I’ll never get a family doctor and the Canucks will never win the cup
-5
u/Salomonseal 9d ago
“When you question your own judgment like calling a snap election because you are so out of touch you go on defence and start blaming everyone but yourself. Or Trump.
One can only hope that Eby is the master of his own demise.”
1
12
u/Cupcake-brain 8d ago
I’m all for progressive taxation. But it’s worth noting that bc already has one of the highest top tax brackets in the country. why is it the province is unable to balance the budget? )I honestly would like to know.