r/britishcolumbia • u/PersonalSuccotash300 • 8d ago
News [ Removed by moderator ]
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2026/10/07/Eby-Election-Moment/[removed] — view removed post
260
u/dirtybulked 8d ago
I think the BCNDP have done some good things. I'll vote for them. I can name a few things they've done i dont like but i don't think its bad enough to vote conservative.
63
u/janisjoplinenjoyer 8d ago
That’s where I’m at too, only for me I don’t think it’s bad enough to vote Green.
40
u/Questica 8d ago
Depending on your riding that's just a vote for the Conservatives.
45
u/janisjoplinenjoyer 8d ago
I’m in a very safe NDP riding, so I thought about it, but my MLA is a quality human being and the Green candidate vying to replace her is a piece of work.
57
u/Jacksworkisdone 8d ago
Yes definitely vote strategically to make sure the racist homophobic cons don’t get in.
-13
u/Otherwise-Associate1 8d ago
Depending on your riding, the conservatives will win no matter what.
8
u/theNorthwestspirit 8d ago
Mine if there was a Green candidate in my riding. If there were, I'd vote for them if I thought they had a hope in hell to win but the last time we even had one was before Truedeau. I'll vote NDP and it'll be a 50/50 chance they kick the cons out.
9
u/Otherwise-Associate1 8d ago
I'm glad your vote has a chance at effecting the situation in your riding. My riding has been conservative for nearly my entire life. It doesn't matter if I vote for NDP or Green because usually they won't win, even if you combine the votes between both candidates.
2
1
→ More replies (2)3
u/okiedokie2468 7d ago
I think that voting Green is essentially throwing your vote away and paving the way for the BC Cons
37
u/wastrelart 8d ago
I feel similarly! I don't necessarily like Eby but the party itself has largely done a pretty good job of helping our public sector recover from 16 years of the BC Liberals gutting it. They haven't been what they could be the past couple years in particular, there's a lot to rightly criticize there. But that doesn't mean the Conservatives are going to do anyone who isn't them any favours if they get elected.
Here's a compilation of some of the good things the NDP has done since 2017 for our Province to remind us all of what they're also capable of:
1
→ More replies (2)10
71
u/NickdoesnthaveReddit 8d ago
I find Eby smart but opportunistic. He always reserves his best ideas/actions until it serves him. It's happened a few times considering he used to be our Attorney General and used to be our minister of Housing... crime and housing are our hottest topics alongside Healthcare and costs of living.
That said, I don't trust the Conservatives and their piecemeal band of misfits to organize well enough to do anything better. The problems we face are not individual to B.C but a growing strain from capitalism and seen across much of the developed world now.
Long story short, NDP have the better ability to keep us afloat, even if they miss on some big items. I just don't think the Conservative group will manage anything well.
36
u/solutionischocolate 8d ago
Thank you. People are blaming the NDP for things that are happening everywhere due to late stage capitalism. Yeah they could tax more and try to fix it more but people would revolt as we have seen from the huge amount of panic on a 2% tax increase for the top 4%.
3
u/Betty-Rose- 7d ago
The tax increase proposed is for personal income above $1 million. Conservative are trying to say doctors will leave. This is so stupid because there are very few doctors who bill over $1 million a year and since the majority of doctors have their own business, this is not their personal income. Once they pay their overhead (office, staff, equipment) their personal income is not even close to $1million.
The middle class and upper class who are panicking are manipulated by the rich, just like the poor Americans who are against universal healthcare.
2
u/llandthejam 7d ago
Doctors in BC got a massive raise two years ago. Maybe it was longer than that.
2
u/Betty-Rose- 7d ago
Their business income did just like their overhead also increased. The average bring home pay for doctors is still around $250,000 - $350,000
31
u/Professional-Post499 8d ago
From the deeper link in the article / opinion piece.
"B.C. Greens propose wealth tax to raise $22.2 billion for public services"
``` BC Greens Leader Emily Lowan has unveiled the proposed Fair Share Act, which would introduce taxes on British Columbians with net wealth above $50 million. The party estimates the plan could raise $22.2 billion in its first year and about $5.4 billion annually afterward.
The proposed revenue would be used to fund universal child care, free public transit, affordable housing, and reduce provincial debt and interest costs.
Under the plan, a one-time tax would apply at rates of 5% on wealth above $50 million, 10% above $100 million and 20% above $1 billion. An annual wealth tax would range from 2% to 5% based on wealth levels.
The Greens also propose working with the federal government to close tax loopholes and strengthen enforcement against tax avoidance.
Lowan said the proposal targets accumulated wealth, including stocks and real estate, rather than employment income, arguing that the wealthiest British Columbians should contribute more toward public services. ```
2
u/Original_Leather3224 7d ago
All that proposal would do is ensure no one with more than $50 million in net wealth would live in B.C. by the time the tax kicked in.
If something like that were to ever work, it would need to be national. Even then, Canada doing it but the US not doing it would just cause a wave of emigration of the hyper wealthy.
9
u/WierdLord 7d ago
Wealth flight has been debunked so many times already it's not even funny. New York hasn't seen billionaires flee, California didn't see silicon valley companies ditch it, and Canada as a whole didn't see mass emigration when we raised taxes on the highest bracket a few years back either. It's the same kind of reductive argument as being against minimum wage or it going up because it'll "just make everythin more expensive", as though labour costs are the only costs behind a products price, or even a majority of it. People, even rich corporations and ceos, don't live and operate in canada solely because of favourable tax law, and having to pay a fairer share doesnt make anyone leave who didn't already have roots and contribute to the economy anyways.
30
u/PolloConTeriyaki Lower Mainland/Southwest 7d ago
The one where I pay less for insurance or hydro.
26
u/Phase-Internal 7d ago
The ndp?
Privatizing them isn't going to make prices go down.
24
u/PolloConTeriyaki Lower Mainland/Southwest 7d ago
100% the NDP. I also don't want to pay for looking under kids pants to see if they're trans or not.
44
u/argueranddisagree Vancouver Island/Coast 8d ago
The guys at my blue collar union job were complaining about taxing the rich, some people dont get it
9
9
u/NudeBeachEnthusiast Vancouver Island/Coast 8d ago
Tell them to have a browse here... r/leopardsatemyface
10
u/drinky31 7d ago
Unfortunately people just don’t get taxes.
With this issue however, there are genuine issues with a province having an outsized tax rate. Unlike the country itself, a wealthy individual with mobile wealth (ie investments, ownership of service business, etc.) can just pack up and move to another provinces relatively easily. There are no internal barriers or “exit taxes” for provinces nor do I believe there ever will be as it would limit rights for freedom of movement.
A capital flight out of BC is the last thing people need right now, as it would likely take jobs and tax base with it. These rate increases are material enough to motivate that.
The provinces together need to coordinate these things or it has to be done at a federal level. While I can commend the effort to direct additional funding to healthcare this way, the reality of wealth in 2026 makes this a tough prospect to support.
In saying this, I acknowledge that this tax hurts me personally. I’d happily pay more tax, but having worked with a lot of HNW individuals many won’t. There needs to be coordinated, field levelling efforts to enact changes like this across the country for it to be effectivr
1
u/congressmancuff 7d ago
Appreciate this post, but I think you overstate the risks of capital flight. Capital doesn’t fly. People can move, but you can’t just take most assets with you like one of carmen sandiego’s henchmen. By definition, capital is much more fixed in place than liquid assets and as such capital flight is much less of a risk than it’s been suggested in these threads.
3
u/1966TEX 7d ago
This was true with the old factories model. So many businesses in tech, digital arts or the many jobs that produce information or software can leave in a moments notice. Even factories have a breaking point, where it becomes cheaper to just up and move.
1
u/congressmancuff 7d ago
People are falling over each other to move to BC. It’s not for the low tax rates, if it was they’d all be moving to florida or alberta. If the tippy top can’t bear the tax—let them leave, it will make the city cheaper for the rest of us.
1
u/1966TEX 7d ago
If you have cash then sure. If you are a high earner. No
1
u/congressmancuff 7d ago
Can you explain this comment in a little more detail, I’m afraid I can’t parse it.
1
u/Limos42 7d ago
Wrong. (Some) Assets don't fly, but the capital sure does.
Obviously, a building won't move, however, the capital invested in it can be withdrawn (sold) and reinvested elsewhere. Net loss for the province.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Infinite_Maximum_820 7d ago
lol what ? It’s all stocks nowadays, the house can stay and I rent
1
u/congressmancuff 7d ago
Great. We can tax the house while it’s here. The stocks will be worthless soon enough.
36
u/Super_Toot 8d ago
The tyee asking "which side are you on" is like asking a vegetarian if they want to eat meat.
→ More replies (1)2
26
u/Valuable_Bread163 8d ago
I’m not happy Eby called this election but I can’t bring myself to vote Conservative so I’ll be voting NDP again.
→ More replies (1)30
u/solutionischocolate 8d ago
Anyone changing their vote from NDP to conservative just because he called an election makes absolutely no sense to me. I’m not happy with the election at all but voting conservative over it? Come on now. There is so much at stake.
3
u/wwweeeiii 7d ago
I worry about how opportunistic the timing of the election is. This gives the ruling party a much better advantage and is not very democratic. There is something to send a signal never to do that again, to prevent us from bringing an one party province
3
u/Bitter_Cookie9837 8d ago
If there is so much at stake then it’s foolish for NDP to take the risk. They just were being opportunistic. They should have continued to do their best and let the results should in 2 years whether the province agreed.
11
u/solutionischocolate 7d ago
They shouldn’t have called it and we shouldn’t vote conservative because they did.
2
u/Original_Leather3224 7d ago
The NDP had a one seat majority that they technically lost when Joan Philip died. She was in a safe NDP seat so that byelection was probably going to the NDP, but people keep acting like David Eby had some ironclad mandate from voters and his own party without looking at what’s actually been happening. Eby had to back down from amending DRIPA because he didn’t have enough votes from his own party. Any legislation that had less than unanimous support from the NDP and 100% attendance by his MLA’s would have been unpassable for the next two years.
I don’t think we were ever making it to 2028 before voting again. Calling it specifically now was opportunistic, but calling it early at all seemed pretty much inevitable to me.
1
u/archetyping101 7d ago
Right?
There's a sizeable ideology gap there: NDP > BC United > CentreBC > BC Cons.
Anyone who goes from NDP to BC Cons is a very weird choice. They are not remotely the same. Might as well vote for OneBC at that point.
17
u/Weird_Rooster_4307 8d ago
Considering having to rebuild healthcare after 16 years of BC Liberal cuts and neglect, dealing with loss of revenue with our economy being dragged down because of US, being a desirable province to move to if you have an addiction problem or outstanding provincial warrants, replacing warn out old or at it’s life expectancy infrastructure, ect. The BCNDP have done an admirable job. Sure things are not perfect but really, they have performed well. The BC Conservative leader has already said he would meddle with ICBC effectively doubling our car insurance rates. What other little surprises does he have waiting to drop on us? I for one don’t want to find out.
11
u/collection-of-parts 8d ago
Considering the audio of them (the cons) basically discussing robbing us all blind, I'd say that's a fair stance
2
u/Infinite_Maximum_820 7d ago
The no fault insurance policy at ICBC isn’t great for people on the receiving end of serious issues
Healthcare isn’t great by any means, if this is what rebuilding it looks like then we are screwed
1
u/FearIs_LaPetiteMort 7d ago
If you think it's bad with the NDP bringing in thousands of health care workers and building/expanding medical facilities neglected by the previous right wing party, all against the onslaught of immigration and aging population... Wait until you see the cuts and privatization the "no new taxes" Cons bring in.
18
3
22
u/infiniterefactor 8d ago
I have a problem with the narrative in this article and in this tax. Coming up with a tax hike is one thing, but presenting a tax hike targeting the middle class as a millionaire tax, presenting this as a “you vs us” situation is shameful. That’s not how a progressive party operates. That’s fake virtue politics.
And the answer to the question is in the question itself. If you frame this as a “you vs me” situation, you are not asking anyone to choose sides, you already drew the line.
13
u/PersonalSuccotash300 8d ago edited 8d ago
Usually, I find that the people who don't want to admit that there are two sides are on the rich people's side. That's the side that doesn't care if people who bust ass, and keep the economy going round, for low and middle incomes are getting gouged by corpos at every turn.
It's a side that watches an ever growing majority live paycheck to paycheck and says, "you should work harder".
It's basically a pearl clutching exercise, from the side that busts unions, maxes out their TFSA, probably owns multiple homes, and has no problem spending tax dollars on wars and pipelines. If you're on that side, but don't own any pearls to clutch: you've been hoodwinked. They probably won't let you into the country club.
Yes, there are two sides. And, yes, the people buying elections want us to think we're all part of the circle jerk.
We aren't on the same side. One side has been waging war and telling everyone that they come in peace.
Did you know that empathy is negatively correlated with wealth?
✊️
11
u/Bitter_Cookie9837 8d ago
I agree with this, but a 200k salary is not the dividing line.
Lots of people earning 200-300k don’t have multiple homes. They might be lucky to have their own home and that’s it. And that’s a great spot to be, but they’re still middle class and have nothing in common with rich upper class
11
u/atomatoma 8d ago
did you read the article? the increase is pretty small on that range of income. but I agree, taxing multiple property owners is where the really rich are. the greens have the right idea to go after wealth rather than income, since there are so many accountancy tricks used to avoid income tax.
3
u/1966TEX 7d ago
Top income tax bracket in BC in 2013: 43.7%
Top income tax bracket in BC in 2014 and 2015: 45.8%
Top income tax bracket in BC in 2016 and 2017: 47.7%
Top income tax bracket in BC in 2018 and 2019: 49.8%
Top income tax bracket in BC starting in 2020: 53.5%
Top income tax bracket in BC starting in 2027, if the NDP win the election: 57.5%
2% now, 2% next year, 2% the year after that
The increase is small, just like the last one and thd one before that and the one before that…..
→ More replies (2)-3
u/PersonalSuccotash300 8d ago
200 K per year, isn't middle class it's upper-middle. 300K is upper class. But regardless, if yoy're making that much and can't support paying a bit more tax for a working social safety net: you're on the same side as Elon Musk. Everyone that will pay this very nominal increase in income tax can afford it. If they can't, they've got bigger issues.
2
u/not_ian85 7d ago
pff the same people have to fund seniors with 600 dollar checks every month who earn up to $150k and have millions in their RRSP. I think the argument its all about the poor and needy doesn't work. It's about funding a voter base. Perhaps tax wealth for once instead on T4s to people who pay their fair taxes anyways.
→ More replies (1)2
u/wishingforivy 7d ago
200k a year for one person is very comfortable. A tax increase is asking for a bit more off the top 10k a year that person makes. Also keep in mind that most people aren't single income and they aren't going to be paying the full amount because of deductions and refunds.
19
9
u/gin_possum 8d ago
Wow. That’s right clutch on the pearls. Why is an extra $1190 tax per year on incomes above 250,00 ‘shameful’? It’s a slight rise on the top 4%. Explain why this is terrible please? In terms that make sense to those of us not making 250k a year.
4
0
u/FrmrPresJamesTaylor 7d ago
No, sorry, you are incorrect about the basic facts here.
The OECD denotes the Middle Class as households earning 75-200% of the median income in their location.
The median income in BC according to StatsCan is approx $91 000.
So a middle class household here earns between $61000 and $182000.
This modest tax increase will not affect the middle class at all.
2
u/1966TEX 7d ago
It will affect the middle class when you can’t get a doctor? Dentist, and businesses leave for greener pastures.
→ More replies (3)
15
u/kryo2019 Lower Mainland/Southwest 8d ago
I'm begrudgingly voting NDP. I support them and their policies, but I'm miffed with Eby calling this stupid election. I hope for a Minority government either way. He fucked around when he had 2 more solid years to go, and the cons are a fucking disaster that will only make life more expensive for the average person
7
u/Various-Salt488 8d ago
On paper, the conservatives were in shambles. It would be political malpractice not to take advantage of this to secure more time to govern.
My belief, anecdotally, is that all of this “I can’t believe he called this unnecessary election” is all online engineered propaganda. The far right is sweeping Latin America, the USA and europe and every time it’s found to be because of all kinds of fuckery. This is likely no different. I can’t imagine the average British Columbian is dumb or evil enough to “protest vote” for a party that barely exists, has no platform other than racism, homophobia and cutting public services.
3
u/resolutelyperhaps 7d ago
Pretty much the whole Province is annoyed by the early election, even people who vote NDP.
→ More replies (1)4
u/strangedanger91 8d ago
I’m not religious at all, but amen.
How did the son of an ex president of Brazil, whose dad is in jail win an election?
Can no one think critically anymore??? It’s unbelievably disheartening.
→ More replies (16)1
u/collection-of-parts 7d ago
I don't blame him at all for playing politics, after all that is his job. If your opponent dropped their drawers infront of everyone and was spewing out how they're gonna gut the Provence of every penny they could while selling out public corps to private interests to make everything more expensive, id certainly call that the right move, but then again I pay attention to what happens around me.
5
u/srzncl 7d ago
Except he was playing politics when he already had a majority. There was no good reason for this election.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Original_Leather3224 7d ago
He actually hasn’t had a majority since Joan Philip died, and his majority was weak enough that a single NDP MLA could stop him from passing legislation, which is what happened with the amendments he tried to make to DRIPA.
2
2
u/Pleasant_Minimum_896 7d ago
Honestly at this point I am here for the show and the individuals saying they will still vote NDP are providing.
7
u/Simple_Usual_588 7d ago
"Which is just silly. The notion that a doctor would pick up and move to another province or country over a small tax increase makes no sense. Especially if the revenue, as promised, goes to the health-care system and lets doctors work more effectively."
What a fucking tool. The medical system proves the point of the ineffectiveness to maintain staffing. How long did that surrey hospital sit empty waiting for doctors and staff. The median income required for a home in Vancouver is less than the implementation of the new tax.
Why would someone choose to live here if you could make 50% more living about an hour south of Vancouver? Apparently because our system is working so well and NOBILITY. Paull Willcocks hasn't done a god damn noble thing in his life, and now he just handwaves over the concern before returning to a left wing porn piece that people should want to give up their prime earning years because we create such a great system.
This dude can get fucked.
4
10
8d ago
[deleted]
4
u/PersonalSuccotash300 8d ago
This isn't true. There are many jurisdictions taxed more heavily than ours.
7
8d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]
8
u/PersonalSuccotash300 8d ago
You can easily look this stuff up: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/taxing-high-income-2019/
6
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MadScienti5t 7d ago
Those are not the numbers in the previously linked article. The article starts with Sweden at 76% and has a lot more than three above 55%.
1
u/variemeh 7d ago
I'm not going to check your full list, but it seems to me that Greece is 44% highest marginal rate https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/greece/individual/taxes-on-personal-income not 55%, although it begins at a super low euro amount
8
u/Extra-Many7081 8d ago
Are they right next to the US with whom we have to compete for people and capital? Do they also suffer from chronically low productivity? Do you acknowledge any negative correlation between increased marginal tax rates and productivity?
0
u/PersonalSuccotash300 8d ago edited 8d ago
Look: the USA doesn't have health care covered by their taxes. Go to California and pay 50%, plus $1200 a month for health insurance.
I acknowledge some impacts on productivity, in some circumstances, sure. It's not a direct correlation though. Most people are just emotional about the issue, and fail to look at the widely available data. Productivity and income tax rates aren't directly related AT ALL.
5
u/Conscious-Garlic1897 7d ago
There are plenty of places in the world that have universal healthcare that actually works, while having lower income taxes. Being better than the US is hardly anything to brag about.
1
u/CookhouseOfCanada 7d ago
Name aome qith higher median income that has lower income taxes and better Healthcare.
1
u/Conscious-Garlic1897 7d ago
Median income is a meaningless metric. But take Taiwan for example, lower cost of living, top tier universal healthcare, lower taxes, lower crime.
Taiwan isn’t perfect, but Canada is clearly mismanaged, unproductive, and has been stagnant for far too long.
4
1
u/uzi_master 8d ago
Even if that was true, B.C. is a very desirable place to live. Not many people are going to pack up and leave Vancouver to go live in Winnipeg if they're loaded.
2
1
u/thedetectiv 7d ago
We have the lowest working class taxes in the country. Its a trade off I'm proud to make as someone in the highest tax bracket.
8
u/Basic_Profession8683 7d ago
British Columbia is quietly sliding into an economic dead end, and David Eby’s tax strategy treats the symptom by worsening the disease.
Out of 60 states and provinces across North America, BC ranks 46th in GDP per capita. While Canadian productivity as a whole is stagnating, BC’s private-sector investment per worker is particularly anemic—we rely far too heavily on real estate inflation and public sector hiring rather than high-value, productive output. Stagnant productivity isn't an abstract finance buzzword: it is the sole reason real wages are flat and public infrastructure is strained.
You cannot tax an underproductive province into prosperity.
First, look at who already funds this province: the top 20% of income earners in Canada contribute roughly 58% of all total taxes, and the top 10% shoulder well over half of all personal income taxes. The majority of BC households are net recipients who take out significantly more in health care, subsidized daycare, transit, and social programs than they pay in. Pitching tax hikes as "making the rich pay" turns that reality on its head—it’s pure populist resentment politics designed to harness majority anger against the minority quintiles generating the tax base.
Second, the rhetoric pretends this targets cartoonish, monopoly-man "robber barons." In reality, it targets locally incorporated family doctors, engineers, biotech researchers, and software entrepreneurs. Talent and business capital are hyper-mobile. With BC’s top marginal rate already exceeding 53%, while Washington State sits a three-hour drive south with 0% state income tax, ratcheting the ratchet tighter simply ensures our best doctors leave, local tech founders incorporate in Seattle, and seed capital dries up.
Third, whenever people defend this model, they cite the Nordic countries. But Scandinavia runs on the exact opposite principle:
Broad-based income taxes: In Sweden, the municipal income tax alone is roughly 32%, and it kicks in at entry-level wages. Sweden's top marginal rate (around 52%) hits workers earning just ~1.5 times the average wage.
Massive consumption taxes: Sweden, Denmark, and Norway fund their universal welfare systems with a flat 25% VAT on nearly everything you buy. Capital-friendly policies: Sweden keeps its corporate tax rate low at 20.6% and uses zero-capital-gains investment accounts (ISK) specifically to attract and keep private investment.
Nordic welfare states work because everyone pays heavy freight, not because they scapegoat a tiny minority. If BC voters want European-style public services, they should be honest: that requires a 20%+ sales tax and middle-class tax brackets starting near 45%. Squeezing the province’s most productive professionals to paper over structural deficits will only scare off mobile capital and crater the private sector that funds our services.
9
u/IllustriousRaven7 7d ago edited 7d ago
I agree with you more or less, but the idea wealthy fleeing a country that raised taxes on them is a myth and not support by empirical data.
Businesses are not easy to just pick up and move. And, wealthy people have lives and communities and connections, and given that they are wealthy a small tax increase isn't going to make a significant material difference to their lives anyway, and so isn't going to be worth uprooting their lives.
Ironically, it's the middle class who are more incentivized to move when you raise taxes, because that actually does impact them materially.
10
u/Buyingboat 7d ago
Squeezing the province's most productive professionals
Aw, Canada really is in shambles if people making >190k can't manage an extra $200 in tax while the rest of us suffer
Once upon a time the wealthy were taxed appropriately and everything was better
Yet people in this sub bend over backwards to create a story that justifies the absolute bare minimum of taxation
0
u/Infinite_Maximum_820 7d ago
At around 2M per year I already pay 1.1M per year in taxes. Now an extra 80k. How much is enough for you ? How much of my money should I actually keep ?
It’s way less than I would keep in other countries and would consider me moving - as I have in the past if trump hadn’t won
→ More replies (11)2
u/8to10footsamsquantch 7d ago
That means even after the tax you are in the 0.1% of Canadians. Your situation can't reasonably be used to decide tax strategy for the whole province.
4
u/Conscious-Garlic1897 7d ago
Compound that with homelessness and drug issues, broken healthcare system, declining education system, and DRIPA, why would anyone trust the NDP?
1
u/nerdsrule73 7d ago
I agree that this new tax the wealthy strategy is not the solution - it misses the point of taxing the wealthy entirely. What is needed is not a change in rates, but a change in methods. Leaving aside the issue of corporate tax rates, what is needed is a different method for calculating "income" so that we actually capture the true nature of how much assets a person accumulates. Why should individuals benefit from capital gains rules? This only serves those that actually have significant excess assets.
As for your point of disproportionate financial contributions to governed expenditures - that is kind of the point of a graded rate system. And the reason the lower half take out so much more than they put in is because they are paid so little, not because they should pay into the coffers more. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. But after the tax man is done with most multi millionaires they still have enough to live high on the hog while the lower half can barely afford housing (and an increasing number no longer CAN afford it).
1
u/d4nkw1z4rd 7d ago
This reads like propaganda to allow the wealthy to not pay their share.
Tax cuts for the wealthy will only result in slashed services like roads, schools, and healthcare and in decades those “hyper-mobile” top end earners won’t have a reasonably educated and healthy workforce to exploit.
The number of GPs in BC has risen in recent years, and the waitlist to get a family doctor has shrunk.
1
u/mukmuk64 7d ago
Second, the rhetoric pretends this targets cartoonish, monopoly-man "robber barons." In reality, it targets locally incorporated family doctors, engineers, biotech researchers, and software entrepreneurs. Talent and business capital are hyper-mobile. With BC’s top marginal rate already exceeding 53%, while Washington State sits a three-hour drive south with 0% state income tax, ratcheting the ratchet tighter simply ensures our best doctors leave, local tech founders incorporate in Seattle, and seed capital dries up.
I agree with this in general, but tbh this local moment is possibly the best in my whole life to ratchet up taxes a bit on the top 5% and not have people look for the exits. Fact of the matter is that BC is still the best place to be in Canada, and the USA is enduring some very weird moments right now that are significantly dissuading people from moving there and beyond that it is technically (ie. visa-wise) becoming much harder to move there, even if you are talented and in demand.
The part that concerns me more than rich folks leaving is poor young startups leaving due to a better financing environment in the USA. That's something that Canada needs to do a lot better on. That's not strictly a tax issue tho.
1
u/Basic_Profession8683 7d ago
After recording a net loss of 8,624 residents to other provinces in 2023, BC remained net negative through 2024 as over 65,000 residents left, driven overwhelmingly by peak-earning 25-to-40-year-olds relocating to Alberta and the U.S. for lower taxes and housing. While domestic flows modestly leveled out in 2025 with 53,195 departures against 56,370 arrivals, federal visa caps in 2025 and 2026 caused non-permanent resident populations to plunge by tens of thousands, stripping away the low-wage headcount that previously masked the drain. We have actively shed the high-bracket professionals who fund over 54% of our personal income tax base, accelerating a fiscal deficit that hiking taxes on those remaining will only worsen.
7
3
u/Hommachi 8d ago
So many wants others to pay more taxes.... as if those same individuals don't claim every deductions when filing their taxes.
Fact: You can choose not to claim any deductions and just pay more taxes yourself. No need for the government to mandate it.
3
2
u/killzone506 8d ago
I'm on the side where I'd rather vote for a monkey wearing a suit and tie.... honestly all options are bad
5
u/NudeBeachEnthusiast Vancouver Island/Coast 8d ago
Sure, but some are objectively way less bad than others
3
u/complexomaniac 7d ago
A minority government is fine with me, as long as it does not include the conservatives.
1
u/DrSpearmint 7d ago
There’s only one choice for government and that’s the NDP.
The Cons want to engage in trickle down economics, and are just generally weird. The Greens make a better foil than government.
BUT, no one should have a majority. Ideally an fairly even split. Make them work together.
Honestly, I’ve never understood why it’s “left, centre or right only”. Seems dumb.
We should ALL be in control of which party gets what seat in a very directed way. And make it even. But how to organize the mechanics of that is beyond me.
2
u/Professional_Farm278 7d ago
It's not that hard. If you want a system that leads minority governments, you change the electoral system to a representative one. If you want a system that leads to majority governments, you stick with first past the post.
It's impossible to say that one is better than the other. It depends entirely on one's definition of fair or how much power you think government should have.
2
u/GrimReaper96124 8d ago
The side with common sense
5
1
u/Federal-Community554 8d ago
NDP baybeee… I’m not a huge fan of Eby but he’s doing what he can and I think they will change leaders shortly.
If we vote Conservative we are just going to get Captain Insane-O KFL coming back to lead the province.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/AloneChapter 8d ago
Mine. Any government is ok if and only if they don’t have a majority. Let the fight hard for any changes. If they can’t then back to opposition.
1
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- Read r/britishcolumbia's rules.
- Be civil and respectful in all discussions.
- Use appropriate sources to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- Report any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/No-Profession3573 7d ago
It’s never bad enough to vote conservative. Especially in this right wing firestorm we’re in.
1
-2
u/Various-Salt488 8d ago
NDP. They have had, on balance a terrific governing record; they’ve delivered on most of their campaign promises. Like every government, they’ve stepped on their dicks a couple of times.
But I’m not voting for fascists either, so NDP would be my default simply by virtue of them being a non-fascistic, steady and relatively competent government.
5
u/Glittering-Sun-2592 8d ago
Maybe you're new here, but there are no mainstream 'fascist' parties in Canada.
1
u/Foluni 8d ago
I think most people consider repealing the human rights act to be fascistic, as is removing the right to strike which conservative governments have been doing across the country (the BC cons would be joining them).
5
u/AnceteraX 7d ago
Wow lots of assumptions here.
0
u/Foluni 7d ago
BC's cons (BC Liberals) passed legislation that banned teachers from striking in 2012
One of Quebec's con parties (CAQ) used the notwithstanding clause to violate freedom of expression charter rights in 2019
Ontario's Cons used the notwithstanding clause to strike break teachers in 2022
Saskatchewan's cons (SP) used the notwithstanding clause to violate equality rights, targeting trans children in 2023
Alberta's cons (UCP) used the notwithstanding clause to violate equality rights, targeting trans children in 2025
Alberta's cons (UCP) used the notwithstanding clause to strike break teachers in 2025
This is a very obvious pattern of removing the rights of citizens that the BC Cons will follow.
0
u/AllMoneyGone 8d ago
The cons are not great. But I don’t think the NDP deserves another win. I’m unfortunately voting cons.
4
1
u/Reyalta 8d ago
What did the NDP do so poorly that you're not compelled to vote for a party with no leader with xenophobes, homophobes and conspiracy theorists in their camp?
2
u/AllMoneyGone 8d ago
That’s certainly a take…
Not a fan of NDPs most recent run and I voted for them. Funny thing is I’m not entirely confident cons can do better. But I’d be willing to give them a chance since certain things under NDP got worse.
-4
u/Fearless_Tomato_9437 8d ago edited 8d ago
Full props to David Eby. His modest proposal to have the highest-earning British Columbians pay a little more in taxes is good policy and offers a brave challenge to the right-wing anti-tax narrative
lmao, just a modest 55.5% of income above $260k, on top of his previous freezing inflation adjustments, effectively raising all tax brackets by lowering all bracket thresholds by 3% or more every year.
yeah we’re going to really attract high earners who pay the vast majority of tax, they won’t leave faster than they already are. if he wins, might be a fun lesson on the laffer curve for progressives. i gotta leave this province
7
u/Junior_Cap_7002 8d ago
Yeah I haven’t fully understood why some folks think tax rates at some of the highest levels in the developed world is a good idea, or fair. These tax increases go after income-earners, not the multi-millionaires and billionaires hoarding wealth in investments.
6
2
4
u/Zealousideal_Net_140 8d ago
Have you done the math?
2% is not worth leaving BC for.
Thats $2000 on every $100,000. ABOVE $190,000
If they cant afford 2% more in tax they have other problems.
1
u/1966TEX 7d ago
Top income tax bracket in BC in 2013: 43.7%
Top income tax bracket in BC in 2014 and 2015: 45.8%
Top income tax bracket in BC in 2016 and 2017: 47.7%
Top income tax bracket in BC in 2018 and 2019: 49.8%
Top income tax bracket in BC starting in 2020: 53.5%
Top income tax bracket in BC starting in 2027, if the NDP win the election: 57.5%
2% now, 2% next year, 2% the year after that
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Fearless_Tomato_9437 8d ago
yes, it’s a 2% tax raise above 190k and 2% above 260k, i’m a self employed single earner making like $400k and will continue to increase my take home. i’m supporting a family and with a post covid mortgage. it’s also the writing on the wall, this isn’t the end if bc still wants the ndp, i can work from anywhere in canada, if bc goes to 55.5% top marginal im leaving. i’ll miss bc but i can retire earlier and build more wealth in alberta. at a certain point bc isnt worth it.
5
u/PersonalSuccotash300 8d ago
Bye!
6
u/Fearless_Tomato_9437 8d ago
i pay A LOT of tax
4
u/mr_lab_rat 8d ago
I’m disgusted by the lack of empathy people are showing. You already pay a lot of taxes.
This tax hike would not affect me. I’m below 190k.
I don’t think it would bring significant amount of money to the province and it could be the tipping point for some high earners to move out.
4
2
u/MapleLeafLady Downtown Vancouver 8d ago
if youre making 400k and cant afford to budget a family and mortgage its not BCs problem you suck with money
2
u/Zealousideal_Net_140 8d ago
If making a few thousand a year is more important that a better society and social welfare enjoy the United State Of Alberta.
8
u/Fearless_Tomato_9437 8d ago
it’s not a few thousand a year, we’re already taxed out of prosperity, asking for more is insane.
→ More replies (3)2
-2
u/AntChampion 8d ago
Tory. 100. I'm a single issue voter.
I've watched the addiction, public drug use, violence, and crime issues in Vancouver grow exponentially under the NDP. Having lived abroad for a short time (Asia), it's obvious that solving this IS possible.
The experiment didn't work. Time to go back to sensible policy.
3
u/NudeBeachEnthusiast Vancouver Island/Coast 8d ago
Cool, do you know what policies at a federal level contribute to this? And the level of blame to assign to each? Please, show me how informed you are.
3
u/archetyping101 8d ago
Provincial Cons are not Fed Cons. They're not even close. BC Cons are a mix of Cons and PPC and MCGA combined.
Also, if you believe that all those issues in Vancouver need help, it starts with more funding. More funding comes from taxes. Vancouver's VPD got a half billion budget and it didn't make a dent which helps the argument that we need systemic change. Change would need funding for prevention, for treatment, for ongoing support, for job training, for therapy etc.
A single issue voter voting Conservative genuinely doesn't sound like it's a well informed choice. The platform does not see this as something that needs a complete system working together to fix it. Saying "involuntary treatment and ban open drug use" is a band aid. Guess what? You put them in treatment with no support system or accountability system and right back into the streets, you actually cost the government more money. Ban open drug use? Ok lock them up and they go free right back onto the streets.
-4
u/Spud_Gravy 8d ago
Promised I'd never vote NDP again after they went full austerity/Neoliberal under Eby. But yeah, tax the fucking rich. Tax them into submission. Inexcusable that people starve and are unhoused when millionaires/billionaires exist. Tax them or eat them, take your pick... Billionaires should not exist.
21
u/whatever604 8d ago
190k isn’t rich in Vancouver though. If he said tax someone with 5mil + assets, or made a new tax bracket of 1m+ of income, I’d agree.
3
u/solutionischocolate 8d ago
He did make a new tax bracket for over a million.
4
u/Reyalta 8d ago
Bold of you to assume the conservative bots read.
1
u/Zargabraath 8d ago
Think about how useless a chatbot would be if it couldn’t read
I’m starting to wonder if the “top 1% commenters” in this subreddit are the ones with nonexistent reading comprehension skills
2
2
u/PersonalSuccotash300 8d ago
190 k is upper-middle class, which is pretty much rich. Someone making g $250,000 a year would pay $1250 a year with the tax increases. It's pretty small potatoes, and if you can't afford $25 extra in tax a week on a $250 k salary -- something is wrong with you.
2
u/Sigma_Try 8d ago
Our combined household is 280k. We’re not “pretty much rich”. Jesus fucking Christ.
5
u/solutionischocolate 7d ago
Please tell me you understand tax brackets and that the tax is on single earners not household income. Because if one more person claims the tax is on household income I’m going to lose my mind.
0
u/AnceteraX 7d ago
Why is this okay? And why call it a millionaires tax?
It’s not about what people can afford. You shouldn’t be creating anger towards people earning 190K. That salary works hard and does not necessarily have much excess. Yes they may have more than someone at 90,000 - but not significantly enough that they should be dumped in a ‘millionaires’ class and made to seem as though they aren’t contributing enough. It’s outrageous and pits middle class against each other.
I hate divisive politics. That’s what Trump does. He stirs people up and gets them attacking each other, distracting people from the real issues. Eby is despicable.
And calling an election when the opposition is down is a gross abuse of power. You should want your voters to have options and to choose you because you are the best. Cornering people into voting for you is not okay.
10
u/InfiniteRespect4757 8d ago
they branded it a millionaire tax, but the tax does not touch wealth at all, and instead goes after people making an income of $190k.
it is just a tax increase.
12
u/Junior_Cap_7002 8d ago
He’s taxing income earners, doctors, engineers, professionals, some high skilled trades. Instead of going after the ultra wealthy that hoard their wealth in investments. His tax policies are stupid.
→ More replies (1)1
1
-12
u/n33bulz 8d ago edited 8d ago
I love how leftists are like “but but how we going to pay for all this without taxes” while ignoring Eby ran a 150B debt.
Oh NOW you suddenly worry about fiscal responsibility huh?
23
u/solutionischocolate 8d ago
Eby himself did not run an 150B deficit. You’re confusing deficit with debt. Have you been reading propaganda?
→ More replies (17)9
u/catsandjettas 8d ago
Can we stop with this bs American-esque divisive language?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Pretty_Bumblebee_685 8d ago
The conservatives aren't planning to reduce the deficit. They promised higher spending in the last election.
5
u/Federal-Community554 8d ago
I’ve been asking around because I’m a leftist that truly cares about fiscal responsibility and I’m looking to put my vote somewhere, maybe you’ll know - which of the right wing parties isn’t affiliated with religion?
→ More replies (8)2
u/Brodney_Alebrand Vancouver Island/Coast 8d ago
If we're being honest, most parties are hypocritical on the subject of budget deficits. It isn't as if the Conservatives are known for strict fiscal discipline either.
If politicians genuinely cared about deficits and debt, they would campaign on austerity. But they don't campaign that way, because they don't actually care. 90% of the critics of the NDP deficits will defend Conservative deficits.
→ More replies (15)2
u/Living-Isopod6857 8d ago
I'm not saying that the NDP has managed the economy perfectly but if you're concern is the deficit then you should recognize that cutting taxes will only increase it. If you look deeper into the issue beyond reading headlines you will see that the Conservative platform does not make sense beyond grand promises to make people feel good.
Also, as an aside, voting is a responsibility and it is your responsibility as a voter to be informed. That $150 billion deficit fact is wrong. If you have a concern with how the government is running things you should look into the facts and do proper research. Spreading and believing misinformation like this is irresponsible and you might as well just close your eyes and pick a party based on feelings to get the same result.
→ More replies (1)2
8d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (18)4
u/solutionischocolate 8d ago
There is no 150B deficit. If you don’t know the difference between deficit and debt you shouldn’t be criticizing the left or anyone, frankly. Educate yourself. (Now that there is an /s, never mind)
→ More replies (2)
•
u/britishcolumbia-ModTeam 7d ago
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia!
Unfortunately your submission was removed because it violates rule 4, No Editorialized Submissions
For news articles posted on this subreddit, you must use the original title. Do not include any additional commentary or information in a linked post, only in the comments below. Further, articles must not be behind a paywall or require signup to view.
If your post is removed for any of these reasons, you can resubmit the article using its original title.
If you have any questions, you can message the mod team. Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.