look
increasing the capital gains inclusion rate is a disincentive to invest in start up companies and a disincentive to put capital at risk
full stop , no if /and / buts or failed commie theory about it
this is straightforward risk/ return mathematics / logic
there is no ideology behind straightforward risk/ return mathematics
you confuse anti-trust laws with taxation
and believe me multi smaller companies will never" be more efficient, deliver more wealth to more people, than Thomson Reuters- it is a very well managed company that uses scale as a competitive advantage
??????
I am Absolutely not arguing for the same thing
How in the world did you come to that insane conclusion ?
you are arguing taxation is a social justice tool
i am stating the fact taxation is NOT a social justice tool , and will fail miserably to meet your objective if applied as a social justice tool
all you will do is remove capital from the productive private sector and transfer it to the unproductive public sector and then a residual get transferred to low income folks
low income folks do not invest in growth start up companies needed to grow the Canadian economy . they will just increase personal consumption , much of which comes from overseas
You are ideologically driven, not fact driven.
and you ideology is a proven failure
You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
Let's look at 2 startups. 1 is building a building, and 1 is selling a product. The investors in company 1 will be subject to capital gains IF the building ever sells. Only half of those capital gains will be taxed, and they will be reduced by any capital improvements done on the property. In fact, capital expenditures on the building can be taken off the building's income: increasing future value while avoiding income taxes. I can store wealth in that building tax free, and only pay tax on half of my gains when I sell it.
The returns from the product co. get added to the income of the investors from day 1. They pay tax on 100% of the returns from the product co.
Assuming all investors are wealthy enough that their returns are taxed at the highest marginal rate, the investors in the building co. will pay HALF the tax of the investors in the product co.
I am not arguing that tax is a social justice tool. I didn't bring up social justice at all. I am talking about social mobility, WHICH IS THE CENTRAL TENNENT OF THE REPORT THAT THIS THREAD IS DISCUSSING. People have to believe that participating in society will work in their favour over time, otherwise they won't participate. This is what PP is highlighting and what you are arguing for.
From WWII to approximately 1975, the economy boomed, my grade 6 educated grandfather could raise 4 kids, own a house and a cottage, and retire before 60. Personal and corporate taxes were much higher and much more progressive than they are today. Investment in R&D by both public and private industries lead to ridiculous innovation.
From about 1975 to now, we've chipped away at corporate and high-net-worth tax rates. Innovation is down, social mobility is down, and the wealthy are wealthier than ever before, and they are trickling down less. THESE are facts. And don't talk about tech startups. Name a tech startup in the last 15 years that isn't just taking an existing service and making worse, while transferring wealth from the workers to the investors (working class to capital class)
You've stated above that 1 company, Thompson Reuters, is the single most efficient media company in existence. That no company could ever do better, so it is good actually that TR is big enough to smother all other competition. Thompson Reuters LOST 2 billion dollars last year. This is ideology, not fact.
Guy Laliberte , Richard Desmond, and countless others would like to talk to you about low income folks and startups.
All you have is Reganomics, and I'm very sad for you.
