Poilievre reacts to federal report warning of bleak future if Canada stays on current path

[boobtoucher]

Go back and read your post. If you can't figure out what's wrong, I can't help you.

Ooh, the old " if you don't know i'm not going to tell you". I hope you don't come back with "I'm rubber your glue".

That would put me in my place.

find me one statistic, indicator, or macro economic trend tha has improved for a middle class earner compared to a 1% earner since 1981.

 

[Vinson]

Enough of this same liberal shit, time for a change.

 

[JohnLarue]

I should have assumed based on your reading comprehension you wouldn't pick up what I'm putting down.
Page 10 has what you need to know. Wealth in Canada is stranded. The capital class is not reinvesting. They're just parking money and living off returns.

Capital is stranded in Canada because the Liberal government have made Canada a non investable country with Bill-C69

parking money and accepting money market returns and/ or invest elsewhere is what investors do when government makes the investing environment a 'risk off' environment

TransCanada invested a billion $ in the Energy East pipeline doing all the required environmental assessments & then the Liberals changed the rules , making any pipeline uneconomical

TransCanada changed the name of the company to get rid of "Canada' and started focusing on their US business
liberal policy drove a bell weather of the TSX to invest outside of Canada

This is what the increased inclusion rate was trying to fix: Get your money moving, or we're going to start taxing it. Unfortunately, this was too much for the average Con voter to understand.

wrong
so very wrong

the investments required (ie tech start ups) are not in and out money, they take years & with a less than robust success rate (50 to 70% failure rate)
So the AFTER TAX return has to be attractive to make up for the failed investments

raise the tax rate and the money looks elsewhere
money avoids stupid

Doctors / professionals returns are often determined by selling their practise which is a capital gain
We are already short on Doctors in Canada

The capital class is not reinvesting.

You do not have a clue what you are talking about
they are called investors, not 'the capital 'class'

the lunatic left strikes again , always dividing Canadians into " classes"
stop that

if you participate in a pension fund or have a mutual fund are you one of the evil 'capital 'class' ?

 

[JohnLarue]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous post I have read in a long time.

absolutely

 

[JohnLarue]

Page 10 has what you need to know. Wealth in Canada is stranded. The capital class is not reinvesting. They're just parking money and living off returns. This is what the increased inclusion rate was trying to fix: Get your money moving, or we're going to start taxing it. Unfortunately, this was too much for the average Con voter to understand.

just exactly how does taxing more of the capital gain profits incentivize investors to invest more ?

you do not have a clue what you are talking about

 

[K Douglas]

Oh and the conservative provincial govts have nothing to do with this? The 10 years of Harper had a similar trajectory in terms of real estate prices. Thank god I bought a house under Chretien.

For detached homes there's no comparison. Skyrocketed nationally under Trudeau.
Avg Canadian detached home price 2005 - $336,000
Avg Canadian detached home price 2015 - $413,000 (increase of 23%)
Avg Canadian detached home price 2024 - $712,000 (increase of 73%)

However In Toronto the increases are almost identical under Harper and Trudeau. But I would imagine a greater share of sales in Trudeau's tenure included condo units which lowers average price.
Avg MLS sale price Toronto 2006 - $351,950
Avg MLS sale price Toronto 2015 - $622,120 (increase of 77%)
Avg MLS sale price Toronto 2024 - $1,117,600 (increase of 80%)

 

[boobtoucher]

Capital is stranded in Canada because the Liberal government have made Canada a non investable country with Bill-C69

parking money and accepting money market returns and/ or invest elsewhere is what investors do when government makes the investing environment a 'risk off' environment

TransCanada invested a billion $ in the Energy East pipeline doing all the required environmental assessments & then the Liberals changed the rules , making any pipeline uneconomical

TransCanada changed the name of the company to get rid of "Canada' and started focusing on their US business
liberal policy drove a bell weather of the TSX to invest outside of Canada




wrong
so very wrong

the investments required (ie tech start ups) are not in and out money, they take years & with a less than robust success rate (50 to 70% failure rate)
So the AFTER TAX return has to be attractive to make up for the failed investments

raise the tax rate and the money looks elsewhere
money avoids stupid

Doctors / professionals returns are often determined by selling their practise which is a capital gain
We are already short on Doctors in Canada


You do not have a clue what you are talking about
they are called investors, not 'the capital 'class'

the lunatic left strikes again , always dividing Canadians into " classes"
stop that

if you participate in a pension fund or have a mutual fund are you one of the evil 'capital 'class' ?

Almost every word of this is wrong. But just focusing on professionals and classes:

A doctor does not sell their patient list. They MAY own the building that there practice is in, and they MAY have equipment to sell, but there is no "practice" to sell. Plus, they avoid capital gains tax on the first couple mill of capital gain.

A member of the working class trades their labour for money. A doctor, in general, is a member of the working class. A doctor who owns a consortium that employs other doctors is knocking on the capital class.

A member of the capital class makes money on their money, and on the labour of others. Owning stocks doesn't make you a member of the capital class, until you are deriving 100% of your income from the investments and having money left over.

This is not "liberal thinking" This is basic economic theory.

As for taxation: you explained it yourself: if I have 30,000,000 in liquid assets, I can park it, make 5%, and live on 1.5 million/year. I'm only taxed on 750k of the earnings (50% inclusion rate)

If I'm a doctor and I make 1.5 million, I'm taxed on 1,485,000.

If the inclusion rate went up, maybe im spending some of my money on things I can write off instead of giving it to the government, or I'm giving it to the government who is putting the money into the economy. Either way, more money in circulation, more economic activity.

But please, spout more youtube economics at me.

 

[Butler1000]

I'm not surprised that PP didn't release his costed plan until so late since it's based on a speculative increase to income and Musk-like cuts (that in reality were insignificant).

Both waited to do it until after the debate. So let's not let pots call kettles black.

 

[Butler1000]

And once again, not much daylight between the two. So really it's about who you believe will actually implement at least some of it.

 

[lomotil]

The productivity in Canada has been falling for a few decades and non of the political parties can remedy this situation.
The population also will not grow without immigration and something like ~700 to 800 Canadians retire daily from the workforce and must be somehow replaced and urgently.
The two aforementioned factors contribute to the gloomy future for Canada with the new malignantly cancerous effect of Trump adding to the woes.

 

[Jubee]

I see some familiar faces but not all. The ones that were laughing at all the people they were calling "conspiracy theorists" talking about the collapse of The West years ago.
Now that shit is getting real, they're quiet. lol

 

[JohnLarue]

Almost every word of this is wrong. But just focusing on professionals and classes:

A doctor does not sell their patient list. They MAY own the building that there practice is in, and they MAY have equipment to sell, but there is no "practice" to sell. Plus, they avoid capital gains tax on the first couple mill of capital gain.

A member of the working class trades their labour for money. A doctor, in general, is a member of the working class. A doctor who owns a consortium that employs other doctors is knocking on the capital class.

A member of the capital class makes money on their money, and on the labour of others. Owning stocks doesn't make you a member of the capital class, until you are deriving 100% of your income from the investments and having money left over.

This is not "liberal thinking" This is basic economic theory.

As for taxation: you explained it yourself: if I have 30,000,000 in liquid assets, I can park it, make 5%, and live on 1.5 million/year. I'm only taxed on 750k of the earnings (50% inclusion rate)

If I'm a doctor and I make 1.5 million, I'm taxed on 1,485,000.

If the inclusion rate went up, maybe im spending some of my money on things I can write off instead of giving it to the government, or I'm giving it to the government who is putting the money into the economy. Either way, more money in circulation, more economic activity.

But please, spout more youtube economics at me.

my god you are stunned

just exactly how does taxing more of the capital gain profits incentivize investors to invest more ?


answer: it does not
it incentivises investors to put their money into low risk money market funds and/ or invest the $ in more productive countries


you need to stop viewing the word in classes. that is failed Marxist ideology
what is left of your brain has been washed by commie nonsense

 

[Frankfooter]

my god you are stunned

just exactly how does taxing more of the capital gain profits incentivize investors to invest more ?


answer: it does not
it incentivises investors to put their money into low risk money market funds and/ or invest the $ in more productive countries


you need to stop viewing the word in classes. that is failed Marxist ideology
what is left of your brain has been washed by commie nonsense

Priorities.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915003228560805964

 

[boobtoucher]

my god you are stunned

just exactly how does taxing more of the capital gain profits incentivize investors to invest more ?


answer: it does not
it incentivises investors to put their money into low risk money market funds and/ or invest the $ in more productive countries


you need to stop viewing the word in classes. that is failed Marxist ideology
what is left of your brain has been washed by commie nonsense

You are once again just repeating what I'm saying, and letting us know that you don't know what Capital Gains are.

Money in a low risk fund is taxed way less than money earned. The incentive is already there to leave it parked.

If I start bringing the tax rate on capital gains up, parking the money is less attractive. Maybe I invest some of that money in a startup to generate some offsetting losses, maybe I hire an employee with that money, or buy a depreciating asset instead of losing it to tax. Either way, it circulates in the economy, rather than being parked.

You have been posting in this thread about a report about social mobility. The entire point of that report is that society can't handle wealth accumulation at the top,, The nightmare future you are worried about can only be avoided through strong progressive* tax policies.

*progressive, when used with respect to tax policies means "increases as income/assets increase" i.e. "progresses higher with wealth". The opposite would be regressive, i.e. "goes down with increasing wealth", which is the current system.

 

[JohnLarue]

[You are once again just repeating what I'm saying, and letting us know that you don't know what Capital Gains are.

Money in a low risk fund is taxed way less than money earned. The incentive is already there to leave it parked.

If I start bringing the tax rate on capital gains up, parking the money is less attractive.

absolutely incorrect
money market returns are income not capital gains
money market returns are not impacted by changes to the capital gains inclusion rate

venture capital returns are taxed as a capital gain

if you foolishly raise the inclusion rate, i park my money in the money market rather than putting it into a risky tech start up as my potential after tax return in the risky assets is reduced

Maybe I invest some of that money in a startup to generate some offsetting losses, maybe I hire an employee with that money, or buy a depreciating asset instead of losing it to tax. Either way, it circulates in the economy, rather than being parked.

maybe you do not know what you are talking about
returns on venture capital are all capital gains , which is now less attractive because the inclusion rate is higher.
the after tax return is now lower and the return/ risk trade off is less attractive

You have been posting in this thread about a report about social mobility. The entire point of that report is that society can't handle wealth accumulation at the top,, The nightmare future you are worried about can only be avoided through strong progressive* tax policies.

no
society can not handle a lack of wealth generation
there is no sharing of wealth that is not created because risk capital is not deployed
risk capital creates jobs that did not exist prior and creates new technological break throughs

e.g. Microsoft,
it may not ever had succeeded have morons like you had been in power implementing draconian and foolish taxation policies

*progressive, when used with respect to tax policies means "increases as income/assets increase" i.e. "progresses higher with wealth". The opposite would be regressive, i.e. "goes down with increasing wealth", which is the current system.

no
higher taxation on capital gains puts risk capital to sleep

you really do not have a clue what you are talking about

 

[squeezer]

Nothing to see here, everyone keep voting liberal!

I agree, CARNEY CARNEY CARNEY to flush the pee pee !!

 

[Frankfooter]

absolutely incorrect
money market returns are income not capital gains
money market returns are not impacted by changes to the capital gains inclusion rate

venture capital returns are taxed as a capital gain

Why do you think this would make a country better?

https://www.wsj.com/economy/1-trillion-richest-families-wealth-increase-bc13874a

 

[boobtoucher]

Bla Bla Bla

So you and I disagree. We have been lowering taxes on the wealthy since 1981. Your experiment has been ongoing for nearly 45 years. Can you show me one metric by which the median income earner has out performed the 1% income earner?

As your "scary study" points out, when 99% of people lose social mobility, the result is guillotines.

 

[JohnLarue]

So you and I disagree.

no
this is not a disagreement
you are dead wrong

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

We have been lowering taxes on the wealthy since 1981. Your experiment has been ongoing for nearly 45 years.

you are wrong again

the tax burden certainly increased under Trudeau for me

Hell income taxes were introduced in 1917 as a "temporary measure" -still here

Can you show me one metric by which the median income earner has out performed the 1% income earner?

you are grossly mistaken to think taxation is the tool to address inequality
the purpose of taxation is to provide revenue to operate a functioning government, not to transfer wealth

if you want to increase the wealth of lower income folks,

1. increase the productivity of those folks
2. increase the wealth of the country

the median income does not need to outperform the 1%

your life is the same if the Thomson family makes $20 Billion or if the Thomson family makes only $20 dollars this year

if you want money go out out and earn it, independent of what others make

there has been wealth inequality since the day the first object of wealth was created
it is part of human nature and you will never ever change that

As your "scary study" points out, when 99% of people lose social mobility, the result is guillotines.

so increase their social mobility by creating an environment where they can increasing their productivity and demand more compensation

you do not have a clue
Canada must compete vs other nations & that will not happen with the nanny state and certainly will not happen with draconian taxation on wealth

the wealthily will just put their $ to sleep or leave

 

[boobtoucher]

no
this is not a disagreement
you are dead wrong

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



you are wrong again

the tax burden certainly increased under Trudeau for me

Hell income taxes were introduced in 1917 as a "temporary measure" -still here



you are grossly mistaken to think taxation is the tool to address inequality
the purpose of taxation is to provide revenue to operate a functioning government, not to transfer wealth

if you want to increase the wealth of lower income folks,

1. increase the productivity of those folks
2. increase the wealth of the country

the median income does not need to outperform the 1%

your life is the same if the Thomson family makes $20 Billion or if the Thomson family makes only $20 dollars this year

if you want money go out out and earn it, independent of what others make

there has been wealth inequality since the day the first object of wealth was created
it is part of human nature and you will never ever change that



so increase their social mobility by creating an environment where they can increasing their productivity and demand more compensation

you do not have a clue
Canada must compete vs other nations & that will not happen with the nanny state and certainly will not happen with draconian taxation on wealth

the wealthily will just put their $ to sleep or leave

You are ideologically driven, not fact driven. You can not provided any evidence to back up your claims.

Just on the Thompson Family point: You pretend to be a free market capitalist. If the government were to let the Thompsons keep their 98 Billion, but disinvest them from Thompson Reuters and break up the Thompson Reuters monopoly. NECESSARILY, by virtue of capitalism, several smaller companies would spring up to fill their space. Those companies would be more efficient, deliver more wealth to more people, and create an environment where productivity and wages would increase.

You are arguing for the same thing I am. You just think More of the Same will get us there, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.