Usually I'm supportive of tax hikes on the rich, but I think it's important to note that the top tax bracket in Canada is $246752. Canada needs more granular tax brackets at the top end.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That income is high enough to be taxed more, but I agree more granularity would be better. I hope that they increase taxes on the rich mostly by closing loopholes that favour the 1% at our expense. A billionaire that pays no taxes now isn't going to owe more if we increase the tax rate. 3 times 0 is still 0. It's the loopholes we have to close.

It's not usually the doctors making 250-400k that are shirking their fair share of taxes, but the use of loopholes certainly starts in that range and accelerates exponentially with higher wealth and income.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

It’s the loopholes we have to close.

We can actually do both, instead of one OR the other.

And we can do them both at once, or one at a time.

I bet that's what's happening here.

[–] naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

A large part of this is also the monopolies that large companies hold on essentials: groceries, telecoms, banks, etc. These are industries where competition does not spur innovation: rather, competition only harms the consumer.

[–] a1studmuffin@aussie.zone 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

God damn, meanwhile in Australia our top tax bracket is AUD190K (USD122K) @ 45%!

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

us is similarly silly. why the heck don't tax brackets scale into the millions???

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You and I both know exactly why

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

true. I hope those rich folks can have enough kids to run everything. No slaves coming from my loins.

[–] capem@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Good. They just bred you out of the gene pool.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

damn straight. my genes or anyone elses are nothing all that special. this wierd idea of immortalizing ones genes is just stupid. I have had my space time and thats enough.

[–] capem@startrek.website 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're only here because people have been immortalizing themselves through genes for generations.

If you're not strong enough to continue on that trend, then you don't get to continue past this point.

Other people will, though, and influence the world accordingly.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago

sure and have which is how we got to where we are now. I completely accept and am cognizant of the accident of birth.

[–] livus@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ours in NZ is even worse, 180k (USD 100k) at 39% is our top tax bracket.

[–] honc@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

While I agree that top tax brackets could use more granularity, it’s also important to note that it’s only income above that amount that gets taxed more. I’m personally okay with anything above that being taxed a lot and at the same (high) rate.

[–] blindsight@beehaw.org 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think it's fair to add more levels. It's fair that someone earning $400K should be paying less marginal tax than someone earning $10MM. The first person is still likely spending a significant portion of their income each year on living expenses, while the second person is earning more than can be reasonably spent, so it's just "NumBeRs gO Up!" at that point.

idk, something like 60% tax above 400K, 70% tax above 1MM, 80% tax above $3MM, 85% tax above $10MM.

What are the downsides?

That might make Canadian sports teams fail since nobody will want to take the income hit to work here? Even then, they could just restructure their compensation to be paid over a lifetime, so they get $3MM/yr for 50 years instead of $12MM/yr for 10 years (or whatever).

[–] honc@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

I think that kind of system is fine too.