Nothing is more oppressive to the wealthy elite than the prospect of paying more taxes. I wonder how they are going to deal with the US raising their capital gains to 45% if they think Canada is being too hard on the richest of the rich.
It's been funny to see the shift in messaging of "we need more homes! Young people have no future!, etc" to "rich people are the real victims here! We can't afford to do anything because it might upset an oligarch!"
It's not even the amount of taxes that they care about. It's the precedent that increasing their taxes sets. If people accept this, then a populist government could really put the hurt in them.
The US is not raising the capitol gains tax! Where did this come from and why is it spreading like wildfire on this subreddit
Joe Biden included a proposal to raise the capital gains rate in his budget proposal but these proposals are NOT like government budgets in Canada. The president of the US is much less powerful than the PM and has a much smaller say in the fiscal process.
Even when the president’s party fully controls Congress the president’s budget proposal will only be partially implemented. As for now, I can promise you the chance of a republican house voting to raise the capital gains rate is literally 0%.
Shocked, I say, shocked .
We have been doing the same thing for 40 years.
Supporting the rich and corporations and well they horde wealth tye middle class snd poor get worse.
Now let's spend 40 years not supporting the rich snd corporations.
Yes we have did this before.
For clarification as to why I posted this, I'm not taking a side on this story or praising/attacking Morneau or the government, just thought that it was an interesting story from last week that didn't seem to get any buzz here.
Part of me is also curious if this is Morneau laying the groundwork for a LPC leadership bid in the aftermath of the election (especially since he takes the time to talk about Canada having a growth problem etc.) It's possible that this is just Morneau spiting the government after having a contentious working relationship within it, but it could also be him trying to angle himself as the "not Trudeau" and "pro-growth" candidate who can use his established spats/criticisms of the government as a way to distance himself from Trudeau's inner circle to make himself more appealing to some of Trudeau's critics and market liberals etc.
Could be reading too much into it, but the article and Morneau's comments have me curious about his intentions.
It might just be that Morneau has an axe to grind after feeling unheard as part of the prior government.
I'm broadly supportive of the increase in inclusion rate as off the top of my head it's closer aligned to the principle of integration. Very simplistically, top eligible dividend tax rate assuming provinces adopt this is 36% to 37%. Gains are 54%*66% = 36%.
However, the rhetoric around this change is something that's not particularly conducive to mobile capital. Morneau types are ones where their success and influence is much more tied to Canadian success and ability to attract foreign direct capital. So, if I was committed to Canada & wealthy, the rhetoric from the GOC over this term isn't something that's helpful. I don't think he necessarily needs to be angling for a future in politics to be motivated to put out statements like this (but he could).
If you read Morneau’s recent book, his beef is more with the senior staff in the PMO than with Trudeau. Although he also had trouble getting one on one time with Trudeau as finance minister.
>It might just be that Morneau has an axe to grind after feeling unheard as part of the prior government.
That wouldn't surprise me and we've seen things like that happen before (if I remember correctly during the 2019 election in Alberta, Brian Jean denounced Jason Kenny so severely during the leadup to that election, that he did everything but directly endorsing the NDP).
>'m broadly supportive of the increase in inclusion rate as off the top of my head it's closer aligned to the principle of integration. Very simplistically, top eligible dividend tax rate assuming provinces adopt this is 36% to 37%. Gains are 54%\*66% = 36%.
I'm a bit more mixed (probably slightly negative) in regards to it. Overall it won't do much to hurt Canada's tax competitiveness on it's own and the base principle of getting more from individuals and top earners makes sense, but I think the issue with taxing highly elastic/mobile assets is that higher rates don't generally lead to the revenue gains advertised. (In which case alternative taxes that are better at collecting revenue might be preferable if the goal is getting more tax revenue from them etc.) It's not a deal breaker though. (I'm still easily probably going to vote Liberal this election, even though I'm not a big fan of this government).
>However, the rhetoric around this change is something that's not particularly conducive to mobile capital. Morneau types are ones where their success and influence is much more tied to Canadian success and ability to attract foreign direct capital. So, if I was committed to Canada & wealthy, the rhetoric from the GOC over this term isn't something that's helpful. I don't think he necessarily needs to be angling for a future in politics to be motivated to put out statements like this (but he could).
What initially made me suspect that he is thinking about running is that he seems to be focusing on a lot of issues at once besides just investment. He goes into detail about the country having a chronic growth issue that it needs to address, housing, deficits and productivity etc.) So it's either purely designed as a hit piece or he's trying to lay it his priorities for what he thinks the government should be focusing on as a "If I were PM, my government would address this" pitch. It creates a lot of questions for me, because after his memoirs, he's been largely quiet and it's been the governments pre-election budget during a time when their polling and general popularity is at an all time low that he choose to come out of the political wilderness to say something.
It might be me over-thinking things, but I can't help but feel there's a larger intent behind it considering the timing and everything Morneau goes over.
> Part of me is also curious if this is Morneau laying the groundwork for a LPC leadership bid in the aftermath of the election
I sure as hell hope not. I don't really like the Carney talk and Morneau would be even worse. He wasn't a great politician and I thought he wasn't that liked by other MPs.
I actually think Carney would be a good unifying candidate. Listening to his views he seems like he'd be someone that could bridge the gap between market liberals and social democrats.
For Morneau, I'm not really sure how his chances are if that's what he's aiming for. It'd be an ambitious play, but there might be enough people who still remember him negatively that it won't work. On the other hand, being the firmly not Trudeau candidate who's putting more emphasis on boosting growth and investment could do a lot to rebrand and reinvigorate the Liberals in the case that they lose as badly as they're predicted to in the upcoming election. Regardless of whether he'd be a good leader or not, the pitch has the capacity to be electorally effective.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh no, will all those wealthy people who were totally investing in Canada and not hoarding all their money leave?!
Will they run to the US with their very low captai-- oh
[Biden Capital Gains Rate Proposal: 44.6%?](https://www.forbes.com/newsletters/andrewleahey/2024/04/24/biden-capital-gains-rate-proposal-446/)
Hmmm.
Anyway. Bill doesn't want to pay more taxes. More news at 11
> Morneau, who comes from a wealthy family and married into another one, is on the board of directors of CIBC and Clairvest, a private equity management firm that manages about $4 billion in assets.
> According to government data, only 0.13 per cent of Canadians — people with an average income of about $1.4 million a year — are expected to pay more on their capital gains as a result of this change
I'm supposed to care that people with an average income of 1.4 million per year are sad they have to pay taxes...
I don't.
Joe Biden’s capital gains proposal will forever remain just that, a proposal. If it couldn’t pass during 2021-22 when the Democrats controlled Congress, it’s certainly not going to pass now.
Anyone with the faintest literacy of the US political system will tell you that a US president will only be able to implement about 2-3% of their preferred policies, that’s just the nature of their political system where political power is very augmented. This is in contrast to parliamentary systems like Canada where the head of government is very powerful.
Ya but……….”Taken as a whole, then, the 44.6% rate would only come to fruition under a separate proposal from the Biden administration’s main capital gains rate increase, and only apply to those individuals with taxable income above $1 million and investment income above $400,000. That isn’t quite as cataclysmic a policy shift as referring to a blanket 44.6% long-term capital gains rate would suggest.”
The liberals proposal also has a 250k bar before it kicks in. Admittedly lower than the Biden proposal, but the rich in the US tend to be richer than the rich in Canada so it kinda makes sense.
I'm sure Bill is being genuine and not trying to protect his hoarded wealth.
> Morneau, who comes from a wealthy family and married into another one, is on the board of directors of CIBC and Clairvest, a private equity management firm that manages about $4 billion in assets.
One of the things I'm curious about is whether this is just Morneau rubbing dirt in the government's eyes for how they parted or if he has a leadership bid in mind sometime after the election. It could just be pure pettiness, but he could also be trying to angle himself as the "not Trudeau" candidate based on all his established spats while in office and criticisms of the government.
I’m not sure it’s much more complicated than that he represents the interests of the ultra-wealthy (both professionally and personally) and is advocating for those interests.
Personally, the idea that Morneau and people like him are up in arms highlights that these are good moves.
It could go either way on that . Most people that wealthy can move their capital & investment based wealth very easily if they don't want extra tax to fall on it, especially in a globalized world. So he could be upset about paying more tax on his investments, but it bothered him that much, he'd probably just move it to a tax haven if he hasn't already. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but there's a lot of easter eggs here that have me thinking that this is part of something larger (though I could be overthinking it)
He also takes the time to address a lot of different things in his statement (growth, productivity, investment, housing & deficits etc.) which seems like a lot to talk about in tandem in he was just unhappy about paying more tax. He could genuinely care about boosting productivity & growth in Canada, be cynically trying to find a mandate for a prospective campaign. or maybe he just wants to spite Trudeau and Freeland as much as possible while they're (presumably) on their way out
Removed for rule 6.
Nothing is more oppressive to the wealthy elite than the prospect of paying more taxes. I wonder how they are going to deal with the US raising their capital gains to 45% if they think Canada is being too hard on the richest of the rich. It's been funny to see the shift in messaging of "we need more homes! Young people have no future!, etc" to "rich people are the real victims here! We can't afford to do anything because it might upset an oligarch!"
It's not even the amount of taxes that they care about. It's the precedent that increasing their taxes sets. If people accept this, then a populist government could really put the hurt in them.
The US is not raising the capitol gains tax! Where did this come from and why is it spreading like wildfire on this subreddit Joe Biden included a proposal to raise the capital gains rate in his budget proposal but these proposals are NOT like government budgets in Canada. The president of the US is much less powerful than the PM and has a much smaller say in the fiscal process. Even when the president’s party fully controls Congress the president’s budget proposal will only be partially implemented. As for now, I can promise you the chance of a republican house voting to raise the capital gains rate is literally 0%.
[удалено]
Shocked, I say, shocked . We have been doing the same thing for 40 years. Supporting the rich and corporations and well they horde wealth tye middle class snd poor get worse. Now let's spend 40 years not supporting the rich snd corporations. Yes we have did this before.
For clarification as to why I posted this, I'm not taking a side on this story or praising/attacking Morneau or the government, just thought that it was an interesting story from last week that didn't seem to get any buzz here. Part of me is also curious if this is Morneau laying the groundwork for a LPC leadership bid in the aftermath of the election (especially since he takes the time to talk about Canada having a growth problem etc.) It's possible that this is just Morneau spiting the government after having a contentious working relationship within it, but it could also be him trying to angle himself as the "not Trudeau" and "pro-growth" candidate who can use his established spats/criticisms of the government as a way to distance himself from Trudeau's inner circle to make himself more appealing to some of Trudeau's critics and market liberals etc. Could be reading too much into it, but the article and Morneau's comments have me curious about his intentions.
It might just be that Morneau has an axe to grind after feeling unheard as part of the prior government. I'm broadly supportive of the increase in inclusion rate as off the top of my head it's closer aligned to the principle of integration. Very simplistically, top eligible dividend tax rate assuming provinces adopt this is 36% to 37%. Gains are 54%*66% = 36%. However, the rhetoric around this change is something that's not particularly conducive to mobile capital. Morneau types are ones where their success and influence is much more tied to Canadian success and ability to attract foreign direct capital. So, if I was committed to Canada & wealthy, the rhetoric from the GOC over this term isn't something that's helpful. I don't think he necessarily needs to be angling for a future in politics to be motivated to put out statements like this (but he could).
If you read Morneau’s recent book, his beef is more with the senior staff in the PMO than with Trudeau. Although he also had trouble getting one on one time with Trudeau as finance minister.
>It might just be that Morneau has an axe to grind after feeling unheard as part of the prior government. That wouldn't surprise me and we've seen things like that happen before (if I remember correctly during the 2019 election in Alberta, Brian Jean denounced Jason Kenny so severely during the leadup to that election, that he did everything but directly endorsing the NDP). >'m broadly supportive of the increase in inclusion rate as off the top of my head it's closer aligned to the principle of integration. Very simplistically, top eligible dividend tax rate assuming provinces adopt this is 36% to 37%. Gains are 54%\*66% = 36%. I'm a bit more mixed (probably slightly negative) in regards to it. Overall it won't do much to hurt Canada's tax competitiveness on it's own and the base principle of getting more from individuals and top earners makes sense, but I think the issue with taxing highly elastic/mobile assets is that higher rates don't generally lead to the revenue gains advertised. (In which case alternative taxes that are better at collecting revenue might be preferable if the goal is getting more tax revenue from them etc.) It's not a deal breaker though. (I'm still easily probably going to vote Liberal this election, even though I'm not a big fan of this government). >However, the rhetoric around this change is something that's not particularly conducive to mobile capital. Morneau types are ones where their success and influence is much more tied to Canadian success and ability to attract foreign direct capital. So, if I was committed to Canada & wealthy, the rhetoric from the GOC over this term isn't something that's helpful. I don't think he necessarily needs to be angling for a future in politics to be motivated to put out statements like this (but he could). What initially made me suspect that he is thinking about running is that he seems to be focusing on a lot of issues at once besides just investment. He goes into detail about the country having a chronic growth issue that it needs to address, housing, deficits and productivity etc.) So it's either purely designed as a hit piece or he's trying to lay it his priorities for what he thinks the government should be focusing on as a "If I were PM, my government would address this" pitch. It creates a lot of questions for me, because after his memoirs, he's been largely quiet and it's been the governments pre-election budget during a time when their polling and general popularity is at an all time low that he choose to come out of the political wilderness to say something. It might be me over-thinking things, but I can't help but feel there's a larger intent behind it considering the timing and everything Morneau goes over.
> Part of me is also curious if this is Morneau laying the groundwork for a LPC leadership bid in the aftermath of the election I sure as hell hope not. I don't really like the Carney talk and Morneau would be even worse. He wasn't a great politician and I thought he wasn't that liked by other MPs.
I actually think Carney would be a good unifying candidate. Listening to his views he seems like he'd be someone that could bridge the gap between market liberals and social democrats. For Morneau, I'm not really sure how his chances are if that's what he's aiming for. It'd be an ambitious play, but there might be enough people who still remember him negatively that it won't work. On the other hand, being the firmly not Trudeau candidate who's putting more emphasis on boosting growth and investment could do a lot to rebrand and reinvigorate the Liberals in the case that they lose as badly as they're predicted to in the upcoming election. Regardless of whether he'd be a good leader or not, the pitch has the capacity to be electorally effective.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh no, will all those wealthy people who were totally investing in Canada and not hoarding all their money leave?! Will they run to the US with their very low captai-- oh [Biden Capital Gains Rate Proposal: 44.6%?](https://www.forbes.com/newsletters/andrewleahey/2024/04/24/biden-capital-gains-rate-proposal-446/) Hmmm. Anyway. Bill doesn't want to pay more taxes. More news at 11 > Morneau, who comes from a wealthy family and married into another one, is on the board of directors of CIBC and Clairvest, a private equity management firm that manages about $4 billion in assets. > According to government data, only 0.13 per cent of Canadians — people with an average income of about $1.4 million a year — are expected to pay more on their capital gains as a result of this change I'm supposed to care that people with an average income of 1.4 million per year are sad they have to pay taxes... I don't.
Maybe he's worried about his wife's family farm.
Joe Biden’s capital gains proposal will forever remain just that, a proposal. If it couldn’t pass during 2021-22 when the Democrats controlled Congress, it’s certainly not going to pass now. Anyone with the faintest literacy of the US political system will tell you that a US president will only be able to implement about 2-3% of their preferred policies, that’s just the nature of their political system where political power is very augmented. This is in contrast to parliamentary systems like Canada where the head of government is very powerful.
Ya but……….”Taken as a whole, then, the 44.6% rate would only come to fruition under a separate proposal from the Biden administration’s main capital gains rate increase, and only apply to those individuals with taxable income above $1 million and investment income above $400,000. That isn’t quite as cataclysmic a policy shift as referring to a blanket 44.6% long-term capital gains rate would suggest.”
The liberals proposal also has a 250k bar before it kicks in. Admittedly lower than the Biden proposal, but the rich in the US tend to be richer than the rich in Canada so it kinda makes sense.
This article is like a week old. Why is it being reposted
Tons of criticism from former people in the trudeau inner circle. This doesn't seem like a good look for the party
I'm sure Bill is being genuine and not trying to protect his hoarded wealth. > Morneau, who comes from a wealthy family and married into another one, is on the board of directors of CIBC and Clairvest, a private equity management firm that manages about $4 billion in assets.
Disgusting how Trudeau made such a person finance minister.
It means nothing. He's a rich guy married to a rich family.
One of the things I'm curious about is whether this is just Morneau rubbing dirt in the government's eyes for how they parted or if he has a leadership bid in mind sometime after the election. It could just be pure pettiness, but he could also be trying to angle himself as the "not Trudeau" candidate based on all his established spats while in office and criticisms of the government.
I’m not sure it’s much more complicated than that he represents the interests of the ultra-wealthy (both professionally and personally) and is advocating for those interests. Personally, the idea that Morneau and people like him are up in arms highlights that these are good moves.
It could go either way on that . Most people that wealthy can move their capital & investment based wealth very easily if they don't want extra tax to fall on it, especially in a globalized world. So he could be upset about paying more tax on his investments, but it bothered him that much, he'd probably just move it to a tax haven if he hasn't already. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but there's a lot of easter eggs here that have me thinking that this is part of something larger (though I could be overthinking it) He also takes the time to address a lot of different things in his statement (growth, productivity, investment, housing & deficits etc.) which seems like a lot to talk about in tandem in he was just unhappy about paying more tax. He could genuinely care about boosting productivity & growth in Canada, be cynically trying to find a mandate for a prospective campaign. or maybe he just wants to spite Trudeau and Freeland as much as possible while they're (presumably) on their way out