Rich guy stays, keeps his money while we give him more and government pays him and he tries to pay as little or no tax at all. We lose.
Rich guy leaves and we don't get the benefit of having him around. We lose.
Screw em .... I rather take my chances of not having them around. At least then someone more motivated to do meaningful work in the country would have a chance.
God these people are such fucking crybabies. It's not even an especially significant tax hike.
Edited to add:
“Foundations, high-net worth folks that are holding the capital into companies — that’s going to be gone.”
That's a lie, but if it were true - good riddance. We'd get a lot more done as a country without those ghouls playing the working class against each other. Let them all move away - it's not like regular Canadians won't start businesses to take their place.
Also, when I say it's not an especially significant tax hike: Capital gains are currently taxed as if you made 50% of the profit you actually made, and now that's going up to 66%. It's not a tax rate of 66%, it literally means "When we tax you, we'll pretend you only made 2/3rds of the profit you actually did." Regular people, already get taxed on 100% of their employment income (albeit generally in a lower tax bracket).
It would be really nice if the PostMedia group would get a little bit more subtle about the fact Corporate Canada is balls-deep in their ass on the regular.
But some businesses said the approach could worsen what the Bank of Canada’s No. 2 official last month called a productivity “emergency.” Canada numbers rate poorly thanks to weak investment in machinery, equipment and intellectual property, the bank’s senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers said.
What a crock of shit. Want a good way to avoid paying taxes as a business? Reinvest profits back into the business via purchases of equipment (ok, you have to amortize that one over a few years), higher wages, more staff, R&D, etc. More money reinvested into these productivity-generating purchases (that are apparently in a state of emergency) means less you're extracting from the business, and therefore less you're paying via this new slightly-higher capital gains tax.
Want a cool side-benefit? This actual spending (rather than wealth-extraction and subsequent hoarding) will generate real economic activity which will have a compounding effect on the economy resulting in actual economic growth. The taxes generated by those who decide not to reinvest more of their profits will have a similar effect, with that added government spending stimulating the economy in its own way.
Capitalism has many faults, but while we've got it we could at least adhere to one of its pretty fundamental tenets that money needs to flow through the economy for it to work. Hoard too much wealth and the gears dry up, resulting in an economic downturn.
Henry Ford - despite being a total piece of shit in his own right - at least recognized the need for his workers to be able to afford to buy the product they built. Too many modern "titans of industry" seem to be forgetting that.
Source: I'm not an economist, but I do manage the finances for a small Canadian business of about 25 employees. We don't give a shit about becoming rich - we just want to keep the lights on, live in reasonable (but not excess) comfort, pay our employees as well as our funds allow, and enable my mom (our company president) to be able to one day retire.I live in constant fear of a deep recession that I think is inevitable, but believe that actions like these new higher taxes on the rich will help stave off or mitigate. In my opinion we need much higher taxes on substantial wealth but in the meantime I'll take this as progress.
Much appreciated! I get fired up by this sort of thing, and it's nice to know I'm not alone. Too often it feels that way with the direction our species seems to be heading.
Incredibly stupid, but I'd expect nothing less from a big bank that's complicit in the country's economic woes. There's no shortage of people who know how to build homes.
There's a shortage of people who will do it for starvation wages though. And that's what the big banks really don't want.
I think it's more likely a way to get a portion of your employees to resign without having to deal with the socio-econo-political headache of layoffs or give severance packages.
It doesn't boost productivity, but it may cut payroll.
IBM has a history of this kind of stuff - when they need to expand: Remote work schemes, and flexible work hours become more common. When they need to tighten the belt, the first step is a RTO. So long as you are willing some flexibility in the time line, and support employees in the move - it will lead to plenty of people quiting, a few people moving, then you do a small round of layoffs avoiding people who willingly moved closer to the office etc as these are people unlikely to have quick new opertunities and are more stuck with the company/loyal to it.
The Pandemic is not the first time IBM has done something like this, and it won't be the last.
Now, if we really get into the weeds - a lot of Companies that know this can be pulled off REALLY DO NOT want Remote work/hybrid work schedules to become industry norms, as once they do - these practices for ridding your company of say 1-2% of it's staff periodically stop being viable and you need to go for a more traditional layoff scheme.
financialpost.com
Hot