Do you know the famous quote from Coluche who says: “The technocrats, if we gave them the Sahara, in five years, they would have to buy sand elsewhere”?
This wisdom applies very well to Justin Trudeau’s government, which chose to create tons of electoral programs before passing the bill on to rich people, but also, in turn, to many middle-class taxpayers.
Before going any further, I must clarify that I am one of those who think it is absolutely important to share wealth with those less fortunate in life. But, when taxpayers are caught by the throat and do not benefit from services commensurate with their level of taxation, the crisis of confidence is never far away. Yes, for fair taxation of the ultra-rich, but we must start to define what an ultra-rich is.
Imagine here this person who is told the day after the budget: “You will have to give us a good part of the profits from the sale of your duplex that you bought in 1990 for your retirement. We pride ourselves on the thousands of hours you spent maintaining it. Having a duplex in addition to your house makes you ultra-rich who must participate in the financing of these new programs which are mainly intended to help us rise in the polls. »
This way of doing things is all the more frustrating since this same taxpayer sees Justin Trudeau’s travel statements in the news: the equivalent of $215,398 for a getaway to the Aga Khan’s private island, another stay in a residence lent by an ultra-rich in Tofino during the first day of Truth and Reconciliation, a vacation valued at $160,000 in Jamaica, another getaway worth $230,000 in Montana, a suite at $6,000 per night for go and shed tears over the remains of the Queen of England.
With such a list, when Justin Trudeau positions his new tax as a way of making the very rich pay, this collateral victim has the right to be very angry.
As an economist recalled on a radio channel, if this decision wanted to preferentially target capital gains from the actions of the ultra-rich, why did you give these citizens until June 25 before applying the measure?
This period is more than sufficient for them to have time to have a discussion with their tax professional to obtain a tax creativity plan to mitigate the extent of the financial impacts. Why was the decision not implemented immediately to prevent capital flight which, according to many economists, will be enormous?
If we wanted to attack the ultra-rich, why not think of the multinationals and tax havens to which the government seems to have laid down its arms?
There is popular wisdom that says that rules are often like barriers. In fact, the small dogs go under it, the big dogs jump over it, only the donkeys stop there.
It is precisely the feeling of being servants that inhabits all middle-class people who have become collateral victims of this new tax in Chrystia Freeland’s budget. An initiative intended to finance all these new programs that his government is shoving down the throats of the provinces to the applause of the New Democrats.
The propensity of our leaders, at the provincial and federal level, to think that there is no limit to the taxation of the average taxpayer is very frustrating. Especially when this same taxpayer is struggling to receive services and is convinced that there is a lot of cleaning up to be done in the management of public finances before asking for even more money. He sees the government as someone who always buys new jeans for his teenager who is too lazy to go through and clean out his wardrobe.
When we see the saga ArriveCANthe gigantic debt that the Trudeau government leaves to future generations, the airport problems, the chaotic management of immigration, the under-equipment of the Canadian army unworthy of a G7 country, the health transfers of more coupled with anemic conditions, the systemic failure to protect our elections from foreign subversion, and the ever-increasing number of people living on the streets, one can’t help but wonder if the problem isn’t more than a bad management than a real lack of money.
Even if the vast majority of Canadians and Quebecers believe in this model of wealth sharing which is, in my opinion, the only way to guarantee social peace and pleasant living together, there are limits that must not be crossed.
Politics must not, as the other said, become the art of obtaining money from the rich and votes from the poor, under the pretext of protecting them from each other. Between these two extremes, people in the middle sometimes feel suffocated.
We are heading towards a pivotal period in the viability of our social democracy. This dam that we cherish so much is starting to show signs of weakness. And if our leaders do not find this area of balance between the level of taxation and the quality of services to the population, we can bet that in the not-so-distant future, a libertarian ideologue will succeed in seducing even a certain electorate traditionally camped at LEFT. He will break the dike and it will then be the beginning of “every man for himself” and God for the richest that we see among our neighbors to the South. It is utopian to think that Canada is sheltered from this very unequal system which is leading the United States to their downfall.
Corrigendum:
A passage from this column was deleted because it indicated that the taxpayer already gives 50% of his capital gains to the State and that “exceeding the 50% threshold amounts to asking him to work for the State more than for himself.” This premise is inaccurate. In reality, the announced increase in the capital gains inclusion rate, which will go from 50 to 66.7% in June, only applies to the amount of the gain that exceeds $250,000 per year. This means that two-thirds of the gain beyond this threshold will be taxable, at the individual’s marginal tax rate, the maximum of which is 53% in Quebec; below, as before, only half of the capital gain will be taxable. Concretely, the tax bill for the part of the gain greater than $250,000 will therefore increase from 26.7% (inclusion rate at 50%) to 35.5% (inclusion rate at 66.7%). This tax treatment of the gain therefore remains lower than that of the dividend (maximum 40%) and employment or interest income (maximum 53%).