vincent on Farcaster

matthewb pfp

according to the canadian union of public employees (CUPE), top marginal tax rates of 53% in canada are actually too low and should be over 80%. they also argue that we should rely on public sector job growth since 1/4 canadians are currently employed by the gov (which they argue is a good thing). https://cupe.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/action-plan-adopted-2025-EN.pdf

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

matthewb pfp

a hearty “fuck you” to anyone that believes we should have 80% tax rates lmao

2 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

vincent pfp

don't worry, this rate wouldn't apply to you 😉 models that propose 80%+ tax are aimed at extreme top earners, CEOs, hedge-fund gains, earning well into the high seven figures.

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

vincent pfp

countries had 80–90% top tax rates. growth didn't die. middle classes thrived. inequality dropped. public goods expanded. and only once we cut those rates did wealth concentration and corporate hoarding explode.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

matthewb pfp

personally I don’t want to live like the EU where everyone earns 30-50k and will never afford anything nice it’s a great deal if you earn 0-20k and want strong safety nets, bad deal for anyone that wants to earn over 100k and buy property etc.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

vincent pfp

you're missing the point. we are talking about taxing the richest 0.1%. this is not about you. the threshold for such rates wouldn't be at 100k but 10M. do you know who taxed the rich at 90%+? the USA, during the Golden Age of Capitalism

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

matthewb pfp

quebec already defines their highest marginal tax rate bracket at a very low amount, threats like CUPE is making would likely be targeting individuals far lower than 10M annual income. almost nobody in canada earns that much, maybe Galen Weston. imo it would be aimed at squeezing more out of the professional class that covers the bill for everyone else at present, $300k-1M. if you think that’s a good growth strategy for canada that has produced almost no companies of value vs. the U.S. over the last 20yr, a country in which nearly every Waterloo eng grad immediately moves south to start their companies instead of doing so in Canada… then that’s okay, I just disagree.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

vincent pfp

we can definitely disagree, but I'll call out your arguments as flimsy, some just flat-out wrong. again, proposals for 80%+ top marginal tax rates aren't aimed at $300k-$1M earners. they target ultra-high incomes, top 0.01%. by definition, there aren't many of them, but they somehow keep getting richer pretending they're coming for the "professional class" is fearbait, not analysis. growth strategy isn’t about income tax rates anyway. it’s about ecosystems: capital access, talent networks, institutional support. that’s why people leave, not because they’re taxed at 40%++. btw, the tsx has outperformed the s&p 500 so far this year. all that to say, if you want lower taxes, you're definitely living in the wrong province

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

matthewb pfp

eh, if you trust these politicians to target the 0.01% rather than high earners more broadly, that’s fine. I don’t and suspect that capital controls will become more common going forward, in the same way that modest incomes of $100k are considered the top income bracket in QC which is of course ridiculous. and yes, income tax rates don’t dictate growth but they do have an influence over who decides to build what and where. we have *unrealized capital gains* in canada so even your illiquid shares in a company (“paper shares”) that you can’t even sell are taxed lol. pretty hard to retain talent with rules like that. with regards to QC, it’s a terrific deal if you’re the one getting the benefit, a bad deal if you’re the one footing the bill. simple as that.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

vincent pfp

you're repeating myths, not making arguments. unrealized gains aren't taxed... we already have a progressive tax system that can target ultra-high incomes. you don't have to trust politicians. that’s why tax brackets are written into law. quebec has its flaws, but paying into shared infrastructure isn't one of them. that's called participating in a society.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

matthewb pfp

unrealized gains on paper shares are taxed if you exit or move your company. I guess you’ve never spoken to someone who had to pay that bill? imagine paying 25% on $10M that doesn’t exist. but yes it’s not taxed like your other capital gains, correct. not sure why you feel the need to correct me on things with which you’re unfamiliar. and the reason I bring up trusting politicians is because this CUPE document is not policy, it’s a manifesto for their stated goals. they are lobbyists, in other words. so we have no idea how any of these ideas would be implemented by a given government, including taxing 0.01% vs. 0.1% vs. 1% earners. you don’t know and I don’t know. the reason I am suggesting that it would not be implemented on the 0.01% ($10M+) earners is because that’s only ~400-600 people in canada. so best case scenario $3-5B in additional tax revenue or <1% of the yearly budget, if we double their current effective tax rate. that’s great, but it only covers the interest on our national debt for one month. another way to look at it is that it’s equivalent to ~$70-120 per citizen. not transformative by any means but not nothing either. as a result, a policy of this nature would very likely be adapted to include a larger segment of the tax base. if we’re taxing earners > $10M, why not everyone over $5M? why not $2M? they’re all rich, who cares? in the end it’s all speculation, but it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which those types of policies lead to lower taxes for anyone except for < $60k earners who are already neutral or negative contributors to the tax pool. with regards to QC, I would love some services in exchange for what I pay. unfortunately I don’t have a family doctor, no dental, no vision, no prescription, etc. that leaves public transportation, I guess? big tax bill is a pretty expensive bus pass lol.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

vincent pfp

you're right about the stock option tax trap. the "tax on money that doesn’t exist" problem is real for startup employees and founders. it can create serious cash flow issues, but just to be precise, this is not a tax on unrealized capital gains. its a tax on a non-cash employment benefit. its a frustrating design flaw, especially for people holding illiquid shares. but it’s a distinct issue from progressive tax policy as a whole. most people in this country are not dealing with stock options. they are dealing with rising costs and stagnant wages. if anything, a more progressive tax system would reduce the burden on the majority while asking more of those accumulating extreme wealth. we can and should fix broken mechanics like how stock options are taxed. but turning that frustration into blanket contempt for workers and public institutions does not move us forward.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

matthewb pfp

imo that’s semantics really, it’s a tax on illiquid shares. there’s no cap gain to tax since nothing was realized, but it’s really not that different than unrealized gains like in Australia. it’s taxing people for money they don’t have and may never have. agreed that it’s not a top priority though. I certainly don’t have blanket contempt for workers, I am part of the working class being taxed at 40-50% because I’m deemed “rich” by the quebec and federal gov. I would be thrilled to see my marginal tax rate lowered by taxing extremely wealthy individuals but instead my rates are raised to be redistributed to those earning less than I am. forgive me for not being sympathetic to those like CUPE advocating for these policies since they don’t have my best interests at heart 🤷🏻‍♂️ with regards to cost of living increases, those are largely as a result of inflation. printing ~40% of our entire money supply in a couple calendar years has consequences. we need to focus on expanding the tax base to generate enough revenue to match our expenditures, not printing endlessly to make voters happy with short-term solutions. that means policies which: - encourage startups and other high-growth businesses to be founded in canada - encourage capital allocators to invest in canada - encourage businesses to invest in manufacturing and operations in canada at present we still can’t have an honest discussion about why the canadian economy is performing so poorly relative to the rest of the world despite our abundance of resources. we still can’t be honest about why houses are $1-2M here for no reason. we still can’t implement straightforward solutions like reforming zoning regs and lowering building fees to stimulate a housing supply boom.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction