But I am pretty sure every economist agrees that a wealth tax doesn't make any sense mathematically
I find it difficult to believe you could come to this conclusion in good faith, given how many serious economists advocate for wealth tax.
This economist wrote an award winning book on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century, where he advocates for a wealth tax.
There are so many people in Canada that make way more than this who just aren't paying their fair share. We should also be doing more to tax assets other than income.
People who take a salary -- even a high salary, are most paying their fair share. I think they could make a reasonable argument that they pay way more than most (above 246752, 33% which is more than most people in the country).
Compare that with the wealthy:
From here
CEO Tobias Lütke (who was paid a $1 salary but received more than $26 million in option-based awards).
1$, meaning he pays ZERO income tax (he likely pays some taxes on his options).
This is somewhat common for wealthy people, adding more brackets on income isn't going get them paying their fair share.
What I believe we non wealthy people want to see is a wealth tax.
But would they? I'd have voted differently if we had PR.
I don't understand this take.
We impose tariffs, then those goods get more expensive for Canadians to buy. Why do we want to punish ourselves?
Imo we should lower our tarriffs on other nations, make it enticing to buy somewhere else
Charging access to NORAD seems impractical. I think at that point they'd just annex, and there isn't much we could do about it.
Totally think eliminating Chinese tariffs makes sense, and we should just do that.
I'm also pretty convinced we shouldn't retaliate with tariffs -- I think those would just hurt Canadian's.
I do like the don't buy red state exports, but I may just be being vindictive.
I suspect living longer implies higher quality.
He moved to Florida (https://globalnews.ca/news/10916773/jordan-peterson-moves-to-us-leaves-canada/) ... so kinda
The government doesn't guarantee the pension if the fund fails
This is incorrect, emphasis mine:
Funding shortfall The Government of Canada has a legal obligation to pay plan member pension benefits. If the plan becomes underfunded for any reason (for example, higher-than-expected costs, lower-than-expected investment results), the government is required to transfer additional funds into the public service pension plan. This has occurred before, including during the period from 2013 to 2018.
I don't dispute that they've renegotiated contribution rules, I don't know the history of this pension fund that well. Typically these rules are renegotiated with union agreement.
I think this is more complex, then an employer vs worker issue:
When the Govt originally made these pension investment "corporations", the notion was: "go invest this money and build up enough that we can pay all the members out their defined benefit", if something goes wrong the government will back the pension sort of "de-risking" the investment.
With that de-risking comes the other side of the coin, excess surpluses go to the government, the original agreement stipulated that, this is not a "the government is unilaterally taking money", this is something in the original contract. i.e it's not a surprise to anyone.
This gets to the heart of the matter. Though workers and employers both make contributions, employers ultimately hold all the decision-making power over workers’ pension plans.
This is true, but this is also a defined benefit pension: members know exactly how much they are getting from the pension at all times (with some assumptions about what their work history will be). They shouldn't be expecting more, and (for the positive side they know they won't be getting less). These kinds of pensions are rare, and everyone should want one.
As PSAC warns, “If the government can poach pension funds from its own employees, what’s to stop other employers from following suit and putting millions more at risk?”
I don't think this argument holds much weight, this isn't a flippant decision but something that was decided ages ago.
It also miss states that the money belonged to the employee's or employer in the first place, it does not belong to either it's more of a backup to gurantee future benefits
This all seems like it's part of the plan, and the title is super biased?
However, legislation governing pension funds restricts the size of accumulated surpluses to no more than 125 per cent of the plan’s liabilities.
Just like the govt guarantees the pensions if the fund fails, it can also take excess surpluses. That seems totally reasonable?
I don't get why the union is acting like it's their money when it isn't -- it's a defined benefit?
He earns 1$ income, the rest is options, his income is below the minimum taxable. The taxes he pays on options aren't income tax.