Who and how much:

Consider an annual tax on the net wealth of families with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

This means the first $10 million of any family’s wealth is entirely unaffected by the wealth tax. Based on modelling of the first year of this wealth tax, the bottom 99.4 per cent of Canadians would pay nothing, while only the richest 0.6 per cent would pay any amount. This means that only about 100,000 families across the country would pay any amount under the wealth tax, with 10,000 wealthy enough to fall into the second-highest bracket and 3,700 in the highest bracket.

This narrow tax on the wealthiest few would raise an estimated $39 billion in its first year, $62 billion by its 10th year and $495 billion cumulatively over a 10-year window.

How:

an effective wealth tax must make use of extensive third-party reporting of assets, particularly from financial institutions, rather than relying too heavily on self-reporting as in the case of some older wealth taxes.

Who and how much:

Consider an annual tax on the net wealth of families with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

This means the first $10 million of any family’s wealth is entirely unaffected by the wealth tax. Based on modelling of the first year of this wealth tax, the bottom 99.4 per cent of Canadians would pay nothing, while only the richest 0.6 per cent would pay any amount. This means that only about 100,000 families across the country would pay any amount under the wealth tax, with 10,000 wealthy enough to fall into the second-highest bracket and 3,700 in the highest bracket.

This narrow tax on the wealthiest few would raise an estimated $39 billion in its first year, $62 billion by its 10th year and $495 billion cumulatively over a 10-year window.

How:

an effective wealth tax must make use of extensive third-party reporting of assets, particularly from financial institutions, rather than relying too heavily on self-reporting as in the case of some older wealth taxes.

You mean like the increase to capital gains tax Carney killed in his first few days as acting PM? He wasted no time letting his crew at Stripe and Shopify know who he gets shit done for.

Who and how much:

Consider an annual tax on the net wealth of families with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

This means the first $10 million of any family’s wealth is entirely unaffected by the wealth tax. Based on modelling of the first year of this wealth tax, the bottom 99.4 per cent of Canadians would pay nothing, while only the richest 0.6 per cent would pay any amount. This means that only about 100,000 families across the country would pay any amount under the wealth tax, with 10,000 wealthy enough to fall into the second-highest bracket and 3,700 in the highest bracket.

This narrow tax on the wealthiest few would raise an estimated $39 billion in its first year, $62 billion by its 10th year and $495 billion cumulatively over a 10-year window.

How:

an effective wealth tax must make use of extensive third-party reporting of assets, particularly from financial institutions, rather than relying too heavily on self-reporting as in the case of some older wealth taxes.

Too many people thought that tax would cut into their retirement investments. So dumb. We can’t do anything good without conservative hucksters convincing median income Canadians it will hurt them.

While I disagree with dropping the tax, it’s clear the liberals dropped that and similar policies (carbon tax, capital gains, etc) to combat the conservative slogans that appealed to the truly moronic among us

Who and how much:

Consider an annual tax on the net wealth of families with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

This means the first $10 million of any family’s wealth is entirely unaffected by the wealth tax. Based on modelling of the first year of this wealth tax, the bottom 99.4 per cent of Canadians would pay nothing, while only the richest 0.6 per cent would pay any amount. This means that only about 100,000 families across the country would pay any amount under the wealth tax, with 10,000 wealthy enough to fall into the second-highest bracket and 3,700 in the highest bracket.

This narrow tax on the wealthiest few would raise an estimated $39 billion in its first year, $62 billion by its 10th year and $495 billion cumulatively over a 10-year window.

How:

an effective wealth tax must make use of extensive third-party reporting of assets, particularly from financial institutions, rather than relying too heavily on self-reporting as in the case of some older wealth taxes.

Yup, Mark Carney marketed himself in the traditional Liberal way, by copying others’ most popular policies like a larger retailer proactively lowering prices to neutralize upstart competition. Now that they’ve essentially validated that viewpoint, if they even seem to consider reversing the policy later, they give the CPC ammunition. Both Carney and Freeland campaigned on this even though they must know damn well taxing the rich is the only certain way to ensure the long term health of society and the economy.

But the LPC is what the CPC used to be now. The CPC is much closer to the MAGA-esque PPC than they are to their traditional role. The NDP is apparently in a battle between LPC-ish establishment types at the top and more traditional NDP members at the grassroots. If the NDP gets absorbed into the LPC in future, that’ll be it. Those grassroots voices will be silenced, and the left will be just as gone from Canadian politics as it is in the United States.

Unfortunately, I agree with everything you’ve said. I’m hoping politics swings back to non-far right levels across the board but it’s difficult staying hopeful

with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

If someone has hoarded that much money, taxation at that rate will have absolutely zero impact on their lifestyle.

They have no valid complaints about a system like the one being proposed.

Wealth isn’t often in cash. It could be a founder of a company, and their stocks make their networth over 10 million.

In order to pay 1% they’d have to come up with another 100k, but the only way to do that is sell the stock. Selling the stock erodes the founders say in the company (shares = voting power) and will further incur taxes so it’s more than 100k.

So if by nothing you mean slowly erode a person’s ownership in their business over many years, then sure, nothing.

with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

If someone has hoarded that much money, taxation at that rate will have absolutely zero impact on their lifestyle.

They have no valid complaints about a system like the one being proposed.

Who and how much:

Consider an annual tax on the net wealth of families with rates of one per cent above $10 million, two per cent above $50 million and three per cent above $100 million.

This means the first $10 million of any family’s wealth is entirely unaffected by the wealth tax. Based on modelling of the first year of this wealth tax, the bottom 99.4 per cent of Canadians would pay nothing, while only the richest 0.6 per cent would pay any amount. This means that only about 100,000 families across the country would pay any amount under the wealth tax, with 10,000 wealthy enough to fall into the second-highest bracket and 3,700 in the highest bracket.

This narrow tax on the wealthiest few would raise an estimated $39 billion in its first year, $62 billion by its 10th year and $495 billion cumulatively over a 10-year window.

How:

an effective wealth tax must make use of extensive third-party reporting of assets, particularly from financial institutions, rather than relying too heavily on self-reporting as in the case of some older wealth taxes.