this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
401 points (98.5% liked)

Canada

8132 readers
1948 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This Black History Month, it’s important to recognize that economic injustice—both in Canada and around the world—is deeply rooted in racism. The property system in Canada was founded on the forced displacement and exclusion of Indigenous peoples from their land and immigration policies that prevented non-white immigration, effectively barring many thousands of people from accessing property in Canada. These racialized colonial systems laid the foundation for the current racial wealth gap, where racialized Canadians have about half as much wealth as their non-racialized counterparts.

Unlike the United States, where constitutional barriers have historically shielded the ultra-rich from direct taxation, Canada faces no such constitutional legal obstacles—only political ones. And those political excuses are running out.

A wealth tax enjoys overwhelming public support. Nearly 90 percent of Canadians back it, yet successive Liberal and Conservative governments have refused to act. Their refusal isn’t due to legal constraints but to the immense influence of corporate lobbyists and billionaire donors who oppose any effort to make them pay their fair share.

Just last year, powerful corporate interests mobilized to kill a progressive tax measure that would have primarily targeted Canada’s wealthiest citizens and corporations: the partial closure of the capital gains loophole.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] karlhungus 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] GameGod 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

You're mad about the wrong thing. He's going to pay an effective tax rate of about 25% when he exercises those options. (Capital gains)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[–] karlhungus 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Assuming he pays 25% tax, which i'd be very suspicious about, he's about 2 million short of his current "fair share".

26 000 000 * 0.25 = 6 500 000

26 000 000 * 0.33 = 8 580 000

If he's deferring till retirement, then likely his tax rate is less, and the bank is lending him money which he can spend freely and call a capital loss lowering his effective tax rate when he does incur those taxes.

The thing about being this wealthy is you can afford to pay people to find ways to lower this rate.

I don't think i'm "mad" about this, but concerned. This kind of inequality leads to violent upheaval, and is currently the cause of a whole pile of unnecessary suffering. If we didn't have people that were this wealthy and some of that money was distributed to say education, healthcare, UBI, we could all have a much healthier pleasant life.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

your first position is correct; however,

1$, meaning he pays ZERO income tax (he likely pays some taxes on his options).

This is factually incorrect unless Canada has a special regime to make it work which would not make sense.

[–] karlhungus 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why do you assume that equity would not be treated as income once vested?

[–] karlhungus 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
  1. I've exercised options from a company in canada, they were taxed distinctly (and more favourably) from income.

  2. He'd have no reason to take his payment this way otherwise. (FWIW Every CEO (both canadian and american) of a wealthy company i've seen has taken their pay in a manner similar to this: most of the comp is in stocks)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Stock grants among any other in kind payment are treated as ordinary income as general rule.

I've exercised options from a company in canada, they were taxed distinctly

Can somebody confirm this?

The wording is a bit vague.

The only way I can see this working if tax was paid when option was granted hence once it was exercised it would be subject to a more favourable capital gains treatment for the proceeds from exercising.

[–] karlhungus 4 points 22 hours ago

You don't pay taxes on the option, because you haven't bought the option till you exercise it.

Anyway the amount was kinda fixed (it's been awhile) like 25%, it was also years ago, so things may have changed. They are also distinct from RSU's which i believe aren't taxed as low, but still better than top marginal tax rate for income.

Anyway it doesn't seem like those are really the whole story (https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36l575/eli5_how_can_it_be_that_ceos_often_pay_an/) -- it looks like the tax escape mechanism is to get deferred stocks - which admittedly for the Tobias case we'd have to see how those stocks were awarded. I still think my point 2 applys - why would he take compensation in this mostly stocks manner (and like every other CEO i've seen) unless there was some benefit.