Wealth Tax

[trimmer21]

That's one reason why I think it might be worth exploring 4100. Keep in mind, the people/class that are struggling, and that theres a boatload of Boomers. When they leave the workforce, it will create job openings, but also reduce tax revenue. There's also a lot, and more and more, who cant afford to retire. Working into their late 60s, 70s, to the grave. Lol, just look at how many "seniors" are Walmart Greeters, working at Tims, McDonalds, the LCBO........more and more and more...

But also keep in mind the sheer mind boggling amount of money socked away in RSPs and TFSAs. Great for the well off and for some arguably needed given tax loads. But for many, just another way to shelter money that's doing little to help grow GDP. Its "tucked away" and out of the economy.

If people could split incomes, it would reduce the tax load on the higher earner, keep the money in the economy and not socked away. But as mentioned, after a certain point or level of income, it's going to be abused. Heavily.

I'm sure you know that funds in RRSP's,TFSA's etc. are never static (ie: converted to cash and stashed in a sock). Funds on deposit to the finance sector are immediately put back into circulation throughout the economy in the form of investment vehicles, consumer loans and mortgages. generating interest.

[JBen]

Yes Trimmer, but it's not the same as a "cash" economy. We could for example, suggest/argue that's it's little different than the government taking money out of the economy vis a vie taxes, ( some will argue that taxation itself is a means to control monetary supply/inflation) and then paying Public Servants, who in turn contribute tens of thousands to their pensions, rsps. Cant suck and blow at the same time.

Back in the day, given it was our business, to generate wealth for others, as bend tax law every imaginable way we could find. And Im telling you, I worked with very bright people.......
What did we really do?
We don't make anything...We take $$, and make it into "more".

[410001661]

That's one reason why I think it might be worth exploring 4100. Keep in mind, the people/class that are struggling, and that theres a boatload of Boomers. When they leave the workforce, it will create job openings, but also reduce tax revenue. There's also a lot, and more and more, who cant afford to retire. Working into their late 60s, 70s, to the grave. Lol, just look at how many "seniors" are Walmart Greeters, working at Tims, McDonalds, the LCBO........more and more and more...

But also keep in mind the sheer mind boggling amount of money socked away in RSPs and TFSAs. Great for the well off and for some arguably needed given tax loads. But for many, just another way to shelter money that's doing little to help grow GDP. Its "tucked away" and out of the economy.

If people could split incomes, it would reduce the tax load on the higher earner, keep the money in the economy and not socked away. But as mentioned, after a certain point or level of income, it's going to be abused. Heavily.

I'm not talking about an unlimited cap but high enough to make it worth while for a couple to peruse. Not talking about millionaires here I'm talking about mid to higher income earners. A guy that makes $175k and his wife would make $50k if she dropped to part time. If they can drop his taxable income by $45k and transfer it to his wife putting her at $95k (just under the max of that income bracket). He drops a tax bracket and his wife stays in her tax bracket (at the higher end of that lower % tax bracket) and she gets to work part time and it makes sense.


15% on the first $48,535 of taxable income, and
20.5% on the portion of taxable income over $48,535 up to $97,069 and
26% on the portion of taxable income over $97,069 up to $150,473 and
29% on the portion of taxable income over $150,473 up to $214,368 and
33% of taxable income over $214,368

[JBen]

Net tax savings is going to be around $3,000 for a household with gross income of call it $225,000

If they live modestly, there’s no or little reason the high income earner wouldn’t be maxing out an RSP. Deferring around 28% on $20,000, or about 5,500 and both could be taxing out TFSA for tax free growth on another $10,000 per year.

Depending on lifestyle specifics. Without IS she shouldn’t contribute to an RSP. There’s little upside.

With IS and depending on specifics she could and should be maxing her RSP, deferring 26% on $20,000. Call it $5,400

So per year that very well off household. Is reducing their tax load and govt revenue by $14,000 and saving an additional $10,000 that grows tax free. Roughly 10% of household rev.

Meanwhile the middle class can’t find 2 nickels for even $1,000 to a TFSA and can’t find a GP........

As I said, I am for it. But not who I would be helping first.