Friday, April 13, 2012

Inheritance Tax on Rich Popular!

According to a new poll I wrote about some days ago the inheritance tax on the rich is apparently popular.
that 69 per cent of Canadians support the introduction of an inheritance tax on any estate valued at more than $5 million.
I have been talking about this for some time. Which I still holds can provide 3 billion dollars and it wouldn't even allow major taxes to be payed by the top 1-2% of Canadians. The rich in the U.S don't seem to mind and some rich are even asking that their taxes go up. The "Buffet Rule." It seems the center of Canada is with this plan.

Because if all 31% are against and Harper conservatives support is at 32% it shows that only the right is against it.,and Harper in the last election got 40% of the vote that leaves for the sake of argument the people who jumped to the right wing party since 2004 and gave Harper his majority. If the Liberals support a Death Tax it would get the people we need from the Conservative party to our party. Now I am not saying this will help us win election, but obviously it won't hurt us in elections.


  1. First off.

    There already is an inheritence tax. It may not be a lot to some but it is there. I suspect that it isn't even called an inheritence tax but that is what iti is.

    The number I heard floating around was 35%.
    No one with that kind of wealth would allow the gov't to take it.

    It would lead to offshore investments and other perfectly legal strategies to prevent paying this tax.

    Some past Prime ministers engage in this strategy already to avoid tax.

    No one ever got rich by paying more tax than they need to.

  2. The problem isn't that the ultra-rich don't have specific taxes with their names on them. The problem is that through the wonders of the modern corporation, once you have giant piles of money you can pay lawyers and accountants to come up with schemes to hide it from the government.

    For example, instead of having all your assets as part of your estate, the vast majority could belong to a family corporation. Around when you die your shares change class and become worthless, and ever so coincidentally your family members' shares become worth much more.

  3. Anonymous I am proposing a very lenient death tax like the one they have in the U.S where people use all these schemes. Therefor yes they end up paying less , but even with them paying something it will still provide a few billion dollars in tax revenue. In regards to other taxes like the corporate tax and income taxes that the rich use lawyers get out of. I think it is important we crack down on this so it doesn't continue.

  4. And what exactly gives you the authority to tax people who die? Where in the charter does it outline taxing estates on death as a role of government?
    also what makes the act of death so special? people are allowed to give stuff to whoever they like while alive, so why would a contract to do so posthumously be different?

  5. It's just another lefty idea to steal from those unpopular rich people and give it to the poor. A tax like this is nothing more than legalized theft from people who can't fight back, you know, 'cause they're dead.

  6. Lilatomic
    we have had death taxes before and we all know your a Libertarian so any tax to you is theft. But it isn't a theft as much as an income tax is. You may believe that the income tax is theft, but I don't believe that it is theft.

  7. You didn't answer my question. you instead attacked my personal position on the issue. don't be a politician. ( as in )

  8. No I just stated the reason. you are a libertarian that believes all taxes are theft. So all I am saying is that as A Liberal I don't think taxes are robbery. There is nothing peculiar about death (to answer your question, but since it's beginning the death tax has been used to make sure that a class of "rich" isn't developed and that people make their own riches and aren't just simply inheritance of it. I see the death tax as a way to provide revenue to help pay off our deficit and also I agree with the idea that it could help stop the class of the "rich."

    1. So you are stating that the thing that gives you authority to take someone's money by force (which you do not consider theft) is that you don't consider it theft. So by analogy, if I were to not consider burning your house down as arson, I could do so, especially if it would prevent legally acquired goods from being transferred en-masse from people I dislike to people I dislike. Oh and it could stimulate the economy because they could build condos, which could help the city cover its deficit.

    2. Lilatomic that is such a strawman argument you are taking something I didn't say and making it sound completely crazy Governments have the authority to tax people.I know you ideologically think differently, but the government is elected by the people and therefor is given the authority to tax and to spend.

    3. So the majority (ish) of population voting on a government gives the government authority to tax and spend. Are there bounds to this authority? because your (and we are talking about your beliefs, not mine) argument would imply that there are none. If there aren't, my argument is the logical extension of your previous argument.

    4. Are there not legal limits set by the constitution and the charter of rights and freedom. No you are not making an extension to my argument you are stretching it out to impossible limits that no one agrees with. We are now no longer talking about the death tax but arguing ideologically whether governments have the right to do things (uptill a certain point)


Any highly offensive matter will be deleted whether it be solid, water, gas or plasma. No comments from outsiders represent the opinions of Owner and Doggy or vanillaman. We reserve the right to delete any comments without explanation.