Wealth Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Wealth Professional | 05 Nov 2015, 11:19 AM Agree 0
Previous experience shows that a tax increase for top earners from the new liberal government could have a negative effect on the high-net-worth client market for advisors
  • Mark Matsumoto | 05 Nov 2015, 02:36 PM Agree 0
    Society as a whole is moved forward by the very few who are able and willing to work to achieve something great.
    There has to be motivation to work.
    I am guessing that taking the few percentage points from the top management and people's estates won't make a significant difference in total revenue but it will make a huge, but unmeasurable difference in the cost of corporate decisions, made by top management in the top tax brackets on where to locate business, how to determine transfer prices, where to show income, etc.
    Taxes take motivation away. Our social system holds people down. There is less and less innovation in Canada because of our governments.
    Canada is becoming less and less a place of opportunity and is just a good place to be poor.
    I think that looking at other jurisdictions has probably moved up on the to-do list of the corporate leaders in the country. Why stay where you are not welcome?
    If there are too many mosquitoes and black flies sucking my blood, I will leave an otherwise nice place.
  • Glen Rankin | 05 Nov 2015, 03:44 PM Agree 0
    Well articulated Mark.

    Death by 1,000 cuts eventually hits a tipping point.
  • Ken MacCoy | 05 Nov 2015, 08:54 PM Agree 0
    While I don't necessarily disagree Mark, we all have to pay our fair share. The reality, our tax system needs an overhaul.

    If I was in the Top 1%, I'd prefer to pay a little more tax and live in Canada as opposed to pay a lot more for healthcare and live in the States.
  • Jason Watt | 05 Nov 2015, 09:44 PM Agree 0
    @Mark. When was Canada the bastion of innovation that you yearn for?
  • K. DUFFY | 07 Nov 2015, 02:17 PM Agree 0
  • Niki | 07 Nov 2015, 02:27 PM Agree 0
    Tackling financial inequality through taxing those who have worked harder, spent more time in education costs and all, spent more time at work than anyone else, and who therefore contribute more as a whole, is what we expected. Never mind. The liberal government is also going to push us further into debt so that they spend more now, and the next generation is left to pay for the debt, just like they did before. Pierre did it, so why would we expect anything less?
  • Dave Macaulay | 09 Nov 2015, 01:46 PM Agree 0
    Take this one us a little further. Look at the one two punch in Alberta with the combination of the tax increases under our NDP government combined with the proposed increase from the federal Liberals on those earning more than 200K annually. On salary and interest income you will have a tax increase of 23.09% and just to make sure they have given the entrepreneurs as much disincentive as possible, taxes on eligible dividends increases a whooping 64.39%. I think there is very good reason to move location up the list when looking at where you are deciding to have your business.
  • Jason Watt | 11 Nov 2015, 09:50 AM Agree 0
    So let me get this straight:
    -Canadians are hard-working
    -Canadians are entrepreneurial
    -Canadians operate small businesses at a disproportionate pace

    -Canadians will stop doing this because of having to pay extra taxes?

    Your tax on eligible dividends calculation is disingenuous. The biggest reason for that is the drop in the corporate general tax rate.
  • Ken MacCoy | 11 Nov 2015, 08:56 PM Agree 0
    The great majority of Canadians voted for change...knowing full well of Trudeau’s pledge to introduce a higher tax rate for the country’s top earners. For those that think there are: 'a lot better countries than this one' , have a nice trip. Just remember the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side of the fence.
  • Niki | 12 Nov 2015, 04:34 PM Agree 0
    For most, it is not a matter of whether the grass is greener or not, but just how much they get fleeced along the way. Those years in University and the costs associated are part of the fleecing. It is not so much about burdening those who already pay the most amount of taxes, but in maintaining a society that is fair for all. Taxing someone 50% while removing their ability to income split, is grossly unfair. Running the country through discussions regarding the lowest common denominator has never been right. It is why country after country are leaving the communist philosophy over establishing healthy capitalism. Applying a communist philosophy to a capitalist system is simply put, devolutionary at best.
Post a reply