This is surprising to me. I thought Carney would be a lock for the leadership of the Liberals.
Impressions of potential leaders of the Liberal party from the article;
Freeland 29%
Carney 17%
Joly 15%
Clark 12%
Leblanc 11% (not running)
Ananad 9%
Champagne 9%
Fraser 6%
I said it before I'm Team Joly she is the easiest to look at.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Good question.
It's certainly not the "0.13% of Canadians with an average annual income of $1.4M" that Freeland told us.
CBC's About That had a good video on it:
5 minute mark they have estimated on how many Canadians it will actually effect.
10 min mark they talk about Dr's specifically and how 66% is charged on every dollar withdrawn on incorporated individuals, they don't even get the first $250,000 at 50%.
Freeland used misinformation, or at the very least, intentionally misleading information to bring this tax out.
If you think it only effects 1% to help 99%, you clearly fell for it.
If you want the Liberals to be better than right wing misinformation sources, you should care about that.
And we never would have known that without the CBC.
Just a note, what you are accusing Freeland of is lying, not misinformation. Lying is the correct term to apply to politicians.
No, the reason it was exempt was because the tax was costing the Liberals votes in Atlantic Canada. There were programs in place to help home owners with the cost of switching to cleaner heating sources.
Well yeah, that was once people realized it was a farce.
But had the money been used properly to actually move towards removing carbon with actionable policies, more people would have supported it.
As it stands I hope it gets shut down the first day the CPs form a government.
Good question.
It's certainly not the "0.13% of Canadians with an average annual income of $1.4M" that Freeland told us.
Every reference to that I've ever seen qualifies it as "in any given year". With that, the 0.13% number is totally correct. About 40K of the 30 million tax filers have a gain above that in the average year.
If you're talking about in a person's lifetime, then the number is higher. But we're still talking about low single digit percentages (2-3%) who would ever be impacted by that throughout their entire lives. And that's assuming that no one mitigates it in any way by crystallizing gains periodically. By doing that, almost anyone other than the very wealthy could avoid ever being impacted by the higher inclusion rate.
Every reference to that I've ever seen qualifies it as "in any given year". With that, the 0.13% number is totally correct. About 40K of the 30 million tax filers have a gain above that in the average year.
First thing I saw was Trudeau's own video promoting their new capital gains tax on his personal account.
First 5 seconds he claims this impacts less than 1% of people while showing the 0.13% number with no qualification.
2:15 in he repeats that they are going only after the "very richest of people, only 0.13% of Canadians to be exact." He then explicitly tries to point out that these people make $1.4 million per year. Which is interesting given that he's taken the time to explicitly NOT say that the 0.13% is a yearly stat but he is explicitly pointing out the higher income on that basis. Certainly the people that will be affected by the increased taxes are not all making $1.4 million per year.
2:50 in he repeats once again that it only affects <1% of people with not qualification showing the 0.13% number again with no qualification.
