Who's Getting Hurt Most?

My buddy works at a fancy Swiss-owned investment firm. Lots of high net-worth clients invest their money with them.

Our boyhood gang got together for dinner (at what turned out to be an outstanding Greek restaurant), and we got to talking investments.

The day after the PQ got elected, he told me his firm was flooded with calls from worried investors asking to pull their money out and where they could place their money.

Oh, it happens alright.

He basically echoed what I've always felt: What people don't get is rich people move their assets around. They rarely, if ever, get hit with "higher" taxes. You can talk about closing down "loopholes
 and banning offshore investing and the like all you want, but smart people will generally usually look for ways to protect their assets. It's exactly what rich Democrats do. While he agrees hire taxes in the context of the U.S. situation may not be a bad thing, he also recognizes the reasons for doing it in both Quebec and the U.S. is somewhat specious.

Raising taxes will only hit the people you're claiming to help - the middle-class - most. Obamacare will act as a tax.

Spending is the problem. Period.

The arbitrary cut-off point for what constitutes being rich is 250k in the U.S. and 130k in Quebec. Neither is really "rich." Wealthy perhaps but not rich in the way Obama or the PQ describe it.

It's all class warfare rubbish.

He later asked, "who is more rich a person earning 120k and no pension or a public sector worker earning 70k and with a guaranteed pension (assuming it's the high-end pension)?"

We have a situation in Quebec where police officers are retiring at 45 with excellent pensions who then turn around and go earn a second living. How come that's "fair?" I can understand a businessman making it big and retiring but civil servants rely on taxpayers to support them. And we all know the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners is far tighter than it once was. In the left-wing la-la-logic, this is "fair" though.

The people leading the charge for the rich to pay their 'fair share' are actually advocating policies that hurt their own chances of becoming wealthy. Most middle-class families won't have pensions since many work in the private sector yet they're being asked to pay for union pensions.

Not. Right.

So why go after what little advantages they have, like for example, low dividend taxes? You're not going to hurt the rich. The rich will sell before they get hit. All you've done is make it less attractive for people to invest and save. Rationally, people will still invest but they won't make as much.

Again. This is our warped sense of "fairness."

I don't get how this doesn't anger people more. It sure did at our table last night because we understand the numbers and what's at stake.


  1. I always try to point out that the rich do not pay those tax increases, the rest of us do. Think about it... the rich sell something (or invest in those who do) and the increase in taxes will become part of the cost of selling that something thereby pushing the cost of that something up. The customer then pays more so the rich can pay his taxes (it's the natural redistribution of income). Higher property taxes eventually lead to higher rents, higher income taxes on small business people eventually leads to higher charges for the goods or services the small business person provides to the consumer.

    Ad, as you say, (especially progressive rate) taxation is how the rich prevent others attaining wealth. In other words, progressive taxation increases the wealth gap... in the long run.

  2. I forgot to add something in the post last night and just updated.

    I think that's pretty well said.

    The paradox is this: You want an egalitarian society with perks? Then personal wealth ERODES.

    Personally, I find it incredibly outrageous I pay .16% for social costs on my payroll. Shit, the things I can do with that money! I'd get MY OWN health plan at what I CAN afford, for example, for my employees. I want to set up a Group RRSP plan but I can't because I pay $2000 PER PAY PERIOD in "social costs." Crap like CSST and PIP. Stuff my employees don't even want. They want what I want to offer but can't. It makes it harder to retain employees.

    Non-business people don't get it. From afar they think "why don't they take care of their workers better! Boycott!" Fools. Money is scarce and when the state takes from you at all levels, it makes it harder to grow.

    Just my take.

    It's a trade-off. You can't then complain you're not paid enough. The wages and salaries, though can improve, are not the issue. The issue is how much tax is enough tax?

    What happens next? People ask for "free" education and the like. What's to stop them from asking for "free" food in the future? Or subsidized mortgage payments, as Obama has insanely proposed and think doing?

    One has to wonder if it's an unwitting or witting plan by the state to create a cult of dependents.

    And I think you're description is closer to the truth of what's playing out. The Obama Narrative is for the suckers - and there are 53 million of them apparently.


Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.