Kanadische Familien mit dem höchsten Einkommen zahlen 65 % aller Einkommenssteuern und über 50 % aller individuellen Steuern: Bericht

The real issue is Canada taxes labour too hard and capital not enough.

You can have a boomer with a 2 million dollar house making 50k/yr paying very little in tax. While a young lawyer can make 250k but can’t afford the same house while having to paying the highest marginal rate.

To make it even worse Carney has been taking federal tax dollar and allocating them to help subsidize development fees which in turn are subsidizing property taxes.

Joke of a country.

If my math is somewhat correct, after taxes they would be taking home a little over $4300 bi-weekly.
That is insane money. The poor rich people. Please take more from me.

That’s nowhere near enough.

Next up at 10, water is wet!

Of course they pay the most. Is this not normal and expected?

How much should the poorest people pay?

The ***real*** headline shouldn’t imply we tax rich people less, it’s that there’s a huge portion of Canadians ***unable*** to contribute more by getting paid a better wage  

I’m curious who paid for this fraser institute study.

– It appears, in the full article, the findings are based on a simulation? Confusing, there is probably real data
– Is this taking into account the fact that „yearly income“ is not necessarily how the top 20% (or really, 1%) report or document their wealth?
– I think there are some funky numbers going on here. The quintiles cover a range between 50k to 100k. and then the „top 20% of earners is just, anyone over 270k. Ostensibly covering the 80 or so billionaires we have down to the 300,000 people we have that earn over 270k.

So, would you call me crazy if I suggested that those earners, who exist in a progressive tax system, are likely going to use financial tools they have access to, to reduce their claimable income? And would you also call me crazy if I suggested that the earners who make less than 80k a year, have way fewer tools at their disposal?

I think the big flaw of this study is in pretending that no other mitigating factors exist, and assuming we are all playing with the same rule book.

To aid my point, this is from Stats Canada:

**T**he highest-income households hold a disproportionate share of Canada’s **net worth,** not just income. In late 2025, the top 20% of households held about 65% of Canada’s total net worth.

So, Graeme Gordon, do you feel that it is an honest argument to make that they don’t owe a bit more to the country that has allowed 20% of the population to gain control over SIXTY FIVE percent of the net worth of our society. Do you instead feel that by looking at income, it is maybe cherry picking? To say nothing of the fact that you also suggest people are „enjoying“ services they haven’t paid for, which smells of the old „welfare queen“ argument. Pretty distasteful to say of around 20 million Canadian citizens that work their ass of for this country.

Actually, I’m getting a bit mad now at that line, You mean to tell me that all the mothers who take huge hits to earning potential, low wage workers cleaning, building, sweating to keep their communities together have not EARNED healthcare?

I like how it doesn’t define “top-earning” until the third paragraph. Fraser Institute is often dubious.