One Comment About Taxation – Is B.C. About to Become One of the World’s Highest-Taxed Places to Earn Income?

Growing up in Fort McMurray, AB, I learned early that earning money required hard work. I delivered the local newspaper, the Fort McMurray Today, shovelled sidewalks through brutally cold winters and sold Regal Christmas cards door to door.

 

Now imagine if my parents had announced that for the first $100 I earned, they were entitled to, say, 25 per cent, but for every additional dollar over $100 they would take 57.5 per cent. It was a new “family tax” and during these tough times, they were asking a “bit more” from me. For every extra $10 over that baseline, they would keep $5.75. My reaction would have been predictable: why work harder if someone else gets more of the reward than I do?

 

But B.C. Premier David Eby is proposing to do exactly that to the province’s top earners.

 

On Oct. 4, Mr. Eby promised that a re-elected NDP government would create a new income tax bracket for those earning more than $1 million. His rationale was familiar: it’s right to ask people who earn a little more to “pitch in.”

 

That’s no surprise. Tax hikes are Mr. Eby’s favourite policy tool. His Budget 2026 raised the lowest income tax rate, which every taxpayer pays, froze bracket indexation, extended PST to professional services and raised school and speculation taxes on property. He paused the PST expansion days before calling a snap election. Now he’s campaigning on a new tax on unsold condos and a doubled speculation and vacancy tax for Canadian owners.

 

The “millionaires’ tax” is just the latest, and it isn’t just for millionaires.

 

Starting in 2027, the party’s plan raises B.C.’s rates by two percentage points on income between $190,405 and $1 million, and adds a new bracket above that. Combined with the federal rate, the marginal rate on income from $190,405 rises to 47.8 per cent, from 45.8 per cent. From about $266,000, it rises to 55.5 per cent, from 53.5 per cent. Above $1 million, it jumps to 57.5 per cent, from 53.5 per cent.

 

That 55.5 per cent rate alone would be higher than the top rate in any other province. Next door in my home province of Alberta, the top rate is 48 per cent. Alberta, get ready for an influx of B.C. residents.

 

The bottom line: the increase starts at about $190,000, not $1 million. A B.C. professional earning $500,000 would pay about $6,200 more in provincial tax each year; at $1 million, about $16,200. And above $266,000, government would take more than 55 cents of every additional dollar earned.

 

In 1966, the Royal Commission on Taxation concluded that high marginal rates discourage work, saving and investment, and recommended a top rate no greater than 50 per cent: “With such a maximum marginal rate, taxpayers would be assured that at least half of all gains would be theirs after taxes. We think there is a psychological barrier to greater effort, saving and profitable investment when the state can take more than one half of the potential gain.”

 

That advice to governments is timeless wisdom. B.C. is already well past that line, but Mr. Eby wants to push further. Canada’s top rate already ranks fifth-highest among 38 OECD countries. At 57.5 per cent, B.C. would out-tax every country in Europe except Denmark, and Denmark’s government has proposed scrapping the surtax that puts it there. If it does, B.C. would top them all.

 

We have seen this movie before. In 2016, the Trudeau government raised the top rate four percentage points to 33 per cent, asking the wealthiest Canadians to “contribute a little more.” High earners responded as they always do. A C.D. Howe Institute analysis estimated the hike raised about $1.2 billion, not the roughly $2 billion budgeted, while costing the provinces about $1.3 billion through a shrunken tax base. Nationally, it lost money.

 

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has explained that, past a certain point, higher rates lose revenue. Economists call it the Laffer Curve. At zero or 100 per cent, government collects nothing; somewhere in between, higher rates start losing money. The 2016 experience suggests Canada’s top rates may already be there.

 

This isn’t just B.C.’s problem. When a surgeon or a founder weighs Vancouver against Seattle, the question isn’t which province is cheaper. It’s whether Canada is worth it. At 57.5 per cent, B.C. answers that for them.

 

Then there are the plan’s ultra-wealthy cheerleaders. In a recent op-ed, a self-described member of Canada’s wealthiest 0.1 per cent welcomed a bigger B.C. tax bill. A tax increase starting at $190,405 barely touches her. It lands on the surgeon, the engineer and the entrepreneur still building something: the people taking the risks that grow an economy. It can also hit a widowed retired teacher, whose final return must include her entire RRIF and the taxable gain on the family cabin. If the plan’s wealthy champions want to pay more, they’re free to: both governments accept donations and even issue tax receipts. Just don’t pretend higher rates are good policy for everyone else.

 

And the spending. In 2016-17, B.C. spent $48.7 billion and ran a $2.7-billion surplus. This year, it expects to spend about $100 billion, more than double, and run a $13.8-billion deficit. British Columbians aren’t undertaxed. Their government overspends. And the NDP’s answer? Raise taxes on the very people B.C. most needs to attract and keep.

 

My parents never imposed a family tax. But I know exactly what I’d have done if they had: delivered fewer papers, shovelled fewer sidewalks and found clever ways to keep my reported earnings under $100. B.C.’s surgeons, engineers and entrepreneurs will respond the same way, with better advisers and Alberta next door.

 

Mr. Eby calls it asking for a bit more. But incentives don’t stop at the Rockies. A frostbitten kid with a paper route in Fort McMurray, AB could tell him what he’ll actually get: a lot less.

 

One Comment About Leadership – Leaders, Go First!

 

In the above taxation section, I wrote about the B.C. NDP’s proposed “millionaires’ tax.” On my LinkedIn account, I shared an op-ed written by a wealthy B.C. resident who supports the measure and encourages the government to tax her more. That kind of take is very shallow and borderline narcissistic. My response to the op-ed was short: if you want the government to tax you more, then volunteer your own money.

 

One of the oldest principles of leadership rings true here: if you’re going to ask others to sacrifice, go first.

 

The U.S. Marine Corps has a tradition that the most junior Marines eat first and the officers eat last. Nobody needs a memo to understand what it signals. The people with the most authority take the least comfort until everyone else is looked after. Leaders who do that earn the right to ask for more later.

 

The reverse is just as easy to recognize. A company announces layoffs and a wage freeze, then pays executive bonuses the same quarter. A managing partner lectures the firm about cost control from a newly renovated corner office. A government asks a small group of taxpayers to pay more while its own spending roughly doubles in a decade. The words may be reasonable, but the behaviour cancels them out. People don’t follow instructions; they follow examples.

 

Going first isn’t symbolic. It does three practical things.

 

First, it tests the ask. If a leader isn’t willing to carry part of the cost, that’s usually a sign the sacrifice isn’t as necessary or as fair as it was made to sound. Going first forces an honest look at whether there’s a better option, like cutting costs that are closer to home. But the sacrifice needs to be “real” – not just symbolic.

 

Second, it builds credibility you can spend later. The leader who took the first pay cut can ask the team for the extra push. The one who didn’t will get compliance at best, and quiet departures from the people with the most options at worst.

 

Third, it changes the conversation. “Here’s what I’m giving up” invites people in. “Here’s what you’ll be giving up” invites them to look for the exit.

 

Some practical questions for any leader about to ask for sacrifice:

 

• What am I personally giving up, and will people be able to see it?
• Have I looked at my own costs before asking others to cover them?
• Is the burden landing on the people least able to say no, or most able to leave?
• If I were on the receiving end of this request, would I find it fair?

 

None of this means leaders can’t make hard asks. They must. But the ask lands very differently when the person making it has already paid something.

 

Volunteer your own money first. Then ask.

 

One Comment About Economics / Politics  – 110,000 Jobs Gone in Two Months, and Our Young People Are Paying the Price

 

On October 9, 2026, Statistics Canada released its Labour Force Survey for September 2026.

 

Canada lost 68,000 jobs in September. That followed a loss of 42,000 in August, so 110,000 jobs have disappeared in two months. The unemployment rate rose to 6.5%.

 

To be fair to the numbers, most of September’s decline was in the public sector, which shed 70,000 jobs. That’s the fourth straight monthly decline. Educational services alone lost 35,000 jobs. But that’s not much comfort. Private sector employment was essentially flat for the second month in a row. In other words, the private economy isn’t growing enough to absorb anything.

 

The number I find most concerning is youth employment. Employment among Canadians aged 15 to 24 fell by 48,000 in September, after falling in August as well. Over two months, 67,000 young people have lost work, a 2.4% decline. The youth unemployment rate sits at 13%, double the national rate.

 

Why does this matter so much? Because early work experience compounds. A first job teaches skills no classroom does: showing up, being accountable, working with people you didn’t choose. Young people who can’t get a foothold early often carry the effects for years in lower earnings and slower careers. A country that can’t put its young people to work is borrowing against its own future. Canada is doing that literally as well, with deficits and debt that this same generation will be asked to repay.

 

There’s another number in the report that should get more attention. The participation rate, the share of working-age Canadians either working or looking for work, fell to 64.8%. Excluding the pandemic year of 2020, that’s the lowest level since December 1997. Statistics Canada attributes much of this to an aging population, and that’s true. But it also means fewer people are carrying the tax burden for a growing number who aren’t working, which makes growth in the private sector even more important.

 

The provincial picture tells its own story. Alberta added 23,000 jobs in September and is up 76,000 over the past year. Its unemployment rate fell to 6.4%, down 1.3 percentage points from a year ago. British Columbia lost 20,000 jobs in the same month, its first decline since March. That’s the backdrop against which the B.C. NDP is proposing a top combined rate of 57.5%. Quebec lost 49,000 jobs in September and is down 130,000 since January.

 

And for those who are working, paycheques aren’t keeping up. Average hourly wages rose 2.3% over the year, to $37.64. Consumer prices rose 3.0% in August, the latest month available. Canadians’ wages are losing ground to inflation.

 

The federal government regularly tells us Canada is on its way to having the “strongest economy in the G7.” The data says otherwise. Private employment has stalled, participation is at a 28-year low (outside the pandemic), real wages are slipping, and our young people are losing ground fastest.

 

The fix isn’t another program. It’s an economy where businesses want to invest and hire: competitive taxes, less regulatory friction, and a government that spends within its means.

 

Our young people deserve a labour market that wants them – not vacuous slogans like “we’re building the strongest economy in the G7,” “spend less to invest more” or “we’ll become our own best customer.”

 

We need action, and it starts with two things: government getting out of the way, and government being fiscally responsible.

 

Bonus Comment – From Simon Sinek –  American Leadership Guru – About Leaders Who Go First and Sacrifice

 

“Leaders are the ones who are willing to give up something of their own for us. Their time, their energy, their money, maybe even the food off their plate.”

 

Their money. Not someone else’s. Bang on.

 

I hope today’s newsletter has been thought-provoking for you.

 

As many of you know, I’m passionate about helping people make better decisions – whether in tax, leadership, or business. If you’d like to go deeper on those topics, my recently released book, Making Life Less Taxing Version Two is now available and expands on many of the practical ideas I’ve written about over the years.

 

I’m also putting the finishing touches on my next book, Leadership Compounds: How Small Decisions Build Culture, Credibility, and Legacy. It explores a simple but powerful idea: leadership isn’t about grand gestures – it’s about the small, consistent decisions that compound over time.

 

For those interested in a more hands-on approach, I’ll soon be announcing a bespoke consulting initiative – The Acorn Growth Program – designed to help leaders and organizations grow intentionally, one small (but important) decision at a time. Feel free to reach out to me directly for more information.

 

And if you’re not already on my mailing list, feel free to sign up for my In the Mood Network newsletters to receive more content. No fluff – just practical insights on tax, leadership, and economic policy.

 

Thanks for reading. As always, I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

 

Amazon Books

Apple Books