The issue is not punishment, but whether the policy supports prosperity
By Andrew Burlone
July 28, 2026 • Opinion
Tax the rich is not a communist slogan. It is a policy question. And it is one that we should stop treating as an ideological reflex. The real issue is not whether a tax system sounds punitive to people at the top; it is whether the system produces a healthier, more productive, and more stable economy for everyone else.
The anti-tax argument usually begins with a false shortcut: if taxes go up, growth must go down. But economies are not that simple. Growth depends on productivity, investment, infrastructure, education, housing, competition, and the quality of institutions. Tax policy matters, but it is only one part of the machine. A country can cut taxes and still underperform if it fails to create the conditions that enable businesses and workers to actually succeed.
Progressivism is not the enemy of prosperity, weak policy is.
That is why the slogan-level debate is so often disappointing. Critics point to Europe or other places with stronger public systems, as though any higher-tax model were a warning sign. Yet the real question is not whether taxes exist. It is what those taxes buy. If revenue is used well, it can support the public goods that private markets routinely underprovide: roads, transit, schools, childcare, healthcare, research, and the basic stability that businesses need to plan and grow.
A fairer tax system can also strengthen and make demand more resilient. When more of the burden is shifted away from working households and toward those with greater ability to pay, middle- and lower-income people have more room to spend, save, and participate in the economy. That is not a moral slogan. It is basic macroeconomics. Broad-based prosperity is usually more durable than an economy where gains pile up at the top while everyone else is told to wait for benefits that never really arrive.
We would all gain from taking tax fairness seriously because inequality is also a social problem. Extreme concentration of wealth tends to distort politics, weaken trust, and encourage rent-seeking instead of productive investment. When tax systems are too tilted in favour of capital, inherited advantage, and speculative gains, they can reward extraction over creation. A more equitable system does not punish success. It asks success to contribute to the conditions that enable future success.
‘When tax systems favour capital and speculation too heavily, they reward extraction over creation.’
That said, Canada’s tax system is not beyond improvement. It still leans too heavily on labour and payroll while often giving more room than it should to capital gains, tax preferences, and under-taxed windfalls. A fairer system would close some of those gaps, ease the burden on working households, and make sure those who benefit most from the economy contribute proportionately to the public services, infrastructure, and stability that make that economy possible in the first place.
This is where the comparison with Europe becomes more useful, because it shows that modern economies can pair market dynamism with stronger public investment and a more equitable tax structure, as Canada does in practice. The point is not to copy another country line by line. It is to recognize that fairer taxation can coexist with prosperity, while also preparing for the costs of infrastructure, security, and other major public obligations that wealthy countries cannot avoid.
A better tax debate would focus less on fear and more on design. Which taxes create the least distortion? Which improve fairness without discouraging work or investment? Which revenues should go toward long-term capacity instead of short-term patchwork? Those are the questions that matter. The real task is not simply to collect less, but to build an economy that works better.
That is why Tax the rich is too blunt to be the whole argument, but not wrong as a starting point. If the goal is a stronger society, then the tax system should help produce one: broader opportunity, better infrastructure, healthier communities, and a more stable foundation for growth. Progressivity is not the enemy of prosperity. Poorly designed policy is.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of WestmountMag.ca.
Featured image: Susy Hazelwood – Pexels
More articles by Andrew Burlone
Other recent articles
Andrew Burlone, co-founder of WestmountMag.ca, began his media journey at NOUS magazine. Subsequently, he launched Visionnaires, holding the position of creative director for over 30 years. Andrew is passionate about culture and politics, with a keen interest in visual arts and architecture.