just a slight correction: because you pay the marginal rate on each bracket, you'd have to be making around $215,000 to actual see a tax increase. so, that takes it a bit closer to the 1% rule. but, they're also going to lose their child benefit checks - and that's apparently going to bring in 15 billion dollars in revenue, according to the liberal platform. if deficits are important to you, note that this simple (and eminently fair) handout revocation for the wealthy could have kept the government in the red. but, realize that that wasn't incompetence - conservatives run deficits on purpose to lower the size of government.

the key thing is that when you change the narrative from deficits to surpluses then you allow for more spending on programs that benefit low-income canadians - both in terms of social services and in terms of economic growth. in a country like canada, where we have such high minimum standards and so many of the quality-of-life indicators are in some way collectivized, the question of inequality is less about income per capita and more about access to services. a little spending money doesn't hurt, and it helps the money cycle around. but, what's important to more low wage earners is that the health and education systems are well-funded and that job opportunities exist. that's what is real - it's what the concerns are, directly in front of us. nobody's really walking around yelling about percentages or graphs, or crying that whomever gets to live off a trust fund. that stuff's just not real.

the difference is consequently a change in priorities. i wouldn't exactly expect to see this government change the numbers; the curve may flatline a little, but you're not going to see the gap really close. i do hope - expect - that government is reclaimed as something that improves our quality of life, rather than something that's seen as an obstacle to frivolous and short-sighted spending.

it's a tactic called "starve the beast". it hasn't really worked out as intended, because those governments get replaced by governments that increase spending. but, this is how it works:

1) create a structural deficit. he did this by cutting the gst and corporate tax rates, and then handing out boutique tax credits.
2) argue you have to reduce the size of government to get out of deficit. it helps if you have the media in your pocket.
3) repeat.

you can look this up, if you'd like. it's been studied in some depth.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-1-per-cent-club-unchanged-but-faces-prospect-of-bigger-tax-bill/article27077119/