Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by curves2000

This tax is going to affect a lot more people than the Liberals think and it will affect their electoral chances as well for a long time. The vacation home market in places like Ontario has taken a large hit, these people live in vote rich Ontario.

The amount of medical professionals who appear to be incensed at this change and looking at options elsewhere is something to watch. When colleagues leave to go south to the US and leave the additional workload and stress on the remaining individuals it exasperates the situation.

There are loads of regular, hard working people and their families who are going to be hit and they are going to be pissed. I don't think the Liberals appreciate how hard this is going to play out in immigrant communities across Canada. Leaving something of value, a generational wealth, a piece of property or a business to your children and grandchildren is engraved in immigrants bones. It cuts deep and the stories are all the same. Immigrant came to Canada with $2, worked their tail off cleaning floors, dishes or other hard manual labour. Sacrificed beyond belief to buy a duplex/4plex/6 plex or a piece of property/strip mall where the family business is located and more. Part of the retirement plan, part of the inheritance, part of keeping the family together and more.

They will then compare to what they would potentially back in the motherland and see it may be 5, 15, 25% etc and it has pissed them off. How much should the government actually make off your retirement and financial planning? Is there a direct correlation between the "rich" paying a lot more in taxes and your average Canadian's rent or mortgage payments becoming a lot more affortable?

Should be interesting how this plays out

Isn’t it weird to freak out about how we need to throw a bunch of money at homelessness and drug addiction but then argue against tax increases that predominantly impact the wealthy?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Doesn't really affect me, and my main reaction has always been "well, it used to be 75%, so in the grand scheme of things we're still ahead". Although I wouldn't be surprised if 75% is the end goal.

I think the bigger question is more about whether it makes policy sense, and whether the people who are in that upper middle class "professional" sort of income bracket are the people it makes sense to target with new tax increases. Trudeau's justification is, explicitly, that "the rich are becoming richer, they need to pay more". Someone making $300,000 in employment income a year is wealthy, certainly compared to the average Canadian. But they're not the sources or beneficiaries of growing income inequality - that would be the people who own media conglomerates and grocery store chains, not a cabin in Invermere.

It just seems like a very narrow and misguided way to wage class warfare - pit the school teachers against their doctors and plumbers, I guess.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think the bigger question is more about whether it makes policy sense, and whether the people who are in that upper middle class "professional" sort of income bracket are the people it makes sense to target with new tax increases.

It does. People in that income bracket pay considerably less taxes than their counterparts in the egalitarian countries (the Nordic, Germany, Netherlands, etc) that educated Canadians like to compare their public services to.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Someone making $300,000 in employment income a year is wealthy, certainly compared to the average Canadian. But they're not the sources or beneficiaries of growing income inequality - that would be the people who own media conglomerates and grocery store chains, not a cabin in Invermere.

The growing gap between the professional classes and the working class is the main driver of inequality today. Especially when the widening wage gap has been compounded in recent decades by assortative mating and the collapse of marriage among the working class and poor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...uences/675333/

The enormous difference in opportunity and lifestyle between a single mom raising a kid on $45k a year vs a household with two educated professionals with a combined income of $300k+ is more salient to the lived experience of most Canadians - and to our social cohesion - than how many billions the Thomson family have amassed in their portfolio.

It’s the routine trips to Cancun and Disneyworld the professional class take their families on in spring break that leave working class parents feeling inadequate. The increasingly expensive elite sports programs the professional class put their kids in that exclude working class kids. And the property inherited from parents and grandparents that’s dividing society into those who own homes and those who never will.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/559130/

https://www.bostonreview.net/article...es-inequality/

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

My HHI is way above average, but after 5 years of full earnings (and significant debt incurred to achieve that HHI) the notion of an investment feels laughably out of reach (which is fine).

So our annual tax bill is quite a bit higher than these AVERAGE INCOME folks, but we certainly aren't generating the same kind of wealth, because timing.

People often talk about how a 'wealth tax' would be a lot better than than our income tax scheme, because super wealthy people can have shockingly low "incomes". This is an excellent remedy in that direction.

Definitely a sign of the times.
The cost of everything is sky high and the cost of entering property markets is as well.

The people I'm referring to why going to have those gains, would have bought those properties 10,15,20+ years ago, so the prices were lower and their cost of living were likely much lower as well.
These type of opportunities feel like they've disappeared for the middle class.
And I think the important question is what do we do about that?

It seems a lot of people don't care of those investment vehicles are there anymore, as long as their neighbour who invested gets dragged back too.
Crabs in a bucket.

[CliffFletcher]

Treating homes as investment properties is what got us in this mess in the first place.

The housing situation in this country is ####ed so badly that it’s seriously undermining the trust young Canadians have in our institutions. The Conservatives don’t have a 20 point lead over the Liberals among 18-34 year olds because of Poillievre’s charisma.

If we don’t sort out housing affordability, expect the kind of anger, distrust, and populism that characterize politics in the UK and the U.S. to become the norm here. And if we do correct, it’s going to be painful. A lot of people who did well off the real estate climate of the last 20 years are going to take the hit.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Definitely a sign of the times.
The cost of everything is sky high and the cost of entering property markets is as well.

The people I'm referring to why going to have those gains, would have bought those properties 10,15,20+ years ago, so the prices were lower and their cost of living were likely much lower as well.
These type of opportunities feel like they've disappeared for the middle class.
And I think the important question is what do we do about that?

It seems a lot of people don't care of those investment vehicles are there anymore, as long as their neighbour who invested gets dragged back too.
Crabs in a bucket.

You seem pretty out of touch. Homes and second homes shouldn't be investments in a country where many can't even afford their first one. By it's very nature, what you want is to make that even harder.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Treating homes as investment properties is what got us in this mess in the first place.

The housing situation in this country is ####ed so badly that it’s seriously undermining the trust young Canadians have in our institutions. The Conservatives don’t have a 20 point lead over the Liberals among 18-34 year olds because of Poillievre’s charisma.

If we don’t sort out housing affordability, expect the kind of anger, distrust, and populism that characterize politics in the UK and the U.S. to become the norm here. And if we do correct, it’s going to be painful. A lot of people who did well off the real estate climate of the last 20 years are going to take the hit.

These days when people under 25 complain about housing affordability they are no longer complaining about never owning a home, they are complaining about not being able to afford rent in a house that is safe.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Definitely a sign of the times.
The cost of everything is sky high and the cost of entering property markets is as well.

The people I'm referring to why going to have those gains, would have bought those properties 10,15,20+ years ago, so the prices were lower and their cost of living were likely much lower as well.
These type of opportunities feel like they've disappeared for the middle class.
And I think the important question is what do we do about that?

It seems a lot of people don't care of those investment vehicles are there anymore, as long as their neighbour who invested gets dragged back too.
Crabs in a bucket.

Not crabs in a bucket. A progressive taxation on people who had exceptional returns some of who made there investment when the capital gains rate was 75% and who add time to sell prior to the rate going from 50% to 66%.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You seem pretty out of touch. Homes and second homes shouldn't be investments in a country where many can't even afford their first one. By it's very nature, what you want is to make that even harder.

How many Canadians have been able to use their investments in homes to actually increase their net worth and financial standing. You don't want to kneecap people's opportunities for upward mobility. There's cab drivers who've been able to build a good quality of life using by saving up for home purchases.

I wouldn't argue that things aren't way more difficult now -- they are. But to say homes shouldn't be investments period, ignores the opportunities that have come with investing in homes. And it hasn't been just for the already rich.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Igottago

How many Canadians have been able to use their investments in homes to actually increase their net worth and financial standing. You don't want to kneecap people's opportunities for upward mobility. There's cab drivers who've been able to build a good quality of life using by saving up for home purchases.

I wouldn't argue that things aren't way more difficult now -- they are. But to say homes shouldn't be investments period, ignores the opportunities that have come with investing in homes. And it hasn't been just for the already rich.

People who can't pay their mortgage without their rent income make some of the worst landlords. In my experience they are price gougers who constantly raise rent, unreasonable expectations for damage deposits and never fix anything when its broken.

I once rented from a millionaire and they were the best landlord I had. The price was low because they wanted me to stay, when something broke they would fix it right away, and when I moved out they took a little money for a minor thing and ignored the rest.


It's not entirely an investment problem so much as people enter it like its nothing but numbers. Yeah it's your house, but while I am renting this place is my home.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

These type of opportunities feel like they've disappeared for the middle class.
And I think the important question is what do we do about that?

It seems a lot of people don't care of those investment vehicles are there anymore, as long as their neighbour who invested gets dragged back too.
Crabs in a bucket.

Great disconnect in this post. A lot of causes have been identified but there are no solutions without causing some pain for the people who already benefited. You can't eat your cake and then tell someone else to eat it too.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

People who can't pay their mortgage without their rent income make some of the worst landlords. In my experience they are price gougers who constantly raise rent, unreasonable expectations for damage deposits and never fix anything when its broken.

I once rented from a millionaire and they were the best landlord I had. The price was low because they wanted me to stay, when something broke they would fix it right away, and when I moved out they took a little money for a minor thing and ignored the rest.


It's not entirely an investment problem so much as people enter it like its nothing but numbers. Yeah it's your house, but while I am renting this place is my home.

You'd be shocked at how many renters don't treat it that way. It goes both ways. There's plenty of renters who don't enter the agreement in good faith.
The landlord takes all the financial risk, they need to be able to pay their mortgage, I don't even know why that's controversial.

Renters can abuse the system and completely take advantage of landlords as well. Check out this story in Toronto -- $41000 in unpaid rent and can't be evicted.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10688780/...nt-cant-evict/

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Igottago

You'd be shocked at how many renters don't treat it that way. It goes both ways. There's plenty of renters who don't enter the agreement in good faith.
The landlord takes all the financial risk, they need to be able to pay their mortgage, I don't even know why that's controversial.

Renters can abuse the system and completely take advantage of landlords as well. Check out this story in Toronto -- $41000 in unpaid rent and can't be evicted.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10688780/...nt-cant-evict/

Oh 100%, ####ty people are everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I don't think being a landlord is some kind of free money. It's a lot of work.

No less, the societal cost of constantly raising rental costs is great. At the end of the day renters are not the ones setting prices. Landlords are.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You seem pretty out of touch. Homes and second homes shouldn't be investments in a country where many can't even afford their first one. By it's very nature, what you want is to make that even harder.

I don't want to make it harder and I'm not against reasonable restrictions on rentals or investment.
But I'm not for a complete ban on all things the middle class has used for financial mobility while the real wealthy laugh at these discussion and make record profits year over year.

I've also always been very vocal against the real issue that caused massive property escalation in Vancouver/Toronto which was foreign money investing through wealthy immigration.
"Students" buying up dozens of properties and $10M mansions with money being sent over from China.

But you won't touch that one, cause can't dare say anything about immigration and risk looking racist. Better to just blame your neighbour and his 1 rental condo for everything and watch nothing get better.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Great disconnect in this post. A lot of causes have been identified but there are no solutions without causing some pain for the people who already benefited. You can't eat your cake and then tell someone else to eat it too.

Total disassociation with reality, from his belief in what the average or middle class person looks like in Canada to his perception on the intent behind this stuff. It’s such a self-serving, bizarre perception to view this as a “if I can’t have it neither can you” situation. It’s literally about moving towards more people being able to have “it.”

Reminds me of that poster who was living in a 7 figure home (childless) making a 6 figure salary bitching about property taxes like he was forced into owning that scale of home for two people.

It’s amazing how out of touch wealthy people are. Especially the ones that think they’re middle class.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Igottago

How many Canadians have been able to use their investments in homes to actually increase their net worth and financial standing. You don't want to kneecap people's opportunities for upward mobility. There's cab drivers who've been able to build a good quality of life using by saving up for home purchases.

I wouldn't argue that things aren't way more difficult now -- they are. But to say homes shouldn't be investments period, ignores the opportunities that have come with investing in homes. And it hasn't been just for the already rich.

Primary residences are not subject to capital gains taxes. Further, increasing your net worth using a primary residence isnt really that great unless you plan to later move to a place with less expensive housing. Old people don't seem to be doing that much, these days

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not crabs in a bucket. A progressive taxation on people who had exceptional returns some of who made there investment when the capital gains rate was 75% and who add time to sell prior to the rate going from 50% to 66%.

But I thought these people are a tiny group of people anyway?

As opendoor put it "Data I've seen suggests that about 1 million filers would be expected to realize that kind of gain in their lifetimes, so that's about 3% of the tax filing population."

That would be all people subject to this tax, not just the property investors; so that group would be incredibly small, I'm being told.

If they're so small and insignificant, what does applying this tax on them really do other than make people feel better?
It's a meaningless amount of tax generated but it will get votes from people who want to see their property investor neighbour hurt; who's not even a high income earner.
Crabs in a bucket.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I don't want to make it harder and I'm not against reasonable restrictions on rentals or investment.
But I'm not for a complete ban on all things the middle class has used for financial mobility while the real wealthy laugh at these discussion and make record profits year over year.

I've also always been very vocal against the real issue that caused massive property escalation in Vancouver/Toronto which was foreign money investing through wealthy immigration.
"Students" buying up dozens of properties and $10M mansions with money being sent over from China.

But you won't touch that one, cause can't dare say anything about immigration and risk looking racist. Better to just blame your neighbour and his 1 rental condo for everything and watch nothing get better.

Have I ever said foreign investments weren't also a problem? No, I have not. I agree it has not helped any, and doesn't help Canada. I also don't think it's racist to say that, because race has nothing to do with it.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Primary residences are not subject to capital gains taxes.

Yes I am aware. Not yet anyways.
The poster said homes shouldn't be investment vehicles. Many people buy their home knowing it'll be their principal asset in their financial portfolio.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Igottago

How many Canadians have been able to use their investments in homes to actually increase their net worth and financial standing. You don't want to kneecap people's opportunities for upward mobility. There's cab drivers who've been able to build a good quality of life using by saving up for home purchases.

I wouldn't argue that things aren't way more difficult now -- they are. But to say homes shouldn't be investments period, ignores the opportunities that have come with investing in homes. And it hasn't been just for the already rich.

It's fine for a primary residence to be an appreciating asset (or just an asset...appreciation should not be assumed or guaranteed).


It's less fine for investors to spin 5% DPs into multiple properties over and over to the point that it skews the nature of the housing market. Of course there are two sides to the coin where increasing supply is the paramount concern, but in the near term the capacity to build seems somewhat finite, so it's more a matter of who should have 'easiest' access to that supply, thereby influencing the form of housing built.