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.
That “meaningless amount of tax” would be enough to quadruple the amount we spend on homelessness and 10x the amount of support the federal government provides for issues related to substance abuse.
Stop playing victim, it’s beneath you.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
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.
Don't necessarily disagree -- but if you increase the mortgage DP requirements doesn't that also make it harder for every day people to buy?
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
So the conservatives released an extremely cringe video of PP talking "Canadiana" at the Stampede. Listening to him trying to sound folksy is bad enough, but for a video trying to espouse the good ol' days of Canada, none of the footage they used was actually from Canada
The actual video, if anyone wants the cringe first hand. God it's gonna suck having to listen to that voice as PM for however many years until the liberals get their #### together again
Look...I've worked for big Corporations and Small firms, I've never worked for the Government...
But it never ceases to amaze me at some of the stuff that gets approved.
I mean think about it.
There had to be a Dozen jackasses in a room somewhere who watched that.
Sure, maybe they had nothing to with its creation or production...but they still had to say 'Yes' at some point.
There is some moment, at some point in time, where a bunch of people sat around and watched that and thought: "Yeah. Thats pretty good. Thats a wrap. Release it."
And on that day, I dont know if was a 'Mad Med-esque' day where Scotch is consumed practically from sun-rise to sun-down...That could be an explanation.
But if I'm Poilievre...I ask the jackasses in that boardroom if they are drunk or high and then find whatever marketing firm made that video and burn it to the ground and eliminate all evidence of my involvement.
Hey! That would actually be an even better ad campaign!!
"Fellow Canadians...this is the Ad that they came up with for me. It is so bad I killed everyone involved, burnt their premises to the ground and salted the Earth behind me. You're Welcome Canada."
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
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.
Look...I've worked for big Corporations and Small firms, I've never worked for the Government...
But it never ceases to amaze me at some of the stuff that gets approved.
I mean think about it.
There had to be a Dozen jackasses in a room somewhere who watched that.
Sure, maybe they had nothing to with its creation or production...but they still had to say 'Yes' at some point.
There is some moment, at some point in time, where a bunch of people sat around and watched that and thought: "Yeah. Thats pretty good. Thats a wrap. Release it."
And on that day, I dont know if was a 'Mad Med-esque' day where Scotch is consumed practically from sun-rise to sun-down...That could be an explanation.
But if I'm Poilievre...I ask the jackasses in that boardroom if they are drunk or high and then find whatever marketing firm made that video and burn it to the ground and eliminate all evidence of my involvement.
Hey! That would actually be an even better ad campaign!!
"Fellow Canadians...this is the Ad that they came up with for me. It is so bad I killed everyone involved, burnt their premises to the ground and salted the Earth behind me. You're Welcome Canada."
It's much worse than just the Russian jets...
Quote:
Thanks to an account on X called @disorderedyyc for cataloguing most of the discoverable examples of non-Canadian scenes of Canada in the creepy Conservative Party of Canada video in a series of hilarious tweets:
Canadian elementary classroom (Serbia),
Canadian school bus (U.S.A.),
new Canadian home (Solvenia),
Canadian countryside (North Dakota),
Canadian cattle (California),
Canadian university campus (Ukraine),
female Canadian hunter with Canadian firearm (U.S.A.),
loveable Canadian grandma, grandpa and grandchild (London, England),
Canadian Foothills (Indonesia),
and Canadian Rockies (Utah)!
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.
Yeah, it is pretty easy to lose sight of what is actually normal when your social circle skews upper middle class. I met my core group of friends in university and mostly date/marry other university educated people. So normal for us and other mid 30s is a lot different.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bonded For This Useful Post:
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?
Given wealth distribution, just because it's only a small percentage of the population doesn't mean that it's not a significant proportion of the capital gains that occur. IIRC, only about 10% of tax filers have a capital gain of any size in a given year. That's because there are ample tax-free or tax-sheltered ways to build wealth for average Canadians.
Quote:
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.
It's not meaningless unless you're solely focused on property investors. And if you are, why should they be exempted from the tax increase? What's so special about them?
Increasing the inclusion rate above a certain threshold can actually have a lot of effects, most of which are arguably positive (depending on your perspective):
1) It incentivizes realizing gains (and losses) more regularly to stay under the threshold, which can lead to money moving from less productive to more productive assets.
2) Related to #1, by realizing gains more regularly, the tax is collected earlier, which helps government budgets.
3) As it relates to property investment, it disincentizes it to some extent which is arguably a good thing. Currently, investors are willing to accept abysmal cap rates on the basis that prices will continue to go up and they'll make all their money on capital gains over the long term. If you reduce the projected return through tax policy, then the math changes and people will be less likely to outbid people just looking for a place to live. The increasing financialization of the housing market is a big reason why things have gotten so out of hand. Now obviously we still need to still encourage construction of rental housing, but that can be handled through other means of subsidizing purpose built rentals and things like that. But the less that the average home buyer is competing with investors, the better.
Tax and monetary policies changes all the time, and anyone whose investment relies on things remaining static for decades is putting themselves in a poor situation. Unfortunately that applies to a lot of unsophisticated property investors.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
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.
What you just described is an asset bubble as a means for the people partaking in the bubble to get rich.
I'm sure some cab drivers got rich on crypto as well.
An asset bubble in the thing that people absolutely require to live in and thrive is not a good place to say we need to nurture and foster high return speculation.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
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.
You can make the “tiny group of people” argument for every tax increase that is required. 7.6% of Canadians are millionaires. Taxing this group of people more is important.
I think we also need significant middle class tax increases too as well as wealth taxes and inheritance taxes and corporate taxes. The current race to the bottom is not sustainable. We especially in the middle to high income brackets are under taxed relative to the expected level of services.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
It's not meaningless unless you're solely focused on property investors. And if you are, why should they be exempted from the tax increase? What's so special about them?
The original post was asking why anyone would object to the new thresholds and I said the only people I have seen objecting are property investors who's annual incomes are not wealthy.
That was the discussion, so yes it was only focused on property investors as they're the only ones I've observed objecting.
And I didn't say they should be exempt. I said it's understandable why they don't like it and it's a lie from the government to say this tax only effects 0.13% of the population with an average income of $1.4M.
Quote:
Increasing the inclusion rate above a certain threshold can actually have a lot of effects, most of which are arguably positive (depending on your perspective):
1) It incentivizes realizing gains (and losses) more regularly to stay under the threshold, which can lead to money moving from less productive to more productive assets.
2) Related to #1, by realizing gains more regularly, the tax is collected earlier, which helps government budgets.
Agree on those; not relevant to anything I posted regarding properties.
Quote:
3) As it relates to property investment, it disincentizes it to some extent which is arguably a good thing. Currently, investors are willing to accept abysmal cap rates on the basis that prices will continue to go up and they'll make all their money on capital gains over the long term. If you reduce the projected return through tax policy, then the math changes and people will be less likely to outbid people just looking for a place to live. The increasing financialization of the housing market is a big reason why things have gotten so out of hand.
I agree this is/will happen. I'm seeing a lot of people purchase in the US/Mexico instead.
With the addition of speculation taxes, empty homes taxes, restrictions of short term rentals, reduction on landlord rights, and this; every government decision is pushing investors away from properties (most of those in BC).
Quote:
Now obviously we still need to still encourage construction of rental housing, but that can be handled through other means of subsidizing purpose built rentals and things like that. But the less that the average home buyer is competing with investors, the better.
This is where things will get difficult.
Investors make up around 40% of rental housing supply and are crucial to things like presale developments getting enough sales to get financed and built.
Removing them from the housing equation isn't the silver bullet people think and will further REDUCE supply.
That's without even talking about substantial tax revenues from things like Property Transfer Tax in provinces like BC and the income taxes these owners pay to municipalities, plus Community Amenity Contributions (CAC's) that developers pay on builds which go towards social housing, community infrastructure, parks, daycares...
Enormous funds that would be removed from budgets if investors aren't there.
We can't tax our way out of the housing crises while simultaneously taking people with the means out of that purchase/tax cycle.
Mr. Speaker we have talked about the importance of innovation
in developing a modern economy. And just as we are making
investments to that end, we must also introduce tax measures that
encourage entrepreneurship and risk taking.
This budget proposes action on three fronts.
First, we will reduce the taxation of capital gains by lowering
their inclusion rate from three-quarters to two-thirds, effective
immediately.
2000 Canadian Budget
Quote:
For instance, coupled with tax cuts already flowing through the economy, our latest budget is providing a boost to the economy of 2.4% of GDP this year. We have implemented the largest tax cut in Canadian history. Most of which is already in effect. It will see personal income taxes fall on average 35% for Canadian families with children. And corporate tax rates will fall about five percentage points below average U.S. rates. A strong incentive for new investment in Canada. Our capital gains taxes have been cut steeply. In fact, Canada’s top rate on capital gains is now lower than the typical top rate in the U.S.
- Jean Chretien 2002
Quote:
But Trudeau said the Conservatives are the ones trying to stop progress and siding with the rich.
"They're voting against fairness," he said.
"They will be voting against asking the ultra-rich to pay their share. Canadians need responsible leadership right now — leaders who come to them with solutions ready to invest in Canadians' ideas."
"So we're asking them to pay their fair share so that younger generations can have the same opportunities that Xers, boomers and other generations had when they were starting out in their lives."
- Justin Trudeau 2024
The difference between a great Prime Minister who thinks about Canada being attractive to investors, and one who is invested in wedge issues and class warfare and overspending versus austerity. Interesting that Liberals of old were all about investment and making Canada more attractive to investors, Liberals of new are what we see today. Division, wedge issues, we know best.
Now of course, if you are going to increase taxes, capital gains tax inclusion rate is one of the easiest best ways to do it without impacting the large majority of the population. Mulroney raised it because Canada was in a large deficit and needed to generate more tax revenue yet sold it as tax reform in 1987. Chretien lowered it after strong austerity measures and after Canada came out of a recession and saw prosperity. He cited enticing investment in Canada
Trudeau is raising it because he's overspending while looking for an easy scapegoat to blame. The tax itself isn't a major change, it's the reason why it's implemented and excuse used.
Last edited by Firebot; 08-21-2024 at 03:15 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
It’s pretty funny, but also a tempest in a teapot. They used stock footage in the video, like everyone does. It portrayed the image they wanted to the portray. Checking that all the shots were actually Canadian never crossed their minds, nor should it really, although the Russian jets are laughable. Would we feel better if they’d used AI-generated video?
Next up, some actors in Canadian shows aren’t Canadian!
It’s pretty funny, but also a tempest in a teapot. They used stock footage in the video, like everyone does. It portrayed the image they wanted to the portray. Checking that all the shots were actually Canadian never crossed their minds, nor should it really, although the Russian jets are laughable. Would we feel better if they’d used AI-generated video?
Next up, some actors in Canadian shows aren’t Canadian!
Its not just that...
The whole thing seems like it was put together by Aliens who have never experienced an election, dont know what it is and are completely oblivious as to what an election Ad should be.
I mean seriously? I for one am happy, because I think Poilievre is bad news and shouldn't even have the modicum of power that he has now, but I'm kind of still embarrassed for Canada.
First Trudeau and now this? Come on. Can't we do better?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The whole thing seems like it was put together by Aliens who have never experienced an election, dont know what it is and are completely oblivious as to what an election Ad should be.
I mean seriously? I for one am happy, because I think Poilievre is bad news and shouldn't even have the modicum of power that he has now, but I'm kind of still embarrassed for Canada.
First Trudeau and now this? Come on. Can't we do better?
Oh the content is 1000% cringeworthy. Just awful. That should be the focus of ridicule more than the providence of the footage.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
I hope this strike/lockout ends within a few days. Everything I've read about implications looks really bad. Might be a good day to restock the bunker.
