Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

They might not do it but you can bet your ass they have considered it.

If you haven’t assessed the impact of placing capital gains on primary homes you have been negligent as a government. They absolutely should consider it. It’s likely a very negative outcome for existing home owners and reduces the value difference between owners and investors so likely has negative outcomes but it should be considered

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you haven’t assessed the impact of placing capital gains on primary homes you have been negligent as a government. They absolutely should consider it. It’s likely a very negative outcome for existing home owners and reduces the value difference between owners and investors so likely has negative outcomes but it should be considered

Unless they were to grandfather this in. If they took that approach it would still serve the purpose, but still see people who bought houses under the current regime not be completely hit?

[Yamer]

That Stephen Harper endorsement commercial is hilarious. The best part is him trying to replicate a human smile at the end.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by Slava

That ad with the two old white guys at the driving range is hilariously bad. Who in the world thought that was a good idea? WHO do they think would see that ad and want to vote for the CPC? It’s so bad that it’s borderline satire!

I almost miss the days of "nice hair though"

[WhiteTiger]

Calgary's advance polling numbers:

According to Elections Canada data, Calgary Crowfoot had the fourth highest number of advance voters in the country, with 33,743 ballots cast.
Here’s how many votes were cast in each Calgary riding:

• Calgary Crowfoot: 33,743
• Calgary Signal Hill: 27,963
• Calgary Confederation: 27,918
• Calgary Heritage: 26,408
• Calgary Midnapore: 26,291
• Calgary Nose Hill: 25,827
• Calgary Skyview: 23,203
• Calgary Shepard: 22,845
• Calgary Centre: 22,163
• Calgary East: 17,771
• Calgary McKnight: 16,435

https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/artic...n-the-country/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

I almost miss the days of "nice hair though"

What’s funny about that add is that it’s how I would describe the majority of his tenure. Didn’t really do much of consequence and looked after appearances.

Outside of Covid it was unremarkable

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

Unless they were to grandfather this in. If they took that approach it would still serve the purpose, but still see people who bought houses under the current regime not be completely hit?

I assume (dangerous word but I think it's likely) that you'd only pay cap gains on gains going forward. IE, they declare a valuation day, and if your residence that you paid $200k for is now worth $800k you only pay tax on the gain over $800k.

If they do this I think they should allow people to roll forward their cost basis on a purchase/sale transaction, because otherwise it will reduce labour mobility as people are "locked in" to their houses.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I assume (dangerous word but I think it's likely) that you'd only pay cap gains on gains going forward. IE, they declare a valuation day, and if your residence that you paid $200k for is now worth $800k you only pay tax on the gain over $800k.

If they do this I think they should allow people to roll forward their cost basis on a purchase/sale transaction, because otherwise it will reduce labour mobility as people are "locked in" to their houses.

Yeah, I can see that, because they'll be as irritating as possible. But if they were to do this, they should say it applies to all houses purchased after May 1 (or something similar). Please don't make people try to track the value our of our houses on May 1 and have the transactions taxable from that date forward.

I'm fully expecting them to take the worst option if they implement this though. That would just be on brand!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah, I can see that, because they'll be as irritating as possible. But if they were to do this, they should say it applies to all houses purchased after May 1 (or something similar). Please don't make people try to track the value our of our houses on May 1 and have the transactions taxable from that date forward.

I'm fully expecting them to take the worst option if they implement this though. That would just be on brand!

Oh for sure. Although the other factor is "Value as of May 1st" is a bit flexible as compared to "purchase price". So that's way more work people for less proceeds, but I think it's very likely they'd take that route.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Calgary's advance polling numbers:



[/LIST]https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/artic...n-the-country/

Calgary Confed update - apparently team Corey Hogan is smashing Liberal records for most doors that have been knocked on in a day. I got door knocked twice - lol.
Definitely seeing more red signs than blue in my neck of the woods. Fingers crossed we don't send Nixon to Ottawa.

[Johnny Makarov]

Yup Yapdog PP is in trouble. His riding had the highest number of advanced voting in Canada.

The top 10
Carleton, 43,394 votes.
Saanich-Gulf Islands, 37,468.
Essex, 34,668.
Calgary Crowfoot 33,743.
Nepean, 32,689.
Ottawa Centre, 32,604.
Courtenay-Alberni, 32,536.
Burlington 31,868.
Northumberland-Clarke, 31,357.
South Surrey-White Rock, 31, 269.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Sorry I will shut up. Didn’t mean to start a whole thing.

To me the principal residence exemption is kind of entrenched in Canadiana and I would hope this remains untouchable along with home equity.

Not at all an invitation to shut your mouth.

But it was a legitimate question. 'PP says the libs are going to tax home equity?' there was a legitimate answer with evidence 'They have said nothing of the sort, and the news says that's a lie' and your responses was to say, 'you be your ass I believe PPs lie'

I just think we can be honest about this and not buy into PPs lies.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Yup Yapdog PP is in trouble. His riding had the highest number of advanced voting in Canada.

The top 10
Carleton, 43,394 votes.
Saanich-Gulf Islands, 37,468.
Essex, 34,668.
Calgary Crowfoot 33,743.
Nepean, 32,689.
Ottawa Centre, 32,604.
Courtenay-Alberni, 32,536.
Burlington 31,868.
Northumberland-Clarke, 31,357.
South Surrey-White Rock, 31, 269.

Although Carney's is fifth.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Yup Yapdog PP is in trouble. His riding had the highest number of advanced voting in Canada.

The top 10
Carleton, 43,394 votes.
Saanich-Gulf Islands, 37,468.
Essex, 34,668.
Calgary Crowfoot 33,743.
Nepean, 32,689.
Ottawa Centre, 32,604.
Courtenay-Alberni, 32,536.
Burlington 31,868.
Northumberland-Clarke, 31,357.
South Surrey-White Rock, 31, 269.

Early voting is not a predicable measure of results and it’s foolish to make inferences from it.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Yup Yapdog PP is in trouble. His riding had the highest number of advanced voting in Canada.

The top 10
Carleton, 43,394 votes.
Saanich-Gulf Islands, 37,468.
Essex, 34,668.
Calgary Crowfoot 33,743.
Nepean, 32,689.
Ottawa Centre, 32,604.
Courtenay-Alberni, 32,536.
Burlington 31,868.
Northumberland-Clarke, 31,357.
South Surrey-White Rock, 31, 269.

Will be interesting to see if there is a still a correlation between how many people voted in advance and what the result is. I've taken to voting in the advance polls and have done so the past several provincial and federal elections. Not because of how I felt about the issues or the outcome but because it's just way easier to do so than on the day of the actual election.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Unless they were to grandfather this in. If they took that approach it would still serve the purpose, but still see people who bought houses under the current regime not be completely hit?

My point wasn’t around the actual implementation of any tax. I just expect that a government to have considered the pros and cons of all of the taxation options available.

If you had a whiteboard shot of a political party listing all the different ways the government could tax you with a list of pros and cons to each people would likely interpret that negatively and that they were plans rather than research. Whereas to me that’s just basic due diligence of managing government revenue.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by GGG

My point wasn’t around the actual implementation of any tax. I just expect that a government to have considered the pros and cons of all of the taxation options available.

If you had a whiteboard shot of a political party listing all the different ways the government could tax you with a list of pros and cons to each people would likely interpret that negatively and that they were plans rather than research. Whereas to me that’s just basic due diligence of managing government revenue.

Exactly. All options on the table. No sacred cows. That they considered it and dismissed it would be a good thing in my eyes.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Yup Yapdog PP is in trouble. His riding had the highest number of advanced voting in Canada.

The top 10
Carleton, 43,394 votes.
Saanich-Gulf Islands, 37,468.
Essex, 34,668.
Calgary Crowfoot 33,743.
Nepean, 32,689.
Ottawa Centre, 32,604.
Courtenay-Alberni, 32,536.
Burlington 31,868.
Northumberland-Clarke, 31,357.
South Surrey-White Rock, 31, 269.

I'd imagine there's a decent correlation between advance voting and age; i.e. older people are more likely to vote early. My dad (74) lives in Saanich-Gulf Islands and he voted almost a month ago at an Elections Canada office. And that riding has a lot of older people in it.

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by #-3

I'm having a hard time finding that?

https://liberal.ca/wp-content/upload...ada-Strong.pdf

Maybe there is a nascent fear of wealth taxes, probably more from rhetoric out of US democrats than Canadian Liberals. And people who carry most of their wealth within their home equating that to a tax on home equity, but I'm not sure it's in their platform.

The closest thing I could find to it was page 55, where they said they would conduct a review of fair tax policy, but specifically referenced corporate taxes, and not home equity or wealth.

edit: I found it, it looks like maybe a fake problem Poilievre made up, that he could promise not to do, so that people would jump to the conclusion that others wanted to do it.
https://financialpost.com/federal_el...dp-health-care

Thanks for that. Oddly, I’m in Japan wearing a Canada t-shirt and an American asked me this morning if the home-equity tax thing is correct. I told him I highly doubt it.

[puffnstuff]

An American knew something about Canadian politics?
C'mon man....