PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[Northern Light]

I'd try to explain why parents try to own the home where they live, but I suspect it's hard for somebody who never had kids to actually understand the value of providing stability to a child and where that value ranks relative to cheap college later. Also, most people who have kids have higher incomes than retired seniors. That's needed to provide for those kids.

So you're slagging my dead parents now? People who had a child and owned a cottage.

Meanwhile, I don't have kids, but don't own a cottage.

 

[Northern Light]

The difference should be obvious to most. But we're also talking to a Boomer who can't understand why a young family might want to actually own the place they live and not live under the constant threat of renoviction or simply displacement by landlord fiat:

You and I are only a couple of years apart in age, I'm under 50, born in the mid 70s.

Once again, you have your facts wrong. You draw conclusions w/o evidence and spew them w/venom.

 

[afransen]

We rent cottages every year because members of my family like that type of thing but we could never afford to own one. But the prices are eye-watering. A cottage within reach of Toronto will cost more per night than an apartment in Copenhagen. We did both last summer, and Copenhagen was 25% cheaper.

That said, we probably wouldn’t have done either without Air BnB/VRBO, so they do open up opportunities for people.

I guess you exist in circles far above those NL runs in.

Maybe I live in a totally different reality. I know quite a few people who use AirBnB for vacation accommodations. Aside from all-inclusives/cruises, I'd say about half of people who tell me about vacation plans used AirBnB or similar. It is often a lot more cost effective and convenient for a family, and allows lower meal costs through prepping simple meals at home/packing picnics instead of dining out for every meal.

I am rather unpersuaded that STRs are the affordability boogeyman they are made out to be. They have other legitimate concerns for safety, disrupting neighbours and so on.

 

[kEiThZ]

So you're slagging my dead parents now? People who had a child and owned a cottage.

No. Just surprised you don't understand how privileged you were. Maybe you're focused on the importance of owning a cottage because of your childhood experiences. You seem to forget how important the stability your parents provided was. They weren't moving around every few years just because of landlord whims.

Meanwhile, I don't have kids, but don't own a cottage.

And now we know why you're more worried about distributing cottages than ensuring stability for families.

You and I are only a couple of years apart in age, I'm under 50, born in the mid 70s.

Once again, you have your facts wrong. You draw conclusions w/o evidence and spew them w/venom.

Boomer is a state of mind. And there are times that Gen X shares that mindset. Putting cottages on the same level as urban housing is one of them.

 

[Richard White]

Folks. Can we move the debate about STRs to another thread?

 

[Northern Light]

And now we know why you're more worried about distributing cottages than ensuring stability for families.

'We' know no such thing.

Why can't you debate without personalizing? You notice I neither advocate for nor against a policy based on your existence? I never mention your parents or family. Proper debate is evidence based, and dispassionate. It requires no character assassination.

You're welcome to disagree with me; but marshal facts in favour of your position.

Its not personal, its logic. If you think my logic is off, show me why. You're the one who is arguing for cracking down on STR in urban/suburban areas (I agree); but then asking for a carve-out to protect upper-middle income and wealthy property owners in cottage country.

The onus is on you to establish the meritorious nature of that carve out.

 

[evandyk]

The Globe and Mail is on a full court press to try to drum up sympathy for all those "average" Canadians (+/1 0.1% of all Canadians) who realize huge capital gains in a single year by selling a cottage, investment property or very large investment portfolio.

Middle-class Canadians could be hit by increases to capital gains tax. Here’s how to prepare

The government estimates that just over 0.1 per cent of Canadians will be affected by the tax change this year

www.theglobeandmail.com

Change to capital gains taxes will catch many average Canadians

As with most tax changes introduced by this government, it’s far more complex than it should be

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Globe and Mail is on a full court press to try to drum up sympathy for all those "average" Canadians (+/1 0.1% of all Canadians) who realize huge capital gains in a single year by selling a cottage, investment property or very large investment portfolio.

Trudeau is just asking to get smoked in the next election. He's forgetting who votes in this country, and it's not young adults.

Instead of tax and spend, why not look at the USA and ask what they're doing to get unemployment to below 4% when we're over 6%?

 

[Richard White]

Instead of tax and spend, why not look at the USA and ask what they're doing to get unemployment to below 4% when we're over 6%?

Yes but keep in mind how deep in debt the US is.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why can't you debate without personalizing?

I could ask you the same:

However, I'm not ok w/my tax dollars going to support the home ownership ambitions of a household whose income is higher than my own.

You seem to think national policy should be built entirely around your life. Well then, it behooves us to discuss your life.

 

[kEiThZ]

Trudeau is just asking to get smoked in the next election. He's forgetting who votes in this country, and it's not young adults.

Instead of tax and spend, why not look at the USA and ask what they're doing to get unemployment to below 4% when we're over 6%?

You mean substantially taxing capital gains from housing (which they limit to $250k per person for life on their principal residence) and running a 6% national deficit?

 

[kEiThZ]

but then asking for a carve-out to protect upper-middle income and wealthy property owners in cottage country.

There's no "carve-out". Rules against STRs are regional not national. It's actually you asking for further regulation. I've simply argued the feds shouldn't be sticking their nose in areas that aren't really a problem. And the ownership demographics of cottages isn't a national problem.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes but keep in mind how deep in debt the US is.

We're catching up. Our total national (fed+prov) debt has doubled in just 15 years. But I'm not sure government debt really matters. Is Canada better off with a total federal/provincial debt per capita that is lower than the that of the US?

 

[Northern Light]

You seem to think national policy should be built entirely around your life.

Pejorative and personal and unnecessary and inaccurate. Stop!

Well then, it behooves us to discuss your life.

I have not cited your income in discussing Old Age Security.

Why? Because its anecdotal, and because 'perspective' is by definition subjective, you're ok to make a subjective observation as am I; they just shouldn't be confused with hard facts. I have provided hard facts.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have provided hard facts.

What facts? Can you cite the post where you provided evidence that STRs were a problem in cottage country? I must have missed it.