News   Jun 21, 2024
 3.9K     6 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 1.5K     3 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 1.7K     1 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Eliminate capital gains exemptions on primary residences.

Treat capital gains on residential real estate as 'normal income' for the purposes of taxation.
There might be merit in this approach going forward but imposing this change in mid-stream so to speak could be devastating for many people. Applying full deemed-disposed value of a principle residence at the time of an estate probate could result in taxation at approaching 50%, whether or not the property has yet been disposed. Since income is taxed in the year 'earned', there is no provision for incremental taxation on an annual basis, even if there was some way to determine real market value.

Many people rely on the disposal of their primary residence being the funding source for their retirement/nursing home transition. It might not be right in the eyes of some, but it is what it is. Many people are 'house rich'. Their disposable income and the cost of housing may have precluded them from amassing wealth through other means.

If I died tomorrow as a life long renter, most of my investment/savings would have been taxed throughout the years, and my estate tax burden would be relatively small. If I died tomorrow as a home owner, close to half the value of my estate would be gone in a puff of smoke.
 
There might be merit in this approach going forward but imposing this change in mid-stream so to speak could be devastating for many people. Applying full deemed-disposed value of a principle residence at the time of an estate probate could result in taxation at approaching 50%, whether or not the property has yet been disposed. Since income is taxed in the year 'earned', there is no provision for incremental taxation on an annual basis, even if there was some way to determine real market value.

Many people rely on the disposal of their primary residence being the funding source for their retirement/nursing home transition. It might not be right in the eyes of some, but it is what it is. Many people are 'house rich'. Their disposable income and the cost of housing may have precluded them from amassing wealth through other means.

If I died tomorrow as a life long renter, most of my investment/savings would have been taxed throughout the years, and my estate tax burden would be relatively small. If I died tomorrow as a home owner, close to half the value of my estate would be gone in a puff of smoke.

There are lots of way to ensure people can afford retirement, including important public policy changes, but I don't want to digress this issue too far.

I'm also a pragmatist, not an ideologue, there are ways to finesse and phase-in and grandfather changes as needed.
 
Again, I have no issues with this and would support much of the population having the option to opt into a program that would support them in the fashion that the ever expanding civil servant class enjoys
To be clear, many private sector employees, probably most if they are organized, have benefit packages as well.
 
To be clear, many private sector employees, probably most if they are organized, have benefit packages as well.
Many do, and to varying degrees. Most are not guaranteed or automatically indexed or offer the same level of benefits. You just have to think about examples such as Nortel, for the anger and pain that was inflicted on that employee population (eventual settlement of 40 cents on the dollar) Pension Reform would be one of this items on a list that Northern Light and I and others might share.
 
Many do, and to varying degrees. Most are not guaranteed or automatically indexed or offer the same level of benefits. You just have to think about examples such as Nortel, for the anger and pain that was inflicted on that employee population (eventual settlement of 40 cents on the dollar) Pension Reform would be one of this items on a list that Northern Light and I and others might share.
Apologies. I thought we were talking about supplemental health benefits for employees, not pensions or retirees.
 
Apologies. I thought we were talking about supplemental health benefits for employees, not pensions or retirees.

I had to review the in-thread convo .............

I'd say we were sorta talking about both.........

I didn't start there, but it migrated a bit.
 
There's no political will in Canada for anything difficult. And especially if it touches the primary ponzi asset of the average Canadian: their home. No party will ever limit the Primary Residence exemption in anyway. And I doubt we'll see Estate Taxes either. And this is largely cultural, particularly the investment culture. Most Canadians know nothing about saving and investing other than housing.

This is why, it will be interesting to see what the next government does. Do they cap immigration to curb housing speculation or do they keep immigration up to suppress wages and sustain housing demand.
 

I'm not a fan of this stat as there is absolutely no way Ontario would ever see those kind of completion numbers; Ontario's industry maxes out around 100,000 units per annum.

Which is about what's projected for the next six years.

To meet the so-called affordability target, one would have to complete 350,000 units per year. There is no policy solution for more than tripling the industry's capacity. None now, none 5 years ago, none 10 years ago. Maybe there was one 20 years ago.......

So, actually, I'm more angry w/the poster here for misrepresenting what is possible and the potential solutions.

The public policy disaster here was excessive population growth, both permanent and especially temporary.

It was compounded by under-investment by the state in deeply affordable housing; social benefits that are significantly below what they were in the early 90s adjusted for inflation; lagging wage growth, the short-term rental industry (which should be outlawed entirely), and permitting and incenting the financialzation of housing.
 
Last edited:
This was an excellent editorial on what the Liberals are misunderstanding about young voters.

The question will be if the Conservatives will just pay lip service to Millenials concerns or actually do anything that would displease boomers (namely, deflate the housing bubble).
 
The question will be if the Conservatives will just pay lip service to Millenials concerns or actually do anything that would displease boomers (namely, deflate the housing bubble).
I think we all know the answer to that...
 
The question will be if the Conservatives will just pay lip service to Millenials concerns or actually do anything that would displease boomers (namely, deflate the housing bubble).

I think we all know the answer to that...

They don't have to pop the bubble. Just cutting back immigration and forcing cities to build more would result in the end of asset appreciation. It would be like a slow leak. And I suspect a lot of wrinkles would be okay with that.
 

Back
Top