PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[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.

 

[Northern Light]

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

As stated, you agree with regulating STRs in urban areas; I argue simply that the policy should apply uniformly which I think should be the default for all legislation except where evidence is provided that this would be demonstrably unfair.

By default, Canadian Law (national) applies to all of Canada, except where explicitly laid out otherwise.

Notwithstanding the above, I have previously posted 3 citations in thread, on p.501 in 2 different posts, which address the issue of the impact of STR regulation (number of impacted owners); and the generally affordability of the market to low income earners including (highlighted in article) those of diverse backgrounds.

But let me add some more elucidation on the adverse impacts of STR in cottage country:

THE BIG READ: How short-term vacation rentals are ruining the neighbourhood

Living next door to a ‘ghost hotel’ has become a nightmare for many Ontario homeowners. Cities and towns across the province are struggling to keep the peace without turning away tourists

www.orilliamatters.com

Cottage-country municipalities, rental owners respond to federal government's rumoured plans to limit STRs

Some cottage country municipalities in Ontario have mixed responses to the federal government’s rumoured plans to incentivize municipalities to introduce

cottagelife.com

Specifically on the subject of housing availability and affordability:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/cottage-ontario-airbnb-vbro-1.6407851

 

[kEiThZ]

Specifically on the subject of housing availability and affordability:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/cottage-ontario-airbnb-vbro-1.6407851

This article is talking about getting overwhelmed with revellers.

By default, Canadian Law (national) applies to all of Canada, except where explicitly laid out otherwise.

Speaking of Canadian law you should know that regulating property is squarely in provincial jurisdiction.

 

[kEiThZ]

But let me add some more elucidation on the adverse impacts of STR in cottage country:

THE BIG READ: How short-term vacation rentals are ruining the neighbourhood

Living next door to a ‘ghost hotel’ has become a nightmare for many Ontario homeowners. Cities and towns across the province are struggling to keep the peace without turning away tourists

www.orilliamatters.com

Cottage-country municipalities, rental owners respond to federal government's rumoured plans to limit STRs

Some cottage country municipalities in Ontario have mixed responses to the federal government’s rumoured plans to incentivize municipalities to introduce

cottagelife.com

You want national legislation to solve a problem of too many parties in cottage country? And you think this is relevant to the housing crisis because? To be clear, this is not evidence of STRs impacting housing in those areas. Do you have actual evidence?

Did you actually read the links? They specifically mention that they don't think banning STRs will do anything for long term housing and they are concerned about the impact on tourism. Exactly as several of us have said here.

By the way, it's exactly this instinct that has the Trudeau Liberals in the tank right now. They share your penchant for nationalizing every single problem and legislating against it. The courts are now pushing back. And voters see them just making new rules and not actually solving any problems. Focusing on banning STRs in federal parliament as a solution to the housing crisis is exactly a move I would expect from this government. You sure, you aren't an LPC cabinet advisor?

 

[Northern Light]

Do you have actual evidence?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-economy-tourism-jobs-1.6844170

From this story:

And from this story:

Affordable worker housing is latest tourist town business hurdle

When he opened Fish & Sips with his wife in 2015, Paul Feather found hiring to be one among many challenges of running a restaurant with long hours on the main drag of Collingwood, Ont. But after the COVID-19 pandemic struck and housing prices in vacation hotspots soared, the...

toronto.citynews.ca

Affordable worker housing is latest tourist town business hurdle​

By the way, it's exactly this instinct that has the Trudeau Liberals in the tank right now. They share your penchant for nationalizing every single problem and legislating against it.

This is again hyperbole that completely misrepresents my view; but you have to sneak a slag into every single response without exception. Stop characterizing me and my motives, you don't know me, and you're pretty much always wrong and it adds no value. Its sole purpose is maliciousness.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is again hyperbole that completely misrepresents my view; but you have to sneak a slag into every single response without exception. Stop characterizing me and my motives, you don't know me, and you're pretty much always wrong and it adds no value. Its sole purpose is maliciousness.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't seen a single problem we discuss here where your preferred solution isn't a federal program (new or expanded) or legislation. It's your natural instinct. There's nothing wrong with that preference. We all have our biases. And yours leads to demanding that STRs in cottage country be addressed with (likely unconstitutional) federal legislation. My bias leads me to think the feds should focus on things they can actually control like financing and immigration.

Incidentally, it is the approach of this government and one that is increasingly falling out of fashion with voters and running up against constitutional limits in the courts. Their recent attempt at stopping Hwy 413 is an example of how the courts are increasingly taking a dim view of their overreach.

 

[kEiThZ]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-economy-tourism-jobs-1.6844170

From this story:

View attachment 557391
View attachment 557392

And from this story:

Affordable worker housing is latest tourist town business hurdle

When he opened Fish & Sips with his wife in 2015, Paul Feather found hiring to be one among many challenges of running a restaurant with long hours on the main drag of Collingwood, Ont. But after the COVID-19 pandemic struck and housing prices in vacation hotspots soared, the...

toronto.citynews.ca

Affordable worker housing is latest tourist town business hurdle​

View attachment 557393

That's not evidence of STRs causing a housing crisis. That's evidence that they face the same tight housing market as everywhere else. For STRs to be the problem in those markets, you'd have to show that:

1) Those STRs are suitable for year-round living.

2) The owners would likely to choose to rent to long term renters.

Neither of those can be shown definitely. Some of that stock is definitely not four seasons. And there's no guarantee that somebody who couldn't STR their cottage would just revert to personal usage or sell to somebody else who will use it as a cottage. This is not the same at all, as an urban condo, where we know the alternative to STR is definitively housing someone, either as an LTR or the owner themselves.