Canadian politics thread

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Honda, your scenario isn't the common one. That same government has also created the environment that has allowed your friend's so see property increases on that place to what I assume it's worth today. Your friend I assume is making a profit exceeding $250K if they sell today, correct? If so, paying taxes on that is a fair result. When making a policy change such as this one, there will always be winners and losers.

You can't just be against everything, this is why politics is failing in this country. No one actually stands for real policies, but rather sit on the sidelines complaining about everything.

You could hold a pile of gravel for 25 years and it would probably double in value.

I’d stand for pro-active policies, not just sweeping ones trying to desperately fix issued caused by govt. however, obviously no party will ever be smart enough to enact thoughtful policies which actually hit at the root of the issue.

Every party at every level just tip toes around clamping down on ultra wealthy while at the same time fucking over middle class people like these examples.

Should you be buying properties for the sake of short term rentals? No. But should you be allowed to under the assumption that a rule one day won’t change 180 degree the next? Probably.

Edit* so also, watch this capital gains tax have a negative impact on housing.

Ie. in the case I just laid out, calculate the loss you took from the additional tax, roll it into the price. All your neighbors and realtors start to do the same, hehe for everyone

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Why didn't the airbnb their place? Do they not like money?

Don’t want dirt balls making a mess?

As I said, it was never once an income property. Some people don’t want randoms going through their stuff.

The way you furnish, decorate, and take care of a home or vacation property that is strictly for personal use or family is completely different than a property that is even occasionally rented out.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Why didn't the airbnb their place? Do they not like money?

Because as usual this conversation isn't looking for a solution. It's just looking to place blame and say "no I don't like that" regardless of what it is, based on who implemented it.

[68style]

Well the solution is to clamp down on money laundering and foreign investment that doesn't return an investment in any way that helps anyone in this country isn't it (ie: real estate speculation)? And tax cheats?

But the problem there is... the people making the policies are, more likely than not, significantly politically tied (and this goes for ALL politicians not just the ones in power) to individuals engaging in all those things... they're not going to cut their own dicks off, so they say eat shit to the middle class.

I mean I don't have any secondary properties and neither does my Dad, but it just seems like the wrong people to target... and it's not like a oh poor rich person with 2 homes thing, it's a why aren't you going after the really fuckin crazy ones that are doing the most damage. I wonder if Bell and Bombardier or RBC or CIBC or TD and any other number of Canadian mega corporations paid their fair share of tax last year? Probably not. Individual people in the middle class or upper middle class are a drop in the bucket compared to if they closed off loopholes that those businesses and people of that ilk use.

[Hondaracer]

10000%

[mikemhg]

They aren't trying to target the middle class.

No one in in the middle class is making a $250,000 profit on their investments via capital gains.

How many middle class families are selling off their secondary properties on a annual basis?

The whole policy is to target individuals who are paid in stocks and are able to circumvent paying their fair tax burden by utilizing stocks as collateral against lines of credit which they utilize as income.

If we end up doing carveouts based on some arbitrary value (i.e. you've own this secondary property for x amount of years, thus exempt to some degree, we'll see), this would never be a common occurrence. It's the basic 80/20 rule, you don't write policy for the 20%, you write it for the 80%.

This gains tax is to affect people in the scenario of the former example.

[mikemhg]

Also, for you Honda, someone gave a perfect breakdown to this whole drug issue we're dealing with, another topic I've highlighted to folks such as yourself as "what would be your solution", aka tax increases for facilities, who would work there, "how does the rubber hit the road".

Stat: There are 2000 inmates in provincial prisons in B.C. and around 2500 employees supervising them.

-There are 100,000 people in B.C. addicted to opioids.
-There are around 9,000 homeless people in B.C.
-Roughly 2,500 people die of overdoses YEARLY and 14,000 have died since the state of emergency was declared in 2016.

Think about the above for a second. We want forced institutionalization, but based on those figures how would that work? Think of the monumental cost it would take to roll out the capacity needed to institutionalize these people.

This is what pisses me off about folks who sit on the sidelines complaining but don't think of any feasible solutions. If you really sit down and think about this stuff, we're absolutely fucked. There is no politically correct way to deal with this issue, we need to start calling a spade a spade here.

[68style]

What would you call those people then?

They're certainly not wealthy elite of any sort. I think the definition of middle class has very much changed, it became such a non-existent part of the social fabric that it now just includes, at least in the lower mainland for sure, everyone that owns I would say anywhere from 1-2 properties... maybe even 3 if the extra ones are condos, not detached homes, and can afford to go on a vacay 2-3 times a year?

Like, they can't escape working and can't necessarily retire HERE anyway... but they also aren't hurting. That's "middle" isn't it?

Nobody that owns say 2 properties here is flying around the world buying luxury watches and exchanging currencies en masse to take % gains and buying property in other countries to hold money or make some extra... they're just trying to grab hold of something that materialized here from years of mismanagement starting back in the 90's and get enough to chill out their last few years.

Otherwise? Your choices are to rely on pension which probably means you have to move to SE Asia/South America or live totally brokeass here.

Lower class/working poor just works their whole lives until they die... middle class tries to accumulate enough assets sot hey can stop working at some point and maybe have a bit of generational wealth... upper class does whatever the fuck they want.

This taxation strategy attacks anyone trying to establish a safety net for their retirement that doesn't revolve around doomed government CPP and, if they're lucky, a bit of generational wealth or better future for their own kids.

[mikemhg]

68style, by your logic zero governance should be changed then. Tax codes and public policy should be enshrined as they are in perpetuity, if not, someone will lose.

The change of any policy will result in winners and losers, it is literally impossible to change a tax policy without someone being affected whether negatively, or positively. That applies to any change, not just this one.

Also the increase is 16.7%, you really think that increase is suddenly going to collapse the middle class's ability to accumulate "generational wealth" based on secondary property sales? Really?

[68style]

I think my post a couple posts above says exactly what I wanted targeted. Large corporations and loopholers and people who bring questionable sums of money into the country to use in exploitative ways.

Even just scratching the surface of large corporations alone would be way more $ for the government than gouging it out of the people targeted with these changes.

You say 16.7% like it's nothing, but how would you feel Mike if you had spent the last 10 years planning your steps very carefully for yourself maximizing what you have according to all the rules and then suddenly the government says hey we're running out of money, thanks for doing all that, we're going to help ourselves to 16.7% of all the risks you took and research and work you did because we feel like it.

You'd probably be okay too if I took a further 16.7% of your income away, you still have enough to live right, but would you feel like it was fair to do that when people and businesses with huge sums of money exploit tax dodging initiatives that you can't ever access to the tunes of billions of dollars a year?

[westopher]

I'm genuinely asking, but how does this tax only target people with 1-2 homes and not target someone with 20 homes.

[mikemhg]

Ok, let's go with that.

You're proposing a carveout, which I'm sure will occur at some point.

Carveouts equate to complexity, and result in loopholes, something you want to see avoided. How is a "large" corporation defined, how do you differentiate that in a manner easily audited by the CRA, and not circumvented via a loophole approach?

That's the problem when you start to add specific exemptions, the people who don't need it, nor qualify, are the one's who end up utilizing those same loopholes.

The goal should be to minimize exemptions/loopholes in tax policy, not add them.

[68style]

Originally Posted by westopher

I'm genuinely asking, but how does this tax only target people with 1-2 homes and not target someone with 20 homes.

I'm sure someone more well versed in wealth management can answer this better than I could, if they feel like being honest, but the answer is in all the loopholes that exist from what I see around me in people I know or have met who play these games: Numbered companies, corporations, off-shore addresses in tax shelters, family members with no income on titles... you name it, it's out there if you have the means to make it happen.

They don't put their names on shit the same way regular people do, that's for sure.

[68style]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Ok, let's go with that.

You're proposing a carveout, which I'm sure will occur at some point.

Carveouts equate to complexity, and result in loopholes, something you want to see avoided. How is a "large" corporation defined, how do you differentiate that in a manner easily audited by the CRA, and not circumvented via a loophole approach?

That's the problem when you start to add specific exemptions, the people who don't need it, nor qualify, are the one's who end up utilizing those same loopholes.

The goal should be to minimize exemptions/loopholes in tax policy, not add them.

I'm not going to pretend I'm qualified to make decisions on where cut-offs happen.

Do you feel good about this though?

RBC (for example) taxes:
Royal Bank Of Canada income taxes for the twelve months ending January 31, 2024 were $1.655B, a 57.6% decline year-over-year. Royal Bank Of Canada annual income taxes for 2023 were $2.669B, a 20.13% decline from 2022. Royal Bank Of Canada annual income taxes for 2022 were $3.342B, a 8.27% decline from 2021.

RBC (for example) profits:
Royal Bank Of Canada gross profit for the twelve months ending January 31, 2024 was $40.384B, a 3.68% increase year-over-year. Royal Bank Of Canada annual gross profit for 2023 was $41.614B, a 9.36% increase from 2022. Royal Bank Of Canada annual gross profit for 2022 was $38.052B, a 3.72% decline from 2021.

Profits keep going up, but somehow taxes are less than HALF what they used to be.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Don’t want dirt balls making a mess?

As I said, it was never once an income property. Some people don’t want randoms going through their stuff.

The way you furnish, decorate, and take care of a home or vacation property that is strictly for personal use or family is completely different than a property that is even occasionally rented out.

As someone who has rented a property on VRBO I had never had a dirt ball rent the property. I actually live in that property now Have you ever rented a vacation property? Are you a dirt ball?

They should have rented the house out when not in use. then use all the money they made from that 2 buy a second property and rent the first one out long term. The Gulf islands has a big rental shortage.

[mikemhg]

I agree with you completely 68style, we're totally on the same page here. Companies are skirting their fair contribution, it's a problem writ large, both Canada and the US.

My thought process more resolves around how the policy is actually administered, you have to think about definitions, that's all.

Based on my cursory review, it really will only affect a very small segment of extremely high earners (we're talking less than 1%), and not the mom/pop examples you're referencing that plan to sell their summer cottage they purchased 25 years ago.

Personally, I'd like to see more tax brackets added, with higher thresholds, but this is a good start.

It was never fair IMHO that someone who collects a salary is taxed disproportionally more than someone who accrues income via capital gains. That very tax law was written and lobbied by the very people who benefit from that structure.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

They aren't trying to target the middle class.

No one in in the middle class is making a $250,000 profit on their investments via capital gains.

Some will, but only once. There's a huge problem with people who are upper middle class who think they're actually elites when they aren't. As much as they don't like to admit it, they're very close to the rest of us and very far from Galen Weston. But they'll vote for things to help the elites that won't actually help them at all.

Originally Posted by 68style

You say 16.7% like it's nothing, but how would you feel Mike if you had spent the last 10 years planning your steps very carefully for yourself maximizing what you have according to all the rules and then suddenly the government says hey we're running out of money, thanks for doing all that, we're going to help ourselves to 16.7% of all the risks you took and research and work you did because we feel like it.

What risks and research are involved in just owning the same vacation property for 10+ years though? You're pretty much just along for the ride when it comes to the real estate market, there's not a lot of ways for them to have actively influenced their property value. It's easy to complain about a 16.7% change when it's from something very obvious but it's also luck that their property values are so high in the first place. They could've been the people who needed to sell in 08 when everything was fucked and gotten far less for it.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Also, for you Honda, someone gave a perfect breakdown to this whole drug issue we're dealing with, another topic I've highlighted to folks such as yourself as "what would be your solution", aka tax increases for facilities, who would work there, "how does the rubber hit the road".

Stat: There are 2000 inmates in provincial prisons in B.C. and around 2500 employees supervising them.

-There are 100,000 people in B.C. addicted to opioids.
-There are around 9,000 homeless people in B.C.
-Roughly 2,500 people die of overdoses YEARLY and 14,000 have died since the state of emergency was declared in 2016.

Think about the above for a second. We want forced institutionalization, but based on those figures how would that work? Think of the monumental cost it would take to roll out the capacity needed to institutionalize these people.

This is what pisses me off about folks who sit on the sidelines complaining but don't think of any feasible solutions. If you really sit down and think about this stuff, we're absolutely fucked. There is no politically correct way to deal with this issue, we need to start calling a spade a spade here.

Bra.. I’ve proposed solutions, I’m even open to taxes specifically created to deal with this.

However, as I’ve said all governments are so incompetent, they could never get it done.

On top of that, the money is there, if you can just find money to dole out to countries in the sake of “aid” you can surely find money to solve our worst problems domestically. However, there’s no appetite to do it politically. No party has the balls to come out and say we’re going to redirect 5 billion dollars to addiction and recovery.

And let’s face it, all govt. has their hands in big pharma, no one wants to rock the boat for the sake of their private sector director positions waiting for them once they leave public office.

Everything in terms housing and addiction/health care is this like govt. at all level straddle and make minor improvements, or in the case of BC’s decriminalization, go backwards on.

This isn’t a matter of setting up a river view type facility on that scale. Individuals who are READY TO GET CLEAN can’t even get help for 6-8 months down the line.

We are -fucked-

And yea, I can agree, this tax is an attempt to put a dent in the housing issue, which is the overarching issue when it comes to addiction and homelessness. But of course instead of dialing down on a specific issue it’s just another shotgun approach, cross your fingers and hope it works scenario.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Manic!

As someone who has rented a property on VRBO I had never had a dirt ball rent the property. I actually live in that property now Have you ever rented a vacation property? Are you a dirt ball?

They should have rented the house out when not in use. then use all the money they made from that 2 buy a second property and rent the first one out long term. The Gulf islands has a big rental shortage.

Some people aren’t in it just to become slum lords.

You’re not going to have nice shit in a place you’re renting out all the time. You’re probably also not likely to keep good equipment, clothes, wine/booze in a place you’re renting. So it becomes more of a hotel than a home.

[sdubfid]

Nothings going to change, accept and adapt

“The social classes of the middle ages consisted of the upper, middle, and lower classes. Within the upper class were kings/monarchs, nobles, knights, and clergy. In the middle were merchants, doctors, and lower clergy. The lower class consisted of peasants/serfs.”

“In ancient Rome, the wealthy patricians ran the empire. The second-class plebeians worked the farms, baked the bread and built the walls. The rest of the workforce—a full third of the Roman population—were slaves.”

[whitev70r]

Advocate pushes back as 3 Metro Van councillors call for end to decriminalization

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/0...-to-end-pilot/

Their call follows Oregon’s recent decision to repeal decriminalization in the U.S. state and offer people treatment options instead.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Some people aren’t in it just to become slum lords.

You’re not going to have nice shit in a place you’re renting out all the time. You’re probably also not likely to keep good equipment, clothes, wine/booze in a place you’re renting. So it becomes more of a hotel than a home.

Because that's more important than making thousands a year?

We have the same stuff we had when we rented the house out. If you charge enough you will get good renters.

Your friend should be laughing all the way to the bank because of how much it has gone in in 20 years.

[68style]

Gross, you're sleeping in a bed in your own house that a bunch of people boinked in... and handling all the same things everyone handled the entire time you rented it? It's one thing in a hotel, but keeping all the same in what you now call a home?

UV light meet at Manic's house

Why is it so offending to you that some people just like to enjoy their home, why do they HAVE to try to make extra money off it?

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

They aren't trying to target the middle class.

No one in in the middle class is making a $250,000 profit on their investments via capital gains.

How many middle class families are selling off their secondary properties on a annual basis?

The whole policy is to target individuals who are paid in stocks and are able to circumvent paying their fair tax burden by utilizing stocks as collateral against lines of credit which they utilize as income.

If we end up doing carveouts based on some arbitrary value (i.e. you've own this secondary property for x amount of years, thus exempt to some degree, we'll see), this would never be a common occurrence. It's the basic 80/20 rule, you don't write policy for the 20%, you write it for the 80%.

This gains tax is to affect people in the scenario of the former example.

Mike, you don't have a good understanding on how people who are mainly paid in their stock actually work their way around. So you think that the tax would actually hit their intended target.

There's something called security-backed loan where they take the shares one owns (usually the mark is 3M to make it worthwhile), buy enough puts/calls so that it's value neutral and loan you a certain amount of money (usually about the same valuation of shares).

The "borrower" then can use the money in whatever the fuck they want... and they can roll it over into perpetuity, they only need to come up with the difference in valuation. And if they don't want to roll it, the shares are taken and end of story. No capital gain triggered.

As 68style is saying, rich people have a lot of means or tools to circumvent whatever policy is thrown at them.

This whole "taxation" thing is nothing but Turd shouting "look, I'm doing something!", but it's the middle class who takes the burden.

Let me put it this way, the day the policy was announced, my parents' inbox were filled with invitation emails from their private banker/advisors on chatting with them about how to minimize the effect of the new policy.

It's simple... they have the means to pay a small amount to adjust their portfolios just so that they aren't taxed. But what do true "middle class" have at their disposal?! Nothing.

[Hondaracer]

Can’t buy Voters with hand outs if you don’t force money out of their pockets