Canadian politics thread

[mikemhg]

Originally Posted by Hehe

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.

I was waiting for your bootlicking face to appear

It's not difficult to understand here, Hehe. There are basically two types of people — those who have capital and those who work for a living.

Yes, I do have a fundamental understanding on the subject. You haven't refuted my argument, merely indicating that there are other means and loopholes to circumvent the upcoming changes to the capital gains rate.

That is quite obvious, and if anything further validates the need for even more aggressive enforcement of taxation policies. Personally, I'd prefer to see a wealth tax introduced, based on a set arbitrary level. That won't happen, and thus changes to the capital gains rate is the next best thing.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

I was waiting for your bootlicking face to appear

Yes, I do have a fundamental understanding on the subject. You haven't refuted my argument, merely indicating that there are other means and loopholes to circumvent the upcoming changes to the capital gains rate.

It's not difficult to understand here, Hehe. There are basically two types of people — those who have capital and those who work for a living.

That is quite obvious, and if anything further validates the need for even more aggressive enforcement of taxation policies. Personally, I'd prefer to see a wealth tax introduced, based on a set arbitrary level. That won't happen, and thus changes to the capital gains rate is the next best thing.

Mike, what I was trying to show is that this taxation doesn't work. At least it doesn't work with the intention that they say it's going to do.

You want a wealth tax that can actually tax the wealthy. The problem is, it doesn't work. The tax ended up taxing those people who had saved up their whole life and put into a second property, some stocks and whatever and decided to take it out.

My parents are those who you think you want the government to tax. The truth? They solved the whole thing with a 10min call to their accountant and a few grands worth of fees in structures and billable hours.

And I will give you my own personal insight as a person who have observed these group of wealthy individuals who people seem to hate.

The problem with wealthy people is not that they make money. The problem is that they accumulate far too much and take that money out of circulation. In other words, they aren't spending enough.

Instead of taxing, I suggest the gov't to introduce writeoff-able expenses to certain industries that they want to pump. Say if we want to help the tourism industry, any expense by anyone in domestic tourism can be written off (hence a pre-tax). Get the wealthy people to spend their money.

This creates opportunities, in both job and business, for us normies. Taxing... all you are achieving is that everyone is equally poor. By inducing spending, you create the opportunity where everyone is equally rich.

[Hondaracer]

The middle class who aren’t quite wealthy enough to have accountants and wealth managers in their side, or they don’t have quite enough wealth to not feel the consequences of the tax are the losers. As I outlined before.

Let’s face it, the feds have done an amazing job destroying the concept of a middle class. They turned people who used to have OK jobs and could keep a roof over their heads into food bank users and homeless.

Highest level of debt to household income in the G7

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadi...large%20margin

That means that, for every dollar Canadian households had in disposable income, they owed about $1.85.
For contrast, in 1980, the rate was just 66 per cent.

Debt outpacing disposable wealth and taxes taxes taxes baby!

That’s without even talking about nearly double digit municipal tax increases every year. Who the fuck budgets for shit like this? The feds are too dumb to actually conspire in this way, but if their goal was to make people dependant on the govt. they are well on their way.

[mikemhg]

Originally Posted by Hehe

Mike, what I was trying to show is that this taxation doesn't work. At least it doesn't work with the intention that they say it's going to do.

You want a wealth tax that can actually tax the wealthy. The problem is, it doesn't work. The tax ended up taxing those people who had saved up their whole life and put into a second property, some stocks and whatever and decided to take it out.

My parents are those who you think you want the government to tax. The truth? They solved the whole thing with a 10min call to their accountant and a few grands worth of fees in structures and billable hours.

And I will give you my own personal insight as a person who have observed these group of wealthy individuals who people seem to hate.

The problem with wealthy people is not that they make money. The problem is that they accumulate far too much and take that money out of circulation. In other words, they aren't spending enough.

Instead of taxing, I suggest the gov't to introduce writeoff-able expenses to certain industries that they want to pump. Say if we want to help the tourism industry, any expense by anyone in domestic tourism can be written off (hence a pre-tax). Get the wealthy people to spend their money.

This creates opportunities, in both job and business, for us normies. Taxing... all you are achieving is that everyone is equally poor. By inducing spending, you create the opportunity where everyone is equally rich.

What you're describing is trickle down economics, that's nothing new or inventive, we've seen that doesn't work.

[sonick]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

What you're describing is trickle down economics, that's nothing new or inventive, we've seen that doesn't work.

He's saying it as if he just came up with that idea lol.

[68style]

Trickle down economics totally works... rich people peeing on us... feel that warmth going down your neck mmmmmmmmmm their golden handshake is our golden shower

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by 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?

I guess some people are just allergic to money.

A hotel is worse because you have a lot more people that have used the ded you are sleeping on.

[Badhobz]

Originally Posted by 68style

Trickle down economics totally works... rich people peeing on us... feel that warmth going down your neck mmmmmmmmmm their golden handshake is our golden shower

what what what!? stop visiting these "bathroom" massage parlours without inviting me!

[Hehe]

It’s not a new idea that I came up with.

I’ve always joked with my parents that the world needs less of people like them. Their lifestyle didn’t change much from the time they were making 1k a month to 100k a month.

The problem is that it’s hard to convince people as it’s not something normal people can grasp.

But the idea is simple. They go out of their way to make sure their income is sheltered and only takes out what they need. So when it comes to spending any serious dough, their first thought is the trouble and taxation that they need to go through for that portion of money to become clear of taxes and they can spend. That’s why all they do is to keep on acquiring assets. As those are considered pre-tax and stay that way.

This is the same for all the “wealthy” people out there.

Instead, make certain part of economy that can use an infusion of money and make them tax deductible. As long as it’s something that these individuals could use, such as tourism, construction or dare I say it, yachts or jets, money is going to flow to those industries.

Look at what Turd did with luxury tax on jets and yachts. What actually happened? They just drove that demand to little to nothing for Canada and those who want it would take it from other means such as acquiring using an offshore company and rent it to themselves. Did it actually affect the people who buy those? Not really. But for people who are in those industries, the effect was devastating as all the demand just shifted abroad.

The only people who that luxury tax actually affected are those whose life dream is to own a yacht or an airplane or some sort. They don’t have the means to make an offshore entity to acquire it for them. They are the only sucker who ended up paying for those taxes. Or just decided to not buy altogether

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Manic!

I guess some people are just allergic to money.

A hotel is worse because you have a lot more people that have used the ded you are sleeping on.

Literally no one I know of the 5-6 people with vacation properties rent them out.

Varying levels of wealth, some wouldn’t -ever- consider having strangers in their property, some could probably still use the money and still don’t.

Again, who tf wants dirty strangers in their home. You can say they are good people etc. you’ve got no fucking clue what they are doing in your place. Making another 50k over the span of 4-5 years isn’t worth the peice of mind lost from people bucking rails and smoking darts in your family home.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by Hehe

But the idea is simple. They go out of their way to make sure their income is sheltered and only takes out what they need. So when it comes to spending any serious dough, their first thought is the trouble and taxation that they need to go through for that portion of money to become clear of taxes and they can spend. That’s why all they do is to keep on acquiring assets. As those are considered pre-tax and stay that way.

This is the same for all the “wealthy” people out there.

I agree with Hehe regarding the behaviour of "wealthy people". A highschool buddy has made it big for himself in the stock market, and his thinking is exactly as Hehe has described -- he goes out of his way to make sure that his income and assets are sheltered from the tax man, and he has given up on the idea of a vacation home since he doesn't want anyone else to live there, but also doesn't want to get hit with the empty home tax.

But his "tax deductible" idea is never going to fly. Doing that is essentially offering a tax break to the wealthy, so politically it is already going to be hugely unpopular, esp in this economic climate. Furthermore, it simply doesn't work. If the categories are expensive items to begin with -- eg. yachts -- it'll be unpopular among the general public. If it is regular items -- like a $500 meal at a restaurant, it doesn't even make dent on how much they'd be spending.

A wealth tax as suggested by mikemg will probably not work well either, since the rich bastards will just take their citizenship and assets elsewhere.

The only "viable" option that I can think of is to do it mafia style -- have the gov use some underhand methods to threaten the rich to willingly donate some huge sums of money, or "something bad" will happen to them. It works extremely well in China, but somehow, I just don't think it's gonna fly here. (Maybe it'll work in Italy?)

[westopher]

It's funny how honda can say in one breath "not everyone gets to live where they want to" and another you can say "these people deserve their vacation home without any concessions to afford them"
It's fucking absurd lol.
Until everyone in this country has one home, I don't give a fuck about anyone who struggles for their second.
Again, this is the fault of governments from decades ago hinging our entire fucking economy on real estate and now the problem is so far gone no one is willing to agree on anything to fix it because it might negatively affect them personally.
It's just like the stupid gun shit in the US. Literally a century of policy failures compounding.

[Hondaracer]

lol bra you’re just promoting the race to the bottom?

People who worked hard AF for their entire lives have a cabin or meager vacation property, often split between siblings, and you’ve got your panties in a knot over that?

You just want the governments hands in even more shit?

Anyone who voted liberal is getting what they deserve imo. This country is getting worse by the minute. Punish the middle class in hopes of somthing changing while not punishing the people/companies who are actually the problem because the last thing libs want is to upset their billionaire overlords.

[westopher]

The race to the bottom where homelessness isn't a problem? Yeah what a fucking nightmare terror scenario.
Boomers, fine, they could have worked for a second place, but if you think any more than 0.01% of millennials or younger can work their way into buying a cabin, or multiple investment properties you're fucking delusional lol.

[Hondaracer]

Again.. how much have we tossed away to other countries in the last few years? 20 billion?

Uncontrolled immigration and inviting people who just abuse the system into the ground and now it’s the average persons job to prop everyone else up? Sweet setup. Well done govt.

YouTube

The last decade was such a pivotal time in this countries history and we’ve had some of the worst leadership in the last century during that time.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Traum

A wealth tax as suggested by mikemg will probably not work well either, since the rich bastards will just take their citizenship and assets elsewhere.

Everyone always says that, and I'm sure a few of them might, but I have a hard time believing they all will. I'd say it's worth a shot, not like we're losing much from the ones that leave if they aren't contributing anything now.

[westopher]

It's like the oil company argument again. They aren't leaving billions of dollars on the table because they had to pay a few extra million.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

now it’s the average persons job to prop everyone else up?

I thought we were talking about capital gains taxes on investment properties?

The report sheds light on the current investment landscape in the country, revealing that 11% of Canadians, approximately 4.4 million individuals, presently invest in residential real estate. Among this group, 64% own a single investment property, while 32% own two or more properties.

So realistically most of the people affected by this tax are likely in the top 10% wealthiest people in Canada. So I really need everyone to revaluate what they think standing up for the "middle class" is.

[Hehe]

The same argument that rich people would never change is the same as poor people would never change unless there's an incentive to do so.

Lefties are arguing that trickle down effect on riches doesn't work is the same thing as righties arguing that handed down doesn't work.

Many of the "incentives" given to riches have been tax cuts. But the way taxation works is to introduce a reduction of certain behavior. You want people to consume less cigarette, you tax it super high. By taxing the riches, the lefties are essentially reducing the riches. But this does not reduce homelessness even though you use that taxation for housing initiatives.

Instead, there should be incentives to NOT be homeless and be sober. Instead, we are trying to decriminalize drugs and give more handout the more fucked up a person is?! Our gov't is basically giving incentives to stay homeless and be fuckedup.

In riches case, incentives to not hoard their wealth and actually spend it. Instead, our gov't is giving penalties (tax) to become rich. This would simply lead to riches either leaving or working even harder to shelter their wealth so you don't get a dime out of them. In other words, our gov't is incentivizing being a tax cheat or as my parents' accountant like to say "extremely efficient tax structure".

[sonick]

Originally Posted by Hehe

The same argument that rich people would never change is the same as poor people would never change unless there's an incentive to do so.

Lefties are arguing that trickle down effect on riches doesn't work is the same thing as righties arguing that handed down doesn't work.

Many of the "incentives" given to riches have been tax cuts. But the way taxation works is to introduce a reduction of certain behavior. You want people to consume less cigarette, you tax it super high. By taxing the riches, the lefties are essentially reducing the riches. But this does not reduce homelessness even though you use that taxation for housing initiatives.

Instead, there should be incentives to NOT be homeless and be sober. Instead, we are trying to decriminalize drugs and give more handout the more fucked up a person is?! Our gov't is basically giving incentives to stay homeless and be fuckedup.

In riches case, incentives to not hoard their wealth and actually spend it. Instead, our gov't is giving penalties (tax) to become rich. This would simply lead to riches either leaving or working even harder to shelter their wealth so you don't get a dime out of them. In other words, our gov't is incentivizing being a tax cheat or as my parents' accountant like to say "extremely efficient tax structure".

Classic strawman. Just because a person is poor or struggling to afford a roof over their head and to have food security does not automatically mean they are an addict to drugs. You conflate support for people who cannot afford a home to people who are addicted to hard drugs to make a false argument.

Yes there are addicts who are homeless and hungry but not all who are homeless and hungry are addicts.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by sonick

Classic strawman. Just because a person is poor or struggling to afford a roof over their head and to have food security does not automatically mean they are an addict to drugs. You conflate support for people who cannot afford a home to people who are addicted to hard drugs to make a false argument.

Yes there are addicts who are homeless and hungry but not all who are homeless and hungry are addicts.

I'm referring to the programs that our gov't is doing to get someone sheltered and sober. What the fuck is there exactly?!

Building more affordable housing? Last I checked, those so-called affordable housing project in Vancouver where development had extra units that were rented at a lower rate was still priced into the stratosphere.

Building more shelter and safe injection site?! That's like free B&B for homeless and that's all.

Instead, why don't we provide incentives such as shelters would be turned into rehab centers. People who are willing to clean up would have a chance to actually do it. Prioritize those who want to take the first step and work our way down.

Yes, it might mean turning some people away... but that's the same thing that shelters are doing anyway. They've only got so much capacity. But think capacity as a finite resource. Help those who want to clean up, and take people out of street, one person at the time.

On our current policy, there's no incentive. As a matter of fact, if I can't access a shelter, I'd take my chances with injection sites. Beats being out cold on the street. Then... why try to be sober?

[Hehe]

This is a video that was shared with me. It has aged so well.

YouTube

[Traum]

As I grow older, I have also grown significantly more cynical, and this cynicism is basically making me think that in this stupid world of ours, nothing works as intended.

People will only follow rules up to a certain extent. The moment they deem the rule to be excessive (based on their own concept of what "fairness" is, and that can be really screwed up), they'll find ways to circumvent it and the rule doesn't work anymore.

Take cigarettes, for example. When the gov tax it a little more, it may achieve the desired effect of reduced consumption. But the more the gov tax it, the less effective this reduced consumption is because more people will start buying contrabands.

And usually, this sort of behaviour is non-linear -- it could be an exponential drop off after a certain point, or it could just be a knee point.

Originally Posted by Hehe

Many of the "incentives" given to riches have been tax cuts. But the way taxation works is to introduce a reduction of certain behavior. You want people to consume less cigarette, you tax it super high. By taxing the riches, the lefties are essentially reducing the riches. But this does not reduce homelessness even though you use that taxation for housing initiatives.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Literally no one I know of the 5-6 people with vacation properties rent them out.

Varying levels of wealth, some wouldn’t -ever- consider having strangers in their property, some could probably still use the money and still don’t.

Again, who tf wants dirty strangers in their home. You can say they are good people etc. you’ve got no fucking clue what they are doing in your place. Making another 50k over the span of 4-5 years isn’t worth the peice of mind lost from people bucking rails and smoking darts in your family home.

That's 10 grand a year. How many hours do they have to work to make 10 grand? If they make 120K a year that's 1 month. They are willing to lose one months income just to keep a place empty. That's nuts. I wonder what they think of the carbon tax?

[Hondaracer]

They are willing to lose 10k a year to not have random strangers shoot jizz everywhere in their homes, yes.