Investing

Changes to Capital Gains Tax in Next Budget?

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 31st, 2017 5:21 pm
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 8, 2012
7275 posts
2503 upvotes
BC
leflower wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 8:53 am
ace...sure I will pay the cap gains...but my trades are never long term, so I pay cap gains anyhow. You can wait and not pay the taxes of course but at some point you still must pay and they will be at 75% inclusion if the changes are made. My profits were big from my miner trades so I had to react or i would have payed 6 figures more under the change. If its retroactive to Jan 1...I am screwed.
Again, lets wait and see what the treehugger does....maybe he wont raise it.
Warren Buffett has got some Coca Cola holdings and others that would beg to differ with you.

I don't have to sell ... I can wait as long as I want to since I'm holding on to things I don't foresee wanting to sell anytime soon.
POLL: How many credit cards do you CARRY?
Plastiq: Pay any bill with credit card for 0-2.5% fee (help meet min spending and keep old cards active!)
Rewards program transfer times (e.g. SPG->Aeroplan, Marriott->SPG, Amex MR->SPG...)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 8, 2012
7275 posts
2503 upvotes
BC
toolioiep wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 12:30 pm
You obviously haven't asked any low income individuals with a bunch of kids.

True story - in my role I was introduced to a woman who was on disability and had 5 kids - all under the age of 12 (3 under the age of 6). Thanks to the increase in child benefits she was pulling in the after-tax equivalent of almost $100k (including disability payments).

I would wager she is a big JT fan - and he has improved her lifestyle considerably.

That said - I would agree with you. Most people have been negatively impacted (more so if you earn a decent wage) but still love the guy. Very few associate themselves with the upper class regardless of their financial health. As such the constant preaching of supporting the "middle class" resonates with most individuals and their identities. It's pandering to the self-identified majority.

I wager he gets reelected in 2019 based on popularity associated with his persona and perception as opposed to his policies. Most people are too blind to understand the impact that "supporting the middle class" has had on their own bottom line and will vote for him again.
And there are also people who are not blind to their own bottom line, but don't mind the hit to support the lower and middle class.
POLL: How many credit cards do you CARRY?
Plastiq: Pay any bill with credit card for 0-2.5% fee (help meet min spending and keep old cards active!)
Rewards program transfer times (e.g. SPG->Aeroplan, Marriott->SPG, Amex MR->SPG...)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 8, 2012
7275 posts
2503 upvotes
BC
Sanyo wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 4:29 pm
Not to be mean but my first question is why is someone on disability having that many children if she wasnt able to support them before Junior came into power?
TheClone13 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 5:20 pm
A better question would be: Where's the dad? How come he has left his kids to be financed by the government?
Maybe the parents had the family when everyone was healthy, and an unfortunate accident killed the dad and left the mom disabled?
POLL: How many credit cards do you CARRY?
Plastiq: Pay any bill with credit card for 0-2.5% fee (help meet min spending and keep old cards active!)
Rewards program transfer times (e.g. SPG->Aeroplan, Marriott->SPG, Amex MR->SPG...)
Member
Dec 7, 2007
200 posts
56 upvotes
0
ace604 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 10:14 pm
And there are also people who are not blind to their own bottom line, but don't mind the hit to support the lower and middle class.
I don't disagree - but would argue that in the consumption based self-centric society we live in they do not form the majority.
Last edited by toolioiep on Mar 20th, 2017 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member
Aug 14, 2010
312 posts
100 upvotes
Toronto
leflower wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 8:53 am
ace...sure I will pay the cap gains...but my trades are never long term, so I pay cap gains anyhow. You can wait and not pay the taxes of course but at some point you still must pay and they will be at 75% inclusion if the changes are made. My profits were big from my miner trades so I had to react or i would have payed 6 figures more under the change. If its retroactive to Jan 1...I am screwed.
Again, lets wait and see what the treehugger does....maybe he wont raise it.
Miners up YUUUUGEEEEE! MASSIVE gains!! Face With Tears Of Joy No mention of your yuuuuuge 6 figure capital loss from shorting RY? shocking.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
36613 posts
7217 upvotes
I am thinking maybe the cap gains on real estate will change but not for other assets.
Deal Addict
Jul 15, 2009
1047 posts
251 upvotes
TheClone13 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 5:20 pm
A better question would be: Where's the dad? How come he has left his kids to be financed by the government?
Maybe he's dead. And the wife and kids are living off investment gains on his life insurance payout. That makes them "rich" and they will suffer from the cap gains tax hike.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2013
3617 posts
816 upvotes
Kingston, ON
toolioiep wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 11:22 pm
I don't disagree - but would argue that in the consumption based self-centric society we live in they do not form the majority.
I think if that were true in Canada, left-of-centre parties wouldn't consistently get a majority of votes (split amongst several parties). Some vote in their own self interest, others don't.

The Liberals (& NDP promised to) revert the 65->67 OAS age increase. Young people for whom that's far off or old people already getting OAS still voted for parties who would make that change.
The Liberals lowered the 2nd income tax bracket from 22% to 20.5%. The median Canadian doesn't earn enough to be in this bracket and even those barely in it get minimal benefit, despite it being billed as a 'middle class tax cut.' Still, people voted for it.
The Liberals lowered additional TFSA room to an indexed $5,500, down from flat $10,000. Some who could take advantage of the room still voted for them.
The Liberals increased the after-tax 'baby bonus' for lower-middle income families, and decreased it for higher income families. Those without kids, or with grown kids, or who stood to lose money, still voted for it too.

Just because some vote only for how it affects their wallet doesn't mean everyone does. Likewise, just because some voters are altruistic doesn't mean all are.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
36613 posts
7217 upvotes
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e34358267/

While rumours of potential tax hikes on investment income have alarmed Bay Street, The Globe has reported that major tax changes are not expected to be enacted in the budget. The government will likely announce the elimination of some targeted tax credits, but any more complicated tax changes would be recommended for further study.
Member
Dec 7, 2007
200 posts
56 upvotes
0
Mike15 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 12:18 pm
I think if that were true in Canada, left-of-centre parties wouldn't consistently get a majority of votes (split amongst several parties). Some vote in their own self interest, others don't.

The Liberals (& NDP promised to) revert the 65->67 OAS age increase. Young people for whom that's far off or old people already getting OAS still voted for parties who would make that change.
The Liberals lowered the 2nd income tax bracket from 22% to 20.5%. The median Canadian doesn't earn enough to be in this bracket and even those barely in it get minimal benefit, despite it being billed as a 'middle class tax cut.' Still, people voted for it.
The Liberals lowered additional TFSA room to an indexed $5,500, down from flat $10,000. Some who could take advantage of the room still voted for them.
The Liberals increased the after-tax 'baby bonus' for lower-middle income families, and decreased it for higher income families. Those without kids, or with grown kids, or who stood to lose money, still voted for it too.

Just because some vote only for how it affects their wallet doesn't mean everyone does. Likewise, just because some voters are altruistic doesn't mean all are.
People voted for each of those as they identify themselves as middle class - and felt that they would benefit from those at the expense of "the rich". While I'm certainly not saying everyone - there was a significant percentage that voted under this context.

And to say Canada has a leftist bias would be inaccurate in my opinion. The Liberals have generally been more centre and have historically "bought" votes with incentive laden pledges (see: Trudeau Justin/P.E as examples.).
Sr. Member
Jan 14, 2009
623 posts
173 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
toolioiep wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 1:23 pm
People voted for each of those as they identify themselves as middle class - and felt that they would benefit from those at the expense of "the rich". While I'm certainly not saying everyone - there was a significant percentage that voted under this context.

And to say Canada has a leftist bias would be inaccurate in my opinion. The Liberals have generally been more centre and have historically "bought" votes with incentive laden pledges (see: Trudeau Justin/P.E as examples.).
Left or Right depends on your perspective and it's more of an opinion. Currently I would group Canada and the EU as left. Australia and US as center. China and some city states like Hong Kong and Singapore as right. Lefties attract voters with terms like equality, social justice, whatever that means, fair share and tax the rich more. Conservatives use terms like freedom, free speech and justice.
Sr. Member
Jan 27, 2015
798 posts
256 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
ace604 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 10:14 pm
And there are also people who are not blind to their own bottom line, but don't mind the hit to support the lower and middle class.
"God helps those who help themselves."

I don't believe that giving entitlements to able-bodied individuals is good for the long term. The more entitlement one receives, the more dependent they get on it. The impact is that of a drug: you need the next hit and it ends up costing the society (taxpayers) a whack of money.

That's why I always disagree with the position that we need to give more to those who have "less." Now poverty is certainly not a good thing but I know of many, MANY individuals who are on welfare because they have little incentive to get a minimum-wage job.
Sr. Member
Jan 27, 2015
798 posts
256 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
zakarydoks wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 1:52 pm
Left or Right depends on your perspective and it's more of an opinion. Currently I would group Canada and the EU as left. Australia and US as center. China and some city states like Hong Kong and Singapore as right. Lefties attract voters with terms like equality, social justice, whatever that means, fair share and tax the rich more. Conservatives use terms like freedom, free speech and justice.
It basically boils down to this:
The Left believes in equality of outcome.
The Right believes in equality of opportunity.

There are also socially conservative and liberal policies and fiscally conservative and liberal policies.

Chretien and Paul Martin were socially liberal but fiscally conservative (prudent).

JT is socially liberal and fiscally liberal, resulting in debt which must be paid by future generations.
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2001
13417 posts
4070 upvotes
FinancialFreedom wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 2:32 pm
"God helps those who help themselves."

I don't believe that giving entitlements to able-bodied individuals is good for the long term. The more entitlement one receives, the more dependent they get on it. The impact is that of a drug: you need the next hit and it ends up costing the society (taxpayers) a whack of money.

That's why I always disagree with the position that we need to give more to those who have "less." Now poverty is certainly not a good thing but I know of many, MANY individuals who are on welfare because they have little incentive to get a minimum-wage job.
Since there is no right or wrong answer - it's just an opinion - what are your thoughts on the theory that by providing "entitlements" to people that allow everyone to maintain a basic lifestyle prevents many of the problems associated with poverty? Problems which cost taxpayers dollars now.

Personally, I am not a "let's give them everything without working for it" type of person. But I am intrigued by the thought of providing a basic allowance / basic services if the net benefit to society is greater through things like less demand on health care and less crime.
× < >
Rotate image Save Cancel

Top