Trudeau planning to tax gains on personal residence?

zakarydoks wrote: ↑ Trying to close the wealth gap by any means necessary can have undesirable consequences. They save the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A lot of the wealth gap is due to a skills gap. We should concentrate on increasing the incomes and financial literacy of the unskilled before we try to take a bite out of "the rich".

Well both but within reason. Taxing windfall gains on PR doesn't impact incentives or productivity unlike our huge marginal rates especially combined with all the benefit clawbacks. For lower middles class folks with large families the numbers can be shocking.

fogetmylogin wrote: ↑ Well both but within reason. Taxing windfall gains on PR doesn't impact incentives or productivity unlike our huge marginal rates especially combined with all the benefit clawbacks. For lower middles class folks with large families the numbers can be shocking.

Fine, fine. Give the the government another trillion or two to piss away and see how it goes. Pray it goes well . If it doesn't work, just double and triple down. I live in Vancouver, the land of pissing money into the Pacific. IDGAF anymore, go for it, piss $$$ into the Atlantic too.

Super_Chicken wrote: ↑We've already got too much taxation going on. I'd rather shut the faucet off at the other end.

Then they lose all the votes. Shutting off tab won't happen unfortunately

ZenaZ927 wrote: ↑ Then they lose all the votes. Shutting off tab won't happen unfortunately

This is economic self destruction. I hope rich immigrants price out the dumb locals.

taxrage wrote: ↑ That's only the GTA and only $10M+. Many, many more homes in the $4M+ range across Canada. We're talking millions of dollars of potential capital gains per house.

I'm asking the question: Is it reasonable for wealthy families to enjoy that kind of tax-free windfall on a PR, or should they be restricted to an amount that would be considered possible for the majority of Canadian homeowners?

It is not a tax windfall in almost all cases: these people are not selling to buy yatchs.

They are selling to buy a similar house elsewhere.

So a tax here means they would either need to downgrade or pay much more just to stay similarly located. Also would mean a child might not be able to continue living in the family home.

All this just because they are rich. But these people already paid their fair share since the house was bought with income taxed at 55%+ marginal rates. Why should they pay again?

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ It is not a tax windfall in almost all cases: these people are not selling to buy yatchs.

They are selling to buy a similar house elsewhere.

So a tax here means they would either need to downgrade or pay much more just to stay similarly located. Also would mean a child might not be able to continue living in the family home.

All this just because they are rich. But these people already paid their fair share since the house was bought with income taxed at 55%+ marginal rates. Why should they pay again?

You can say the same thing about a cottage, stocks, vintage cars, precious metals etc. All were purchased with after-tax dollars.

It's a tax advantage that only homeowners (65% of the population) enjoy. For some it's millions of dollars.

taxrage wrote: ↑ You can say the same thing about a cottage, stocks, vintage cars, precious metals etc. All were purchased with after-tax dollars.

It's a tax advantage that only homeowners (65% of the population) enjoy. For some it's millions of dollars.

No, a cottage and vintage cares are not the same as your main residence. Nor do most people living in $2M homes own these things. And stocks are investments.

Being taxed on those items will not greatly impact your life.

But for the doctor who worked 20 years in winnipeg and lives in a $2M home, his family will be hugely impacted if he wants to move to Toronto if he has to pay tax on his house.


People in $2M are already paying more taxes BOTH as a percentage of the population AND as a percentage of the income earned than others.

Is there no limit?

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ No, a cottage and vintage cares are not the same as your main residence. Nor do most people living in $2M homes own these things. And stocks are investments.

Being taxed on those items will not greatly impact your life.

But for the doctor who worked 20 years in winnipeg and lives in a $2M home, his family will be hugely impacted if he wants to move to Toronto if he has to pay tax on his house.


People in $2M are already paying more taxes BOTH as a percentage of the population AND as a percentage of the income earned than others.

Is there no limit?

There is a limit, but there is also fairness. While there would have to be some kind of adjustment for inflation and deferral when moving, who can argue that the $2M someone made on his/her house in Rosedale since 2020 should be tax-free?

IMHO the only reason that we don't have a capital gains tax on a PR is because politicians own houses.

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ No, a cottage and vintage cares are not the same as your main residence. Nor do most people living in $2M homes own these things. And stocks are investments.

Being taxed on those items will not greatly impact your life.

But for the doctor who worked 20 years in winnipeg and lives in a $2M home, his family will be hugely impacted if he wants to move to Toronto if he has to pay tax on his house.


People in $2M are already paying more taxes BOTH as a percentage of the population AND as a percentage of the income earned than others.

Is there no limit?

Absolutely no limit! Our healthcare system is already brain drained to death and we are still tripling down on more taxes. Hope you guys have overseas healthcare contacts just in case of severe illness that needs urgent treatment lol. Canada is a country of bottom of the barrel, leftover talent lol.

taxrage wrote: ↑ There is a limit, but there is also fairness. While there would have to be some kind of adjustment for inflation and deferral when moving, who can argue that the $2M someone made on his/her house in Rosedale since 2020 should be tax-free?

The entire point of the progressive tax system, where higher earners pay more tax, is to be fair. And high earners already pay a disproportionate share of taxes (see the CBC if you don't believe me).

But once that is done, it's done. You shouldn't be taxing the same income again and again.

Government spending as a share of GDP is at historical highs, excepting maybe times of global war.

We have a spending problem, not an undertaxation problem.

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ The entire point of the progressive tax system, where higher earners pay more tax, is to be fair. And high earners already pay a disproportionate share of taxes (see the CBC if you don't believe me).

But once that is done, it's done. You shouldn't be taxing the same income again and again.

Government spending as a share of GDP is at historical highs, excepting maybe times of global war.

We have a spending problem, not an undertaxation problem.

Perhaps, but even if we assume that the person who made $2M on that home in Rosedale financed the whole thing, after-tax income that is invested isn't insulated from any future taxes. We have TFSAs for that, and everyone has a $6,000/yr contribution limit.

People shouldn't have a special - unlimited - tax-free limit just because they have a ton of money and want to live in a multi-million dollar mansion. This is exactly what you're advocating.

taxrage wrote: ↑ Perhaps, but even if we assume that the person who made $2M on that home in Rosedale financed the whole thing, after-tax income that is invested isn't insulated from any future taxes. We have TFSAs for that, and everyone has a $6,000/yr contribution limit.

People shouldn't have a special - unlimited - tax-free limit just because they have a ton of money and want to live in a multi-million dollar mansion. This is exactly what you're advocating.

No, i am advocating one rule for all. And you have avoided my point: people aren't using this to make money, they almost always use sale proceeds to buy a similar house.

Not to mention teachers who bought 30 years ago and planned their entire retirements around this. And now we should shaft them?

What you want is punitive taxation for no reason. And it would quickly go down the income ladder (did you see how the IRS, which was supposed to target billinaires, is now going after $600 payments?)

Once the camel's nose is under the tent, they will ratched down the exemption until everyone is taxed.

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ No, i am advocating one rule for all. And you have avoided my point: people aren't using this to make money, they almost always use sale proceeds to buy a similar house.

I've probably said multiple times that there should be a deferral when purchase a new/larger home.

FrancisBacon wrote: ↑ Not to mention teachers who bought 30 years ago and planned their entire retirements around this. And now we should shaft them?

This can be dealt with via some type of lifetime exemption for a PR. Many approaches are possible other than the status quo, which is, the more $$$ you have the more you can take advantage of unlimited, tax-free capital gains on a PR.

Wtf are you talking about the person who made 2M in rosedale by selling their PR should be tax free. I’m arguing for that.


How can call it fair and use disproportionate in the same sentence.

You guys are effing stupid.

taxrage wrote: ↑ To get ahead, but that requires a fair tax system. Why are you defending the ability to earn millions tax-free on a home when clearly only a minority of Canadians will ever be able to enjoy this benefit?

There simply shouldn't be an unlimited ceiling on the amount anyone can earn on a PR.

To get ahead requires a fair tax system.
No it doesn’t

A minority of Canadians will enjoy this benefit?
Didn’t you quote 65% of Canadians are home owners?

The opportunity to own is afforded to even non Canadians so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Not everyone needs a home in Toronto

The more you spend on a house does not dictate the appreciation . House values rise and fall.
You’re arguing that if you had more money you can dump it on a more expensive house and garuntee larger capital gains. That’s not how it works pal.

A home is not an investment . Let that sink in

taxrage wrote: ↑ Tax fairness is never a bad idea. Were you opposed to the ending of income-sprinkling? That was another unfair feature of the tax system, allowing incorporated professionals to pay tax-free dividends to their children (who had probably never been to the office) while away at MIT etc.

Unlimited tax-free capital gains on a PR is just another unfair feature of our tax system. Someone with a Vancouver home like Meng Wanzhou purchased could earn a nice $10M tax-free gain on a similar property.

I'm not against all tax-free capital gains on a PR, just the 7-figure ones. It destroys vertical equity in the tax system and I won't shed any tears if it gets addressed.

Almost every home in the GTHA and the GVA is a 7-figure home.

It always amazes me the cry by some for new taxes and the confidence they have in the govn't acting as responsible stewards of the vast sums they drain from everyone's pockets, ostensibly to better our lives.

I would love it if someone could point out one large govn't program or agency that isn't beset by inefficiency and colossal waste. Calling for more of this is a head scratcher.

Toukolou wrote: ↑ Almost every home in the GTHA and the GVA is a 7-figure home.

I'm talking about 7-figure gains, not 7-figure homes.

moeymoeymoeymoe wrote: ↑ You’re arguing that if you had more money you can dump it on a more expensive house and garuntee larger capital gains. That’s not how it works pal.

Oh, I see. The family that scraped together a down payment on that $250K townhouse in '95 is going to make $3M tax-free, just like the family that bought the $1M home in Rosedale at about the same time.

Glad to hear that the potential for tax-free capital gains is a constant, regardless of income level.

taxrage wrote: ↑ Oh, I see. The family that scraped together a down payment on that $250K townhouse in '95 is going to make $3M tax-free, just like the family that bought the $1M home in Rosedale at about the same time.

Glad to hear that the potential for tax-free capital gains is a constant, regardless of income level.

its not constant, but it is regardless of income level.

infact you are likely to see larger gains (in relation to what it was bought for) in depressed areas as it gentrifies than in already expensive areas.

go look at housesigma right now, and you can see rosedale losing value some houses lost value as compared to 2016.