Real Estate

Trudeau planning to tax gains on personal residence?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 17th, 2024 10:49 am
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jan 14, 2009
5886 posts
4816 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
chipspew wrote: Please do us a favour and go back to your home country
You first!
If you buy vgro for a thousand years Vancouver homes will still be out of reach.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
2365 posts
1755 upvotes
Toukolou wrote: This is why many people that have a clue are so put out with the thought of another govnt tax scheme. It is madness.
That explains an aversion to taxation, in general, not why there is something special about that $1.5M on your PR that should insulate it from being taxed.

With the recent rise in interest rates, the window for taxing those extraordinary gains may have now closed.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 4, 2009
9335 posts
5636 upvotes
taxrage wrote: That explains an aversion to taxation, in general, not why there is something special about that $1.5M on your PR that should insulate it from being taxed.

With the recent rise in interest rates, the window for taxing those extraordinary gains may have now closed.
Lol, what does that even mean?!? A tax is a tax is a tax. Who cares where it's levied?!

How bout the frittered away $27+billion recently revealed?

I concede, you're right, the govnt are entitled to any and all sources of revenue to dole out/piss away as they see fit.

There's no shortage of useful idiots that empower the govnt to make these kinds of decisions, smh...
"I'm a bit upset. I've been grab by the back without any alert and lubrification"
Lucky
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
2365 posts
1755 upvotes
Toukolou wrote: Lol, what does that even mean?!? A tax is a tax is a tax. Who cares where it's levied?!
I care. My wages are taxed. Your wages are taxed. Students have their waitressing/bartending tips taxed.

Why does the person who bought a $2M home in Richmond Hill in 2017 and sold it for $4M not have to pay tax on that $2M gain?

I think you're suggesting that taxpayers circle the wagons around personal residences because this just represents an expansion of the tax base, but the following are not the same argument:

  1. Whether the gain on a PR should be treated just as any other capital gain
  2. Whether more tax revenue should go to the government

I think it's inconsistent/unfair to tax the $100 in tips earned by a teenager at a part-time waitressing gig while the homeowner pockets $2M tax-free.

I am not arguing that the government needs more tax revenue. I'm happy to see any new revenue from the sale of a PR be offset by a reduction in other taxes.
Last edited by taxrage on Dec 9th, 2022 1:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Deal Addict
Oct 21, 2014
1939 posts
2938 upvotes
Burlington, ON
taxrage wrote: That explains an aversion to taxation, in general, not why there is something special about that $1.5M on your PR that should insulate it from being taxed.

With the recent rise in interest rates, the window for taxing those extraordinary gains may have now closed.
I sold my house in 2017 and made a ton of money from it and bought another one, I see nothing wrong with the pr exemption.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 4, 2009
9335 posts
5636 upvotes
taxrage wrote: I care. My wages are taxed. Your wages are taxed. Students have their waitressing/bartending tips taxed.

Why does the person who bought a $2M home in Richmond Hill in 2017 and sold it for $4M not have to pay tax on that $2M gain?

I think you're suggesting that taxpayers circle the wagons around personal residences because this just represents an expansion of the tax base, but the following are not the same argument:
  1. Whether the gain on a PR should be treated just as any other capital gain
  2. Whether more tax revenue should go to the government
I think it's inconsistent/unfair to tax the $100 in tips earned by a teenager at a part-time waitressing gig while the homeowner pockets $2M tax-free.
No, taxpayers should circle the wagons around any and all massive tax grabs. Period.

Personal residence gains were never taxed, you're suggesting they should be. That is a massive tax grab.

Income taxes were supposed to be a temporary thing, here we are. It's never enough, ever. Doesn't matter the source.
"I'm a bit upset. I've been grab by the back without any alert and lubrification"
Lucky
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
2365 posts
1755 upvotes
Gungnir wrote: I sold my house in 2017 and made a ton of money from it and bought another one, I see nothing wrong with the pr exemption.
Well, of course. It's called personal self-interest. I'm sitting on a multiple 6-figure gain on my PR. I probably want to keep that gain tax-free as well. Ditto for every politician.

All I'm saying is that nowhere does it say that the gain on a PR is a special type of capital gain. Well, okay, the ITA says that it is, but that's all. There is no underlying justification for this special treatment. If such justification exists, let's see it. The last time this was examined was the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation in the 1960s.

This issue resurfaced in recent years as a result of huge capital gains on PRs courtesy of rock-bottom interest rates and expansion of the money supply. If you were a homeowner, you benefited from unlimited, tax-free capital gains on your PR. Renters had to be content with $6K/yr TFSA contribution limits. Maybe they lucked out and earned $100K tax-free on their TFSAs...although I suspect few renters did.

Do I expect anything to change w.r.t. to the PR exemption? Not really, especially now that the huge run-up in home prices appears to be over. The government can't really start calculating gains retroactively. So, your multi-million dollar capital gain on a PR appears to have dodged the taxman's bullet.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
2365 posts
1755 upvotes
Toukolou wrote: Personal residence gains were never taxed, you're suggesting they should be. That is a massive tax grab.
Is it? If there was a $1M exemption, would you (or 80% of Canadians) pay $0.01 in additional tax?

I'm just saying it is inherently unfair to have unlimited tax-free capital gains on a PR when the waitress who just made $100 in tips has to pay 25-30%.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 4, 2009
9335 posts
5636 upvotes
taxrage wrote: Is it? If there was a $1M exemption, would you (or 80% of Canadians) pay $0.01 in additional tax?

I'm just saying it is inherently unfair to have unlimited tax-free capital gains on a PR when the waitress who just made $100 in tips has to pay 25-30%.
White flag.

As I mentioned before, there is no shortage of people that endorse ever greater taxation with the idea that govn't will make life "better" for everyone.

I wonder though, once this tax no longer provides the revenue the govn't "needs", what's next? Because it's never enough.
"I'm a bit upset. I've been grab by the back without any alert and lubrification"
Lucky
Deal Addict
Oct 21, 2014
1939 posts
2938 upvotes
Burlington, ON
taxrage wrote: Well, of course. It's called personal self-interest. I'm sitting on a multiple 6-figure gain on my PR. I probably want to keep that gain tax-free as well. Ditto for every politician.
Honestly yeah it was sooooo good. PR Exemption comes highly recommended from me. What's stopping you from doing the same? After you collect your tax free gain you can rename your account to taxactuallyitsok.
taxrage wrote: All I'm saying is that nowhere does it say that the gain on a PR is a special type of capital gain. Well, okay, the ITA says that it is, but that's all. There is no underlying justification for this special treatment. If such justification exists, let's see it. The last time this was examined was the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation in the 1960s.
Really? You can't see why there would be a difference between a home where you raise your family and a stock portfolio? Think harder, much harder. If you still don't get it here's a hint, PR exemption predates the housing madness that has taken place over the last couple of decades.
taxrage wrote: This issue resurfaced in recent years as a result of huge capital gains on PRs courtesy of rock-bottom interest rates and expansion of the money supply. If you were a homeowner, you benefited from unlimited, tax-free capital gains on your PR. Renters had to be content with $6K/yr TFSA contribution limits. Maybe they lucked out and earned $100K tax-free on their TFSAs...although I suspect few renters did.
These are behavioral problems. Central banks did what they did based on the what the "best economists" in the world thought they should do at the time and in a few years we'll be discussing the mistake they're making right now overcorrecting for the previous mistake they made. The real question is why did most of the developed world make the same error in their application of their own brand of economics. I'll refrain from sharing my thoughts on economics as a field lest this post find disfavor among the forum moderators.

As for individuals not getting the most from their TFSA, if they had done something as simple as investing systemically in the S&P and maxing the TFSA they would be far above your 100k. There are three prevalent problems investors seem to face these days:
1) They didn't
2) They gambled in 3x directional bull leveraged daily NFT OMGLOL shares instead of actually investing.
3) Someone said something on CNBC that made them sad, so so sad. Therefore give their assets away for next to nothing and then wonder why they got nothing in their accounts.

Taxing individual homeowners isn't going to solve behavioral problems.
taxrage wrote: Do I expect anything to change w.r.t. to the PR exemption? Not really, especially now that the huge run-up in home prices appears to be over. The government can't really start calculating gains retroactively. So, your multi-million dollar capital gain on a PR appears to have dodged the taxman's bullet.
Once a fool has decided to be a fool there is no tax policy to help them.

If renters decide to invest poorly then there is nothing that can be done for them. If central banks decide to keep careening from way too loose to way to tight in six months there is nothing that can be done for them either.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
2365 posts
1755 upvotes
Toukolou wrote: White flag.

As I mentioned before, there is no shortage of people that endorse ever greater taxation with the idea that govn't will make life "better" for everyone.

I wonder though, once this tax no longer provides the revenue the govn't "needs", what's next? Because it's never enough.
We have a plethora of taxes/tax policies, with few stated objectives.

The entire system needs an overhaul.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 30, 2021
3435 posts
4517 upvotes
Liberals will sell this as being able to “claim a loss” because houses will go down in value over the next 5 years. It will be tax deductible against full income, not just capital gains! (gains will be taxed as income in future)

It will be part of the Helping the Middle Class and those Working Hard to Join It package.

Sunny Ways!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 4, 2009
9335 posts
5636 upvotes
LordOfTheManor wrote: Liberals will sell this as being able to “claim a loss” because houses will go down in value over the next 5 years. It will be tax deductible against full income, not just capital gains! (gains will be taxed as income in future)

It will be part of the Helping the Middle Class and those Working Hard to Join It package.

Sunny Ways!
What did I say earlier...no shortage of useful idiots....
"I'm a bit upset. I've been grab by the back without any alert and lubrification"
Lucky
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 30, 2021
3435 posts
4517 upvotes
taxrage wrote: So, your multi-million dollar capital gain on a PR appears to have dodged the taxman's bullet.
Capital gains on property before 1971 is tax free.

Absolute win for people who bought just after 1929.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
21738 posts
21353 upvotes
Tarrana & The Ri…
Toukolou wrote: White flag.

As I mentioned before, there is no shortage of people that endorse ever greater taxation with the idea that govn't will make life "better" for everyone.

I wonder though, once this tax no longer provides the revenue the govn't "needs", what's next? Because it's never enough.
This is why people like me say no to more taxes. It’s never enough and the money is literally nuked.
Jr. Member
Sep 7, 2015
150 posts
117 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
This might have been brought up, but for those actually advocating for taxing capital gains of principal residences, how would this work?

The house I bought for 1M is now worth 2M. If I need to move, selling and buying an equivalent house because, well, that's the market, would be almost impossible because of the tax hit on the sell. Am I missing something?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 15, 2017
2365 posts
1755 upvotes
db9514022 wrote: This might have been brought up, but for those actually advocating for taxing capital gains of principal residences, how would this work?

The house I bought for 1M is now worth 2M. If I need to move, selling and buying an equivalent house because, well, that's the market, would be almost impossible because of the tax hit on the sell. Am I missing something?
I would imagine that there would be a deferral plus an exemption.

Your $1M house would have an acquisition cost (AC) of $1M, maybe higher with upgrades. Several possible treatments of the sale of that house now worth $2M:

  1. You don't purchase another home within 6-12 months (maybe retiring etc.). Your gain is $1M. You would be taxed on $2M - AC - exemption. If there is a $500K exemption, you'd be taxed on $2M - $1M - $500K = $500K. 50% of capital gains are taxable, so you'd add $250K to your income that year.
  2. You purchase a more expensive home within 6-12 months. AC remains $1M. Capital gain is deferred since you plowed all the equity into a more expensive home. Life goes on.
  3. You purchase a less expensive home within 6-12 months, e.g. $1.5M. You have a $500K gain. If there is a $500K exemption you've just used it up but owe no tax. Your PR exemption adjusts to $0 ($500K - $500K). The AC for your new home would either be adjusted to $1.5M or CRA would create a $500K offsetting account balance which you can subtract from any gain realized when you sell the 2nd home.
Deal Addict
Sep 27, 2008
1015 posts
1234 upvotes
Toukolou wrote: White flag.

As I mentioned before, there is no shortage of people that endorse ever greater taxation with the idea that govn't will make life "better" for everyone.

I wonder though, once this tax no longer provides the revenue the govn't "needs", what's next? Because it's never enough.
He quite literally said that he’d be happy if there were a reduction in taxation somewhere else to keep this revenue neutral… it’s about fairness not revenue, but you’re too inflamed to realize that.
Deal Addict
Oct 14, 2010
1292 posts
1787 upvotes
Toronto
taxrage wrote: I would imagine that there would be a deferral plus an exemption.

Your $1M house would have an acquisition cost (AC) of $1M, maybe higher with upgrades. Several possible treatments of the sale of that house now worth $2M:

  1. You don't purchase another home within 6-12 months (maybe retiring etc.). Your gain is $1M. You would be taxed on $2M - AC - exemption. If there is a $500K exemption, you'd be taxed on $2M - $1M - $500K = $500K. 50% of capital gains are taxable, so you'd add $250K to your income that year.
  2. You purchase a more expensive home within 6-12 months. AC remains $1M. Capital gain is deferred since you plowed all the equity into a more expensive home. Life goes on.
  3. You purchase a less expensive home within 6-12 months, e.g. $1.5M. You have a $500K gain. If there is a $500K exemption you've just used it up but owe no tax. Your PR exemption adjusts to $0 ($500K - $500K). The AC for your new home would either be adjusted to $1.5M or CRA would create a $500K offsetting account balance which you can subtract from any gain realized when you sell the 2nd home.
Your talent is being wasted on RFD.
JT or Jagmeey or PP needs to onboard you.

Top