this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
122 points (96.9% liked)

Canada

7187 readers
487 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
122
Canada wants to make homes affordable without crushing prices (www.bnnbloomberg.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca
130 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In a country with some of the world’s most expensive real estate, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government wants housing to become more affordable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are you talking about the capital gains? Because that's not enough as it treats homes like any other commodity. Homes aren't an ETF. That's the whole point of the tax, to make it no longer an attractive investment vehicle for amateur landlords.

Again look at how Singapore does it, it works.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

No. Capital gains isn't a tax on homes. It is a tax on income.

We're talking about taxes on homes, and homes in Canada are taxed, including your primary residence.

But if you want to randomly start talking about income tax for some reason, yes, income generated by housing is also taxed. This is Canada – we tax everything.

[–] Templa@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is Canada – we tax everything.

Taxes aren't a problem. The problem is when they aren't invested correctly or when the poor are expected to pay taxes when they shouldn't. Not perfect but recently we got FHSA.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Who says they are?

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well whatever tax you are talking about it's not effective in stopping speculators so it's not enough. Though if the concept of tax is too problematic I'm fine with an outright ban as well.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While I agree, one has to question why there is so much speculation in the first place.

The banks these days will give you 5% returns just sticking your money in a savings account – backed by a government guarantee in case the bank fails. That means housing needs to return something humongous to justify the greater risk.

Speculators can be wrong, but they are never random. There is something out there that makes them legitimately think that those humongous returns are quite possible. While a tax may serve as a bandaid to keep the infection away, what it is that is cutting us?

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is this tax you're referring to? You seem to reference it in your comments, make snarky replays like the one in this comment. But fail to actually explain what tax Canada currently has in place that results in owners of multiple homes being taxed more based on how many homes they own.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But fail to actually explain what tax Canada currently has in place that results in owners of multiple homes being taxed more based on how many homes they own.

I would not explain that as we have no such tax of that shape, nor has the conversation ever been about such a tax. Your logical fallacy is ill-conceived.

Other commenters have specifically named the taxes we do have. I'm not sure stealing their thunder adds anything. Did you somehow forget to read all the comments before you thought flailing around like one of those whacky blow up men things you find at the used car lot was a good idea?