Mordko

More than two in three Canadians own their homes. Of them 26% are landlords. So, about 20% of all Canadians are potentially impacted by the proposal. https://insurance-portal.ca/article/...are-landlords/

As of 2021, the maximum yearly contribution limit is $1650 to a given federal political party, $1650 to a given party's riding associations, $1650 to a given party's leadership candidates, and $1650 for each independent candidate. The maximum total contribution is set at $3300.

dbd33

This cannot be true. Many Canadians are married, married couples do not typically own two houses. Many Canadians are minors, school children do not typically own houses.

For this to be true, in conjunction with the previous claim, there would have to be over 5,000,000 privately owned rental properties in Canada. I don't think there are 5,000,000 buildings in Canada.

I don't have an issue with a party pandering to the special interest of a candidate or supporter but it's silly to pretend that a highly targeted policy, in this case one that benefits rich people in a niche tax position, has a broader intent. Next you'll be trying to sell us trickle down economics!

Mordko

Gut feel is always a good source of information but here is the actual data: https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/...nt%20in%201999.

Quote: "Home Ownership Rate in Canada increased to 68.55 percent in 2018 from 66.30 percent in 2017". Source: StatsCan. I am pretty sure that a couple owning a single home counts but you could direct your concerns to StatsCan.

dbd33

No housing crisis in Canada, then. Good to know.

Can you substantiate the claim that 26% of these homeowners are landlords? There aren't 5,000,000 privately owned rental dwellings so is the trick that parents count as landlords to their children?

Mordko

Straw-man is always a good argument but would you mind if I speak on my behalf? We have an affordability crisis in Canada. Its driven by a combination of

1. increases in money supply
2. low construction rates.
3. Taxation which gives house owners unfair advantages vs investments (no CGT on primary residence).

Substantiation for the 26% number has been provided above but here you go https://insurance-portal.ca/article/...are-landlords/

No, parents do not count as landlords to their children.

dbd33

Oh, that's flat shares. Someone starting out with a house or apartment and renting out a room or the basement so as to be able to afford to buy. It's not landlords in the sense of someone who buys a property specifically to rent it out. They're not going to be subject to CGT anyway.

Mordko

Look, I know little about the subject but just about enough to be aware that in most cases CRA would disagree with your expert evaluation of CGT liability.

Appreciate the chat.

scrubbedexpat091

Twitter wasn't happy with a Liberal Party post and marked it as manipulated media, of course they don't think they did anything wrong and want an explanation from Twitter.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/twi...edia-1.6149734

They basically took a clip of the conservative leader, edited it to what they wanted to hear, but left out a crucial part, seems manipulated to me.

Liberals going to Trump 101 it seems.

dbd33

Pardon my slowness in grasping the essence of this policy. I think I have it now. The idea is that people who rent out a room in their house so as to pay their mortgage are going to declare that income for tax so as to make the property subject to CGT then sell it and buy another one, partially or wholly rented. The policy incentivizes them to do this by allowing the CGT on the first property to be deferred until the sale of the second one.

That's all wildly improbable. I still think it's more likely that a senior Conservative would benefit from such a policy than that the Conservatives think it would provide more housing.

BristolUK

Ignoring the fact that this has actually got the backs up of 65-74 year olds, why would you bribe a smaller number of seniors when you could bribe a bigger number of seniors?

Interesting that you view allowing Canadians to defer capital gains taxes as an incentive but something that benefits some seniors is a bribe. Remind me of the local newspaper a few years ago with bribes from the Liberals and tax reductions from the conservatives.

But that's always the way isn't it, sticks for the poor and carrots for the rich.

Mordko

You should direct this question to Trudeau.

One possible explanation would be that he is more used to receiving free vacations and family members’ salaries from his government-funded pals and is not smart enough to give bribes in a more subtle manner. For one thing, timing cheques to exactly coincide with the election made it far too obvious and I think some people resent attempts to buy votes when they are quite so blatant.

dbd33

See, that was my interest in the CGT thing above. I thought for a moment that I'd made enough money in Canada that there was a chance of me benefitting from a Conservative policy. That'd be some boost to the ego. Alas, it wasn't to be. I'm never going to be their audience.

Mordko

Are you criticizing the dearly beloved leader? On average, 80-year olds have triple household net worth of 30-year olds.

Mordko

Cheer up. Got something to boost your ego. The good news is that you have qualified as a target of class warfare to cover the cost of the unnecessary election and generous handouts.

It’s widely expected that a majority Liberal government, or another minority propped up by the Dippers, will increase the capital gains inclusion rate from the current 50% to 75%. That would mean a tax hike of about a third.

In reality increasing the capital gains tax inclusion rate will do diddly in the face of an annual deficit which hit $350 billion last year. But logic long ago left politics.

BristolUK

Why? It was you that described it as a bribe. As a bribe it doesn't make sense to alienate the greater number who won't get it.

I'm sure Trudeau doesn't see it as a bribe and it was you who described it so. My question is, therefore, for you.