Investing in the stock market - Discussion

[JM_]

25 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It's been in the works for a couple of years since COVID hit,  How else are they going to pay off our massive debt?

 

https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/cmhc-spent-250,000-on-home-tax-study,-despite-denials

 

Despite repeated denials last summer, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation paid $250,000 for a study that would include an examination of “tax policy that privileges home ownership,” according to documents exclusively obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

 

“It would have been a lot better for CMHC to just come clean about this project, rather than try to deny its existence,” said CTF Federal Director Aaron Wudrick.

 

“There are literally emails between the head of the CMHC and the head of the project confirming that sheltering principal residences from taxation is part of the study. That’s clearly a study that’s looking at a home equity tax.”

 

In Canada, homeowners do not currently pay tax when they sell their primary residence, the home they are living in.

 

The study is being conducted by Generation Squeeze, a self-described lobby group led by Professor Paul Kershaw of the University of British Columbia.

 

https://www.canadianmortgagetrends.com/2022/01/cmhc-backed-report-calls-for-annual-surtax-on-homes-valued-at-1m/

 

A new report backed by Canada’s national housing agency is calling for a home equity tax on houses valued at $1 million and more.

 

On Wednesday, advocacy group Generation Squeeze released a report entitled Housing Wealth and Generational Inequity, which explored policy incentives to solve Canada’s “housing unaffordability crisis.”

 

The report was authored by Dr. Paul Kershaw, founder of Generation Squeeze and a University of B.C. professor in the School of Population & Public Health, and was funded in part by the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) and National Housing Strategy.

 

Among the recommendations was the call for a tax that would range from 0.2% for homes valued between $1 million to $1.5 million, and up to 1% on homes valued over $2 million.

 

The annual tax would be deferrable, meaning the accumulated total would not have to be paid until the home is sold or inherited. According to the report, a home valued at between $1-1.5 million would incur an average annual surtax of $408, while a home valued at over $2 million would average an annual tax payment of $14,710.

 

Such a tax would impact about 9% of Canadian homes, according to the report, and raise between $4.54 and $5.83 billion for government coffers, which the author says could be used to provide benefits to renters, such as “portable housing benefits” or investments in new green co-op and purpose-built rental units.

 

“The tax will apply only to the 9% of households living in the most valuable principal residences in the country—including 13% of Ontario households, and 21% of B.C. households,” the report reads.

 

The report added that the annual surtax would reduce the tax shelter in housing that it says is incentivizing Canadians to rely on rising home prices as a strategy for savings and wealth accumulation more so than they otherwise would.

 

“Reducing the tax shelter will disrupt feedback loops that fuel rising home prices,” the report reads. “This would slow the escalation of home prices and improve affordability; reduce inequalities, including between renters/owners and younger/older Canadians; and attract savings and credit towards economic activity outside of the housing sector, which may produce more jobs and innovation than is often found in real estate.“

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-a-possible-home-equity-tax-for-canadians-is-still-being-floated

 

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) keeps saying it isn’t studying the idea of taxing Canadians’ principal residences when they sell them. Yet the Crown corporation keeps paying a group of tax-loving academics to study a form of capital gains tax that is known as a “home equity tax.”

hmmm... yeah we'll see. Seems like more of a fishing expedition to me. 

[Elias Pettersson]

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

hmmm... yeah we'll see. Seems like more of a fishing expedition to me. 

Well think about this JM.  Why would CRA be asking us about our principal residence on our tax papers if this wasn't being looked at seriously?  

 

From the article:

 

Want another indication that this government just won’t give up the idea?

 

Since 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency has required tax filers to report the sale of their primary residence under threat of an $8,000 fine even though home sales are currently not taxed.

 

Why force people to report home sales if you’re not thinking you might want to tax sales sometime?

[The Arrogant Worms]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Easy.  Trudeau is going to tax your principal residence to make up the difference...

Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  CPP is just fine.

 

seriously?  The Toronto Sun?

 

Plus... fact check

 

Canada's Trudeau does not plan primary residence sales tax

 

https://factcheck.afp.com/http%3A%2F%2Fdoc.afp.com%2F9MF8VU-1

[The Arrogant Worms]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It's been in the works for a couple of years since COVID hit,  How else are they going to pay off our massive debt?

 

https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/cmhc-spent-250,000-on-home-tax-study,-despite-denials

 

Despite repeated denials last summer, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation paid $250,000 for a study that would include an examination of “tax policy that privileges home ownership,” according to documents exclusively obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

 

“It would have been a lot better for CMHC to just come clean about this project, rather than try to deny its existence,” said CTF Federal Director Aaron Wudrick.

 

“There are literally emails between the head of the CMHC and the head of the project confirming that sheltering principal residences from taxation is part of the study. That’s clearly a study that’s looking at a home equity tax.”

 

In Canada, homeowners do not currently pay tax when they sell their primary residence, the home they are living in.

 

The study is being conducted by Generation Squeeze, a self-described lobby group led by Professor Paul Kershaw of the University of British Columbia.

 

https://www.canadianmortgagetrends.com/2022/01/cmhc-backed-report-calls-for-annual-surtax-on-homes-valued-at-1m/

 

A new report backed by Canada’s national housing agency is calling for a home equity tax on houses valued at $1 million and more.

 

On Wednesday, advocacy group Generation Squeeze released a report entitled Housing Wealth and Generational Inequity, which explored policy incentives to solve Canada’s “housing unaffordability crisis.”

 

The report was authored by Dr. Paul Kershaw, founder of Generation Squeeze and a University of B.C. professor in the School of Population & Public Health, and was funded in part by the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) and National Housing Strategy.

 

Among the recommendations was the call for a tax that would range from 0.2% for homes valued between $1 million to $1.5 million, and up to 1% on homes valued over $2 million.

 

The annual tax would be deferrable, meaning the accumulated total would not have to be paid until the home is sold or inherited. According to the report, a home valued at between $1-1.5 million would incur an average annual surtax of $408, while a home valued at over $2 million would average an annual tax payment of $14,710.

 

Such a tax would impact about 9% of Canadian homes, according to the report, and raise between $4.54 and $5.83 billion for government coffers, which the author says could be used to provide benefits to renters, such as “portable housing benefits” or investments in new green co-op and purpose-built rental units.

 

“The tax will apply only to the 9% of households living in the most valuable principal residences in the country—including 13% of Ontario households, and 21% of B.C. households,” the report reads.

 

The report added that the annual surtax would reduce the tax shelter in housing that it says is incentivizing Canadians to rely on rising home prices as a strategy for savings and wealth accumulation more so than they otherwise would.

 

“Reducing the tax shelter will disrupt feedback loops that fuel rising home prices,” the report reads. “This would slow the escalation of home prices and improve affordability; reduce inequalities, including between renters/owners and younger/older Canadians; and attract savings and credit towards economic activity outside of the housing sector, which may produce more jobs and innovation than is often found in real estate.“

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-a-possible-home-equity-tax-for-canadians-is-still-being-floated

 

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) keeps saying it isn’t studying the idea of taxing Canadians’ principal residences when they sell them. Yet the Crown corporation keeps paying a group of tax-loving academics to study a form of capital gains tax that is known as a “home equity tax.”

As a case study, the researchers focused on the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a right-wing anti-tax group previously led by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and a favourite go-to source for quotes on tax issues for many corporate media outlets.

[The Arrogant Worms]

What Does the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Get From Its Right-Wing US Partner?

 

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/07/05/Canadian-Taxpayers-Federation-Get/

[Elias Pettersson]

13 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  CPP is just fine.

 

seriously?  The Toronto Sun?

 

Plus... fact check

 

Canada's Trudeau does not plan primary residence sales tax

 

https://factcheck.afp.com/http%3A%2F%2Fdoc.afp.com%2F9MF8VU-1

Fact check?  

 

So did the fact check also state that the CMHC didn't spend the $250,000 on the study?

[Elias Pettersson]

5 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

What Does the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Get From Its Right-Wing US Partner?

 

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/07/05/Canadian-Taxpayers-Federation-Get/

What does this BS have to do with the fact that the CMHC, a company that is owned by the Federal government, spent $250,000 of our money researching ways to tax our principal residence??

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Well think about this JM.  Why would CRA be asking us about our principal residence on our tax papers if this wasn't being looked at seriously?  

 

From the article:

 

Want another indication that this government just won’t give up the idea?

 

Since 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency has required tax filers to report the sale of their primary residence under threat of an $8,000 fine even though home sales are currently not taxed.

 

Why force people to report home sales if you’re not thinking you might want to tax sales sometime?

governments run all kinds of studies, I used to do some of them. It doesn't mean the focus of the study is really on the table, it could be that some other idea wins out. 

[The Arrogant Worms]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Well think about this JM.  Why would CRA be asking us about our principal residence on our tax papers if this wasn't being looked at seriously?  

 

From the article:

 

Want another indication that this government just won’t give up the idea?

 

Since 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency has required tax filers to report the sale of their primary residence under threat of an $8,000 fine even though home sales are currently not taxed.

 

Why force people to report home sales if you’re not thinking you might want to tax sales sometime?

My son works for the CRA

 

On October 3, 2016, the Government announced an administrative change to Canada Revenue Agency(CRA)'s reporting requirements for the sale of a principal residence.

When you sell your principal residence or when you are considered to have sold it, usually you do not have to report the sale on your income tax and benefit return and you do not have to pay tax on any gain from the sale. This is the case if you are eligible for the full income tax exemption (principal residence exemption) because the property was your principal residence for every year you owned it.

[The Arrogant Worms]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Fact check?  

 

So did the fact check also state that the CMHC didn't spend the $250,000 on the study?

So why do love the right wing in the USA.

 

You are basically repeating right wing propaganda.

 

I thought you were Swedish

 

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by The Arrogant Worms

[24K PureCool]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

What does this BS have to do with the fact that the CMHC, a company that is owned by the Federal government, spent $250,000 of our money researching ways to tax our principal residence??

Government spend money on all kinds of study.

 

The US spends just as much if not more doing studies on strategies to invade Canada. Does that mean the US is gonna declare war on us in the foreseeable future? Of course not.

 

Unless we see a bill on the table, anything else is gaslighting. 

[I.Am.Ironman]

Why not just raise annual property tax in homes <$1million?

[Chris12345]

8 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

Why not just raise annual property tax in homes <$1million?

I think that's a different jurisdiction???

[Chris12345]

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Easy.  Trudeau is going to tax your principal residence to make up the difference...

I think he's going to increase the inclusion rate on capital gains.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

So why do love the right wing in the USA.

 

You are basically repeating right wing propaganda.

 

I thought you were Swedish

 

 

Well I am Swedish but one day I do plan to visit the USA. California and Florida seem like nice places to visit.  Will I be allowed into Florida if I wear my Vancouver Canucks hat and tshirt?  

[24K PureCool]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Well I am Swedish but one day I do plan to visit the USA. California and Florida seem like nice places to visit.  Will I be allowed into Florida if I wear my Vancouver Canucks hat and tshirt?  

Yes cause no body there cares. 

[WeneedLumme]

13 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Since 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency has required tax filers to report the sale of their primary residence under threat of an $8,000 fine even though home sales are currently not taxed.

 

Why force people to report home sales if you’re not thinking you might want to tax sales sometime?

One very plausible reason might be to catch people who are abusing the primary residence exemption to evade taxes. Some people who rent out their property pretend that they are/were living in it to evade capital gains taxes. Others build houses for (sometimes huge) profit but claim that the houses are their primary residences to evade income taxes.

[Boudrias]

13 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

What does this BS have to do with the fact that the CMHC, a company that is owned by the Federal government, spent $250,000 of our money researching ways to tax our principal residence??

Fair or unfair I have no doubt government will turn every stone to find sources of revenue. I honestly wonder how most Canadians think their governments can continue to spend money they don't have? The right or wrong of it means little. Declining demographics alone expose this scenario for what it is, a massive ponzi scheme.   

[nuckin_futz]

6 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Fair or unfair I have no doubt government will turn every stone to find sources of revenue. I honestly wonder how most Canadians think their governments can continue to spend money they don't have? The right or wrong of it means little. Declining demographics alone expose this scenario for what it is, a massive ponzi scheme.   

One way or another the population is going to rise. If the existing population won't have enough babies then immigrants are coming.

 

Those people who do not want the country "getting dirtier" had better start popping out kids.

[Boudrias]

Just now, nuckin_futz said:

One way or another the population is going to rise. If the existing population won't have enough babies then immigrants are coming.

 

Those people who do not want the country "getting dirtier" had better start popping out kids.

No doubt about that. I have no problem with immigration. My comment was more global in nature. In some ways it might work out as countries and companies will have to invest in those countries that produce kids and who can grow their GDP at a faster rate than 1st world countries will. Not something the environmentalist will like to hear but advances on that front are also happening.