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

Canada

7230 readers
373 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just tax homes past a primary residence like Singapore. We know it works and at least it'll be real obvious those against are the immoral asses we thought they were

[–] clutchmattic@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is the simplest solution. But the annual property tax on 2+ properties has to bite otherwise corporations hoarding housing stock would just see that as cost of doing business.

The best approach would be progressively higher (like, exponentially) property taxes according to the number of properties held

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Hot damn. That's how you do it!

I suspect this would crash the housing market immediately.

1% annual tax on the total value of a property, increasing at 2x the rate of inflation, first for corporate owners & foreign individuals of residential properties, then individual owners of any residential property that's not their primary residence. The money raised goes directly to build affordable housing and first time home buyer rebates.

This doesn't shock the system, and frees up homes over a period of time, rather than eviscerating demand after a particular date, and slowly releases homes into the market over the course of years, as individual properties fall into non-profitability.

Someone PLEASE steal this idea.

[–] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 4 points 1 year ago

@clutchmattic @BedSharkPal

This.

Every property owned above primary should double in tax.

At this point it's the only way to stop the hoarding immediately. Canada is rolling into what may be a viciously cold winter soon, and if we don't do something RIGHT NOW, people will not survive.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We do tax homes past a primary residence. In fact, we also tax the primary residence.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (1 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) (3 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?