|
tagesschau posted:I don't think I did. You want to know what taxes are charged on borrowed money. Obviously, money borrowed from the bank is not income. Like, duh? Money given to you, even if the gifter borrowed it, should generate a tax liability on you and taxed at the point of gifting. As far as I'm concerned, you should not be able to get around this by saying it's just an interest free loan to your giftee without a repayment schedule, because that is a gift in everything but name. No I don't care that that isn't the way it currently works in Canada, because I am suggesting that that is exactly how it should work, as it does in many other places with more sane inheritance tax laws. If you have an issue with this, then you are part of the problem. qhat fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Oct 26, 2021 |
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:It's not clear what, if anything, you're trying to accomplish by stopping parents from giving their kids money. Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
qhat posted:Ok. Then why are you going on about income taxes on borrowed money from the bank? That is exactly nothing to do with what I was talking about. Subjunctive, talking about loans from the bank: Subjunctive posted:Treating loans as income is certainly a novel idea. qhat posted:At what point is a loan a gift? Is there any difference between a gift and a 0% interest IOU for life? Why is it legal to borrow money and gift it to someone just so you can skirt tax regulations? Not that there is any tax on gifts in Canada anyway, but in other countries there are. Why do you feel we should be different? So, yes, that was evidently the topic of the conversation, even if you weren't paying enough attention to realize that. qhat posted:Money given to you, even if the gifter borrowed it, should generate a tax liability on you and taxed at the point of gifting. qhat posted:If you have an issue with this, then you are part of the problem. What gift tax rates do you think should apply? You will probably be surprised once you find out what the gift tax rates actually are in the countries you think do it correctly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Subjunctive, talking about loans from the bank: quote:So you want to give the giver a tax write-off? Silly if yes, objectively stupid if no. quote:What gift tax rates do you think should apply? You will probably be surprised once you find out what the gift tax rates actually are in the countries you think do it correctly. Out of curiosity, are you worried that I don't have good examples? Is there a reason that you believe that countries with more stringent inheritance/gift tax laws don't exist? I'm happy to indulge you if this is really the road you want to pursue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
qhat posted:And also that you, the gifter, cannot get around that by pretending to be a lender. Nobody was talking about loans (or "loans") between parents and children, only between institutional lenders and individual borrowers. qhat posted:Stop trying to strawman your way through this.  qhat posted:Out of curiosity, are you worried that I don't have good examples? Is there a reason that you believe that countries with more stringent inheritance/gift tax laws don't exist? I'm happy to indulge you if this is really the road you want to pursue. Name one. A gift of C$130,000 (the Toronto first-time buyer number), if split up over two years and given from one couple to another couple, would result in zero tax in the U.S. A gift of C$180,000 (the Vancouver number), if given from one parent to one child all at once, would result in zero tax in Germany. You seem to think Canada an outlier because it doesn't demand that half of a $50,000 gift from parent to child go to the CRA, but that simply isn't the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
The Netherlands France Spain There's three. Also we're not talking about just $50k. We're talking about parents gifting their children an average of $180k, and $340k for mover-uppers. Like the original article said, you know, what this whole conversation is about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
qhat posted:The Netherlands C$180,000: qhat posted:France C$180,000: $4,783 qhat posted:Spain C$180,000: $23,901 edit: Neglected to include the Netherlands' exemption. tagesschau fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:C$130,000: $13,000 Spain is actually a terrible example in retrospect. Each autonomous region decides its own discount off inheritance tax, with several going up to 99%, so I'll retract that one. At any rate, your conclusion from all of this is that Canada is not falling behind by having no inheritance tax whatsoever? It seems pretty clear to me that this is not in line with how other countries treat inheritance. If you increase those numbers to the $340k that are also quoted, I'm positive you'll see a higher tax bill; in fact, significantly higher than the $0 you'd pay here in Canada. And even if you think those numbers basically prove your point that gifts are basically untaxed everywhere, why shouldn't it be taxed and taxed severely? Have you actually established that this isn't the way we should be going to improve affordability for everyone, and not just a few lucky people who happen to have wealthy parents who live in an inheritance tax haven?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
qhat posted:Have you actually established that this isn't the way we should be going to improve affordability for everyone, and not just a few lucky people who happen to have wealthy parents who live in an inheritance tax haven? Since it wouldn't improve affordability, no, it's not a solution to the affordability problem. It's Canadians borrowing too much that's driving prices up. It's not stacks of mythical untaxed money, and it never was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Since it wouldn't improve affordability, no, it's not a solution to the affordability problem. It's Canadians borrowing too much that's driving prices up. It's not stacks of mythical untaxed money, and it never was. So, your contention Canadians being able to transfer wealth tax free has no effect on affordability whatsoever, let alone equality? Is that not exactly what the article is about? Aside from the fact that it would reduce demand by reducing starting capital for buyers, where do you think those taxes raised would go?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
qhat posted:So, your contention Canadians being able to transfer wealth tax free has no effect on affordability whatsoever, let alone equality? Is that not exactly what the article is about? My contention is that the majority of people making these gifts to their kids are not actually wealthy if you discount their personal residences, which means they are not actually wealthy. These transfers from parents to children are still less of an issue than the people who buy condos, borrow against them to buy more condos, and rinse and repeat. The underlying issue is the insistence on the part of every level of government that number never be permitted to go down under any circumstances. What do you think the tax rate would actually have to be to meaningfully impact these transfers in a way that affects home prices? Would you offer an exemption on the first n dollars of the gift at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
First of all, you cannot discount their residence. Owning a 1.5 million dollar asset makes you wealthy, not liquid, but wealthy. They are only not wealthy if you are assuming there is no value in the property, or at the very least that the property is significantly overvalued and will eventually correct to a very small value, but that is a different debate. I'm assuming that instead of borrowing on a HELOC, they also have the option of downsizing today and gift the excess to the kids as an alternative. How much would I want that taxed? If you had to get me to pull something out of my rear end then sure give a lifetime inheritance exemption of like 100-150k cumulative from any gifts, that means the bottom 20% of people don't pay any tax whatsoever on inheritance. Then scaling linearly from between 10% to 50% until you reach the top 10% and then scale exponentially when you start getting into seven figure territory, and we're talking up to 75% taxation on inheritance over $1million, maybe more. This undeniably would affect the insane gifts being given to the people in that article, and if not at that point in time, it will affect them when the rest of their inheritance is passed down in the future. We can argue about whether that is too high or too low all day, that's not the debate I want to have. What I want is inheritance and gifts at least taxed to a significant degree in Canada so that people without the wealthy parents are not disproportionately disadvantaged not just buying a home (although I'm convinced this would affect affordability positively due to decreased demand and increased tax revenue), but in basically every facet of society. Right now, inheritance is never taxed, beyond the normal stuff that gets put on the final tax return; my contention is that this is wrong. qhat fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:What do you think the tax rate would actually have to be to meaningfully impact these transfers in a way that affects home prices? Would you offer an exemption on the first n dollars of the gift at all? I think your insistence on an answer to this question is disingenuous red herring to deflect from the point that qhat thinks that a tax on wealth transfers would reduce wealth inequality. By driving the discussion into specifics of tax rates, you are trying to manipulate the discussion into one where you can end the discussion without actually addressing his position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
Had a lovely email from my landlord telling us not to use space heaters in our apartment. This coming after we told them that the furnace wasn't working and it was freezing cold the other night. To which they said that there wasn't a problem last year so why is it a problem now. Well I wouldn't have to use my space heater if your furnace actually worked. As it is the furnace only ever seems to turn on when it's 0 outside so if it's 10 degrees and wet the whole apartment turns into a clammy tomb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/dan-fumano-b-c-man-cries-foul-over-vacancy-tax-on-home-of-21-years Guy who is a member of a satellite family and defers his property taxes is heartbroken that he can't defer his speculation taxes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
qhat posted:First of all, you cannot discount their residence. Owning a 1.5 million dollar asset makes you wealthy, not liquid, but wealthy. They are only not wealthy if you are assuming there is no value in the property, or at the very least that the property is significantly overvalued and will eventually correct to a very small value, but that is a different debate. I'm assuming that instead of borrowing on a HELOC, they also have the option of downsizing today and gift the excess to the kids as an alternative. You can absolutely discount their residence at list price. Someone who owns a house on an 18'-wide lot in Toronto is not, in non-bubble times, sitting on more than half a million dollars, so treating them as though they've already realized a capital gain that will never materialize for most people in their situation is just weird. And no, it's not a different debate. Your argument boils down to "they're richer than you think," despite us all knowing that prices in an asset bubble are very much not indicative of future performance. qhat posted:How much would I want that taxed? If you had to get me to pull something out of my rear end then sure give a lifetime inheritance exemption of like 100-150k cumulative from any gifts, that means the bottom 20% of people don't pay any tax whatsoever on inheritance. Then scaling linearly from between 10% to 50% until you reach the top 10% and then scale exponentially when you start getting into seven figure territory, and we're talking up to 75% taxation on inheritance over $1million, maybe more. This undeniably would affect the insane gifts being given to the people in that article, and if not at that point in time, it will affect them when the rest of their inheritance is passed down in the future. All this leads to is the assets staying in the parents' name while they're still alive, even if the kids have complete use of, and effectively full control over, those assets. I know people who've done this despite the lack of an inheritance or gift tax. It's also absolutely bonkers that you'd consider someone with a house in Toronto or Vancouver (admittedly overvalued in the present day, but we mark to market at the time of inheritance) in the same category as Galen Weston or Ted Rogers, and you'd fully earn the drubbing your government would take at the polls as a result. qhat posted:What I want is inheritance and gifts at least taxed to a significant degree in Canada so that people without the wealthy parents are not disproportionately disadvantaged not just buying a home (although I'm convinced this would affect affordability positively due to decreased demand and increased tax revenue), but in basically every facet of society. Right now, inheritance is never taxed, beyond the normal stuff that gets put on the final tax return; my contention is that this is wrong. Do you still not understand that someone who owns a house is not unusually wealthy by virtue of owning it in a country where twice as many people own their own homes as don't? Mantle posted:I think your insistence on an answer to this question is disingenuous red herring to deflect from the point that qhat thinks that a tax on wealth transfers would reduce wealth inequality. It's not a red herring. People who have essentially no assets other than their owner-occupied single-family home are not properly referred to as "wealthy." Lowering the threshold and upping the rate to the point where we start charging "gently caress you" inheritance taxes well before people actually start becoming society-distortingly wealthy is not solving the problem you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:You can absolutely discount their residence at list price. Someone who owns a house on an 18'-wide lot in Toronto is not, in non-bubble times, sitting on more than half a million dollars, so treating them as though they've already realized a capital gain that will never materialize for most people in their situation is just weird. And no, it's not a different debate. Your argument boils down to "they're richer than you think," despite us all knowing that prices in an asset bubble are very much not indicative of future performance. This has nothing to do with a person becoming $250k richer overnight and paying no taxes on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:You can absolutely discount their residence at list price. Someone who owns a house on an 18'-wide lot in Toronto is not, in non-bubble times, sitting on more than half a million dollars, so treating them as though they've already realized a capital gain that will never materialize for most people in their situation is just weird. And no, it's not a different debate. Your argument boils down to "they're richer than you think," despite us all knowing that prices in an asset bubble are very much not indicative of future performance. quote:All this leads to is the assets staying in the parents' name while they're still alive, even if the kids have complete use of, and effectively full control over, those assets. I know people who've done this despite the lack of an inheritance or gift tax. Lol. First of all the situation you describe is not tax-free, that's what you call a tax-deferral. In the system I just whipped out on the back of an envelope, they would still pay the tax, just they would pay it once the parents have passed and inheritance is due. This is as opposed to paying now when the still alive parents have gifted the money. Also once again you're hyper focused on this one very specific point of tax rates. Obviously I am more leftist so I believe any significant inheritance is egregious in its own right, but it's still mostly a personal opinion and also something that I said has very little relevance to the question of "should we tax people on inheritance and gifts?", for which the answer from most countries is "yes" unless you're in Canada where we don't believe in it for some reason. quote:Do you still not understand that someone who owns a house is not unusually wealthy by virtue of owning it in a country where twice as many people own their own homes as don't? quote:It's not a red herring. People who have essentially no assets other than their owner-occupied single-family home are not properly referred to as "wealthy." Lowering the threshold and upping the rate to the point where we start charging "gently caress you" inheritance taxes well before people actually start becoming society-distortingly wealthy is not solving the problem you think it is. So, to put your own question back to you, what would be a more appropriate level of taxation than Nothing At All? Or was that your answer? qhat fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Oct 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
qhat posted:"Will never materialize for most people" Uh, since when? How do you know the current government won't keep this nonsense up for the next 10 years while boomers start really cashing out? They won't keep prices up in the face of downward pressure from the greater economy because they simply can't. The U.S. government couldn't, and they're actually in control of a real reserve currency down there. qhat posted:Lol. Once again you're hyper focused on this one very specific point of tax rates. I am not at all focused on a specific number. You seem to think that sticking it to the average Toronto or Vancouver homeowner means you're going after modern-day robber barons, when it's no such thing. qhat posted:Obviously I am more leftist so I believe any significant inheritance is egregious in its own right, but it's still mostly a personal opinion and also something that I said has very little relevance to the question of "should we tax people on inheritance and gifts?", for which the answer is universally and globally "yes" unless you're in Canada where we don't believe in it for some reason. You responded to the counterexamples of the U.S., Germany, and France not charging meaningful (or any) tax on the gifts at the sizes mentioned for first-time Toronto and Vancouver homebuyers when I posted them. Why are you forgetting them several hours later? The limits on tax-free gifts you proposed are so low that it's comically easy to hit them if you have to do something like support your parents in retirement, or pay your kids' rent while they're at school. qhat posted:If you own a house that has unusually made you a multi-millionaire, in fact, yes you are wealthy. Marking an asset in bubble territory to market, and then pretending that you're going after people who are somehow exploiting the system and not paying enough taxes, is utterly ridiculous. qhat posted:So, to put your own question back to you, what would be a more appropriate level of taxation than Nothing At All? Or was that your answer? It's entirely possible to tax people with actually large estates. Some family that owns a house in Etobicoke that would be worth $2 million if they sold it today (but where would they move?), and not much else, is not "the wealthy." If you want a tax on the truly wealthy, implement an actual wealth tax. Proposing a wealth tax that hits a giant chunk of the country that isn't actually wealthy is a great way to kill the idea of actually taxing the wealthy for an entire generation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 03:26
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:They won't keep prices up in the face of downward pressure from the greater economy because they simply can't. The U.S. government couldn't, and they're actually in control of a real reserve currency down there. quote:I am not at all focused on a specific number. You seem to think that sticking it to the average Toronto or Vancouver homeowner means you're going after modern-day robber barons, when it's no such thing. quote:You responded to the counterexamples of the U.S., Germany, and France not charging meaningful (or any) tax on the gifts at the sizes mentioned for first-time Toronto and Vancouver homebuyers when I posted them. Why are you forgetting them several hours later? quote:The limits on tax-free gifts you proposed are so low that it's comically easy to hit them if you have to do something like support your parents in retirement, or pay your kids' rent while they're at school. quote:Marking an asset in bubble territory to market, and then pretending that you're going after people who are somehow exploiting the system and not paying enough taxes, is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 03:43
|
|
|
You know in Iceland if you receive a gift from someone, they just tack it onto your income taxes for that year? Pretty neat. They gently caress it up though by charging a 10% flat rate for inheritance on everything over roughly 50k CAD though. We should probably be more like half-Iceland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
qhat posted:Is there any difference between a gift and a 0% interest IOU for life? Yes, I believe, because of the true-up effects on the estate. IIRC CRA has a minimum interest rate below which it’s considered an intentional loss and has income effects on the lender. Similarly for renting below cost, as I encountered it. Gift laws are easy to gently caress up too. My ex-wife and I separated while we were living in the US as non-permanent-residents, and her half of the marital assets were ALMOST considered a gift (what) which was taxed at something like 30% in the hands of the “gifter”. We escaped only because California is a community property state. Anyway, if you try to gently caress with gifts you’ll just get people buying real estate themselves and letting their kids live in it rent free and inherit. There is no political will to actually impair parents helping their children (real estate, education, connections, etc), however it’s labeled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
qhat posted:I think you misread my original post completely. I already know that it isn't taxed in Canada, I literally said that. That is not a reason for why it shouldn't be taxed, and it already is in many other countries. Gift tax in the US at least, for citizens, is zero below the several-million-dollar level. AIUI most places are like that to permit family businesses to be passed on without substantial tax consequences. (Germany “ appears to be tax free up to €75,000, but even beyond that it doesn’t reach income tax levels; I selected it randomly as a country. France is €100,000 for children but I’m sure in both cases there are lots of trust/corporation/etc ways for the wealthy to evade.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
qhat posted:And even if you think those numbers basically prove your point that gifts are basically untaxed everywhere, why shouldn't it be taxed and taxed severely? Would you distinguish charitable donations from gifts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Would you distinguish charitable donations from gifts? In principle, yes. But, I do understand the ultra wealthy do tend to funnel cash through charities to evade taxes (as far as I know?). Eitherway, I'm not an expert on tax evasion or fraud, or how to stop those things from happening in any event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
qhat posted:In principle, yes. But, I do understand the ultra wealthy do tend to funnel cash through charities to evade taxes (as far as I know?). Eitherway, I'm not an expert on tax evasion or fraud, or how to stop those things from happening in any event. Yeah, it’s a whole alternate economy. In my experience everyone who has anything to do with taxes insists that their primary job is to reduce the total number of dollars paid to the government, not to find a fair amount to contribute. It causes some tax professionals to totally disengage when you say “just file what’s reasonable”, and god help you if there’s a deduction you don’t think applies. I got fired by my previous (autocomplete: precious) accountant for not being sufficiently aggressive with deductions—which I don’t regret, but was moderately inconvenient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
Lots of companies have massive debt why do they even have to pay taxes. hmm curious
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 04:58
|
|
|
Hearing some info today about CEBA( cerb for business) loans. Lots of people have been using every number company they have and then dumping the money into real estate. This could be caught by auditing ceba recipients but I'm sure it won't. So we all have been investing in real estate all along. Through our fellow Canadians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
Purgatory Glory posted:Hearing some info today about CEBA( cerb for business) loans. Lots of people have been using every number company they have and then dumping the money into real estate. This could be caught by auditing ceba recipients but I'm sure it won't. So we all have been investing in real estate all along. Through our fellow Canadians. In what Canadian real estate market would $60k make a difference. Asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 05:56
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Some family that owns a house in Etobicoke that would be worth $2 million if they sold it today (but where would they move?), and not much else, is not "the wealthy." Canadian Debt Thread: millionaires are not the wealthy Mantle fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Oct 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 06:55
|
|
|
qhat posted:So you for sure know how long it will take for this calamity to happen, and by how much it will fall, and when exactly the market will rebound, or even if it will even rebound at all? These are thing you can say with 100% certainty? Because that sort of information has real value, you should let us know. Straw man. Not a thing I claimed. No need to address this beyond pointing it out. qhat posted:You seem to have selectively forgotten that the U.S and Germany were your examples, and that my examples of NL and France do charge tax on gifts. Albeit, not a lot for 180k, but a lot more if it was 340k, and a shitload more than the $0 that Canada charges. The amount given to the average first-time Toronto homebuyer would face zero tax in any of the countries mentioned other than the Netherlands. qhat posted:Yeah, that's a good point. If only there was some way we could find the funding for seniors and kid's schooling. If only... hm, oh well. An imaginary future solution to the problem you create is just as good as a real, immediate one, right?  qhat posted:Ah, yes, just tax the other millionaire guy, the one with an extra zero on his net worth. It's a tough life being mortgage free and with a measly seven figures to my name. Taxing the rich by taxing people who mostly aren't rich. Mission accomplished!  Anyway, if you're going to keep insisting that someone who borrows six figures against their temporarily overvalued home in Vancouver is in exactly the same category as the Weston or Irving families, then there's really no need for me to apologize for treating you like you're out of touch with reality, because you're proving it. tagesschau fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Oct 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
Mantle posted:Canadian Debt Thread: millionaires are not the wealthy Canadian Debt Thread: there is no asset bubble as long as it furthers my political goals
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 07:04
|
|
|
Saying you know something is going to collapse and it’s all a bubble while simultaneously failing to say when or how or to what extent and for how long or failing to give even some extremely rudimentary estimates for any of those things, is basically the same thing as saying nothing at all. Until you can do that, yeah I’m gonna go ahead and suggest those people are going to get a sizeable portion of that wealth at the very least. edit: and just for the record, I am not saying there isn't an asset bubble. But I think where the disconnect here is that you're making a lot of assumptions about where exactly this all ends up, when really you don't have any basis for making those predictions. For all you know, this bubble keeps going until the very last boomer cashes out and then everyone else gets hosed. I'm asking you to prove to me that this doesn't happen, and that your claim that these prices are only "temporarily inflated (and implied permanently)", strictly insofar as it's relevant to a boomer's eventual realized net worth so we can safely discount it from their unrealized net worth in 2021, is accurate. qhat fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Oct 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 07:26
|
|
|
qhat posted:Saying you know something is going to collapse and it’s all a bubble while simultaneously failing to say when or how or to what extent and for how long or failing to give even some extremely rudimentary estimates for any of those things, is basically the same thing as saying nothing at all. The idea that nobody can truly identify a bubble without telling you exactly when it's going to pop is exactly the opposite of how every asset bubble ever has played out. Just as the government can't control the timing, nobody can predict the timing, either—they can only identify numbers like the ratio of mortgage debt to GDP, the ratio of the median home price to the median income, the rate at which home prices are changing adjusted for inflation, etc., and say they're at historical extremes. When people insist that year-over-year gains in inflation-adjusted home prices are just the new normal, it's easy to dismiss them as innumerate, because that would eventually lead to housing consuming more than all of GDP. I'm not wrong because I can't pick the exact second at which they will peak.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
qhat posted:https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/dan-fumano-b-c-man-cries-foul-over-vacancy-tax-on-home-of-21-years Yeah okay, he's satellite family by the definition of the law, but by the spirit of the law I think he has a point. Do you think this guy is actually speculating or something? I mostly find it weird that he's married to someone and they see each other maybe 2 months or so a year? Mantle posted:Canadian Debt Thread: millionaires are not the wealthy They are not. When we talk about taxing the wealthy are we really talking about taxing the average person who owns a home in Metro Vancouver or anyone who owns a home within 100km of Toronto? A reminder that a fairly large majority of Canadians own a home. Are they all wealthy? I don't think I'm going to be convinced that someone who bought a house 40 years ago (or inherited one) but has total other assets worth $150,000 is wealthy. Even if they sell and profit to over a million, then what? They still have to live somewhere. I just find it a massive misdirection of effort to try and target people in the 1-2 million dollar range. You can end up in that range from having a high-paying but still 'contributor' level career. They are (mostly) not the people driving inequality or exploiting low-income people. Tackle the ones who are leveraging over and over to amass properties that they're speculating on. Tackle the actual wealthy who have tens of millions of dollars. I could go on but I think you see the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
I think you need to spend a little more time workshopping this narrative. Why should homeowners get all the breaks in public perception and sentiment? What if I live in a 1 bed condo but I have a 2 million dollars equities? I should get the same favourable treatment! I'm middle class, Just like you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
A person in 1961 with $1,000,000 is equivalent to having $9,100,000 today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
D o n ' t i n c r e a s e m y t a x e s!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
If I had a 2M home I could sell it, invest the results, quit my job, and easily rent a small apartment for the rest of my life.quote:FIRECalc Results Sure they're not billionaires but they're not poor either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:If I had a 2M home I could sell it, invest the results, quit my job, and easily rent a small apartment for the rest of my life. So why aren't people doing that? I suspect that most people that own outright also have immediate family members and renting a small apartment for the rest of their life isn't a viable living alternative. I also suspect that the fire calculations significantly understate the risks of running out of money, and people are rightly concerned about the consequences should such a calamitous situation come to pass. If someone of working age owns their own home in Toronto, Vancouver, or another major Canadian city, they certainly have a valuable asset, but it's not, by itself, going to obviate the need to work. It's not a productive asset either and it doesn't return a dividend. And again, the context for buying houses 15, 20, 25 years ago is very different than it is now. Twenty years ago, the average sales price in Toronto was about $250,000, which is equivalent to $360,000 now. Buying a home wasn't something out of reach to almost all young people. A young person who purchased then is still in their working years now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 15:26
|
|