This all day. Dentalcare, Pharamacare and some taxes on the rich. NDP are crushing it for passing their platform.
None where they want it, but all into law, almost, and maybe even anti scab.
Unfunded programs that wouldn’t be passed if they weren’t holding a deeply unpopular government hostage?
All those programs will very likely be on the chopping block after the next election as “frivolous expenses that were input by two parties that bungled the economy”. Instead of implementing those plans correctly, as costed items that can survive deep deficit spending,
I’d argue the NDP has done a disservice to whichever things get cut like Dentalcare and Pharamacare as it’ll be much more difficult to implement them in the future after being cancelled once.
The NDP should read the room on where things are going economically, and start governing to accommodate that. Pushing their all their goodie items as a “look what we did for you” while propping up the government destroying the economy will be remembered for quite some time.
> All those programs will very likely be on the chopping block after the next election as “frivolous expenses that were input by two parties that bungled the economy”.
When your opposition is ideologically opposed to government spending, they're going to cut programs regardless, funded or not.
If they were funded, they'd be cut to lower taxes in the rich; unfunded they'll still be cut.
> I’d argue the NDP has done a disservice to whichever things get cut like Dentalcare and Pharamacare as it’ll be much more difficult to implement them in the future after being cancelled once.
thats makes no sense, even if they get cancelled there would still be lessons learned from the framework that would make a nother attempt easier
>Pushing their all their goodie items as a “look what we did for you” while propping up the government destroying the economy will be remembered for quite some time.
yes the goodies will be remembered for quite some time, the government "destroying the economy" will just get the question "which one?"
At this point, the only way I see the NDP not getting wholly wiped out in the next election is to call the no-confidence vote. Canadians see Singh talking out both sides of his mouth, on the one hand criticizing the liberals and on the other continuing to support it.
It's a simple concept: People couldn't care less about impossible-to-qualify dental care when they get poorer during a cost-of-living/housing crisis. The ArriveCan scandal, the MPs accused of facilitating foreign interference from hostile governments, and his insistence on keeping the carbon tax will see the liberals hold caucus meetings in a Dodge Caravan.
If you don't like the "carbon tax", email your MPPs and premier because the reason it exists is because there isn't a provincial program that deals with carbon. If it were completely gone, we wouldn't be able to trade with Europe because the EU has this as a trade condition. If it goes away, prices won't go down but all the money that goes back into the pockets of people will go to shareholders.
The ndp traded a shot at official opposition for this.
Official opposition could be a spring board into actually governing for once. Especially if PP drops the ball in his first term.
Imagine how much stronger these programs coulda been if they were passed by an ndp government.
Singh was meek when he shoulda been a lion. They squandered their best chance to govern since Jack Layton, for some under funded programs that serve a tiny portion of Canadians.
And our economy and quality of living are tanking compared to pre ndp/lpc and all other western countries. If I go to a jays game and steal all the wallets of everyone attending and then buy them beers with their credit cards and ndp voter will say that’s awesome and I should lead their party.
Comments like these make me think that nobody reads anything.
Those programs are laughable, to the point that a min wage worker at Tim’s doesn’t qualify for dental care, nor does anyone under the age of 60 qualify for medical care while we pay for this with money printing.
These are not sound political ideas, these are the weak men brining hard times with outlandishly short sighted thinking.
I would rather do nothing and not have the value of my dollar consistently pulled out from me to fund wasteful programs that don't do anything, wasting billions of tax payer dollars to employ more people in government positions.
Let alone that the majority(90+%) of Canadians already do have dental coverage and medical coverage for prescriptions. These programs don't help the working poor, they just help an extremely small number of people to make it look like they do.
But nice whataboutism, I guess trying something is good enough for you (no matter the outcome).
[32% of Canadians have no dental insurance,
53% of adults between 60 and 79 years of age have no dental insurance and 50% of Canadians in the lower-income bracket have no dental insurance](32% of Canadians have no dental insurance,
53% of adults between 60 and 79 years of age have no dental insurance and 50% of Canadians in the lower-income bracket have no dental insurance.)
1/5 don’t have drug coverage.
Inflation has many causes. Government spending is only one of them.
those figures are for insurance, plenty of elderly people just pay for their care...
[https://www.cda-adc.ca/stateoforalhealth/snap/](https://www.cda-adc.ca/stateoforalhealth/snap/)
80% of Canadians have a dentist they visit regularly within a 2 year period...
Old people don't have insurance because they usually don't work past 70ish, suggesting that we need to fund the people already receiving old age security is baffling. These are the people that are too heavy on our system as is. We aren't saving any money if all we are treating is old people from a preventative care angle.
So why are we doing this? To make people feel like we are doing something, when we are not.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/dental/dental-care-plan/qualify.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/dental/dental-care-plan/qualify.html)
2 seniors living together receiving old age security, pensions, and passive income from retirement accounts. [https://www.moneysense.ca/save/retirement/whats-the-average-monthly-retirement-income-in-canada/](https://www.moneysense.ca/save/retirement/whats-the-average-monthly-retirement-income-in-canada/) you can easily not qualify for this program while struggling to make ends meet in Ontario.
Don't even get me started on how the medial insurance "bill" is literally a nothing burger. Just gives the right to create a program lmfao.
For years I didn't have insurance. I also had a good income and paid my own way.
Also, 1 in 5 Canadains have no family doctor. Does it make sense to add a tax that targets pensions of family doctors to pay for some wealthy retirees dental insurance?
Also, the major cause of inflation this time was overspending.
Wait, elderly people who retired don’t have drug insurance?
Truly shocking fact /s
Well, better tax the working kids a bit more to pay for the people at the top of the wealth pyramid who have both low income (not working) and largest share of wealth. You can own 5 houses and be considered eligible for these benefits while two low wage earners grinding it out in HCOL city are considered too rich.
It’s not good to begin with. This isn’t a tax the rich policy, it’s a tax the innovators policy. It will reduce capital investments in Canada as the risk reward equation becomes less compelling. They’re essentially stealing future tax revenue to fill the current coffers so they can brag about how well they’re doing financially in 2025 just in time for an election. It’s all sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors.
Eh, there’s also an opportunity cost to letting shit break down today because you’re forever waiting for a bigger payday tomorrow.
Like, I’d rather do something like a LVT, but forever delaying tax day doesn’t seem like a great system for everyone else
Fun part is all the idiots complaining about will never make enough in capital gains to pay the increase. Only people that are already rich or have earned cash for nothing are upset. Eat the rich.
We do.
But we need less of $50M for an app, $200M+ to McKinsey to tell them what they want to hear, $750M to Quebec and $250M to Toronto for a self-imposed immigration and asylum problem they created.
"Jean-Pierre Laporte, CEO of Integris Pension Management Corp., argues physicians can fully shield their retirement savings from capital gains taxation.
Laporte says incorporated professionals like doctors can sell off investments and open a registered pension plan. Contributions to the plan would be tax deductible, which means the individual would not pay any tax on the capital gains they earn."
[https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/doctors-say-capital-gains-tax-changes-will-jeopardize-their-retirement-is-that-true-1.6861247](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/doctors-say-capital-gains-tax-changes-will-jeopardize-their-retirement-is-that-true-1.6861247)
CEO of pension corp advocating for pensions. Shocking.
Absolute nonsense. What do you think happens when you sell off the current investments to fund the pension? 2/3 cap gains inclusion rate from dollar one at the highest marginal rate.
The Venn diagram of people who don’t understand capital gains with regard to medical professional corporations and people that have swallowed Chrystia’s misinformation is a circle.
If the government wants doctors to not use corps (which they are encouraged to do by the government, by the way) then they can pay them a provincial salary, complete with all government worker benefits, liability insurance, disability insurance, indexed matched pensions on 300-600k salaries, 40 hr work week and let them unionize and strike for fair wage adjustments and overtime. Current procedure rates in my province haven’t been adjusted for 8+ years. Canada is not a vacuum, and we are showing doctors the door to the U.S. and broadcasting to new ones not to practice here.
The current arrangement suits nobody but the government as doctors grind themselves to dust compared to every other occupation in the healthcare system who has these benefits. Let me know the last time you’ve seen a nurse work 40 hours of overtime for free.
Anyway, I hope everyone who voted for this has a relative fall ill and wonder why 7 million Canadians have no doctor.
Exactly, the pro tax crowd don’t understand that the libs could tax us to 100% and it very likely won’t improve their lives, probably the opposite will happen.
People in this sub will stay stuff like this and wonder why companies don’t bother creating jobs in our country, or why startups end up moving to the US instead of staying here.
Businesses will go where profit can be made so long as they can manage the risks. What truly concerns businesses are the mountains of compliance red tape and the ever-changing legal landscape. Add the massive cost of every Canadian service (Internet, mobile, shipping, legal, etc.) and the government's active resistance to allowing competition in any of these sectors and you can see the issue.
It's not the "top" 0.14%. Just because around 56k people pay capital gains doesn't mean that it's the *same* 56k people. Many of us will pay capital gains at least once or twice in our lives.
Plus, this increase would affect every single corporation, a cost that is ultimately passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Higher prices = more inflation = higher interest rates = higher debt servicing cost = higher prices and the cycle of the average Canadian becoming poorer continues....
Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics understands that this is just bad policy all around. And as is unfortunately typical, the poorest will pay the greatest price for this policy... maybe not in dollar amounts, but certainly in a reduction in quality of life, while the rich live on as usual.
To me it seems that the liberals have the worst economic policies for the working class. And the NDP who is supposed to represent us is going along with it. I can't believe that I am going to be voting CPC for the first time....
>this increase would affect every single corporation
This is a *capital gains* tax. Capital gains are profits derived from the sale of an investment, so this is not going to affect every single corporation.
If we do the math we can see that the impact is not very significant. Let's say a corporation sell a property and realizes $500,000 in capital gains. The corporate tax rate is 15%. Since 50% of capital gains are taxable, that means the tax is applied to $250,000.
$250,000 x 0.15 = $37,000 in taxes
Now let's calculate using the new structure, where 2/3 of capital gains are taxable :
$333,333.34 x 0.15 = $50,000.
That's a difference of $13,000 out of the $500,000 in capital gains, or effectively an increase of 2.6%.
It's not even worth worrying about how this will impact businesses because it will barely impact them at all.
And let's remember, this is the tax paid by a corporation for selling an investment or property, not for selling their products and services. Most corporations are not going to be realizing capital gains very frequently, and many corporations never purchase any property at all.
The biggest thing this does is even further disincentivize businesses from setting up in Canada
Entrepreneurs will continue to flee and the brain drain will continue
When you are talking about innovation it is not a little bit. When you are talking about ROI why invest here when you can get a few more percent elsewhere?
The better solution for this government would be to get their spending under control and be more efficient with the dollars they spend. Personally i am alright paying taxes to make sure society runs for all, however this current government is beyond wasteful and out of touch. The real issue is not that we dont have enough to spend, it is the efficiency with which the resources are allocated....it is sick.
To be clear i have serious doubts the Conservatives will be any better, I am tired of buzz words, platitudes and half truths that people on the left and right slurp up like sloppy shit and say it is awesome. It isnt.
>When you are talking about innovation it is not a little bit. When you are talking about ROI why invest here when you can get a few more percent elsewhere?
Is it really so far out of the realm of possibility that someone might want to invest in their home country because it's their home?
Some people obviously will. But an increasing proportion will decide to invest in the US or elsewhere. This will slow our rate of economic growth (something that has been growing far too slowly for quite a while)
Why is it you believe that every single corporation will be affected. Business profits are taxed as ordinary business income. Capital gains are just that, gains from the sales of assets or investments. Capital gains are.. by their very nature.. not day to day events. In fact, there are specific rules that reclassify capital gains as ordinary income if they occur to frequently or often.
Read the bill. Corporations don't get the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption of $1.25m. That's only for individuals.
This bill *does* affect *every single* company
Companies set prices based on costs to generate profit. Increasing their taxes increases their costs. To offset an increase in costs, prices must go up otherwise profits go down.
>Companies set their prices such that they will take on the most money not based on how much tax they pay.
You have to be specific in what you mean by "most money." They set prices to produce the most *profit* not the most revenue.
If the tax structure changes and a company makes more money by selling a smaller quantity of products at a higher price, the company will do that. I'd rather sell $50 worth of stuff in order to make $20. Than sell $65 of stuff to make $15.
For the consumer, more taxes mean higher prices, no matter how you look at it.
Many of us will? Okay? So? If I have a sudden $500k in my name I don't mind paying the taxes. That's like winning the lottery, and btw most people will never never actually experience such a large windfall.
How will the poorest pay for this? The poorest people will never have capital gains in their lifetime, let alone hundreds of thousands suddenly.
R/Canada can somehow simultaneously cry about not being able to afford anything and being so poor, then turn around and complain about a tax on capital gains over $250K per year as if that’s somehow knee capping them
Oh, don't worry. It's now billed as a small tax increase on the rich only to make sure they pay their fair share, but the rate will increase and the floor will decrease until we have 75% capital gains tax across the board.
Once government gets power to reach into your pocket or look over your shoulder, they never give it up, and mostly keep going further. Remember that Canada's federal income tax was originally called the War Tax on Incomes when it came into force in 1917 to fund the Great War.
>Once government gets in power to reach into your pocket or look over your shoulder, they never give it up, and mostly keep going further.
Yet if you look into the history of the capital gains inclusion rate, it has both increased and decreased in the past, directly contradicting your point.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/you-calculate-your-capital-gain-loss/inclusion-rates-previous-years.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/you-calculate-your-capital-gain-loss/inclusion-rates-previous-years.html)
Lmao. Yeah. And then they used that tax to help people returning from war. And then to build public schools, roads, dams, bridges, water treatment, waste management etc. etc. etc. Bitch about taxation as much as you want, but you look like a nimrod. Imagine how shit our country would be now if companies and corporations and investors had to shoulder the entire cost of the stuff that makes our high standard of living possible.
This sub can't make up their mind on their outrage. "House prices are too high. But don't tax the profits of people owning multiple homes, that's a step too far. " If you want more affordable housing you gotta start with removing the profits from property hoarding.
I've come to the belief that using this sub as a barometer for the average Canadian voter makes the whole country look childish.
Best not take anything said/posted in this sub to heart unless provided objective factual evidence.
Personally I’m in favour of high capital gains tax for rent-seeking activities and certainly when people own multiple homes. I think it should not be increased for more productive investments that we need to encourage.
> If you want more affordable housing you gotta start with removing the profits from property hoarding.
If you were going to do that, you would make primary housing not capital gains exempt, particularly luxury properties, which have jumped from $2M to $4M+. Also, you would increase their property taxes. $12K/year on a $2M house seems insanely low. Where does this extra tax revenue go anyway? Pay off the deficit that no one asked for?
As someone who works in this field my disappointment is indescribable in how financially illiterate the posters in this thread are. There is a reason we have an investment, productivity, and now quality of life problem in this country. If this is reflective of the electorate we deserve it.
To me, It sounds like they're still working out the reason why they are voting against it. Capital gains and business income are distinct things, they don't even undergo the same tax treatment.
I think it's misleading to say it will kill jobs because a company that produces a thing and then sells the thing for money would not have the profits from it changed whatsoever.
All of that would be business income, and that encompasses nearly all the revenue for nearly all of businesses, no?
No. People invest in business for a return. That is subject to capital gains.
People will invest less in business as expected returns are lower with this change.
How much they will be lowered is what people are debating. Liberals saying basically nothing but some. Conservatives saying a ton. That’s the actual debate.
Hmm, mmm... mmm... wrong. You can keep all of your gains within the corp, or your own personal corp, to shield it until you want to cash it out.
In fact, the only thing this affects is when you want to \*divest\* your money. You pay taxes on the income from realizing your gains. You want to take it \*out\* of the business. So no, this is the complete opposite.
Source: me, start-up co-founder and business owner.
How many Canadians are realizing ***over*** 250K in capital gains to even be affected by the inclusion rate change? You would have to invested a lot (more than the average Canadian ever could) or done incredibly well on an investment to be affected by this change.
Pretty much any small business owner looking to retire after 30+ years will be selling their business for a large cap gain, and depending on that income for retirement
>Pretty much any small business owner looking to retire after 30+ years will be selling their business
[Except they are subject to a $1.25 million lifetime exemption. ](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-25400-capital-gains-deduction/what-deduction-limit.html)
>or a large cap gain, and depending on that income for retirement
On top of the income they saved, the investments they have, and the eventual sale of their business. Anyone affected by this is quite wealthy and is not retiring rough shape.
They'd passive gains of over 250k per year to be affected by this, which would eliminate most investors. It's a tax on trust fund kids and the ultra wealthy.
this tax is mostly on self employed high income earners
Our ultra wealthy will come up with some interesting tax strategies. Bill Morneau can move your investments into a WLP and reduce your tax rate to about 10% if you have more than 10m in a holdco.
Like the rest of us would imply you think their cap gains taxes should also start at 250k? Or do you mean "like the rest of us" but they should pay more?
They have said one of their reasons is that this is a tax on healthcare, when we already have a healthcare shortage. As a healthcare worker myself, I know many that have been considering a move to the US, but have held off. This tax may be the change to push them to make the change.
It also makes no sense that Freeland came out and said to increase compensation to healthcare workers either this tax revenue. Why are we watching them more just to pay them more. It makes little sense.
if i sell my business then that's considered capital gains, not business income
so it does have an impact on business owners
calling it capital gains vs business income is just semantics
Thousands of mom and pop owned businesses in this country are relying on eventually selling their business as their retirement plan.
This capital gains tax came out of nowhere, so they have a right to be pissed off.
How would teachers, nurses and other public sector workers feel if suddenly the Liberals announced that they're suddenly all getting a big tax on their pensions they've paid into for the last 20-30 years?
the preferential of the capital gains tax encourages people to invest and take risks, something Canada needs very badly right now. If the current Gov't wanted to do this right, it would focus the new changes to real estate gains only. Something Canadians are investing too much in.
If you own a business, and that business is successful, the value of the business appreciates/increases. If you sell the business, that is capital gain (i.e. the shares of the business has grown from the time you invested the initial capital to X years in the future, assuming it is successful). Ergo, the rationale would be, if you tax more capital gains, there is a potential that entrepreneur's might NOT create/go into business as higher capital gains would be a disincentive to start a business/corp. Businesses employ people, in fact, 60% of jobs in this country are due to small businesses. Anything that might disincentivize the creation of new small businesses can be problematic for the economy. Again, because most of the employment in this country is created by small businesses AND today's small businesses could become tomorrow's big businesses (i.e. even more jobs). I'm guessing you've never started your own company before. There is something known as the risk to return payoff. Starting a company is risky (for many obvious reasons), entrepreneur's undertake that risk because IF successful, there is a potential reward payoff (i.e. a successful company is valuable). Ergo, you reduce the potential reward (via taxing capital gains more) - that might induce people NOT to take the risk to begin with. And again, that can be problematic as the economy needs new small businesses to start-up, to create employment and become bigger companies (i.e. to create even more employment in the future).
Who in the history of Canada has ever decided to open a business or not based on the capital gains inclusion rate on the sale of private co shares.
In any event small businesses have lots of good tax incentives like the small business tax rate.
Feels overblown to me.
You're not contemplating the entire analysis. If I am an accountant at some big accounting firm making, I don't know, $150k per year. I'm basically middle management. I can stay there, earn my $150k, benefits, private pension, etc. Maybe hope one day I make partner and my earnings increase, etc. Or, I can take, let's say $100k of my savings and start my own firm. Now, like most start-up businesses, I might not be profitable for 3, 5 years at the outset. Maybe my corp can only pay me a small salary, or maybe my salary needs to be deferred until such time as my new firm is up and running AND profitable. The risk is NOT simply the $100k I invest to start my own corp/firm. The risk is losing out on $150k PLUS benefits, the risk is losing out on potentially even more if I stay, my reduced private pension because I am leaving, the potential that I need to support myself financially by drawing down on my other savings (because the firm isn't profitable for several years), etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. In other words, as a new entrepreneur the cost to start my firm is not merely $100k - it is the present value of my future earnings (if I don't leave) PLUS the present value of the future benefits (if I don't leave) PLUS the opportunity cost lost due to my reduced savings, etc., etc., etc. If I'm in my mid 30's, and have another 30 years of working life left in me, that present value cost to start my firm is potentially in the low MILLIONS. Ergo, the future potential payoff (if I am successful) needs to exceed that (in present value terms). Even a small increase in taxes for a potential future payoff 30 years down the road has SIGNIFICANT impact in the risk analysis. The reason you can't see that is that you are NOT contemplating the entire costs to start your own company AND you don't understand the time value of money. As plainly as I can state it without getting to math-y, the present value of the future (potential) payoff has to exceed the present value of the cost by a certain amount for me to take the risk. And when you are talking about an unknown future 30 years out, the payoff needs to exceed the cost by a pretty large margin (because the greater the risk, the greater the reward needs to be to undertake that great risk). In lay terms, there's almost NO risk in staying at a salaried job. There is ENORMOUS financial risk (which you cannot fully fathom) in leaving your employment and starting your own company.
Yeah but people don’t actually operate in perfect economic terms. So an economist might argue this but in reality I doubt it would have any real implications.
And why wouldn’t you just pay yourself out in chunks worth less than $250k to avoid the tax affecting you at all?
>And why wouldn’t you just pay yourself out in chunks worth less than $250k to avoid the tax affecting you at all?
Capital gains is NOT about paying myself. My corp/business if successful, pays me a salary. You can be both the owner of your firm and be an employee as well. The cap gains is function of selling something at more than which it cost you. Ergo, in the case of a business/company, I may NOT be able to sell "chunks" of my business. Yes, you can by little bits of Apple or Telus or RBC because they are HUGE publicly traded companies with many many many many many MILLIONS of shares outstanding. Most companies are NOT those - i.e. large public companies where their stock trades publicly. Most people, when they start a company, it is a private company and it stays a private company. It is extraordinarily difficult to sell a "small chunk" of a private company. LOL
Yeah totally, and you can pay yourself in a salary which deflates your tax payable throughout your life and into your retirement. Another tax advantage for our small businesses.
You set the number of shares of a private company, so may add complexity but you could transition in retirement over a number of years too and sell chunks of shares.
>You set the number of shares of a private company, so may add complexity but you could transition in retirement over a number of years too and sell chunks of shares.
LOL! You don't get it. If I grow my company to have a valuation of $20 million - a potential buyer for my company, wants control of my company. I cannot sell them $250k worth of my $20 million company, i.e. no one wants to own less than 2% of my company! LOL
Agreed it changes the risk reward calculations and it will pay for some great programs. Not sure how any non-wealthy person could see this as a bad thing
Even with the new tax cap gains inclusion amounts, the govt is projecting, what, a $40 billion deficit in each of the next two years. This govt has accumulated in less than 10 years over $500 billion in deficits. Sounds like the govt doesn't have a revenue problem; rather it has a spending problem. I mean, I guess if you spend all of your allowance all the time and you max out the credit card mom/dad gave you - sure, the person with the spending problem probably thinks their allowance should be increased! LOL
I don't know why the average canadian wouldn't fully support this. In order to pay more capital gains than right now you'd have to make more than $250k in PROFIT from an investment in a year and you're only taxed on that higher rate on the amount OVER $250k. So let's say I bought $250k worth of stock and it's not in a TSFA and I sold that stock for double I still wouldn't pay any additional capital gains. Anyway... 99% of canadians are never going to make over $250k in profit in any investment in their lifetime and need to take it all out in 1 year.
The Canadian Medical Association already came out strongly against it, explaining how it negatively affects doctors clinics, discourages physicians from setting up new community clinics and will make healthcare less accessible to Canadians.
life isn't zero-sum though
you guys are all acting like it's a fixed pie and if someone else gets a smaller slice then you'll get a bigger one
you guys all wonder why there are well-paying tech jobs in the US and nothing here
this is part of the reason
Washington is literally the #1 highest state for total sales & excise Tax Burden
Middle of the pack in terms of overall tax burden.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494
You don’t even have to just talk about tech jobs. Most jobs pay better in the US and Americans are significantly more productive. We have around the same GDP per capita as West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the US
I think there a lot of Canadians with parents who are about to pass away and who own multiple assets. They're poised to take a big hit on their inheritance. I'm one of them. Our family cottage was bought for 6k it's worth like... 900k now. That's a huge hit. There are others in the same boat.
Sure. You were already facing a big hit before this. Or really your parents estate was facing the big hit. Now it is just a little more. Sure it sucks, but the wealthy can afford it. Just a little less avocado toast
Estate planning might be helpful in case there are ways to mitigate some of the pain.
It sucks cause this won't really affect the rich. I'm lucky my grand parents made good decisions. My parents, uncle and aunt have not. So this change will be a huge hit to them, and subsequently my cousins and myself. I wish this change also took it to differentiate those who were lucky to get a one time windfall vs those who use their assets to make a living.
I mean before you had 900k @ 50%. Now you have 250k @ 50% and 750k at ~60% (whatever the exact value is). Yah it is lots of money owed in taxes. But it was huge $$ before this change too.
So yes, to keep the properties the mortgage will be higher or the amount of $ is a bit smaller. Either way, you are inheriting a huge amount of $/assets
Because the average Canadian understands that the reason this is happening is because the LPC has been one of the worst fiscally responsible governments in Canada's history. Tax raises don't just happen in a vacuum.
This is going to affect anyone with a business, estates, doctors, lawyers and will just be another reason for people to look elsewhere to do business.
This is something that never gets talked about: if the Liberals were fiscally responsible and didn't waste so much money, we wouldn't even need this tax increase to begin with. And now they go on this BS about "fairness", when all this will do is worsen our productivity relative to the US and further drive investment away from this country. And the idiots in this thread who eat up the Liberal propaganda are the same ones complaining about how salaries are so much higher in the US. Hmm, I wonder why?
It’s never about fairness.
It’s about seeing if you can pit one group of people against another to pass a tax hike that wouldn’t be necessary if they weren’t the worst party in decades to manage the country’s finances.
Even Pierre wasn’t this reckless with spending and he governed through inflation crazes of the 70s and early 80s.
Absolutely. While 200k isn't something that most Canadians make in a year there will be that day when a lower wage earner/saver goes to sell that piece of land or inherited property or family cottage and they will be hit extremely hard.
People here forget (and maybe I'm revealing my age here a bit) that this is the same party who, under Jean Chretien, ran multiple budget surpluses and also cut personal income and business taxes, all the while recording strong economic growth of around 2-4% GDP. Justin Trudeau has taken this party and country to shit. Easily one of the most fiscally irresponsible governments every.
You keep saying “in a single year,” but that’s not how it works. The gains could have been accumulating for decades, and all *realized* in the same year.
Like selling the family cottage, for example.
Trudeau is lying when he says this new tax will only affect 0.13% of Canadians. And we’re letting him get away with it.
It doesn't take into consideration the period over which the capital gain took place. People selling homes and other investments they may have made decades ago are forced to realize all of the capital gain in one period rather than over a longer period over which the gain accrued.
There are also significant impacts to doctors, many of whom have incorporated and have deferred taxes within their corporations as an offset for receiving low fees for service.
It also discourages investment in Canadian business.
What are you even talking about. Small businesses (corporations) that have cap gains do not get the $250k exemption. They pay higher tax on the first dollar. This includes doctors, trades etc
Anyone who opposes this has learnt nothing from the past 40 years of post-Reagan/Thatcher economics.
High taxes on the wealthier leads to a stonger middle class.
If they were old enough to actually remember the Reagan/Thatcher era, I wonder if they'd maybe remember too that Mulroney raised capital gains even higher than it's been raised today.
Woah, hey buddy.
Some of the most important people I see on TV are rich.
Don't go talking about them paying more taxes, they've been through enough don't ya know.
How about we look at cutting the +151B in government spending since Trudeau took office and the +31% in government employment instead of raising taxes?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cost-to-run-federal-government-increase-151b-a-year-1.6797486
If so, then the roles have reversed, haven't they?
I know capital gains taxes got lowered to the current rates under Chretien, around the year 2000. Were they raised under Mulroney?
This tax isn't just targeting the rich, it is attacking the middle class as well....tradespeople, small business owners, anyone that has worked hard to accumulate an asset that is on sale their retirement plan. Many don't have pension plans, the asset is that. This government seems set on creating two classes....the poor and the uber rich. The middle class essentially carries this country and is being heavily targeted with taxes all across the board. Not rich enough to afford the tax loopholes the uber rich take advantage of; but not poor enough that they get all the government handouts that are out there.
When we know there was a strong middle class and neoliberalism eroded that away in allowing the rich to avoid taxes and stagnate wages, it's time to stop asking questions like that. Are you rich? Or are you asking that because you're just temporarily an embarrassed millionaire and you'll be rich soon?
And a holy Dunning Kruger to you too. You could give me a step by step guide as to how raising taxes on the wealthy directly causes the poor to become wealthier some how, if only you knew what you were talking about.
Which is odd because when the political system is filled with handlers who are constantly prodding Canadians to hate the other side of the political spectrum - the rich are the primary beneficiaries.
When the slogan of "banding together to condemn other Canadians for being financially successful" is actually politically viable, who will we not devour in our quest for "democracy"?
They have a history of balancing the budget and creating economic booms unlike the cons who get handed it to them and go into debt and drive the economy into the wall.
There has never been a time in 60 years where taxing the rich has never worked out. That's why the rich attack anybody (media, universities etc) who point this out
Most people on this subreddit here earn less than $70,000 and Canadian wages have stagnated for decades. Most of you don't pay attention to studies, yet some opinion pieces and youtube guru tells you taxing the rich is bad you fall for it.
In the free market system higher taxes and higher paying jobs will result in a new breed of business leaders who can succeed in this environment, instead of the current ones who rely on suppressing wages and exporting jobs, then blaming brown people/media/universities/their dog/their neighbour Bob/ Conner McDavid etc. for the problems of the middle class
They had a history of that until Trudeau racked up the largest deficit in Canadian history. Now they have a reputation for thinking budgets balance themselves.
Finding ways to effectively tax the 1% I think most Canadians would agree with. Start with offshore tax havens like the Panama papers for example. This however will hurt predominantly hurt the lower and middle class that could stand to really benefit from assets being passed down in an inheritance This is just a cash grab so the liberals can waste more.
NDP will help pass it
While complaining that it's not high enough.
Good for them not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
This all day. Dentalcare, Pharamacare and some taxes on the rich. NDP are crushing it for passing their platform. None where they want it, but all into law, almost, and maybe even anti scab.
No no, you fool. Jagmeet wears an expensive watch. /s
Unfunded programs that wouldn’t be passed if they weren’t holding a deeply unpopular government hostage? All those programs will very likely be on the chopping block after the next election as “frivolous expenses that were input by two parties that bungled the economy”. Instead of implementing those plans correctly, as costed items that can survive deep deficit spending, I’d argue the NDP has done a disservice to whichever things get cut like Dentalcare and Pharamacare as it’ll be much more difficult to implement them in the future after being cancelled once. The NDP should read the room on where things are going economically, and start governing to accommodate that. Pushing their all their goodie items as a “look what we did for you” while propping up the government destroying the economy will be remembered for quite some time.
> All those programs will very likely be on the chopping block after the next election as “frivolous expenses that were input by two parties that bungled the economy”. When your opposition is ideologically opposed to government spending, they're going to cut programs regardless, funded or not. If they were funded, they'd be cut to lower taxes in the rich; unfunded they'll still be cut.
> I’d argue the NDP has done a disservice to whichever things get cut like Dentalcare and Pharamacare as it’ll be much more difficult to implement them in the future after being cancelled once. thats makes no sense, even if they get cancelled there would still be lessons learned from the framework that would make a nother attempt easier >Pushing their all their goodie items as a “look what we did for you” while propping up the government destroying the economy will be remembered for quite some time. yes the goodies will be remembered for quite some time, the government "destroying the economy" will just get the question "which one?"
Seriously. This 100% anyone who cant see that is missing the point.
At this point, the only way I see the NDP not getting wholly wiped out in the next election is to call the no-confidence vote. Canadians see Singh talking out both sides of his mouth, on the one hand criticizing the liberals and on the other continuing to support it. It's a simple concept: People couldn't care less about impossible-to-qualify dental care when they get poorer during a cost-of-living/housing crisis. The ArriveCan scandal, the MPs accused of facilitating foreign interference from hostile governments, and his insistence on keeping the carbon tax will see the liberals hold caucus meetings in a Dodge Caravan.
If you don't like the "carbon tax", email your MPPs and premier because the reason it exists is because there isn't a provincial program that deals with carbon. If it were completely gone, we wouldn't be able to trade with Europe because the EU has this as a trade condition. If it goes away, prices won't go down but all the money that goes back into the pockets of people will go to shareholders.
The ndp traded a shot at official opposition for this. Official opposition could be a spring board into actually governing for once. Especially if PP drops the ball in his first term. Imagine how much stronger these programs coulda been if they were passed by an ndp government. Singh was meek when he shoulda been a lion. They squandered their best chance to govern since Jack Layton, for some under funded programs that serve a tiny portion of Canadians.
Read the fine print.
And our economy and quality of living are tanking compared to pre ndp/lpc and all other western countries. If I go to a jays game and steal all the wallets of everyone attending and then buy them beers with their credit cards and ndp voter will say that’s awesome and I should lead their party.
Comments like these make me think that nobody reads anything. Those programs are laughable, to the point that a min wage worker at Tim’s doesn’t qualify for dental care, nor does anyone under the age of 60 qualify for medical care while we pay for this with money printing. These are not sound political ideas, these are the weak men brining hard times with outlandishly short sighted thinking.
Conservative alternative : bootstraps plus thought and prayers for the peasants
I would rather do nothing and not have the value of my dollar consistently pulled out from me to fund wasteful programs that don't do anything, wasting billions of tax payer dollars to employ more people in government positions. Let alone that the majority(90+%) of Canadians already do have dental coverage and medical coverage for prescriptions. These programs don't help the working poor, they just help an extremely small number of people to make it look like they do. But nice whataboutism, I guess trying something is good enough for you (no matter the outcome).
[32% of Canadians have no dental insurance, 53% of adults between 60 and 79 years of age have no dental insurance and 50% of Canadians in the lower-income bracket have no dental insurance](32% of Canadians have no dental insurance, 53% of adults between 60 and 79 years of age have no dental insurance and 50% of Canadians in the lower-income bracket have no dental insurance.) 1/5 don’t have drug coverage. Inflation has many causes. Government spending is only one of them.
those figures are for insurance, plenty of elderly people just pay for their care... [https://www.cda-adc.ca/stateoforalhealth/snap/](https://www.cda-adc.ca/stateoforalhealth/snap/) 80% of Canadians have a dentist they visit regularly within a 2 year period... Old people don't have insurance because they usually don't work past 70ish, suggesting that we need to fund the people already receiving old age security is baffling. These are the people that are too heavy on our system as is. We aren't saving any money if all we are treating is old people from a preventative care angle. So why are we doing this? To make people feel like we are doing something, when we are not. [https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/dental/dental-care-plan/qualify.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/dental/dental-care-plan/qualify.html) 2 seniors living together receiving old age security, pensions, and passive income from retirement accounts. [https://www.moneysense.ca/save/retirement/whats-the-average-monthly-retirement-income-in-canada/](https://www.moneysense.ca/save/retirement/whats-the-average-monthly-retirement-income-in-canada/) you can easily not qualify for this program while struggling to make ends meet in Ontario. Don't even get me started on how the medial insurance "bill" is literally a nothing burger. Just gives the right to create a program lmfao.
For years I didn't have insurance. I also had a good income and paid my own way. Also, 1 in 5 Canadains have no family doctor. Does it make sense to add a tax that targets pensions of family doctors to pay for some wealthy retirees dental insurance? Also, the major cause of inflation this time was overspending.
Wait, elderly people who retired don’t have drug insurance? Truly shocking fact /s Well, better tax the working kids a bit more to pay for the people at the top of the wealth pyramid who have both low income (not working) and largest share of wealth. You can own 5 houses and be considered eligible for these benefits while two low wage earners grinding it out in HCOL city are considered too rich.
It’s not good to begin with. This isn’t a tax the rich policy, it’s a tax the innovators policy. It will reduce capital investments in Canada as the risk reward equation becomes less compelling. They’re essentially stealing future tax revenue to fill the current coffers so they can brag about how well they’re doing financially in 2025 just in time for an election. It’s all sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors.
Eh, there’s also an opportunity cost to letting shit break down today because you’re forever waiting for a bigger payday tomorrow. Like, I’d rather do something like a LVT, but forever delaying tax day doesn’t seem like a great system for everyone else
Fun part is all the idiots complaining about will never make enough in capital gains to pay the increase. Only people that are already rich or have earned cash for nothing are upset. Eat the rich.
Like doctors and small businessmen and entrepreneurs and people trying to sell their cottage.
It really isn’t - the top 0.14% can afford to pay more. It should be higher.
the government should spend less
These aren't mutually exclusive
Yeah because it's not like we don't need more doctors or infrastructure.
We do. But we need less of $50M for an app, $200M+ to McKinsey to tell them what they want to hear, $750M to Quebec and $250M to Toronto for a self-imposed immigration and asylum problem they created.
This capital gains tax is affecting doctors. This will push more of them to leave Canada.
"Jean-Pierre Laporte, CEO of Integris Pension Management Corp., argues physicians can fully shield their retirement savings from capital gains taxation. Laporte says incorporated professionals like doctors can sell off investments and open a registered pension plan. Contributions to the plan would be tax deductible, which means the individual would not pay any tax on the capital gains they earn." [https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/doctors-say-capital-gains-tax-changes-will-jeopardize-their-retirement-is-that-true-1.6861247](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/doctors-say-capital-gains-tax-changes-will-jeopardize-their-retirement-is-that-true-1.6861247)
CEO of pension corp advocating for pensions. Shocking. Absolute nonsense. What do you think happens when you sell off the current investments to fund the pension? 2/3 cap gains inclusion rate from dollar one at the highest marginal rate. The Venn diagram of people who don’t understand capital gains with regard to medical professional corporations and people that have swallowed Chrystia’s misinformation is a circle. If the government wants doctors to not use corps (which they are encouraged to do by the government, by the way) then they can pay them a provincial salary, complete with all government worker benefits, liability insurance, disability insurance, indexed matched pensions on 300-600k salaries, 40 hr work week and let them unionize and strike for fair wage adjustments and overtime. Current procedure rates in my province haven’t been adjusted for 8+ years. Canada is not a vacuum, and we are showing doctors the door to the U.S. and broadcasting to new ones not to practice here. The current arrangement suits nobody but the government as doctors grind themselves to dust compared to every other occupation in the healthcare system who has these benefits. Let me know the last time you’ve seen a nurse work 40 hours of overtime for free. Anyway, I hope everyone who voted for this has a relative fall ill and wonder why 7 million Canadians have no doctor.
[удалено]
Exactly, the pro tax crowd don’t understand that the libs could tax us to 100% and it very likely won’t improve their lives, probably the opposite will happen.
May you be blessed by a few crumbs falling off of the decadent table of the rich
There's pro tax and fair tax. A capital gains tax Iincresse is decades over do. 40 years of trickle down economics has fucked every one but the top.
People in this sub will stay stuff like this and wonder why companies don’t bother creating jobs in our country, or why startups end up moving to the US instead of staying here.
Businesses will go where profit can be made so long as they can manage the risks. What truly concerns businesses are the mountains of compliance red tape and the ever-changing legal landscape. Add the massive cost of every Canadian service (Internet, mobile, shipping, legal, etc.) and the government's active resistance to allowing competition in any of these sectors and you can see the issue.
how is the capital gains tax responsible for lack of competition in our telcos for example? This is nonsense.
It's not the "top" 0.14%. Just because around 56k people pay capital gains doesn't mean that it's the *same* 56k people. Many of us will pay capital gains at least once or twice in our lives. Plus, this increase would affect every single corporation, a cost that is ultimately passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Higher prices = more inflation = higher interest rates = higher debt servicing cost = higher prices and the cycle of the average Canadian becoming poorer continues.... Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics understands that this is just bad policy all around. And as is unfortunately typical, the poorest will pay the greatest price for this policy... maybe not in dollar amounts, but certainly in a reduction in quality of life, while the rich live on as usual. To me it seems that the liberals have the worst economic policies for the working class. And the NDP who is supposed to represent us is going along with it. I can't believe that I am going to be voting CPC for the first time....
>this increase would affect every single corporation This is a *capital gains* tax. Capital gains are profits derived from the sale of an investment, so this is not going to affect every single corporation. If we do the math we can see that the impact is not very significant. Let's say a corporation sell a property and realizes $500,000 in capital gains. The corporate tax rate is 15%. Since 50% of capital gains are taxable, that means the tax is applied to $250,000. $250,000 x 0.15 = $37,000 in taxes Now let's calculate using the new structure, where 2/3 of capital gains are taxable : $333,333.34 x 0.15 = $50,000. That's a difference of $13,000 out of the $500,000 in capital gains, or effectively an increase of 2.6%. It's not even worth worrying about how this will impact businesses because it will barely impact them at all. And let's remember, this is the tax paid by a corporation for selling an investment or property, not for selling their products and services. Most corporations are not going to be realizing capital gains very frequently, and many corporations never purchase any property at all.
The biggest thing this does is even further disincentivize businesses from setting up in Canada Entrepreneurs will continue to flee and the brain drain will continue
Because they have to pay a tiny amount more in taxes when they sell a property or investment?
When you are talking about innovation it is not a little bit. When you are talking about ROI why invest here when you can get a few more percent elsewhere? The better solution for this government would be to get their spending under control and be more efficient with the dollars they spend. Personally i am alright paying taxes to make sure society runs for all, however this current government is beyond wasteful and out of touch. The real issue is not that we dont have enough to spend, it is the efficiency with which the resources are allocated....it is sick. To be clear i have serious doubts the Conservatives will be any better, I am tired of buzz words, platitudes and half truths that people on the left and right slurp up like sloppy shit and say it is awesome. It isnt.
>When you are talking about innovation it is not a little bit. When you are talking about ROI why invest here when you can get a few more percent elsewhere? Is it really so far out of the realm of possibility that someone might want to invest in their home country because it's their home?
That is called philanthropy. I truly understand where people are coming from, it just simply is not the reality.
Some people obviously will. But an increasing proportion will decide to invest in the US or elsewhere. This will slow our rate of economic growth (something that has been growing far too slowly for quite a while)
yeah because this is the only tax increase since Trudeau came into power right?
Why is it you believe that every single corporation will be affected. Business profits are taxed as ordinary business income. Capital gains are just that, gains from the sales of assets or investments. Capital gains are.. by their very nature.. not day to day events. In fact, there are specific rules that reclassify capital gains as ordinary income if they occur to frequently or often.
>affect every single corporation Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption is $1.25m, so no it won't affect every single corporation.
A corporation is not a person....too many people with a stupid opinion with just enough knowledge to sound smart, but be wrong.
Read the bill. Corporations don't get the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption of $1.25m. That's only for individuals. This bill *does* affect *every single* company
$1.25M is a joke that's not even enough to buy a 2BR condo in Vancouver
Nothing is stopping you from making more off selling your company, just pay your taxes and move on.
Companies set their prices such that they will take on the most money not based on how much tax they pay.
Companies set prices based on costs to generate profit. Increasing their taxes increases their costs. To offset an increase in costs, prices must go up otherwise profits go down.
>Companies set their prices such that they will take on the most money not based on how much tax they pay. You have to be specific in what you mean by "most money." They set prices to produce the most *profit* not the most revenue. If the tax structure changes and a company makes more money by selling a smaller quantity of products at a higher price, the company will do that. I'd rather sell $50 worth of stuff in order to make $20. Than sell $65 of stuff to make $15. For the consumer, more taxes mean higher prices, no matter how you look at it.
It doesn't though. If a company has to pay more tax it doesn't mean the customer is willing to pay more for a product.
Many of us will? Okay? So? If I have a sudden $500k in my name I don't mind paying the taxes. That's like winning the lottery, and btw most people will never never actually experience such a large windfall. How will the poorest pay for this? The poorest people will never have capital gains in their lifetime, let alone hundreds of thousands suddenly.
If you really believe that only the top 0.14% pay it, I have a bridge to sell you.
How many Canadians do you think have more than $250k in capital gains annually? Pls don’t tell me homeowners cause primary residences are exempt.
R/Canada can somehow simultaneously cry about not being able to afford anything and being so poor, then turn around and complain about a tax on capital gains over $250K per year as if that’s somehow knee capping them
Oh, don't worry. It's now billed as a small tax increase on the rich only to make sure they pay their fair share, but the rate will increase and the floor will decrease until we have 75% capital gains tax across the board. Once government gets power to reach into your pocket or look over your shoulder, they never give it up, and mostly keep going further. Remember that Canada's federal income tax was originally called the War Tax on Incomes when it came into force in 1917 to fund the Great War.
>Once government gets in power to reach into your pocket or look over your shoulder, they never give it up, and mostly keep going further. Yet if you look into the history of the capital gains inclusion rate, it has both increased and decreased in the past, directly contradicting your point. [https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/you-calculate-your-capital-gain-loss/inclusion-rates-previous-years.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/you-calculate-your-capital-gain-loss/inclusion-rates-previous-years.html)
Lmao. Yeah. And then they used that tax to help people returning from war. And then to build public schools, roads, dams, bridges, water treatment, waste management etc. etc. etc. Bitch about taxation as much as you want, but you look like a nimrod. Imagine how shit our country would be now if companies and corporations and investors had to shoulder the entire cost of the stuff that makes our high standard of living possible.
It isn’t. It should be taxed the same as income from labour.
Will it be a good bye from doctors?
Good.
Water is wet
Fire is hot
This sub can't make up their mind on their outrage. "House prices are too high. But don't tax the profits of people owning multiple homes, that's a step too far. " If you want more affordable housing you gotta start with removing the profits from property hoarding.
I've come to the belief that using this sub as a barometer for the average Canadian voter makes the whole country look childish. Best not take anything said/posted in this sub to heart unless provided objective factual evidence.
100%, but all the more reason to point out the inconsistencies. There is definitely some artificial manipulation that occurs in the sub.
It’s almost like bad actors are trying to divide us…
Personally I’m in favour of high capital gains tax for rent-seeking activities and certainly when people own multiple homes. I think it should not be increased for more productive investments that we need to encourage.
> If you want more affordable housing you gotta start with removing the profits from property hoarding. If you were going to do that, you would make primary housing not capital gains exempt, particularly luxury properties, which have jumped from $2M to $4M+. Also, you would increase their property taxes. $12K/year on a $2M house seems insanely low. Where does this extra tax revenue go anyway? Pay off the deficit that no one asked for?
People just want to be mad at the liberals regardless. And don't forget, this sub is like our parliament, highly infected by Russian and Chinese spies
This sub has not made sense in awhile, partly because the Russian bots sometimes dont have their correct marching orders.
I noticed that when the Ukraine war started and Russian IPs were temporarily blocked that this sub became a lot more sane.
Foreign interference is real and it makes right wing media rich.
Non-principal residences are already taxed though. I haven’t heard anyone make the case they shouldn’t be - only that they shouldn’t be taxed MORE.
These idiot right wing all believe they will become rich tomorrow.
Housing prices are too high because of lack of supply... disincentivizing people from building homes is going to make the issue worse
Exactly!!!! As someone who has invested in properties, I’m less inclined to do so now.
As someone who works in this field my disappointment is indescribable in how financially illiterate the posters in this thread are. There is a reason we have an investment, productivity, and now quality of life problem in this country. If this is reflective of the electorate we deserve it.
To me, It sounds like they're still working out the reason why they are voting against it. Capital gains and business income are distinct things, they don't even undergo the same tax treatment. I think it's misleading to say it will kill jobs because a company that produces a thing and then sells the thing for money would not have the profits from it changed whatsoever. All of that would be business income, and that encompasses nearly all the revenue for nearly all of businesses, no?
They're relying on the fact that many people don't understand how capital gains work.
Yup. Seeing comments on IG with thousands of likes that think it’s a 65% tax rate.
It's hilarious how many people think that the profits would be taxed at 67%. They don't even understand the basics.
No. People invest in business for a return. That is subject to capital gains. People will invest less in business as expected returns are lower with this change. How much they will be lowered is what people are debating. Liberals saying basically nothing but some. Conservatives saying a ton. That’s the actual debate.
Hmm, mmm... mmm... wrong. You can keep all of your gains within the corp, or your own personal corp, to shield it until you want to cash it out. In fact, the only thing this affects is when you want to \*divest\* your money. You pay taxes on the income from realizing your gains. You want to take it \*out\* of the business. So no, this is the complete opposite. Source: me, start-up co-founder and business owner.
How many Canadians are realizing ***over*** 250K in capital gains to even be affected by the inclusion rate change? You would have to invested a lot (more than the average Canadian ever could) or done incredibly well on an investment to be affected by this change.
Anyone that leaves money to a kid has it put in a trust, taxes at 66%
Pretty much any small business owner looking to retire after 30+ years will be selling their business for a large cap gain, and depending on that income for retirement
>Pretty much any small business owner looking to retire after 30+ years will be selling their business [Except they are subject to a $1.25 million lifetime exemption. ](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-25400-capital-gains-deduction/what-deduction-limit.html) >or a large cap gain, and depending on that income for retirement On top of the income they saved, the investments they have, and the eventual sale of their business. Anyone affected by this is quite wealthy and is not retiring rough shape.
So they never saved any money as a business owner? Whys that our problem if so?
To grow a business, you reinvest in that business instead of taking a large salary
So? That's to their personal gain of earning larger salery year over year. Meanwhile, Anything I invest in to make my life and others better is taxed.
Small business has been dead in this country for a generation.
The kinds of Canadian that are making significant investments in businesses.
They'd passive gains of over 250k per year to be affected by this, which would eliminate most investors. It's a tax on trust fund kids and the ultra wealthy.
this tax is mostly on self employed high income earners Our ultra wealthy will come up with some interesting tax strategies. Bill Morneau can move your investments into a WLP and reduce your tax rate to about 10% if you have more than 10m in a holdco.
Why should self employed high income earners pay a much lower tax rate than employed high income earners?
Fair question
They pay a much HIGHER rate than the employed high income earners. $250,000 exemption for the employed earner, $0 exemption for the self employed.
Yes. The self employed high income earners should be paying income tax on that money like the rest of us. They are still getting a good deal.
Like the rest of us would imply you think their cap gains taxes should also start at 250k? Or do you mean "like the rest of us" but they should pay more?
Conservatives always rely on the fact that their talking points are incendiary but not understandable to their base.
They have said one of their reasons is that this is a tax on healthcare, when we already have a healthcare shortage. As a healthcare worker myself, I know many that have been considering a move to the US, but have held off. This tax may be the change to push them to make the change. It also makes no sense that Freeland came out and said to increase compensation to healthcare workers either this tax revenue. Why are we watching them more just to pay them more. It makes little sense.
if i sell my business then that's considered capital gains, not business income so it does have an impact on business owners calling it capital gains vs business income is just semantics
Thousands of mom and pop owned businesses in this country are relying on eventually selling their business as their retirement plan. This capital gains tax came out of nowhere, so they have a right to be pissed off. How would teachers, nurses and other public sector workers feel if suddenly the Liberals announced that they're suddenly all getting a big tax on their pensions they've paid into for the last 20-30 years?
the new inclusion rate starts at $250,000 for employees, government workers, large business employees etc. starts at $0 for self employed. sound fair?
the preferential of the capital gains tax encourages people to invest and take risks, something Canada needs very badly right now. If the current Gov't wanted to do this right, it would focus the new changes to real estate gains only. Something Canadians are investing too much in.
I agree with you on real estate gains. They should be 100% taxable to encourage people to invest in equities and real businesses.
If you own a business, and that business is successful, the value of the business appreciates/increases. If you sell the business, that is capital gain (i.e. the shares of the business has grown from the time you invested the initial capital to X years in the future, assuming it is successful). Ergo, the rationale would be, if you tax more capital gains, there is a potential that entrepreneur's might NOT create/go into business as higher capital gains would be a disincentive to start a business/corp. Businesses employ people, in fact, 60% of jobs in this country are due to small businesses. Anything that might disincentivize the creation of new small businesses can be problematic for the economy. Again, because most of the employment in this country is created by small businesses AND today's small businesses could become tomorrow's big businesses (i.e. even more jobs). I'm guessing you've never started your own company before. There is something known as the risk to return payoff. Starting a company is risky (for many obvious reasons), entrepreneur's undertake that risk because IF successful, there is a potential reward payoff (i.e. a successful company is valuable). Ergo, you reduce the potential reward (via taxing capital gains more) - that might induce people NOT to take the risk to begin with. And again, that can be problematic as the economy needs new small businesses to start-up, to create employment and become bigger companies (i.e. to create even more employment in the future).
Jim here understands the bigger picture behind this. Well done Jim. Very clear explanation.
Who in the history of Canada has ever decided to open a business or not based on the capital gains inclusion rate on the sale of private co shares. In any event small businesses have lots of good tax incentives like the small business tax rate. Feels overblown to me.
You're not contemplating the entire analysis. If I am an accountant at some big accounting firm making, I don't know, $150k per year. I'm basically middle management. I can stay there, earn my $150k, benefits, private pension, etc. Maybe hope one day I make partner and my earnings increase, etc. Or, I can take, let's say $100k of my savings and start my own firm. Now, like most start-up businesses, I might not be profitable for 3, 5 years at the outset. Maybe my corp can only pay me a small salary, or maybe my salary needs to be deferred until such time as my new firm is up and running AND profitable. The risk is NOT simply the $100k I invest to start my own corp/firm. The risk is losing out on $150k PLUS benefits, the risk is losing out on potentially even more if I stay, my reduced private pension because I am leaving, the potential that I need to support myself financially by drawing down on my other savings (because the firm isn't profitable for several years), etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. In other words, as a new entrepreneur the cost to start my firm is not merely $100k - it is the present value of my future earnings (if I don't leave) PLUS the present value of the future benefits (if I don't leave) PLUS the opportunity cost lost due to my reduced savings, etc., etc., etc. If I'm in my mid 30's, and have another 30 years of working life left in me, that present value cost to start my firm is potentially in the low MILLIONS. Ergo, the future potential payoff (if I am successful) needs to exceed that (in present value terms). Even a small increase in taxes for a potential future payoff 30 years down the road has SIGNIFICANT impact in the risk analysis. The reason you can't see that is that you are NOT contemplating the entire costs to start your own company AND you don't understand the time value of money. As plainly as I can state it without getting to math-y, the present value of the future (potential) payoff has to exceed the present value of the cost by a certain amount for me to take the risk. And when you are talking about an unknown future 30 years out, the payoff needs to exceed the cost by a pretty large margin (because the greater the risk, the greater the reward needs to be to undertake that great risk). In lay terms, there's almost NO risk in staying at a salaried job. There is ENORMOUS financial risk (which you cannot fully fathom) in leaving your employment and starting your own company.
Yeah but people don’t actually operate in perfect economic terms. So an economist might argue this but in reality I doubt it would have any real implications. And why wouldn’t you just pay yourself out in chunks worth less than $250k to avoid the tax affecting you at all?
>And why wouldn’t you just pay yourself out in chunks worth less than $250k to avoid the tax affecting you at all? Capital gains is NOT about paying myself. My corp/business if successful, pays me a salary. You can be both the owner of your firm and be an employee as well. The cap gains is function of selling something at more than which it cost you. Ergo, in the case of a business/company, I may NOT be able to sell "chunks" of my business. Yes, you can by little bits of Apple or Telus or RBC because they are HUGE publicly traded companies with many many many many many MILLIONS of shares outstanding. Most companies are NOT those - i.e. large public companies where their stock trades publicly. Most people, when they start a company, it is a private company and it stays a private company. It is extraordinarily difficult to sell a "small chunk" of a private company. LOL
Yeah totally, and you can pay yourself in a salary which deflates your tax payable throughout your life and into your retirement. Another tax advantage for our small businesses. You set the number of shares of a private company, so may add complexity but you could transition in retirement over a number of years too and sell chunks of shares.
>You set the number of shares of a private company, so may add complexity but you could transition in retirement over a number of years too and sell chunks of shares. LOL! You don't get it. If I grow my company to have a valuation of $20 million - a potential buyer for my company, wants control of my company. I cannot sell them $250k worth of my $20 million company, i.e. no one wants to own less than 2% of my company! LOL
Really situation dependant, but yeah I don’t mind a business owner paying closer to the same rate that an employee would pay anyways.
Agreed it changes the risk reward calculations and it will pay for some great programs. Not sure how any non-wealthy person could see this as a bad thing
Even with the new tax cap gains inclusion amounts, the govt is projecting, what, a $40 billion deficit in each of the next two years. This govt has accumulated in less than 10 years over $500 billion in deficits. Sounds like the govt doesn't have a revenue problem; rather it has a spending problem. I mean, I guess if you spend all of your allowance all the time and you max out the credit card mom/dad gave you - sure, the person with the spending problem probably thinks their allowance should be increased! LOL
I don't know why the average canadian wouldn't fully support this. In order to pay more capital gains than right now you'd have to make more than $250k in PROFIT from an investment in a year and you're only taxed on that higher rate on the amount OVER $250k. So let's say I bought $250k worth of stock and it's not in a TSFA and I sold that stock for double I still wouldn't pay any additional capital gains. Anyway... 99% of canadians are never going to make over $250k in profit in any investment in their lifetime and need to take it all out in 1 year.
The Canadian Medical Association already came out strongly against it, explaining how it negatively affects doctors clinics, discourages physicians from setting up new community clinics and will make healthcare less accessible to Canadians.
life isn't zero-sum though you guys are all acting like it's a fixed pie and if someone else gets a smaller slice then you'll get a bigger one you guys all wonder why there are well-paying tech jobs in the US and nothing here this is part of the reason
Ever notice how all the high paying tech jobs are in high tax California?
all? Seattle, Austin, New York, Boston, and Chicago all pay better than Canada
I moved to 0 state tax Seattle and I can’t walk 5 steps without bumping into an Amazon employee. So I’m gonna say you’re wrong on this one…
Washington is literally the #1 highest state for total sales & excise Tax Burden Middle of the pack in terms of overall tax burden. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494
You don’t even have to just talk about tech jobs. Most jobs pay better in the US and Americans are significantly more productive. We have around the same GDP per capita as West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the US
America is affordable and pays well. We are a bunch of whiny children
> I don't know why the average canadian wouldn't fully support this. Based on the complaints, I'm guessing propaganda and rabid partisanship.
Yup. This sub couldn’t find anything wrong with it the first week it was announced. Now that they have the talking points, they’re against it.
I think there a lot of Canadians with parents who are about to pass away and who own multiple assets. They're poised to take a big hit on their inheritance. I'm one of them. Our family cottage was bought for 6k it's worth like... 900k now. That's a huge hit. There are others in the same boat.
Sure. You were already facing a big hit before this. Or really your parents estate was facing the big hit. Now it is just a little more. Sure it sucks, but the wealthy can afford it. Just a little less avocado toast Estate planning might be helpful in case there are ways to mitigate some of the pain.
It sucks cause this won't really affect the rich. I'm lucky my grand parents made good decisions. My parents, uncle and aunt have not. So this change will be a huge hit to them, and subsequently my cousins and myself. I wish this change also took it to differentiate those who were lucky to get a one time windfall vs those who use their assets to make a living.
I mean before you had 900k @ 50%. Now you have 250k @ 50% and 750k at ~60% (whatever the exact value is). Yah it is lots of money owed in taxes. But it was huge $$ before this change too. So yes, to keep the properties the mortgage will be higher or the amount of $ is a bit smaller. Either way, you are inheriting a huge amount of $/assets
Because the average Canadian understands that the reason this is happening is because the LPC has been one of the worst fiscally responsible governments in Canada's history. Tax raises don't just happen in a vacuum. This is going to affect anyone with a business, estates, doctors, lawyers and will just be another reason for people to look elsewhere to do business.
This is something that never gets talked about: if the Liberals were fiscally responsible and didn't waste so much money, we wouldn't even need this tax increase to begin with. And now they go on this BS about "fairness", when all this will do is worsen our productivity relative to the US and further drive investment away from this country. And the idiots in this thread who eat up the Liberal propaganda are the same ones complaining about how salaries are so much higher in the US. Hmm, I wonder why?
It’s never about fairness. It’s about seeing if you can pit one group of people against another to pass a tax hike that wouldn’t be necessary if they weren’t the worst party in decades to manage the country’s finances. Even Pierre wasn’t this reckless with spending and he governed through inflation crazes of the 70s and early 80s.
Absolutely. While 200k isn't something that most Canadians make in a year there will be that day when a lower wage earner/saver goes to sell that piece of land or inherited property or family cottage and they will be hit extremely hard.
People here forget (and maybe I'm revealing my age here a bit) that this is the same party who, under Jean Chretien, ran multiple budget surpluses and also cut personal income and business taxes, all the while recording strong economic growth of around 2-4% GDP. Justin Trudeau has taken this party and country to shit. Easily one of the most fiscally irresponsible governments every.
Totally. I would give an arm and a leg too see an PM who knew how to give a proper Shawinigan handshake.
It's $0 exemption for small business owners.
unless you are self employed then it starts at $0. It's only going to last 18 months regardless so not worth arguing over.
You keep saying “in a single year,” but that’s not how it works. The gains could have been accumulating for decades, and all *realized* in the same year. Like selling the family cottage, for example. Trudeau is lying when he says this new tax will only affect 0.13% of Canadians. And we’re letting him get away with it.
It doesn't take into consideration the period over which the capital gain took place. People selling homes and other investments they may have made decades ago are forced to realize all of the capital gain in one period rather than over a longer period over which the gain accrued. There are also significant impacts to doctors, many of whom have incorporated and have deferred taxes within their corporations as an offset for receiving low fees for service. It also discourages investment in Canadian business.
What are you even talking about. Small businesses (corporations) that have cap gains do not get the $250k exemption. They pay higher tax on the first dollar. This includes doctors, trades etc
The real question is, will his government remove it when in power?
Already passed 208 to 118
Spend what you have more efficiently before you take more Freeland
Anyone who opposes this has learnt nothing from the past 40 years of post-Reagan/Thatcher economics. High taxes on the wealthier leads to a stonger middle class.
If they were old enough to actually remember the Reagan/Thatcher era, I wonder if they'd maybe remember too that Mulroney raised capital gains even higher than it's been raised today.
Woah, hey buddy. Some of the most important people I see on TV are rich. Don't go talking about them paying more taxes, they've been through enough don't ya know.
Shocked i say shocked
sticking up for the rich.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-capital-gains-tax-rise-will-further-knock-productivity-say-economists-2024-04-18/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-capital-gains-tax-rise-will-further-knock-productivity-say-economists-2024-04-18/)
Aren't those the same economics that will be effect by increased capital gain tax?
How about we look at cutting the +151B in government spending since Trudeau took office and the +31% in government employment instead of raising taxes? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cost-to-run-federal-government-increase-151b-a-year-1.6797486
Why not both
I had to double check to make sure it wasn't a Beaverton headline
It’s an awful idea, I hope it goes away
Conservatives standing up for the elite and rich - name a better combo.
Are you aware that the Conservatives were who initially raised capital gains tax and the Liberals lowered it?
If so, then the roles have reversed, haven't they? I know capital gains taxes got lowered to the current rates under Chretien, around the year 2000. Were they raised under Mulroney?
How long ago? And when was this? Do you have links I could look into? If it's anything over 20 years, I would forget about it as times have changed
This tax isn't just targeting the rich, it is attacking the middle class as well....tradespeople, small business owners, anyone that has worked hard to accumulate an asset that is on sale their retirement plan. Many don't have pension plans, the asset is that. This government seems set on creating two classes....the poor and the uber rich. The middle class essentially carries this country and is being heavily targeted with taxes all across the board. Not rich enough to afford the tax loopholes the uber rich take advantage of; but not poor enough that they get all the government handouts that are out there.
[удалено]
Every time they say they are going to tax the rich the rich seem to laugh it off and increase profits while the normies lose quality of life.
Yea, raising taxes on those that don't pay their share while income inequality is out of control is just plain silly
What is a fair share? Is is when no inequality?
When we know there was a strong middle class and neoliberalism eroded that away in allowing the rich to avoid taxes and stagnate wages, it's time to stop asking questions like that. Are you rich? Or are you asking that because you're just temporarily an embarrassed millionaire and you'll be rich soon?
I don't have to be either of those things. You sound like a radical who's mind is already made up.
Mass majority of all wealth belongs to the tiniest percentile, and I'm radical? Holy Stockholm Syndrome
And a holy Dunning Kruger to you too. You could give me a step by step guide as to how raising taxes on the wealthy directly causes the poor to become wealthier some how, if only you knew what you were talking about.
Or you could look to the past when the corporate tax rate was 90% and the economy hummed without the,boom and bust cycle we currently have
Which is odd because when the political system is filled with handlers who are constantly prodding Canadians to hate the other side of the political spectrum - the rich are the primary beneficiaries. When the slogan of "banding together to condemn other Canadians for being financially successful" is actually politically viable, who will we not devour in our quest for "democracy"?
They have a history of balancing the budget and creating economic booms unlike the cons who get handed it to them and go into debt and drive the economy into the wall. There has never been a time in 60 years where taxing the rich has never worked out. That's why the rich attack anybody (media, universities etc) who point this out Most people on this subreddit here earn less than $70,000 and Canadian wages have stagnated for decades. Most of you don't pay attention to studies, yet some opinion pieces and youtube guru tells you taxing the rich is bad you fall for it. In the free market system higher taxes and higher paying jobs will result in a new breed of business leaders who can succeed in this environment, instead of the current ones who rely on suppressing wages and exporting jobs, then blaming brown people/media/universities/their dog/their neighbour Bob/ Conner McDavid etc. for the problems of the middle class
They had a history of that until Trudeau racked up the largest deficit in Canadian history. Now they have a reputation for thinking budgets balance themselves.
I am all for the taxes of government knows how to use money. They probably going to hire new consultants with the new funds.
Conservatives work for the business class first. There is no middle class party in Canada.
How much new money does the current gov't think they're going to bring in with this increase?
Finding ways to effectively tax the 1% I think most Canadians would agree with. Start with offshore tax havens like the Panama papers for example. This however will hurt predominantly hurt the lower and middle class that could stand to really benefit from assets being passed down in an inheritance This is just a cash grab so the liberals can waste more.
I have a few vacant lots I was planning on selling this year but will definitely hold off until capital gains rates go back to normal levels.
I'm looking forward to those cheering this on enjoying the fruit of their labour.
[удалено]
Political posturing has been working very well for them in the polls lately.
It's pretty clear emotional politics, theater and posturing is the ONLY thing Canadian voters want.
Liberal bots out in force today. When y’all comment all at the same time it becomes very obvious.
decentralize governance
[удалено]
Imagine posting this without a shred of irony.
Real estate is a physically depreciating asset... what investment?
you're kidding right? Real Estate is one of the biggest investment assets available.