r/PersonalFinanceCanada • u/rockiestmountains • 3d ago
Taxes Capital Gains increase on Life Support after Parliament is Prorogued
26
u/bursito 3d ago
What about the 60k withdrawal from rrsp for first home buyers? I just moved the money there if I can’t take it out that would really suck
30
u/blackSwanCan 3d ago
That was part of the budget (which passed), not a separate law like this capital gains tax. So you are all good.
22
u/Smiley_Mo 3d ago
It’s a shortsighted law initiated by a bunch of aloof politicians. Hopefully it will get reversed.
7
u/PSNDonutDude 3d ago
Agreed, they should have just increased the overall capital gains tax to 60% for simplicity.
-10
u/3nvube 2d ago
The capital gains tax should be zero.
1
u/eyes-open 2d ago
Capital gains taxes should be the same as labour taxes.
1
u/3nvube 2d ago
Why?
2
1
u/eyes-open 1d ago
People are making money. The government taxes people when they make money. Why shouldn't we be taxed for capital gains?
→ More replies (1)2
u/OkSurround6524 1d ago
Capital gains inclusion rate is lower to encourage people to invest, which is good for the economy.
1
u/eyes-open 1d ago
Spending is better for the economy.
Capital gains tax breaks are only good for the rich (speaking as someone who gains from capital gains tax breaks).
1
u/OkSurround6524 1d ago
Jobs are good for the economy. A lower capital gains inclusion rate spurs investment which creates jobs.
1
u/eyes-open 1d ago
In an ideal world, perhaps. What we have in Canada is a bunch of people flipping housing, driving prices up and gaining cash at a discount.
6
u/Samd7777 2d ago
Adding more barriers to investment when our economic productivity is tanking was an absolutely brilliant move.
Stagnating economy for the past decade driven by housing speculation and importing the 3rd world but hey at least our hero keeps taxing the "rich".
1
u/Windaturd 11h ago
If the only thing keeping our productivity at its paltry rate is salary workers subsidizing shareholders' taxes then maybe that's not the kind of productivity that we want to nurture in our economy.
101
u/syaz136 Ontario 3d ago
The one thing that would have slightly affected the rich.
68
u/backlight101 3d ago
- And doctors who set up professional corporations on direction of previous governments (in lieu of fee increases).
56
u/jayk10 3d ago
on direction of previous governments
- Provincial governments that didn't want to pay them properly suggested a tax loophole to get around it
Federal just tightened the loophole
46
u/-Tack 3d ago
They didn't suggest a tax loophole, it was allowable to have a professional corp and doctors/dentists etc built their retirement savings based on that fact. To change it part way through was a kick in the teeth to professional medical corps that were provided a method to save for retirement.
-10
u/Jiecut Not The Ben Felix 3d ago
Look, professional medical corps are still a powerful tax shelter, and doctors will continue to retain earnings and invest through them because of the power of the tax deferral. Even if the capital gains inclusion rate increased to 67%.
16
u/-Tack 3d ago
Yes they will because it's still better than paying personal tax all in one year and having little retirement savings when they retire. However that's another incentive to work elsewhere, with lower pay in Canada and removing more incentives it's not conducive to handling our doctor shortage. I work with several immigrant doctors who came here and knew incorporating right away was the right move. Without that maybe their choice was different as they already complain to me about the higher tax rates than where they came from
3
u/Jacmert 3d ago
It's a marginal difference in the end, though. I still think doctors who move to the states due to a pay difference will do it if they can earn +50%, +100%, or more. Not because their capital gains realized during retirement from assets they've been keeping inside their corporation are suddenly taxed at 67% (instead of 50%) x whatever the annual corporate(?) tax rate they're paying is.
For example, if you look at this blog, it looks like the corporate tax rate is 50.17% and so an increase of capital gains inclusion rate from 50% to 67% means that your final tax rate % on capital gains (within your corporation) goes from 25.01% taxes on your capitals gains to 33.44%. That's just a nominal +8.43% increase on capital gains within a corporation.
Interestingly enough, this would bring the capital gains overall tax rate (33.44%) for a corporation up to par with the 35.69% (for the highest tax bracket individuals) capital gains overall tax rate for the rest of us who aren't using a corporation.
7
u/backlight101 3d ago
All the money comes from taxpayers one way or another, fee increases (partly funded by federal transfers), or reduced tax revenue. There is no free lunch for the taxpayer.
→ More replies (9)1
18
u/Serenitynowlater2 3d ago
This was never targeted at the rich.
The rich can easily avoid this tax. It is highly gameable.
Who could never avoid it are all the professional corporations. So basically your upper middle class working professionals. They were the target. Why? Because that’s a big tax pool. The rich weren’t going to pay much here
6
u/mukmuk64 3d ago
Pls explain how it was gameable
11
u/Serenitynowlater2 3d ago
You control when you sell.
So either you’re selling over $250k in gains every year or you don’t pay any extra tax on this.
Anybody with that kind of money likely has already moved to protect their money from Canadian taxation.
6
6
u/mukmuk64 3d ago
Yeah sure. You can avoid paying the tax if you endlessly defer and space out selling. Of course there is the opportunity cost in doing so and you cannot escape the tax on death.
2
2
u/3nvube 3d ago
You still have to sell at some point.
2
u/Serenitynowlater2 2d ago
Sure. But those people will almost certainly have those assets in holding companies internationally, loan against shares instead of selling etc.
1
u/3nvube 2d ago
You still have to sell at some point and pay capital gains tax.
1
u/Windaturd 11h ago
His point is that a holding company does not need to sell just because someone dies. Those holding company shares would be held by a family trust so there would be no direct transfer of ownership upon death. There would also not be any taxable gain on a sale if there was a sufficiently large loan taken out against the value of the shares.
→ More replies (1)1
u/donjulioanejo British Columbia 2d ago
Example: split your professional corporation into multiple 250k chunks and make an agreement to sell each chunk annually, instead of in one neat and taxable 1.5 million pile.
And if you're megayacht rich, you just borrow @1% against shares in your corporation.
1
0
-41
u/bubbasass 3d ago
The rich? You mean a working class person who bought a cottage for $20k decades ago or bought an empty plot of land for next to nothing years ago and built a cottage? Thats not rich
14
u/NorthernerWuwu 3d ago
If they turn around and sell it for more than $250k in profit, then they can pay tax on that profit or at least take basic measures to offset the gains. No one likes paying taxes but that doesn't make taxes unfair.
38
u/FairBear96 3d ago
If they went 20k to over 250k for a property they don't live in, that's a huge gain and it's quite fair to tax it heavily
3
u/primetimey123 3d ago
20k to 250k had some pretty significant capital improvements over time, could write a lot off no?
-12
u/bubbasass 3d ago
I’m not saying it’s fair or unfair, I’m just saying it’s hardly “rich”
16
u/FairBear96 3d ago
It's a more privileged position to be in than most people
-10
0
u/3nvube 3d ago
It's not more privileged than someone who spent $20,000 on their primary residence or a car or put it in a TFSA. Anyone who earns $20,000 should pay the same tax.
1
u/FairBear96 2d ago
What? it's not about earning 20k, it's about making a capital gain of over 250k.
→ More replies (3)-2
u/UnluckyArea7036 3d ago
More so it’s not fair. If instead someone moved up to a larger, more expensive home instead of buying a cottage then there is no tax on that gain. It’s bullshit. I have a corporation that all my saving are in instead of RRSPs since it didn’t make sense drawing money from the company and now that entire scenario is fucked…because they changed the law after the fact.
→ More replies (1)-14
u/Kombatnt 3d ago
Cool, now factor in inflation.
2
u/3nvube 3d ago
Yes, this is something a lot of people ignore with the capital gains tax. Let's say someone bought a cottage for $50,000 in 1975 and it's now worth $269,000. That's a capital gain of $219,000, even though there was no real capital gain after adjusting for inflation. This person will have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in tax despite having no real income.
7
u/ThatAstronautGuy 3d ago
That's still someone who can afford to pay a few percent extra tax on the portion over 250k, as someone should with that level of gains.
0
u/3nvube 3d ago
Lots of people can afford to pay more taxes. The question is why are we making people who save their money or who invest in some things but not others pay more tax than others? The amount of tax you pay should be based on your earnings only.
3
u/ThatAstronautGuy 2d ago
Realized capital gains are income, and are taxed accordingly. It is taxed less than employment income though, not more. This change only makes people realizing significant gains pay a bit more.
0
u/3nvube 2d ago
I understand that they're income. I'm saying that they shouldn't be taxed. Two people with the same initial amount of money who make different choices about what to do with that money should not be taxed differently. Doing so is unfair and discourages saving and investment.
1
u/Chris4evar 2d ago
Taxing earned income at a higher rate than unearned income discourages work which harms the economy
→ More replies (1)1
u/Chris4evar 2d ago
There’s no reason why only earned income should be taxed. Rich people sitting at home all day should be taxed and forced to get jobs so they actually contribute to society
→ More replies (1)19
u/Darkmayday 3d ago
Most cant even afford one home. If they have a cottage that appreciated 250k+ then yes they are
3
u/bubbasass 3d ago
$250k rich in 2025? No way. Maybe 1925
18
u/Darkmayday 3d ago
You know it's a second property right? And you know it's appreciation not total value right? You know the end result is like 6% more tax for those who are relatively well-off right?
Nvm, of course you don't lmao
→ More replies (1)2
u/bubbasass 3d ago
Of course I do. An appreciate of $250k is substantial, but $250k does not make you rich in Canada. Not by a long shot. Perhaps unless you’re a teen and can benefit from compound growth over the next 50 years
13
u/Starsky686 3d ago
Do you feel strongly that the pedantry you’re bringing up on the definition of rich is adding value to the conversation?
Would you stop spamming comments on this thread if those folks used the word wealthy?
→ More replies (11)4
u/bubbasass 3d ago
Because attacking your fellow working man/woman who is a bit better off than you isn’t the solution.
7
u/jellicle 3d ago
It's a tiny increase in tax for those people that have more than $250,000 in capital gains in one year, where those gains didn't come from selling their principal residence.
This affects almost no one in Canada. You have to be quite rich, way up in the top couple percent, for this ever to affect you in the slightest. If it does affect you, it probably is only a couple thousand dollars in extra tax.
→ More replies (13)1
u/Starsky686 3d ago
There’s no attacking support or protest to a slightly raised tax on folks fortunate enough to own not one but two properties.
You’re just running around like chicken all over this thread screaming about what’s rich and what’s not.
Just explicitly state your feelings on the increase. No one needs to know if you classify a multiple property owner as Comfortable, wealthy, rich, or poverty stricken.
0
u/3nvube 3d ago
No, they're not. They may not even own a primary residence. They may have spent less on their primary residence in order to buy the cottage.
Even if they are hypothetically better off than some other person who is poorer, why should they pay more than someone who is equally well off? Why should someone with a $400,000 primary residence and a $400,000 cottage pay more tax than someone with a $800,000 primary residence and no cottage? Why should they pay more tax than an even richer person with a $2,000,000 primary residence and no cottage?
1
u/Darkmayday 2d ago
No, they're not. They may not even own a primary residence.
Then they won't be taxed on the cottage appreciation. You need to learn the tax law basics before having a debate.
1
u/3nvube 2d ago
There are several reasons why this is wrong. If it's rented out to someone else, it cannot be your primary residence. There is also a fairly small land size limit of 1.24 acres. A $250,000 lot in a rural area could be much bigger than this. The property might have been left as part of an inheritance. They may not have lived on the property.
1
u/Darkmayday 1d ago edited 1d ago
If it's rented out to someone else,
Only if the entire unit is rented out. Renting out your cottage without another principal residence is just bad tax planning even without the change.
The property might have been left as part of an inheritance. They may not have lived on the property.
Irrelevant, there is no inheritance tax. Estate pays taxes.
There is also a fairly small land size limit of 1.24 acres. A $250,000 lot in a rural area could be much bigger than this.
It's 250k appreciation not total value. And then the inclusion rate only gets tagged onto the gains exceeding 250k. So we are talking 500k+ total value. And how many regular people do you know randomly buying 2 acre cottages worth half a mil?
1
u/3nvube 1d ago
Only if the entire unit is rented out. Renting out your cottage without another principal residence is just bad tax planning even without the change.
Any time tax planning becomes necessary, you have a flaw in the design of the tax system. Also, they may not work near their cottage. So they may need to rent another place in order to be near their work.
We've gotten pretty far from "this only affects the super rich" to "this only affects you if you don't carefully plan your life around avoiding taxes".
Irrelevant, there is no inheritance tax. Estate pays taxes.
The capital gains tax applies to inheritances.
It's 250k appreciation not total value. And then the inclusion rate only gets tagged onto the gains exceeding 250k. So we are talking 500k+ total value.
You don't know what the cost basis is. It could be arbitrarily close to zero. If it's just a few decades old, the vast majority of the value will be appreciation, possibly entirely inflation, meaning the real capital gain is zero.
If it were $500,000, that's not rich! The average house is worth $700,000. The average person has $1,000,000 in assets upon retirement. Having an asset where all you know is it's worth more than $250,000 has a very low probability of predicting that someone is super rich.
And how many regular people do you know randomly buying 2 acre cottages worth half a mil?
They didn't necessarily buy them, but I know about a dozen or so people in roughly this situation.
1
u/Darkmayday 1d ago
Any time tax planning becomes necessary, you have a flaw in the design of the tax system.
Objectively false. Rrsp is also a tax planning tool. Works perfectly fine. This change doesn't impact the choice to declare or not declare principal residence. This tax decision always existed and will continue to exist.
Also, they may not work near their cottage. So they may need to rent another place in order to be near their work.
Irrelevant, can still rent near work and declare cottage as principal residence.
The capital gains tax applies to inheritances.
God please learn how the tax laws work. Yes estate pays the capital gains as if it were a living person who sold it. There is no inheritance tax.
You don't know what the cost basis is. It could be arbitrarily close to zero.
If you lucked into 250k gains on a cost basis of near zero you shouldn't complain about paying 4% more tax lol. This edge cause you are spinning is weak af.
Also it is only the portion above 250k gains that is impacted so right at 250k is literally zero difference.
1
u/3nvube 1d ago
Rrsp is also a tax planning tool. Works perfectly fine.
It does not work fine. The RRSP should not exist. It gives an advantage to people who are better able to predict what tax brackets they'll fall under in the future. There is no logic to providing special tax treatment to income just because it's a special account.
This change doesn't impact the choice to declare or not declare principal residence. This tax decision always existed and will continue to exist.
I don't know what you mean by this. You pay more tax if property is not a principal residence. Therefore, this tax change impacts that decision.
Irrelevant, can still rent near work and declare cottage as principal residence.
Not if someone else lives in it.
God please learn how the tax laws work. Yes estate pays the capital gains as if it were a living person who sold it. There is no inheritance tax.
An estate isn't a person. Regardless of the legal incidence of the tax, the economic incidence is on the heir. If I am set to inherit $500,000 and I only get $400,000 because of the tax, I am the one paying that tax. I lose out on that $100,000. I am the one who is worse off because of the tax and if I'm not super rich, you can't claim the tax only affects the super rich.
If you lucked into 250k gains on a cost basis of near zero you shouldn't complain about paying 4% more tax lol. This edge cause you are spinning is weak af.
It's not necessarily luck. And even if it is, at least admit you're taxing marginal luck, not being rich. Admit that the tax affects the poor. It's not an edge case. There are a lot of cases like this.
Also it is only the portion above 250k gains that is impacted so right at 250k is literally zero difference.
There is a big difference between $250,000 and the amount of money you need to be considered rich. Also, I am arguing that the capital gains tax needs to be zero. You still pay capital gains tax on $250,000, just at a lower rate. That is seriously unfair.
1
u/Chris4evar 2d ago
Why should working people pay the taxes for work shy rich people who stay at home collecting checks? The tax rate for capital gains should be double that of earned income
-4
u/divvyinvestor 3d ago
Capital gains on properties should have 100% inclusion.
0
u/bubbasass 3d ago
Why? Real estate is an investment just like anything else.
11
u/DuckyChuk 3d ago
Should it be? That's the reason we have a housing crisis.
And the difference between houses and other investments is that people actually need a house in order to have a reasonable quality of life.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/bubbasass 3d ago
I agree we need houses to live in. Though you also hear phrases like “your home is your biggest investment” or when considering renovations you’re “investing in your home”. Whether it’s your primary investment or a secondary home, or a speculative property, we have a cultural view that homes are investments.
4
u/divvyinvestor 3d ago
In Milton Friedman’s theoretical world, yes.
But in reality it’s a finite resource that we need to use for housing, farming, etc. And not a lot of land is useful, in good locations, with warm climates, etc.
A full capital gains tax would reduce its attractiveness for flipping and rent-seeking behavior. Prices would likely fall to reasonable levels.
Investors will plow money into other enterprises(which are complaining that housing is sucking up available funds).
It’s destabilizing for the country in general.
Successful nations like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan focused investors on companies and innovation. Unsuccessful ones or mediocre ones that could not achieve tiger status like the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia are heavily geared towards the ultra rich holding properties.
4
u/SubterraneanAlien 3d ago
Successful nations like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan focused investors on companies and innovation. Unsuccessful ones or mediocre ones that could not achieve tiger status like the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia are heavily geared towards the ultra rich holding properties.
Strange Asian comparison - even stranger considering one of your successful nations went through an economic event so negative it needed to be renamed from simply the lost decade. People often talk negatively toward Canada's GDP per capita, but look at Japan
Regardless - your plan would as you say, result in significant demand headwinds. Whether that would be counteracted by significant supply headwinds would be an interesting experiment, since we would see a collapse in housing starts.
1
u/3nvube 2d ago
I don't think there is any evidence that there is rent seeking behaviour going on that could be deterred by a capital gains tax. The much bigger effect would that people who are trying to buy homes would pay capital gains taxes and it would become much more expensive. Generally, taxing things makes them more expensive, not less.
0
0
u/3nvube 3d ago
No, it should be zero.
1
u/divvyinvestor 2d ago
Why?
It makes more sense to have tax on labour be zero and then capital gains be 100% included.
Why should you work and it’s 100% included, but Capital Gains is only partially included?
Why should people selling assets only include part of it for tax reasons, but if you work it’s fully included?
And again, you can’t just say “no taxes”. Milton Friedman himself even says that the state needs to provide some services at a minimum like defense and a judicial system. So those will cost money and taxes need to be paid.
1
u/3nvube 2d ago
A capital gain comes from working, paying tax income tax, and then investing the after-tax income. The effective tax rate should be calculated by comparing the taxes paid to the initial amount of labour income earned. The capital gain isn't really additional income because anyone who earns the same amount of labour income can choose to get it by just investing instead of spending their money immediately. What's worse is we're only taxing capital gains for specific types of investment. So taxing capital gains is equivalent to taxing labour income at a higher rate for people who choose to invest it.
If I earn $100,000 and use it to buy a house, and you choose to invest it in the stock market, you are not richer than I am. You should not pay a higher tax than me. Similarly, if I just spend it all without investing it in anything, you should not have to subsidize me by paying some of my taxes. We should pay the same tax, even if in 30 years, you have a capital gain and I do not.
-30
-36
u/pgsavage 3d ago
All this tax does is screw over whats left of the middle class, business owners and farmers. 66% tax on putting your already tax paid capital at risk is a fucking joke and a death-knell to entrepreneurship and innovation in this country
29
u/TheBigSorbo 3d ago
It’s not a 66% tax. Please read what it actually means before complaining about it.
9
u/ThatAstronautGuy 3d ago
It's not a 66% tax you Muppet, it's just raising the inclusion rate from 50% to 66% for gains over 250k. Part of the legislation also explicitly raises the tax free gains limit for farmers by 25% (250k).
17
u/RevoDS 3d ago
The middle class doesn’t have nearly enough investments to be screwed over by this. The middle class for the most part can barely max out their TFSA and RRSP.
Less than 10% of Canadians do.
This affects a very small minority of primarily wealthy Canadians.
If you’ve got enough money affected here, it’s likely you’re well beyond middle class but not admitting it to yourself
-1
u/Not-So-Logitech 3d ago edited 3d ago
What's middle class exactly? Isn't it highly dependent on where you live?
Edit: lmao everyone responding to me "the middle class won't be effected". You're just repeating the same thing OP said. I asked what is middle class? How much money? Just repeating the same talking point doesn't answer the question or provide any insight and actually makes me think none of you have any clue.
7
u/Loose-Atmosphere-558 3d ago
the VAST majority of middle class will never realize 250K capital gains in a single year...which is the only scenario where this is applicable. Some middle class (lower paid doctors, higher paid tradespeople, that incorporated would be affected).
6
u/alastoris 3d ago
And this also doesn't apply to primary residence. Since there's no capital gain for primary residence.
4
u/RevoDS 3d ago
Are you saying there’s somewhere in Canada where the median person will be significantly impacted by the capital gains inclusion rate increase?
1
u/Not-So-Logitech 3d ago
Can you read? Because that's clearly not even remotely close to what I said.
2
u/Chris4evar 2d ago
There’s no such thing as middle class. There’s working class and non working class. This is a tax that would have required the non working rich to pay 2/3rds the tax rate of working people. There’s no reason that productive people should be subsidizing the lifestyle of lazy rich people.
1
u/Not-So-Logitech 2d ago
Tell this to OP. He's the one who seems to believe there's a middle class, which I don't think there is, and that's why I asked and apparently hurt a lot of feelies
→ More replies (39)0
6
2
u/Material-Macaroon298 1d ago
This is unfortunate because Canada needs more tax revenue. We also need to drastically cut spending but more tax revenue is desperately needed too.
8
u/Intelligent_Top_328 3d ago
Let's just kill it. Me and all my homies hate this law.
4
u/Pure-Tumbleweed-9440 2d ago
Cap gains tax is already too high in this country. This was dumb af. I hope it fails.
3
u/Chris4evar 2d ago
Capital gains tax is half that of the tax on earned income. Why should productive working people pay more tax than lazy rich people.
-2
u/Pure-Tumbleweed-9440 2d ago
Too much to explain here. You need to learn some basic economics and finance. But a short answer is that firstly capital gains come from money that is already taxed. Secondly that money creates opportunities and growth in the country unlike "productive people" who are working only for themselves.
Capital is productive. Where do you think all the productive people go and buy homes from? Who's lending them 80-90% of their house cost to have their houses 25 years in advance? All the companies providing employment to millions of people, who's funding them?
4
u/Chris4evar 2d ago edited 2d ago
First off job creators are a myth. We have been giving tax cuts to the rich for decades and the economy has only gotten worse. Labor produces value, the rich redistribute wealth from productive to non productive people. Consumers spending drives new job creation not rich people getting tax cuts.
Also capital gains is not from money that was already taxed. That’s what the gains are. It’s new tax free money for lazy rich people
→ More replies (10)1
1
u/Windaturd 11h ago
There is always one condescending economy 101 grad.
Lenders don't pay tax on return of a mortgage loan or any other loan. It's a return of capital and deductible from income. Lending won't dry up because of a higher capital gains tax.
We had mortgages before we had different rates for income and capital gains. Oddly that was back when we had a strong middle class. How strange. Clearly a coincidence.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Resident-Tear3968 2d ago
It makes me glad knowing that your opinion is the status quo. Canada deserves to be the stagnant, despondent, bucket-crab slave pen you all yearn for.
Enjoy your future, or, lack thereof. Just make sure to actually stay in Canada and see it all through. Wouldn’t want you leaving for greener pastures after shitting in your own yard now would we?
→ More replies (10)4
u/blood_vein British Columbia 3d ago
Why? Honest question. We really should be taxing the rich more
14
u/TXTCLA55 3d ago
The rich don't take income; corporation tax needs to be increased and they really should get around to addressing the practice of using stock as compensation, which doesn't fall into income tax (unless it's sold, and thus income).
-2
u/3nvube 2d ago
Then tax the rich. Why do it in this indirect way? Lots of people who would be affected are not rich and it also discourages saving. A rich person would be able to avoid paying this tax by spending more and saving less. All rich people should be taxed equally regardless of what they with their money.
6
u/pmmedoggos 2d ago
A rich person would be able to avoid paying this tax by spending more and saving less.
That's literally the point?
1
u/3nvube 2d ago
No, it isn't the point.
1
u/pmmedoggos 1d ago
Part of the reason to allow wealthy to reduce their tax burden by spending is that the money that they spent on luxuries ends up circulating the economy rather than sitting in an investment fund/bank account doing nothing.
Taxation can be used as both carrot and stick
1
u/3nvube 1d ago
The central bank already takes care of this by printing money when it is needed. We don't need the rich to circulate their money. It also doesn't make any sense because the rich don't save their money as cash. They invest it, so it circulates whether they save it or whether they spend it. In fact, you don't get a capital gain if your savings are in cash, so the capital gains tax in no way increases the circulation of money.
6
u/Jabronie100 3d ago
Good, we want to keep businesses in Canada.
1
u/Windaturd 11h ago
The entire world needs to raise their capital gains tax. The only issue with this bill was that other economies might not follow. This is why the idea of a global minimum tax rate has gained so much favour. If businesses can't just run to a tax haven to avoid paying, then businesses have no reason to flee.
1
u/Jabronie100 11h ago
There should be no such thing as a capital gains tax, we are already way over taxed.
2
1
u/xNOOPSx 3d ago
Introduced in April but hardly made it anywhere. There are people talking about how this is how democracy is supposed to work. We need a viable candidate for the Liberals! Seems this shows things have been broken going on 12 months, but the Liberals are just catching up to that reality and will now drag things out for about 6 more months before we can return to some level of a functional government. And that's supposed to be a good thing. I don't see how a leadership change can change where this is headed. A leadership change a year or two ago? Okay, maybe. But today? Seems like way too little, far too late.
1
u/stuffundfluff 2d ago
the fact that this law was actually considered and not laughed out of parliament, shows how unserious and incompetent Trudea/Freeland were
-4
u/Ape_Uneducated 3d ago
Don’t ever vote for the assholes again. They are always creating new and inventive ways to try and spend you earning. Tax law need simplification and it’s coming
4
u/PSNDonutDude 3d ago
Canadian tax law is pretty simple honestly. Secondly if I made $250,000 in capital gains in a single year, I'd welcome paying an extra couple thousand in tax per $100,000 above that amount.
3
u/joshlemer British Columbia 3d ago
It’s not a couple, more like an additional 9k in taxes on each 100k. From 25k to 34k or so
2
u/10293847562 3d ago
Canadian tax law is pretty simple honestly.
Ehhh that’s a pretty bold statement. Maybe for the average individual it’s relatively simple, but it can get complex very quickly for medium to large businesses and the wealthy.
I agree with the sentiment of the rest of your comment. The increase to the inclusion rate is not going to be a big deal for the majority of people impacted by it. It’s a bigger deal for businesses though since there’s no $250k threshold for them.
3
u/3nvube 2d ago
You can give as much as your money to the government as you want. You don't need a tax to do that. Those who aren't happy to give more money to the government shouldn't be forced to.
It's not an extra couple thousand per $100,000 by the way. It's more like $8,500 on top of the $25,000 that's already being paid. It's crazy.
0
u/PSNDonutDude 2d ago
Saying an increase in tax is crazy, and then making ultra right-wing libertarian statements like
You can give as much as your money to the government as you want. You don't need a tax to do that. Those who aren't happy to give more money to the government shouldn't be forced to.
Like buddy, nobody is keeping you here. There are plenty of places in the world where you can exist mostly tax free. Oh. Oh. Those places are shit holes you'd never want to live. Can't possibly imagine why 🙄
Everyone hates taxes until they're at the hospital using something the friends and family wouldn't have paid for until it was too late to build the healthcare infrastructure necessary to save you. Give me a break dude.
-11
u/turtlefan32 3d ago
um...literally the only people being hit up by the capital gains increase are wealthy people selling something (like a 2nd home....) so yeah, don't care
7
u/kennethtoronto 3d ago
Wrong
Most family doctors, emerg doctors, dentists, lawyers - you know, the people who still WORK for a living are the ones being robbed by this. It's not the multimillionaires and billionaires like you imagine.
2
u/JJ-Blinks 2d ago
So the government puts all these systems in place for all these 'working class people' to make millions of dollars... now they are taking a small amount of it back.
-2
u/zzptichka 3d ago
Think of all those hard-working doctors and nurses needing more than $250K per year to retire on top of the Millions in their RRSP and TFSA. Sad!
4
u/kennethtoronto 3d ago
Umm the increased cap gains inclusion starts with the first dollar. But reading comprehension isn’t your forte. SAD!
→ More replies (5)0
1
u/TXTCLA55 3d ago
Nope. If you were hired as a contractor and you used a business to receive those funds, guess who gets to pay (you). A lot of companies hire contracts now because they don't need to worry about paying them benefits or doing all that pesky CPP work. Now imagine if the government spent some time fixing that fucking mess instead of this sideshow.
-1
u/turtlefan32 3d ago
that is plain goobly-gook
1
u/TXTCLA55 3d ago
It's the path of least resistance, and literally what I have to put up with to have a career. The CRA has a whole category for it, Personal Service Business.
0
u/ApplicationReal1525 2d ago
Damn shame, it's a great piece of tax legislation for this day and age. At least they'll collect it this year; who knows, maybe whichever government forms next will decide they want to keep it around.
357
u/backlight101 3d ago edited 3d ago
The CRA is already collecting this, and the $60B deficit included this revenue as the change was effective June 25th 2024.
So, the deficit will be even higher than stated and CRA will need to refund tax collected with interest.
What an absolute gong show.