3507 replies to this topic

[Sparky]

That article is timely and pertinent and begs the question. Does anyone know of a central point which lists all of the proposed resolutions?

[Kungsberg]

That article is timely and pertinent and begs the question. Does anyone know of a central point which lists all of the proposed resolutions?

I think you'll find it here, Sparky -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

http://www.ubcm.ca/E...-responses.html

[Sparky]

^ Perfect. Thanks Kungsberg.

[VicHockeyFan]

They hope to discourage “flipping” and speculative purchase of homes, which drive up prices and leave properties sitting empty as investors reap profits.

 

Their resolution calls for a portion of the province’s property transfer tax revenue, plus a share of capital gains tax, to be dedicated to municipal affordable housing and transit.

 

 

How do they hope to do that?  Do they for example want a higher property transfer tax if a home is flipped quickly?  The province already gets more tax in that case.  Heck, if a property flips 6 times in a year, it makes multiples more than my house I sit on for 10 years.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

How do they hope to do that?  Do they for example want a higher property transfer tax if a home is flipped quickly?  The province already gets more tax in that case.  Heck, if a property flips 6 times in a year, it makes multiples more than my house I sit on for 10 years.

 

One of the resolutions they are proposing is a phased-in exemption for Capital Gains Taxes on primary residences. So if you sell your primary residence within a year, you're paying a higher percentage of Capital Gains Tax than someone who sells their primary residence after, say, 10 years.

[Mike K.]

Ah, but if only life were as simple as our politicians tell us it is.

 

Consider for a moment:

Bill purchases a pre-sale condo in September of 2017, which is earmarked by the developer for completion in March of 2019. Bill eventually finds out the unit won't be habitable until May 2019. He had purchased a little condo back in 2014, too, which he intends to rent out when he moves into his new condo.

 

Fast forwarding to May of 2019, Bill (two years and six months since we last talked to him) has met a nice lady and has had a child. But the studio Bill bought two years and six months ago won't be large enough for him, his partner and his newborn baby for very long. So in July of 2019, Bill and his partner decide to buy a two-bedroom condo but Bill will continue renting out his other condo because he's signed a one-year lease with the tenant.

 

Meanwhile officials at City Hall have decided that Bill and his partner are "reaping a profit," and they're terrible people for having bought a home that will be sold at a higher value just several months after occupancy. Despite the fact they don't make a heck of lot of money, that they've just had a baby and are looking for a larger (costlier) home for their growing family, they must now pay an additional tax.

 

How is that just or fair, FTHC?

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

Ah, but if only life were as simple as our politicians tell us it is.

 

Consider for a moment:

Bill purchases a pre-sale condo in September of 2017, which is earmarked by the developer for completion in March of 2019. Bill eventually finds out the unit won't be habitable until May 2019. He had purchased a little condo back in 2014, too, which he intends to rent out when he moves into his new condo.

 

Fast forwarding to May of 2019, Bill (two years and six months since we last talked to him) has met a nice lady and has had a child. But the studio Bill bought two years and six months ago won't be large enough for him, his partner and his newborn baby for very long. So in July of 2019, Bill and his partner decide to buy a two-bedroom condo but Bill will continue renting out his other condo because he's signed a one-year lease with the tenant.

 

Meanwhile officials at City Hall have decided that Bill and his partner are "reaping a profit," and they're terrible people for having bought a home that will be sold at a higher value just several months after occupancy. Despite the fact they don't make a heck of lot of money, that they've just had a baby and are looking for a larger (costlier) home for their growing family, they must now pay an additional tax.

 

How is that just or fair, FTHC?

 

Lot's to unpack here.

• In order to pay Capital Gains Taxes, Bill must be making a profit on the sale of his condo. Paying higher taxes just means his profit is a little lower. It doesn't mean he's losing money or not making a profit.
• City hall officials are not deciding Bill is a terrible person. They are enforcing a policy decision that happens to impact Bill.
• There are many, many people for whom current economic conditions are neither just nor fair. People in my generation are paying significantly more of their income on housing costs than earlier generations, and the time required to save for a down payment is now signficantly longer than it was for earlier generations. For many people in my generation, the consequences are going to be much more dire than just making less of a profit when selling a condo. As far as I'm concerned, evening the playing field between homeowners and those who want to become homeowners is fair and just.
• It is your right to believe in and advocate for a society in which economic conditions are allowed to dictate fairness and policy makers are not. But don't try to pretend that your version of society is somehow fairer and more just simply because you can't trace the injustice back to a policy decision.
• I am not the author of the policy, I am merely reporting it. I support it, but I did not actually say that I supported it in my original post. It's not my responsibility to defend its merits.

[Mike K.]

Capital gains taxes are pretty high, though, and for generations British Columbians have been buying and selling property just as they are now. But the difference today is the government is salivating for more money so the lowest hanging fruit are the easiest pickings.

 

But what if Bill loses money on his condo sale? Where's the government then?

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

Capital gains taxes are pretty high, though, and for generations British Columbians have been buying and selling property just as they are now. But the difference today is the government is salivating for more money so the lowest hanging fruit are the easiest pickings.

 

But what if Bill loses money on his condo sale? Where's the government then?

 

I think the difference now is that economic conditions have allowed housing prices to inflate beyond reason and voters want change.

[Mike K.]

Voters may want change but they won't get it unless local governments stop enforcing the urban containment boundary and allow density to far, far outpace the current thresholds.

 

We've seen the completion of over 1,000 purpose-built rental apartments over the last 12 months. About 2,000 units have been completed since 2015. But as we can all see, that has had a negligible effect on the rental housing vacancy rate.

 

Taxing people will not solve the issue, either. It's like the $1 million we as tax payers put toward the Azzurro project that once upon a time was to contain some 60-units of 100% affordable housing, but which is now only 2/3's affordable housing with arguably the most expensive new-build apartment in the entire CRD listed at that project ($1,600 for 480 square feet, no in-suite laundry, no parking, seventh floor). So the $1 million tax payers gave towards this development, $1 million that came from my pocket and your pocket, appears all but lost in translation.

[lanforod]

Capital gains taxes are pretty high, though, and for generations British Columbians have been buying and selling property just as they are now. But the difference today is the government is salivating for more money so the lowest hanging fruit are the easiest pickings.

 

But what if Bill loses money on his condo sale? Where's the government then?

 

You write off losses against future taxes...

[Mike K.]

You are not allowed to deduct losses from the sale of a primary residence.

[lanforod]

Yes, currently. If a change to a minimum amount of time lived is made, they would also need to allow losses to be claimed if capital gains could be claimed.

 

Isn't the main argument for making a minimum live time (ie. 1 year) to slow down or prevent flipping?

[Mike K.]

Is that what they’re going for, to make it a one year minimum?

[Wally]

Capital gains taxes are pretty high, though, and for generations British Columbians have been buying and selling property just as they are now. But the difference today is the government is salivating for more money so the lowest hanging fruit are the easiest pickings.

 

But what if Bill loses money on his condo sale? Where's the government then?

 

Where the Government usually is if you take a risk and fail - you get the 'Trudeau salute' and off they go.

[sdwright.vic]

And what would of Harper done? Just curious because some of you are adamant about defending a party.

[sdwright.vic]

You are not allowed to deduct losses from the sale of a primary residence.

If you list it as your primary shouldn't you have to live in it? Or is this just another "useless" loophole that doesn't need closing?

[Mike K.]

Harper dropped the GST to 5% from 7%, he dropped the corporate tax rate and introduced a fitness tax credit and an arts tax credit. He also gave post-sec students an education tax credit. Harper also wanted to reduce small business taxes.

Trudeau killed both of the credits for kids. He also killed income splitting for parents. He killed Harper’s education tax credits. The plan to lower small business tax has been deferred. And now, Trudeau has instead chosen to go after small business altogether. Meanwhile he cut taxes for the upper middle class.

At this rate we’ll be lucky if Trudeau “doesn’t” raise the GST to 8%.

[Mike K.]

If you list it as your primary shouldn't you have to live in it? Or is this just another "useless" loophole that doesn't need closing?

With plans to require people to live in that residence for a year, that could cause unintended consequences for regular folks caught between an agenda and the realities of life.

[tjv]

 

Lot's to unpack here.

• In order to pay Capital Gains Taxes, Bill must be making a profit on the sale of his condo. Paying higher taxes just means his profit is a little lower. It doesn't mean he's losing money or not making a profit.
• City hall officials are not deciding Bill is a terrible person. They are enforcing a policy decision that happens to impact Bill.
• There are many, many people for whom current economic conditions are neither just nor fair. People in my generation are paying significantly more of their income on housing costs than earlier generations, and the time required to save for a down payment is now signficantly longer than it was for earlier generations. For many people in my generation, the consequences are going to be much more dire than just making less of a profit when selling a condo. As far as I'm concerned, evening the playing field between homeowners and those who want to become homeowners is fair and just.
• It is your right to believe in and advocate for a society in which economic conditions are allowed to dictate fairness and policy makers are not. But don't try to pretend that your version of society is somehow fairer and more just simply because you can't trace the injustice back to a policy decision.
• I am not the author of the policy, I am merely reporting it. I support it, but I did not actually say that I supported it in my original post. It's not my responsibility to defend its merits.

 

sorry no one is forcing you to live here.  If you can't afford to live in Victoria, they have nice houses in Winnipeg for 250k

 

you should get in now before that $1 million house is worth $2 million.  Victoria is a desirable place to live and the free market, not the government, is responsible for the increase in housing costs.  Maybe you should tell your employer its too expensive to live here and demand a raise