Including one other tax on your own home isn’t sensible politics

Article content material

Critiques and suggestions are unbiased and merchandise are independently chosen. Postmedia could earn an affiliate fee from purchases made via hyperlinks on this web page.

There have been plenty of stories final week in regards to the prime minister and finance minister assembly with a government-funded assume tank to debate a wide range of points involving “generational equity,” one in every of which was the introduction of a house fairness tax.

Article content material

This specific assume tank, Technology Squeeze, appears to assume that one of many methods to allow the youth to afford a brand new house is to go after older individuals who have labored arduous traditionally to avoid wasting sufficient to purchase a house and repay their mortgages. Such older individuals’s houses have usually benefited from many years of capital appreciation.

“Gen Squeeze believes that it’s time to guard actual shelters, not tax shelters. It’s unfair to maintain a system through which the arduous work Canadians do day by day of their jobs is taxed greater than the wealth householders acquire from rising costs whereas they sleep and watch TV,” it says on its web site.

“Step one is placing a value on housing inequity by including a modest surtax on houses valued at greater than $1 million. This surtax will apply solely to the highest 12 per cent of high-value houses; the overwhelming majority of Canadians received’t pay a penny extra. However it’ll assist decelerate residence costs so earnings have an opportunity to catch up, demonstrating allegiance to the Canadian dream {that a} good residence must be in attain for what arduous work can earn.”

The assume tank’s web site is stuffed with the standard left-wing victimhood messaging, but it surely’s fairly clear that older Canadians are the obvious drawback.

Article content material

Article content material

Ignoring that, is a house fairness tax a good suggestion? The quick reply isn’t any. Canadians already pay a protracted listing of taxes on their houses, reminiscent of municipal property taxes, carbon taxes and GST/HST on new builds, renovations and utilities. As well as, if the eventual disposition of their residence or rental property doesn’t qualify for the principal residence exemption, they can even pay capital beneficial properties taxes to the extent the property has appreciated.

How a house fairness tax will remedy the issue of affordability is a thriller. Proposing new taxes is straightforward. Governments can actually cost a tax on just about something in the event that they assume the coverage aligns with its supposed income targets. What to do as soon as the tax revenues are raised is the powerful half. And that’s the place many left-leaning fiscal insurance policies fail.

Within the current case, if a house fairness tax is imposed, the affected properties will presumably — because the above quote suggests — turn into extra reasonably priced for kids to buy. That appears doubtful to me. Market worth goes again to fundamental supply-and-demand economics. If demand exceeds provide, costs will improve.

Article content material

A house fairness tax proposal is in keeping with the bogeyman strategy to housing points that our present authorities, supported by left-leaning assume tanks, has taken.

First, it was foreigners that had been the issue. Accordingly, Canada launched a ban on foreigners buying Canadian actual property (this ban was lately prolonged to the top of 2026). As well as, it was these foreigners who had been “underutilizing” actual property, and so cities reminiscent of Vancouver, Toronto and others launched a type of empty houses tax, and the federal authorities adopted swimsuit in 2022 with its Underused Housing Tax debacle.

The second bogeyman was these flippers of actual property, so the federal government launched the ridiculous and duplicative flipping tax in 2023. The third bogeyman had been the evil short-term rental homeowners and operators who function in an space that bans short-term leases, so the federal government launched a ridiculous and harmful rule to deny expense deductions to such individuals.

And, now, it’s these darn older individuals who labored arduous all through their lives to accumulate and repay their houses and had the great fortune of capital appreciation.

Article content material

Housing provide is a multi-faceted and sophisticated societal subject. Frequently introducing tax guidelines to go after people who find themselves the perceived drawback is just politics — and poor politics at that — on the expense of excellent coverage. For instance, our nation’s housing points are instantly tied to elevated and uncontrolled immigration, so our immigration insurance policies have to be amended.

That doesn’t imply, nonetheless, that sure current tax guidelines that influence housing, such because the principal residence exemption, shouldn’t be reviewed. I’ve lengthy said, together with in a current podcast episode of mine, that the principal residence exemption could be very beneficiant given the limitless quantity that may be claimed. Different nations, reminiscent of america, have limits on their principal residence exemption.

Maybe within the context of total tax reform/overview, the principal residence exemption might be reviewed and higher focused. That may be very tough on condition that the exemption could be very cherished and enshrined. Any authorities that took among the current advantages away would probably pay a excessive political value.

Article content material

Sir Winston Churchill famously said, “I contend that for a nation to attempt to tax itself into prosperity is sort of a man standing in a bucket and making an attempt to elevate himself up by the deal with.”

Historical past is clearly a very good information. For instance, regardless of the continual chatter that revenue inequality might be solved with a wealth tax, the historical past of such an imposition is horrible and ineffective, so solely a handful of nations nonetheless have such a tax.

Within the current case, given how determined our present authorities is for tax revenues to prop up its bloated spending and political fortunes, nobody must be stunned at any new type of tax that’s floated.

New taxes, nonetheless, usually are not the reply to our nation’s points. As a substitute, good governance, management and financial insurance policies would go a great distance towards uniting our divided nation.

Kim Moody, FCPA, FCA, TEP, is the founding father of Moodys Tax/Moodys Personal Consumer, a former chair of the Canadian Tax Basis, former chair of the Society of Property Practitioners (Canada) and has held many different management positions within the Canadian tax group. He may be reached at kgcm@kimgcmoody.com and his LinkedIn profile is https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimmoody.

_____________________________________________________________

When you like this story, join the FP Investor E-newsletter.

_____________________________________________________________

Bookmark our web site and help our journalism: Don’t miss the enterprise information you should know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and join our newsletters right here.

Article content material