|
It would be part of a greater policy to distribute wealth. Why should people be allowed to get richer from doing nothing and make use of services for which they don't pay (enough) tax? Do you want to live in a society that promotes the proliferation of the rentier class?
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Why should it he income? Presumably your benefactor paid tax on it when they earned it in the first place. The developer we got the contract from paid taxes on their income from previous condo sales which they are using to build the building. My boss is then taxed on the income from our contract to make the building's signs. I'm then taxed on the money my boss pays me, and my landlord is taxed on the rent he collects from me, and the plumber is taxed from the money he gets from my landlord. It gets taxed every time it changes hands. I don't see how inheritance should be any different. I know it's not, I understand it's placed in a happy special category. I think it should be treated as any other source of income. Add up how much money you got that year minus your deductions and bam, that's your taxable yearly income. I don't care if it was 50k from wages, 20k from inheritance, 5k from stocks, and 50k from the pile of gold you found in your backyard. Add that poo poo up, taxed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It allows for the concentration of wealth in certain families, and works against the general concepts of both economic equality and meritocracy. I don't think it's the people getting $50,000, or even $500,000, that folks here are particularly concerned about. If we make an inheritance tax exemption up to a certain level, and either tax the rest progressively and/or allow for "deductions" based on bequeathing a certain amount of your estate to charity, I think it would strike a good balance between people wanting to pass on their estate to their children (or anyone else; if I'm pre-deceased by my parents, right now my assets would be divided among my close personal friends and some charities -- should those be handled differently because it "breaks up" the wealth instead of concentrating it in a family?). Perfectly said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The developer we got the contract from paid taxes on their income from previous condo sales which they are using to build the building. My boss is then taxed on the income from our contract to make the building's signs. I'm then taxed on the money my boss pays me, and my landlord is taxed on the rent he collects from me, and the plumber is taxed from the money he gets from my landlord. It gets taxed every time it changes hands. I don't see how inheritance should be any different. I know it's not, I understand it's placed in a happy special category. I think it should be treated as any other source of income. Add up how much money you got that year minus your deductions and bam, that's your taxable yearly income. I don't care if it was 50k from wages, 20k from inheritance, 5k from stocks, and 50k from the pile of gold you found in your backyard. Add that poo poo up, taxed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Cap gains rate is to incentivize investment. Investment boosts economic growth and should be something that the government, as a rule, wants to encourage. I know this is the argument usually advanced, and presumably you agree with it, but I think it's horseshit. As my posts in the Canadian Finance thread hopefully make clear - I'm a believer in markets and investment, etc and not at all someone with hyper-socialist leanings like many of D&D's denizens, but I don't see why a special tax rate is necessary to encourage people to sell poo poo they own on at a higher price. It strikes me as absolutely unfair that someone with a pile of capital and decent investing skills can realize $50k of gains in one year, and pay precisely half the tax of the poor bastard working away in some office park to earn that as a salary. No "incentive" is necessary - capital will always seek to grow itself irrespective of the tax rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Why should it be income? Presumably your benefactor paid tax on it when they earned it in the first place. That comment reminded me instantly of this cartoon I read once upon a time: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:All of your examples are exchanges for goods and services. Gifts are not taxable in Canada whether through inheritance or any other means. Yeah, we know that's the current law, thanks. The question is whether or not that's reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
I guess I've been misreading inheritance taxes all this time! Here I thought we had a reasonable approach to estates, and again I've been disappointed. I guess I've been misinterpreting the liquidation of assets and paying the taxman for it as income/gains to be the same thing as the inheritor playing the taxman for the income/gains he is about to get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Yeah, we know that's the current law, thanks. The question is whether or not that's reasonable. As for whether it should be this way, the socialist in me certainly thinks we should have an inheritance tax for wealth redistribution reasons with a healthy exemption, but for the good of society, not because "it's all income." I think, related to that, there should be an yearly limit on how much a person can receive as a gift tax free to avoid loopholes with the inheritance tax. I think in both cases the taxes should be lower than income tax, though, since the money is not income for goods or services. More generally, inheritance tax is an idiotic, messy and inefficient way to prevent the concentration of wealth, especially when the very rich can easily put money in trusts and shell companies and many other schemes to mitigate inheritance taxes. A higher income tax on rich people, and higher corporate taxes, would do a much better job of preventing the concentration of wealth from happening in the first place than a once or at most twice a century partial taking of the pot that wasn't hidden well enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I know this is the argument usually advanced, and presumably you agree with it, but I think it's horseshit. As my posts in the Canadian Finance thread hopefully make clear - I'm a believer in markets and investment, etc and not at all someone with hyper-socialist leanings like many of D&D's denizens, but I don't see why a special tax rate is necessary to encourage people to sell poo poo they own on at a higher price. It strikes me as absolutely unfair that someone with a pile of capital and decent investing skills can realize $50k of gains in one year, and pay precisely half the tax of the poor bastard working away in some office park to earn that as a salary. No "incentive" is necessary - capital will always seek to grow itself irrespective of the tax rate. There is competition for investment capital among countries. If I'm going to be taxed at 40% to invest in Canada and there are alternatives where I can significantly reduce that (there are) then my money will go elsewhere. A cap gains rate keeps liquid capital in country. Is no tax from cap gains better because wealthy investors move their money to other countries? Brannock posted:That comment reminded me instantly of this cartoon I read once upon a time: That cartoon is disingenuous at best. Do you know who mostly receives bank dividends? It's not 'wealthy people'. It's the huge segment of the market that owns most of the Canadian banking (for example) stocks via their pension and mutual funds. How about a small business owner? Should they need to pay full tax at the corp and personal level and when they dividend out to buy food for their kids?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:How about a small business owner? Should they need to pay full tax at the corp and personal level and when they dividend out to buy food for their kids? I honestly wonder if most of the people criticizing cap gains rates have done this calculation. It's fascinating, because corporate income tax and taxes on eligible dividends comes out so very close to what you'd pay in personal income tax on the same amount that I don't think any reasonable person could say it's a mere coincidence. PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:That cartoon is disingenuous at best. Do you know who mostly receives bank dividends? It's not 'wealthy people'. It's the huge segment of the market that owns most of the Canadian banking (for example) stocks via their pension and mutual funds. How about a small business owner? Should they need to pay full tax at the corp and personal level and when they dividend out to buy food for their kids? Why is that a problem? Two different entities are being taxed, the business and the individual shareholder. I've never been sure were this idea came from that 'double' taxation is fundamentally unjust. I think your example sets up a strange dynamic: the business owner created a separate entity to limit personal liability, then claims to be that entity when they want to complain about taxes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I honestly wonder if most of the people criticizing cap gains rates have done this calculation. It's fascinating, because corporate income tax and cap gains on dividends comes out so very close to what you'd pay in personal income tax on the same amount that I don't think any reasonable person could say it's a mere coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
For all you libertarian supermen building equity and working as contractors, there are several shitheels such as yourselves getting absolutely raped with back taxes in Calgary's IT sector. One such person is currently owing a couple hundred thousand to CRA. He had to take out a mortgage on his awesome house. Keep paying yourselves sweet sweet dividends assholes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
You've become slightly deranged over the course of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:There is competition for investment capital among countries. If I'm going to be taxed at 40% to invest in Canada and there are alternatives where I can significantly reduce that (there are) then my money will go elsewhere. A cap gains rate keeps liquid capital in country. Is no tax from cap gains better because wealthy investors move their money to other countries? Um, doesn't that investor's own national tax treatment come into play when their Canadian capital gains are assessed? Conversely, if I double my money on a Rogers, Verizon, or Vodafone stock purchase and sell as a Canadian resident, the tax is the same. And I'd have performed the transaction regardless of the tax rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:For all you libertarian supermen building equity and working as contractors, there are several shitheels such as yourselves getting absolutely raped with back taxes in Calgary's IT sector. One such person is currently owing a couple hundred thousand to CRA. He had to take out a mortgage on his awesome house. What the everloving gently caress are you talking about and how is it relevant?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:What the everloving gently caress are you talking about and how is it relevant? If I have to assume the worst, and why wouldn't I, it's probably something aimed at me given the choice of location and industry. So, uh, I won't commit tax fraud, I guess? Good advice! I don't see what lying on one's taxes has to do with anything other than one's willingness to lie on taxes. I feel like there are some posters in this thread that are rightly concerned about a significant problem in our economy, and others that are just super loving bitter about their bad luck and/or other assorted problems. PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:09
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:You've become slightly deranged over the course of this thread. Which will burst first, the housing bubble or Cultural Imperial's brain
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:Which will burst first, the housing bubble or Cultural Imperial's brain The market can remain irrational longer than you can retain your sanity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
PT6A posted:cap gains on dividends What's a capital gain on a dividend?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:What's a capital gain on a dividend? EDIT: Yeah, I misspoke. This is why I pay a dude to do my taxes. PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Dividends are considered capital gains for tax purposes, instead of normal income, but are taxed at a separate rate, I believe. I may have phrased that badly, though. Completely and utterly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:I'm curious why you think that parents leaving estates to their kids and this transfer not being taxed is a bad thing. Because, you know, man... it's not fair. And my parents aren't rich, man.... so screw that guy!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Completely and utterly wrong. Yeah, never mind. I got confused and said a stupid thing. I can only guess I meant to say "investment income" or something, because I know they're taxed at different rates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Completely and utterly wrong. Well, they're NOT taxed as capital gains but they are indeed taxed at a different rate... so not "completely and utterly."
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:Well, they're NOT taxed as capital gains but they are indeed taxed at a different rate... so not "completely and utterly." No need to defend me, I definitely misspoke. I knew that dividends were taxed at a different rate than capital gains, but for some reason I had it in my head that dividends were a sub-class of capital gains, which I have now learned they are not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No need to defend me, I definitely misspoke. I knew that dividends were taxed at a different rate than capital gains, but for some reason I had it in my head that dividends were a sub-class of capital gains, which I have now learned they are not. It just goes to show that the existing tax system is anything but easily understood by a lay person. Unfortunately, simplification while maintaining fairness is something I don't have an answer to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No need to defend me, I definitely misspoke. I knew that dividends were taxed at a different rate than capital gains, but for some reason I had it in my head that dividends were a sub-class of capital gains, which I have now learned they are not. PT6A posted:Yeah, never mind. I got confused and said a stupid thing. I can only guess I meant to say "investment income" or something, because I know they're taxed at different rates. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Sadly, I'm quite sober and I can't use that as an excuse. Just idiocy, I'm afraid. Pixelboy posted:It just goes to show that the existing tax system is anything but easily understood by a lay person. I feel like half the problem with our tax system, especially at the corporate level (where it affects small businesses the most) is that you're basically forced to choose between either paying the government $X extra due to deductions you didn't find, or paying an accountant the same amount to find them for you. I love doing my corporate GST returns... it's perfectly self-explanatory, short, and based on money I've earned vs. money I've spent. The T2 return is a long and hellish slog through things that seems awfully like nonsense to a layperson, and it's so long that a professionally-prepared return will cost $1500-2000 alone, even for a simple business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Um, doesn't that investor's own national tax treatment come into play when their Canadian capital gains are assessed? The short answer is that no, if the tax rate was high enough here for it to be worth the trouble and friction cost of investing via tax haven jurisdictions then a large part of mobile capital would do so. Alternatively, wealthy immigrants would say gently caress it and go somewhere with better weather rather than importing their wealth to invest in and pay taxes to Canada. Someone who's studied economics more recently could probably make some curved lines cross to show why this is the case from a fundamental point of view. In any case, we've strayed far afield from discussion of the housing bubble. I'm done commenting on this topic in here. Might fit better in the finance and investing thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
This article explains Canada's income tax pretty well. Don't get me wrong, I think fixed income investments being taxed at full rates is absolutely silly, but that's mitigated by holding them in RRSPs and TFSAs. http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/21/how-to-calculate-your-capital-gains-tax-or-not/
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
You know the tipping point is when the last bear throws in the towel? Everyone looking for an entry point can just sub this thread and watch for when Cultural Imperial finally caves and buys himself an Olympic Village condo. I'm not even joking, I started following US real estate blogs around 2005. That's exactly what happened word for word.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
never. gently caress you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You know the tipping point is when the last bear throws in the towel? Everyone looking for an entry point can just sub this thread and watch for when Cultural Imperial finally caves and buys himself an Olympic Village condo. In a twist of fate he gets crushed by a incorrectly installed condo window. It's sort of sad how Vancouver had a condo boom back in the 80s that cost the city billion of dollars including demo costs for poorly constructed abandoned condos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It allows for the concentration of wealth in certain families, and works against the general concepts of both economic equality and meritocracy. I don't think it's the people getting $50,000, or even $500,000, that folks here are particularly concerned about. If we make an inheritance tax exemption up to a certain level, and either tax the rest progressively and/or allow for "deductions" based on bequeathing a certain amount of your estate to charity, I think it would strike a good balance between people wanting to pass on their estate to their children (or anyone else; if I'm pre-deceased by my parents, right now my assets would be divided among my close personal friends and some charities -- should those be handled differently because it "breaks up" the wealth instead of concentrating it in a family?). To expand on this: since money is increasingly directly equatable with power and influence in our modern and progressive societytm, the lack of an inheritance tax is effectively handing not just undeserved capital but also considerable power to those least deserving of it in our society. Look at the absurd amount of control which Pattinson wields in Canada: he's a regressive old gently caress with a total monopoly on wide-reach advertising, and his children will inherit both the empire he's built and all the funds necessary to run it in perpetuity if they aren't retarded. What benefit to Canada is there in having our own little media dynasty with the funds to sway our government however they like?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:never. gently caress you! How selfish! Come on man, take one for the team. We can finally get this ball rolling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
In actual housing news: Fail to do due diligence before buying? Just sue for 50% of the purchase price!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Also this happened: http://m.thestar.com/#!/business/north-toronto-fixer-upper-gets-72-offers-goes-for-195-per-cent-of-asking/c0eba0d317df54eeb70f4c3b20bf87e4
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
That's actually considered to be a "fixer upper" in Toronto? Agents seriously point out Knob & Tube as a negative in the listings? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:02
|
|