Adding another tax on your home is not smart politics

Article content material

Evaluations and suggestions are unbiased and merchandise are independently chosen. Postmedia might earn an affiliate fee from purchases made by means of hyperlinks on this web page.

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

Article content material

This explicit 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 laborious traditionally to avoid wasting sufficient to purchase a house and repay their mortgages. Such older folks’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 during which the laborious work Canadians do each day of their jobs is taxed greater than the wealth owners achieve from rising costs whereas they sleep and watch TV,” it says on its website.

“Step one is placing a worth 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 would assist decelerate residence costs so earnings have an opportunity to catch up, demonstrating allegiance to the Canadian dream {that a} good residence needs to be in attain for what laborious work can earn.”

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

Article content material

Article content material

Ignoring that, is a house fairness tax a good suggestion? The brief reply isn’t any. Canadians already pay an extended listing of taxes on their houses, akin to 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 may even pay capital gains 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 simple. Governments can actually cost a tax on just about something in the event that they assume the coverage aligns with its meant income targets. What to do as soon as the tax revenues are raised is the robust 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 out to be 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 enhance.

Article content material

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

First, it was foreigners that have been the issue. Accordingly, Canada launched a ban on foreigners purchasing Canadian real estate (this ban was recently extended to the top of 2026). As well as, it was these foreigners who have been “underutilizing” actual property, and so cities akin to Vancouver, Toronto and others launched a type of empty houses tax, and the federal authorities adopted go well with 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 have been the evil short-term rental house owners 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 folks.

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

Article content material

Housing provide is a multi-faceted and sophisticated societal situation. Regularly introducing tax guidelines to go after people who find themselves the perceived downside 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 increased and uncontrolled immigration, so our immigration insurance policies must be amended.

That doesn’t imply, nevertheless, that sure present tax guidelines that impression housing, such because the principal residence exemption, shouldn’t be reviewed. I’ve lengthy said, together with in a latest podcast episode of mine, that the principal residence exemption may be very beneficiant given the limitless quantity that may be claimed. Different international locations, akin to the USA, have limits on their principal residence exemption.

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

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 attempting to raise himself up by the deal with.”

Historical past is clearly a superb information. For instance, regardless of the continual chatter that earnings 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 needs to be shocked at any new type of tax that’s floated.

New taxes, nevertheless, should not the reply to our nation’s points. As an alternative, good governance, management and financial insurance policies would go a good 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 neighborhood. He might be reached at kgcm@kimgcmoody.com and his LinkedIn profile is https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimmoody.

_____________________________________________________________

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

_____________________________________________________________

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

Article content material