Adding another tax on your home is not smart politics

Article content material

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

There have been quite a few reviews final week concerning the prime minister and finance minister assembly with a government-funded suppose tank to debate quite a lot of points involving “generational equity,” considered one of which was the introduction of a house fairness tax.

Article content material

This explicit suppose tank, Technology Squeeze, appears to suppose 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 individuals’s houses have usually benefited from a long time of capital appreciation.

“Gen Squeeze believes that it’s time to guard actual shelters, not tax shelters. It’s unfair to maintain a system wherein the laborious work Canadians do on daily basis of their jobs is taxed greater than the wealth householders 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 ought to be in attain for what laborious work can earn.”

The suppose tank’s web site is stuffed with the same old left-wing victimhood messaging, however it’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 brief reply is not any. Canadians already pay a protracted record of taxes on their houses, equivalent 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 can 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 suppose the coverage aligns with its supposed 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 into extra inexpensive 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 method to housing points that our present authorities, supported by left-leaning suppose 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 equivalent 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 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 laborious all through their lives to amass and repay their houses and had the great fortune of capital appreciation.

Article content material

Housing provide is a multi-faceted and complicated societal subject. Regularly 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 fine coverage. For instance, our nation’s housing points are instantly tied to increased and uncontrolled immigration, so our immigration insurance policies have to be amended.

That doesn’t imply, nevertheless, that sure current tax guidelines that impression 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 may be very beneficiant given the limitless quantity that may be claimed. Different international locations, equivalent to america, have limits on their principal residence exemption.

Maybe within the context of general tax reform/evaluate, the principal residence exemption may very well be reviewed and higher focused. That will be very tough on condition that the exemption may be very cherished and enshrined. Any authorities that took among the current advantages away would doubtless 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 carry himself up by the deal with.”

Historical past is clearly a great information. For instance, regardless of the continual chatter that earnings inequality may very well 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 ought to be shocked at any new type of tax that’s floated.

New taxes, nevertheless, usually are not the reply to our nation’s points. As a substitute, 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 could 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 Publication.

_____________________________________________________________

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

Article content material