3 ms·

I find it hard to complain too much about untaxed wealth in the form of primary residences. This is a vehicle that is available to vast swathes of the American

I find it hard to complain too much about untaxed wealth in the form of primary residences. This is a vehicle that is available to vast swathes of the American & Canadian public. As such, it doesn’t really bolster the argument that wealthy people somehow pay less taxes, which is what I was responding to.

mistermann 9y ago
Does this bolster the argument? https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3ddbwb/vancouver-dirt-now-earns-twice-as-much-as-all-of-the-citys-workers-combined https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3ddbwb/vancouver-dirt-now... In case the logic isn't obvious: If you own a house, you are wealthy. Houses earn more than wages. No taxes are paid on capital gains of primary residence. Why should I have to pay higher taxes because I worked my ass off in school and continue to work my ass off, but someone who lucked into winning the modern day Canadian lottery gets a free ride? The legislation wasn't written with this scenario in mind I can tell you that for sure. Our historic social contracts are starting to break down, if the state doesn't uphold it's end of the bargain, I don't see why I should uphold my end.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  I know plenty of non-wealthy, middle and working class people (born to middle and working class parents) who own houses. They aren't wealthy because they still have a mortgage for most of the value of the house. They may be wealthy in 30 years when their mortgage is paid off, but they aren't now. Wealthy citizens of the U.S. and Canada all had to pay income taxes on the money they used to buy the assets they own. People who are wealthy enough to get by entirely on income generating assets were probably at one time in the top income tax bracket, which means they forked over about 50% of their income to the government. Which, btw, is a much higher percentage rate than people in the lower tax brackets. So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of it in taxes) to get to that point. So maybe it's not actually that unfair. And, since high earners pay a higher tax rate, maybe it's actually kinda fair.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of it in taxes) to get to that point. Usually, but not always. That's the point. In some geographical regions in the world, ownership of real estate is starting to trump everything. When it comes to net worth, your income is largely a rounding error. Strangely, when this discussion is raised, a variety of standard responses seem to be raised, in this case, "oh, you're saying that this is the case always and everywhere - since that is obviously false, therefore your entire premise if false, end of discussion". Another common conversational diversion tactic (that worked for several years in Canada) was shutting down any complaint by playing the race card. Since it is usually people from mainland China (unsurprisingly, considering the scope of new wealth in that country) who are involved in massive real estate appreciation is most parts of the world, again and again in all Western countries we've seen dissenting voices silenced by accusing them of racism, often by their very own governments who are supposed to be managing these things and protecting the best interests of citizens. And boy is it effective, up to a point. Citizens in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are finally getting fed up with their governments to brush off racism accusations, but it's far too little, too late - things are so far gone, nothing can be done without destroying the Frankenstein economies that the overall economy depends on. I often wonder if that was the plan. People living in the US probably don't notice this nearly as much, as you have a large population and enjoy a massive and powerful economy, whereas foreign entrance into our markets cause significant effects.
    - toasterlovin 9y ago
      I think we’re largely aligned here. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I’m very open to restrictions on foreign purchases of residences. And I totally agree with your remarks about charges of racism being used to shut down valid complaints about a government not privileging the interests of its own citizens over citizens of other countries. I am a little more optimistic about things in general, though, for a couple of reasons: 1. I think Canada has a serious construction policy problem. My wife is from Langley, BC (we were just there over the Easter weekend). There is tons of land available to build on in BC. It’s incredulous that housing costs are so high with so much undeveloped land. 2. All it takes is a crash to flush all the investors out of the housing market.

mistermann 9y ago

Does this bolster the argument? https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3ddbwb/vancouver-dirt-now-earns-twice-as-much-as-all-of-the-citys-workers-combined https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3ddbwb/vancouver-dirt-now... In case the logic isn't obvious: If you own a house, you are wealthy. Houses earn more than wages. No taxes are paid on capital gains of primary residence. Why should I have to pay higher taxes because I worked my ass off in school and continue to work my ass off, but someone who lucked into winning the modern day Canadian lottery gets a free ride? The legislation wasn't written with this scenario in mind I can tell you that for sure. Our historic social contracts are starting to break down, if the state doesn't uphold it's end of the bargain, I don't see why I should uphold my end.

toasterlovin 9y ago
I know plenty of non-wealthy, middle and working class people (born to middle and working class parents) who own houses. They aren't wealthy because they still have a mortgage for most of the value of the house. They may be wealthy in 30 years when their mortgage is paid off, but they aren't now. Wealthy citizens of the U.S. and Canada all had to pay income taxes on the money they used to buy the assets they own. People who are wealthy enough to get by entirely on income generating assets were probably at one time in the top income tax bracket, which means they forked over about 50% of their income to the government. Which, btw, is a much higher percentage rate than people in the lower tax brackets. So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of it in taxes) to get to that point. So maybe it's not actually that unfair. And, since high earners pay a higher tax rate, maybe it's actually kinda fair.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > So, do wealthy people have it easier than non-wealthy people? Yes. But they had to earn an unbelievable amount of money (since they had to pay half of it in taxes) to get to that point. Usually, but not always. That's the point. In some geographical regions in the world, ownership of real estate is starting to trump everything. When it comes to net worth, your income is largely a rounding error. Strangely, when this discussion is raised, a variety of standard responses seem to be raised, in this case, "oh, you're saying that this is the case always and everywhere - since that is obviously false, therefore your entire premise if false, end of discussion". Another common conversational diversion tactic (that worked for several years in Canada) was shutting down any complaint by playing the race card. Since it is usually people from mainland China (unsurprisingly, considering the scope of new wealth in that country) who are involved in massive real estate appreciation is most parts of the world, again and again in all Western countries we've seen dissenting voices silenced by accusing them of racism, often by their very own governments who are supposed to be managing these things and protecting the best interests of citizens. And boy is it effective, up to a point. Citizens in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are finally getting fed up with their governments to brush off racism accusations, but it's far too little, too late - things are so far gone, nothing can be done without destroying the Frankenstein economies that the overall economy depends on. I often wonder if that was the plan. People living in the US probably don't notice this nearly as much, as you have a large population and enjoy a massive and powerful economy, whereas foreign entrance into our markets cause significant effects.
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    I think we’re largely aligned here. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I’m very open to restrictions on foreign purchases of residences. And I totally agree with your remarks about charges of racism being used to shut down valid complaints about a government not privileging the interests of its own citizens over citizens of other countries. I am a little more optimistic about things in general, though, for a couple of reasons: 1. I think Canada has a serious construction policy problem. My wife is from Langley, BC (we were just there over the Easter weekend). There is tons of land available to build on in BC. It’s incredulous that housing costs are so high with so much undeveloped land. 2. All it takes is a crash to flush all the investors out of the housing market.