Kelsenellenelvial

joined 2 years ago
[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I’m not that knowledgeable about finance and economics, but I feel like the flight thing is overblown. If it’s a company based in Canada making profits outside of Canada, bringing those profits back and deciding to leave then that would be a loss. If it’s a company based in Canada and making profits in Canada and they decide to leave, either we can still tax a cut of their business before it leaves the country or some Canadian alternative can fill the gap. Of course this all assumes there’s somewhere else to go that’s more favourable, and I don’t see a 16% increase in the inclusion rate tipping that scale for a large portion of businesses.

Maybe we should reconsider the environment we provide that would both make that increase significant enough to have a business leave for somewhere else, and also that it’s cheap enough to modify operations that way. Are all the staff going to come too, or is this just some Hollywood accounting that offshores assets with no real change in operations.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

Sask Apprenticeship and Trade Certification Commission has a similar policy of no electronic devices in the classroom. They can be outside the classroom during breaks(of which there are many). You’re allowed to have them on you, and leave class to take or make a call if you consider it important enough, just can’t have them out in the classroom. While it would have been nice sometimes to have access to network connected devices to supplement the classes, I can also understand the arguments around privacy, and distraction particularly among children/teens.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Couldn’t read the paywalled article, but most of the commentary on social media seems to be people that completely misunderstand how their taxes on capital gains are calculated, like thinking the inclusion rate is how much tax is paid, or think that paying capital gains on a secondary property is a new thing. Really it’s paying around 8% more in taxes on the gain over $250k. Some think they’re getting taxed on the whole sale price, not just the increased value, some seem upset that they’re taxed on the “investment” that was bought with after tax dollars(even though capital gains is taxed lower than things like a regular investment account). Some think it’s somehow unfair to pay the capital gains on what they consider their retirement plan, even though they have the same option to put those gains into an RRSP to shelter it from taxes, they’re paying a lower inclusion rate than regular income.

One thing that seemed to come out that didn’t change much and seems a big deal to some, is if you want to pass the property to next of kin, make sure your estate is sitting on 25% of the increased value of the property to cover capital gains, or use a trust and pay the gains up front(though this just puts it off so the kids pay more gains to pass it to their kids) before it hits the estate.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

It is like that, and how it works for GST/PST. If I buy something outside Canada(either website/mail, or in person by leaving and coming back) and that seller doesn’t collect and submit sales taxes then I’m expected to submit those taxes myself.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Agreed. I’m all for accepting and learning from other cultures. I’m not for propping up low wage employers with immigration, particularly when it involves exploitation in ways that the locals refuse to put up with. We’re reaching a point where the boomers are retiring and there’s not as many gen A/Z to fill those vacated positions. Let those low wage jobs sit unfilled until they can find a way to do business while paying decent wages and providing good working conditions. Or go ahead and let the entry level jobs get automated while the actual well paying ones compete for workers.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Considering the median individual income in Canada is close to $45k, that’s a good point. Maybe there’s an argument that seniors have additional living expenses with healthcare or living in an assisted living or full-time care facility, but I feel like it should then be a lower OAS clawback with supports available for those with particularly high expenses.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Some good points, putting a cap on the primary residence excemption seems more in spirit with the idea of wealth redistribution than simply removing it all together. We could also consider something like letting people claim their capital gains over multiple years which would lower the tax paid on those of lower income while it wouldn’t change anything for those that are consistently earning in the highest tax bracket.

Green space is tough because there’s definite benefits to urban green space. Like moderating urban temperatures, minimizing run-off of precipitation and its effect on the storm sewer system, providing habitat for native species(even if the green space isn’t completely native). Though that green space is probably more efficient if it’s managed by the municipality around denser housing rather than each individual homeowner.

I’m not so sure about the difference between adding units within existing square footage vs adding square footage. I think part of the problem is availability of reasonable quality housing within the budget of minimum wage earners. Having, smaller units available seems more cost effective in this context than larger ones. I think it’s particularly good for more people to be able to afford a smaller unit on their own rather than a splitting of a larger unit between roommates.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

It’s a start, and keep in mind their value is based on global operations, but it’s only reasonable for Canada to charge tax on the Canadian portion of the business. We account for about half a percent of the world population, so if everybody else has a similar rule and proportional spending it would work out close to $300 billion per year.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

This is the most important part to me. Aside from a handful of fringe cases, this targets exactly the group that many have asked to be taxed higher. Majority of people complaining seem to completely misunderstand how the tax system works and what exemptions apply. In most cases it seems like the changes don’t actually affect the things that people are worried about, or the actual difference is much lower. For example, many are worried about paying tax on the sale of their homes(primary residence exemption), their parents homes(only capital gains on period between transfer of ownership and sale, not all the way back to the parents’ original purchase price), they think the tax rate is 50/66%(that’s the amount of the gain that is considered income and taxes at the marginal rate) or they don’t understand that capital gains tax was already a thing and the actual difference is an additional 16% claimed for amounts over $250k, which means the actual difference in tax paid under the old and new systems is just a few percentage points unless the gains are significantly over $250k.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

No capital gains on principal residence. It would only come up on things like rental properties, cabins, or any other second property.

There’s also things like of a person has RRSP room and ends up in the edge case where this comes up just once or a few times in their life, they can use that to hold off the income tax until they can claim it at a lower tax bracket. If one isn’t put over by a single sale, (say selling multiple rental properties at retirement) they could spread those sales over multiple years to maximize that first $250k rate.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No capital gains on principal residences, so the new rules would affect things like rental properties and secondary residences like a cabin.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Apple does have a setting for regular, automatic, local backups. Though I wish they could do that while also automatically backing up to iCloud. My iCloud backup is under 5 but that’s partly because lots of stuff is already stored in iCloud. I think the real issue for a lot of people is when they have multiple devices, like work and personal phones and/or iPad or two, that all want to backup to that 5 GB. I always thought a compromise like the first 5 GB of a devices iCloud backup doesn’t count towards the iCloud storage. This solves the multiple device backups issue and still keeps a modest base amount of storage so people with just one device still have an incentive to purchase additional storage.

view more: ‹ prev next ›