Do you realize that 67% does not refer to the tax rate, but rather the amount of capital gains that are taxed as income? Meaning that the remaining 33% are always completely tax free?

Example: you sell an investment property for $2,000,000 which you had previously bought for $1,000,000. Your annual salary is $75,000.

In this example, of the $1,000,000 capital gain, 50% of the first $250,000 ($125k) is taxable and 67% of the remaining $750,000 ($500k) is taxable. So, add $625k to your salaried income of $75k and your total taxable income is $700,000.

The total income tax you would pay after the proposed increase (assuming you live in Ontario) is $342,103, which is $320,405 more than you would have normally paid on your salary of $75,000. Therefore, your effective tax rate on the $1M capital gain is roughly 32%, not the 60% you mentioned in your comment.

But what are those units? What do they mean? It’s labelled on one of the lines rather than the actual axis which is unusual to say the least.

Just thinking out loud… “U.S. Staah-laerh” ~= “U.S. Taah-laerh” ~= “U.S. Daah-laerh”?

I can understand L/100 km and MPG but km/L is just wack.

It really seems to me that municipalities simply don’t have the resources to support housing. Housing is a national problem and leaving it up to municipalities only creates perverse incentives to drive people experiencing homelessness out of your community into another, which isn’t doing anything to solve the underlying problem. We need a national housing first program, but this story demonstrates the importance of getting it right.

Governments should also be building public housing, like yesterday. People scapegoat landlords a lot but they are also subject to the laws of supply and demand. The only two levers the government has are to decrease demand (e.g. cracking down on short term rentals, stunting our economy by limiting population growth) and increasing supply (e.g. zoning in the missing middle, building affordable public housing).

Classic case of hating the game and not the player.

TD seemed happy to throw him under the bus, though.

As outrage grew, the same user posted a photo of an apparent reply from TD. “Thank you for bringing the video to our attention,” it said. “The alleged actions and messages captured in the video do not align with our TD values and culture of care. I can confirm that the individual named in the video no longer works at TD.”

This is unsurprising. The ODSP shelter portion is about $672/month for a single person. It’s very difficult to find shelter for that amount in most places in Ontario, for one.

non-investor landlords

Isn’t that an oxymoron? A landlord is by definition, an investor. Maybe you mean something else…

Right, but you can also rent affordable housing…

Are you suggesting that building affordable homes wouldn’t help anyone escape homelessness?

Landlords already can and do check the credit of tenants. The new change is only that paying rent affects your credit.

I feel like I’m missing something. Don’t we have a housing shortage, not merely an “owner-occupied” home shortage or a “rental” home shortage? Somebody please tell me what I’m missing.

If too many homes were owned by investors and rented out, why aren’t rented homes more affordable? If you say, “greedy landlords,” are you suggesting that the roughly 1.4 million landlords in Canada (source) are all effectively colluding? I find that highly implausible.

If we had sufficient housing supply for the demand in general, wouldn’t that result in lower prices to both rent and own, depending on what’s right for each individual?