this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
10 points (64.7% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
415 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Plus, BMO hikes target on the TSX

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Thank you for replying. If I understand correctly, you are saying that principal appreciation ( unlike income ) is not taxable like income is.

There is some truth to that. Property sold for a profit is taxed as capital gains but at a lower level than income. On your primary residence, there is an exemption. And your point that you can essentially “spend” appreciation without selling by borrowing against the equity is a good point ( without attracting taxation ).

I am not sure I agree that this withholds tax revenue from the government though. After all, asset appreciation is kind of money from nothing. It does not represent money that came from somewhere without getting taxed. And, as above, this newly created money results in new tax revenue. Even borrowing creates new money in the economy, including consumption taxes.

What all this new money does is devalue money as well, which devalues cash savings but also devalues debt.

I will have to think about your perspective a little more. At the moment, your other points feel stronger.

There is no doubt at all though that “ownership” accelerates wealth inequality as assets tend to appreciate faster than wage growth.