People are finally talking about shifting income tax to take some of the money out of the housing market:
First:
a lifetime cap of $1-million on the personal residence capital gain exemption […] would limit unproductive investment in the real estate sector by discouraging retirement strategies based on the gains made from selling a house. It would also stop the investment strategy of buying a house, renovating, living in it the minimum amount of time to claim the tax credit and then flipping it for a tax-free gain.
They note that the lifetime cap wouldn’t hit most Canadians in lower-cost communities. It should mostly hit higher end houses and higher income taxpayers.
Second:
a limit applied to the amount of interest that can be recorded as a business expense for single-family residences let as rental properties
They’re suggesting these changes because
investors are the fastest growing mortgage segment with a 30-per-cent share of mortgaged home purchases nationally in the first part of this year, up from 19.6 per cent in 2020. They are now a bigger segment than repeat homebuyers and, over the past few years, have taken 6 per cent of market share from first-time buyers
Thanks for the correction, I bungled the captial gains on home sale.
I’m still not sure how capital gains exemption limits impacts investors at all though.
It reduces the potential profit(the return) of investment properties on their appreciation by around 20-25%.
If holding property was giving them an 8% annual return before, now it would only give them 6%. That may not seem like a lot to most people, but to large investors that 25% reduction in return is absolutely massive and pushes them towards investing in other types of assets instead.
When they put their money elsewhere it reduces the demand for properties and thereby lowers prices.
I gather all that; my point is that this is an exemption for principal residences. This would have no impact on investment properties, as they don’t get principal residence exemptions anyways.
Sure, there’s a segment of house flippers (with or without improvements), but they are only occupying one residence at a time, so there is no impact on total housing stock.
There are still loopholes in these rules that can impact it, both of the legal and illegal variety.
For example having a suite in a house usually doesn’t cause capital gains to apply, but it’s partially an investment property at that point. This can be argued all the way up to almost a duplex level of “suite” in some cases.
One of the things people fail to realize is that the supply/demand curve isn’t just for the actual housing. There’s also demand from a strictly financial perspective. If I have an opportunity to make money off simply living in my home, and I can borrow money to make that money, why would I not try to maximize that profit by buying more than I need.
This causes people to pay more for housing than they otherwise would, because they expect to make a return on it regardless. I’m guilty of this myself, my family of 5 owns a house far larger than we need, and we’ve seen appreciation of about 400k in the 3 years we’ve lived here. If we had bought a smaller home, that would have been a smaller increase.
Unfortunately I don’t expect the government to fix this problem anytime soon and if that happens at least there’s even enough space for my kids to live here (even with partners potentially) well into their adulthood.
That appreciation you have seen on your principle residence isn’t really accessible though. You have to live somewhere. If you were hit with capital gains tax on your primary residence, it would impart a whole lot of financial friction on ever being able to move.
Let’s say you need to re-locate, or upsize/downsize; the house you are moving too also has appreciated, but you have to buy that house at the new, appreciated price, and ALSO pay the capital gains on the 400k. That financial friction on being able to move is bad for everyone. It keeps people in inappropriate houses, or commuting long distances, and doesn’t do anything to improve housing affordability.
It does effectively become a transfer of wealth (from lack of taxes) from young to old, as they downsize, and reap the financial windfall. However, that could be clawed back with estate taxes. If you penalize downsizing, you create an even bigger incentive to stay in oversized housing, as you mention. If anything, not being allergic to property tax increases is probably the only thing that would encourage people to rightsize.
I’m just going to point out that that friction doesn’t occur until you’ve made 1 million dollars in profit. You won’t make that off moving condos every few years.
It doesn’t really penalize downsizing that much either, since you’re now realizing that massive windfall. In a downsizing situation the new house would be far cheaper anyways. The tax amount is not that much. To need to pay capital gains on 400k, you’d need to have appreciated by 1.4 million… and then the tax on 400k is taxed at half your income tax rate (that’s how capital gains works) so it’s really only going to be around 80k in tax, on something like a 2-2.5 million dollar sale.
To be clear, captial gains ALWAYS applies, you can just apply for exemption for personal use.
If you have you have a rental, suite that portion of the residence is not available for personal exemption.
Sure, you can argue it, but it’s fraud unless it is a “relatively small in relation to its use as your principal residence.” (Plus the other two criteria). If it doesn’t share a bathroom and kitchen, it’s definitely not “relatively small”.
Oui, puis non. There’s certainly differences on decisions that people make, but the total amount of required rental + owned housing stock remains the same. There’s some flexibility in rental stock, but that’s a function of number of roommates people are willing to accept.
I’ve just assumed my children will never leave, and hope that the situation improves enough that they can. Helps me sleep at night.
Your link to the rental suite capital gains part includes the exceptions that most people qualify for, including the relatively small part. “relatively small” usually just means less than half, and includes full suites just fine.
https://househuntvictoria.ca/2020/10/15/does-a-suite-risk-capital-gains-tax-a-professional-perspective/
So the CRA is chosing not to enforce. That whole article was “what is my risk level of getting caught and assessed”
Cops not enforcing speed limits does not make speeding legal.