Quote:
Originally Posted by Tien
We're talking about real estate since this is what this tax went right after.
The capital gains inclusion rate is broad spectrum across the entire economy, it wasn't focused on real estate at all. When I speak about things like making income/capital gains/dividents all cost the same basic amount in taxes so there isn't an imposed bias one way or the other, this is thanking over the entire economy. There were billions of dollars of incentives for housing in the budget, though, that is a sector getting a tonne of privileged treatment which makes sense given the need for housing.
Quote:
Give me more capital to work with and I will be doing more of these.
Sure, that's nice, but this isn't an argument for capital gains specifically. If you had a higher inclusion rate but a lower corporate tax, it would be the same thing. If personal income tax was less, the corporation can pay less in salaries for the same benefit to individuals and again have more capital to invest. Same for lowering the taxes on dividends. I gave an example earlier where because capital gains were previously less than other mechanisms of returning value to shareholders, that this incentivizes stock buybacks specifically over dividends as a mechanism. So yes, more capital in any industry creates the potential for more growth, but it is better to be tax neutral and lower rates than to be asymmetric.