应该解释不清吧？你们有时间在这里长篇大论，却没时间简单解释下2%的问题？既然需要藏着掖着，那好，不勉强，免得你们这些ndp的吹鼓手们难堪。。。
Hello Comeback 大哥 这是NDP的Proposal 基本上所有税务居民都不受影响的哦 房子住了五年以上，退休人士，都不会因为个人所得税交不够而被打税
POLICY PROPOSAL: B.C. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY FUND
Housing costs pose a significant challenge for Lower Mainland households. Among the factors contributing to price growthis the inflow of money into the local housing market. We propose a B.C. Housing Affordability Fund (BCHAF) thatdelivers cash to BC residents, paid for by property owners with limited residential or economic ties to B.C. The BCHAFwill make British Columbia a better place to live and work, by making B.C. a less attractive target for investors who wish toavoid taxation or park cash in residential real estate.
Description and Precedent
The BCHAF will be funded by a new 1.5% property surcharge on residential real estate. The revenues will then bedistributed as lump-sum payments to all Canadian tax filers in any area included. The tax would target owners of vacant properties and those with limited economic or social ties to Canada. All other owners will be exempt. The proposed BCHAFcontribution structure would provide broader exemptions than those under the Home Owner's Grant, by allowing non-resident landlords and not-yet-landed immigrants with taxable Canadian earnings to claim exclusions.
Exemptions for Homeowners
Nearly all resident owner-occupiers should be exempt from the surcharge on one of the following bases:
Veterans and disabled persons and those living with them would be exempt, as in the B.C. Home Owner'sGrant.
Canadian residents of retirement age would be exempt if they are recipients of Canada Pension Plan benefitsor qualify for Old Age Security.
Those who contribute to the local economy will have their BCHAF contributions reduced or eliminated. TheBCHAF surcharge would be reduced dollar-for-dollar by Provincial and Federal income taxes paid by allmembers of the household. For example, the owners of a $1,000,000 home would face a $15,000 BCHAFcontribution in a given tax year. If this household paid $15,000 or more in income taxes, they would not haveto contribute to BCHAF. If they paid $10,000 in income taxes, they would owe at most $5,000 to BCHAF, ifnot otherwise exempt.
1
Those who have been part of the local economy for a long time would be exempt. Specifically, tax filers whohave claimed their current homes as their principal residence for a significant number of years would beexempt. This would protect homeowners who are long-time residents of their communities, but would not beable to buy in at prevailing prices. The exemption could be a lifetime benefit so that households moving to adifferent home later in life would remain exempt.
Exemption for Rental Housing
To provide incentives for rental housing, and disincentives for leaving units vacant, non-occupant investors would only beable to claim exemptions for occupied rental units. Owners of rental properties should be allowed to offset BCHAFcontributions based on the rental revenue they report to CRA. This could involve providing credits against the surcharge forgross rental revenue, or setting minimum gross rental revenue levels to claim complete exemption from the BCHAF charge.To accommodate periodic vacancies, landlords might be allowed to average across multiple years. To prevent fraud,exemptions should be denied for leases between family members.
Implementation
Which jurisdictions should impose an affordability surcharge is a political question. We recommend that the BCHAF bespecific to a given locale, with jurisdictions choosing to join. By keeping the taxes paid in and the benefits granted specificto a given jurisdiction, BCHAF would provide the most help to those facing the strongest impacts of vacant units and capital1 To further protect working homeowners, legislators may want to allow unused income tax credits to cover future years'contributions, and to offer couples where both partners earn moderate incomes a credit to reflect income tax progressivity. To further protect households, all taxes paid by all individuals claiming a tax home at a given addressshould be credited, whether the payer is on the title or not.
inflows on affordability.
2
For any jurisdiction that participates in the BCHAF, revenues will be distributed as an equal lump-sum amount to alltaxpayers in that jurisdiction. Eligibility for receiving the lump-sum payment will merely require filing the regular incometax and benefits return (T1) and being a resident of the jurisdiction.
Precedent
A total property tax rate of 2% is no higher than in many U.S. jurisdictions, and the BCHAF structure would retain ratesunder 0.5% currently faced by most households. The difficulty of building new housing units in the Lower Mainlandsuggests that the property tax share of revenues generated in B.C. should be relatively high, and the income tax burdenlower. BCHAF would represent a small step in the direction of tax efficiency, without imposing higher obligations on thevast majority of B.C. taxpayers.
Economic Impacts
Estimated Benefit
BCHAF could provide considerable benefits to B.C. residents. Based solely on vacancy data, we estimate the surchargecould provide residents with roughly $90 million per year in Vancouver alone.
3
Revenues would likely be greater than thisestimate, which is based only on vacant units, because there are likely owners of high end B.C. properties who would notqualify for any of the exemptions to the surcharge listed above. As politicians have emphasized, we lack the detailed data onincome and taxes paid to make a precise forecast of potential revenue. An added benefit of the BCHAF program would beto obtain these data.
Financial Inflows and Vacancy
An additional effect of BCHAF could be an improvement in affordability by reducing the inflow of cash to residential realestate, thus reducing upward price pressure. We doubt that our proposal would have a detectable effect in this way. While asignificant surcharge might discourage investment in B.C. housing, the number and composition of immigrants to Canada islargely determined by Federal immigration policy (though B.C. does have an increasingly important role through theProvincial Nominee Program). Given the excess demand for Canadian residency, we expect this proposal to have a limitedeffect on the inflow of capital with immigrants. Our expectation is that the primary benefit is to provide cash to amelioratethe negative effects of these capital flows on local residents.Implementation of BCHAF would make participating jurisdictions less attractive to investors hoping to invest in real estatewithout paying taxes. In contrast, it would make B.C. a more attractive place to live and work. Critically, by raising the costof holding a property vacant, BCHAF would also provide investors with an incentive to rent out currently vacant propertiesto B.C. residents.
4
Conclusion
By taxing activities that make housing less affordable for current B.C. residents, the proposed BCHAF can providesignificant benefits to Lower Mainland communities. Creating BCHAF would be a feasible and economically meaningfulresponse to the rising tide of global financial flows into B.C. residential real estate. We have designed BCHAF to maximizethe cash benefits available to those who live and work in BC, while creating exemptions to minimize the possibility thatsuch residents would face any new tax burden.2 An alternative would be to raise funds at the provincial level, and use proceeds to reduce tax rates. This would enhanceoverall efficiency, but would be difficult to implement when individual municipalities are choosing whether to join.3 The estimated share of units in the City of Vancouver not occupied by usual residents is greater than it is in otherCanadian cities. We assume that this difference in rates reflects investor held units subject to the proposed surcharge. Forour calculations we assume these rates are 7.5% for condominium units and 2% among other housing units. If we assumethat this rate is the same for both high and low value units, then using B.C. Assessment data and 2015 assessment values,incremental property tax paying into the BCHAF from the City of Vancouver alone would amount to $90 million per year.4 Immigration into participating jurisdictions would only increase to the extent that BCHAF makes living in B.C.more affordable, so the net effect could not be to reduce affordability to a representative household.
