LMVDR said:
The rental income could very easily be passive. It depends how the asset is held and the owner’s principal business. These taxes are frightening the hell out of the business community for good reason.
Click to expand...

No! By definition, it can not be passive because whoever rents out the condo owns and/or manages it, and thus is very deeply involved with the business. Passive income is the opposite of that - income earned by activities that the business has no material involvement with.

"Principal" business doesn't matter. The same corporation can do two completely unrelated things, and neither's profits would be considered passive income as long as the business (or one of its subsidiary, parent or sibling businesses) has material involvement with the business activity.

LMVDR said:
What the PM and the FM are proposing is tantamount to theft
Click to expand...

Ok...
 
amnesiajune said:
No! By definition, it can not be passive because whoever rents out the condo owns and/or manages it, and thus is very deeply involved with the business. Passive income is the opposite of that - income earned by activities that the business has no material involvement with.

"Principal" business doesn't matter. The same corporation can do two completely unrelated things, and neither's profits would be considered passive income as long as the business (or one of its subsidiary, parent or sibling businesses) has material involvement with the business activity.



Ok...
Click to expand...

June you clearly have amnesia again.

If the asset is held in a corp or a trust passively by say a dentist or a group of passive partners and managed by a third party property manager it could very easily see the tax rate climb to over 70% based on the draconian and immoral proposals by our socialist leaders. That’s at risk capital that taxpayers are choosing to to put into our economy.

If you find that to be an acceptable tax policy then you obviously have severely anti-business idealogies.
 
LMVDR said:
If the asset is held in a corp or a trust passively by say a dentist or a group of passive partners and managed by a third party property manager it could very easily see the tax rate climb to over 70% based on the draconian and immoral proposals by our socialist leaders.
Click to expand...

"Socialist leaders" - better to have amnesia than delusion.

Anyways, you're completely wrong. If the asset is wholly owned by that dentist or those partners, it's not passive. A passive asset is one where the owner has no involvement except for the piece of paper (or nowadays, the digital record) indicating that they own it. By paying things like maintenance fees and property taxes, a condo that you own and rent out is not a passive investment, even if you hire a third party to manage it.
 
Anyways, you're completely wrong. If the asset is wholly owned by that dentist or those partners, it's not passive. A passive asset is one where the owner has no involvement except for the piece of paper (or nowadays, the digital record) indicating that they own it. By paying things like maintenance fees and property taxes, a condo that you own and rent out is not a passive investment, even if you hire a third party to manage it.
Click to expand...

Not if the investor has no involvement at all and just owns a limited partnership interest in an entity that owns, manages and controls the asset. And that structure represents a huge chunk of the market for real estate investments.

You’re here on Urban Toronto admiring and celebrating all the incredible new buildings being developed in this great city. Do you think the building boom will continue if the profits from all those buildings are taxed at 70% in the hands of the PASSIVE investors that fund them? Are you telling me that the proceeds from those investments will not be taxed at a higher rate?

Wake up from your socialist daydreaming June bug.
 
amnesiajune said:
You're all kinds of wrong on this. Might as well be saying that the Liberals are gonna make the sky red.
Click to expand...

Wow June Bug. What a well thought out and factually supported argument. You’ve really proven your point.

Go crawl back in your little hole called ignorance.

Note: this is my last comment in this thread. I won’t respond to anything further. My time is too valuable to waste on willfully blind idealogues who think punishing businesses people and entrepreneurs is a sport.
 
Okay, LMVDR has just gone on holiday. It's fine to debate, but when you start calling other members names, you cross a line set out in UrbanToronto's Rules of Conduct. If anyone has forgotten what is in there, it's here so that you can read it again!

42
 
Promotional material reminds me of all the reasons why I don't really like King Street, although the modern architecture is some of the best in our city.
 
Yesterday late afternoon:

DSC04341.jpg
DSC04342.jpg
DSC04343.jpg
DSC04344.jpg
DSC04345.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC04341.jpg
    DSC04341.jpg
    309.2 KB · Views: 578
  • DSC04342.jpg
    DSC04342.jpg
    324.5 KB · Views: 542
  • DSC04343.jpg
    DSC04343.jpg
    304.9 KB · Views: 492
  • DSC04344.jpg
    DSC04344.jpg
    332.1 KB · Views: 586
  • DSC04345.jpg
    DSC04345.jpg
    262.1 KB · Views: 499
That was a pretty well done promo video, really dig the song. Probably could have had more of the actual building in it though.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top