Commander-in-Thief Trump Keeps Stealing My Ideas!!! Now He Wants to Eliminate Capital Gains Taxes on One's Primary Residence.

@DealingWithTrouble

As President George W. Bush would say, "It's not the government's money. It's the people's money."

And from a societal standpoint, I'd rather have cash-poor seniors being able to help themselves for their health care and retirement than having to pay $$$ to the federal government - only to end up in some nursing home (or the streets) because they can't afford health care and other living expenses.

You see, here in the U.S. we don't have socialized insurance as you are fortunate enough to have in Canada.

You have it both ways! No capital gains on the sale of a primary residence AND a single-payor health insurance system. So it's no wonder that working-class seniors in Canada are better off than seniors in the United States.

@beckyromero that's just a very regressive and inefficient way to subsidize seniors, since the ones who need help the most are the least likely to own their own homes - if you want to help them, cut them a check directly based on income, increase social security benefits, or target the money where it's needed some other way.


Spending is spending no matter what you want to label it, and blowing a $100 billion hole in the budget has to get paid off somewhere. First find $100 billion in spending you want to cut - maybe 1/6th of the entire national defense budget, or the entire department of homeland security?

Also the US already has Medicare for seniors once they're over 65 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) - it covers MORE than what Canadian health insurance covers, like drug coverage (Canada has limited drug coverage for some low-income people, but not as extensive as US Medicare).

From the perspective of American seniors, they're already getting better benefits than they likely would if they were living in Canada. American social security is also more generous than Canada's national pension plan (SS pays out an average of $1,900 a month - the maximum benefit under the CPP is $1,400 a month).

@DealingWithTrouble
😂 Health care!!!


Perhaps of you really believe that, you should move here. 😜

Most 65+ seniors pay $185/mo for Part B of Medicare (and that generally covers only 80% cost of outpatient care, doctor visits, preventive services, and some prescription drugs)

Medicare does not cover long term care.

By the way, I have for quite some time advocated raising taxes on the higher brackets.That's how I'd easily pay for it (and raise the defense budget to $1 trillion / year to boot).

I'd also eliminate the cap on taxing earned income for Social Security to help boost the Social Security Trust Fund.

@beckyromero



I'm not a senior - neither are you. But don't over-romanticize Canada either, our social safety net has problems as well.


Doctor visits in Canada are free, but a lot of those others you mentioned aren't covered at all, or only partially covered. And paying $185 a month when you're getting over $500/month more in benefits on average isn't the worst thing. It's very hard for you to make a direct comparison with all the different programs.


Okay, those are perfectly fine to do, why throw in a massively regressive policy that's just a massive giveaway to the rich on top of that? (And the US defense budget is already insane but that's really not part of the original conversation anyways)

The people who'd benefit from removing capital gains on housing are the people who need more money the least - housing speculators, flippers, realtors, and almost no "poor seniors" that you're claiming you want to help.

@DealingWithTrouble
I guess that depend on your definition of "rich."

Apparently, you want to lump all homeowners who would benefit from this as rich.

There are others who define rich as anyone wealthier than themselves.

People in certain parts of the world might categorize a homeless woman on the streets of New York as rich.

Wealth, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.


Speculators and flippers are already getting the CURRENT benefit because few properties ever reach the $250,000/$500,000 exemption.

The people who are NOT getting the benefit are seniors who have lived in the same home for decades.

But I am repeating myself and obviously not getting through because you think anyone who would benefit is "rich."

So it's pointless to continue this discussion.

@beckyromero
No, I'm just pointing out the fact that senior homeowners are going to be richer than seniors who don't own a home and the more someone benefits from the suggested change, the more likely they're rich by any other measure you want to use.

It's about correlation and effeciency. If you care about helping poor seniors, give money to poor seniors - don't set up weird tax exemptions that give some poor seniors a little money, and then a LOT of money to rich speculators.


That's a bit laughable as an example.


So get rid of the exemption instead and improve social security benefits and medicare benefits - those are the things you claim to actually care about, and you can pay for it easily if you target the changes directly that way and don't waste tens of billions of dollars on people who don't need it.