The principal residence deduction might be considered to be the only tax break that most middle-class, Canadians who are employees for their working life will ever get. Employees don't get a whole lot of tax deductions as we learned in Ch 3. All Canadians are able to make RRSP contributions, and many have pensions and can contribute to a TFSA. But, for many people their largest investment is their home, and many sell their homes in order to finance an eventual stay in a retirement or long-term-care facility.

Recently the Globe and Mail published an article arguing that the principal residence exemption should be eliminated and that this would result in lower housing prices and change the market for rental housing which could help reduce homelessness.

Read the attached article below and the various letters to the editor that appeared the day after this article was published. Take a side, and respond to some of the following questions in your argument to support your thoughts on this important issue:

1) Do you think the principal residence exemption should be eliminated? Why or why not?

2) What are the potential costs to Canadian society of keeping this tax break?

3) What are the benefits of continuing it?

After you have completed your post, comment on ONE other person's post. Pick someone that no one else has picked yet, and pick a post that has taken the other side of the argument if at all possible. What are your thoughts about the other person's perspective? Have they convinced you to rethink your original post?