New posts

2016 BC Property Assessment

Jan. 10, 2017, 2:37 p.m.
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 4, 2006

I don't think people are going to be financially ruined by a $570 increase but it's just a bummer when that means $570 of what used to be play money, or investment money or whatever, is now going to taxes to help buy more snow ploughs and salt to keep the city working [

FTFY

Jan. 10, 2017, 5:19 p.m.
Posts: 1584
Joined: June 20, 2003

^^ I'm sure if you're really concerned about the snow removal budget, you could donate your home owners' grant to the city.

Jan. 10, 2017, 6:20 p.m.
Posts: 8
Joined: Aug. 20, 2010

The problem with the system is that a 200000 dollar 3 bdrm house doesn't cost less to service than a million dollar house . Just because the perceived value of a house has gone up doesn't mean the homeowner should foot a higher tax bill.

Property taxes are not set based on the cost of servicing a property. They are based on wealth (assessed value).

Some muni services could be set based on cost of service, and some are - utility services like water, sewer, and garbage. The taxes for these are often called charges, in an attempt to distinguish them from taxes.

But lots of municipal functions are social services (all the homeless stuff that CoV funds for example, libraries, parks and recreation, etc.) are not appropriate to bill on usage.

Jan. 10, 2017, 7:18 p.m.
Posts: 15468
Joined: May 29, 2004

Property taxes are not set based on the cost of servicing a property. They are based on wealth (assessed value).

Some muni services could be set based on cost of service, and some are - utility services like water, sewer, and garbage. The taxes for these are often called charges, in an attempt to distinguish them from taxes.

But lots of municipal functions are social services (all the homeless stuff that CoV funds for example, libraries, parks and recreation, etc.) are not appropriate to bill on usage.

And I consider this a problem. Just because the home you own is "worth" much more than you paid for it,doesn't mean you could afford to buy it at today's "value".

Jan. 11, 2017, 7:31 a.m.
Posts: 8
Joined: Aug. 20, 2010

And I consider this a problem. Just because the home you own is "worth" much more than you paid for it,doesn't mean you could afford to buy it at today's "value".

I agree.

Jan. 11, 2017, 7:42 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Aug. 12, 2007

if you owned a property for 20 or 30 years in Point grey that you bought for what is now chicken feed or maybe you inherited it ?

the lot can now be easily worth 3 or 4 million

I think the people dying on the streets in the DTES should organize a rally in sympathy for these people getting free houses. Won't anyone think of the rich!

treezz
wow you are a ass

Jan. 11, 2017, 12:33 p.m.
Posts: 7707
Joined: Sept. 11, 2003

I think the people dying on the streets in the DTES should organize a rally in sympathy for these people getting free houses. Won't anyone think of the rich!

Yeah, inheriting a $4 million dollar home sucks ass.

Jan. 11, 2017, 12:53 p.m.
Posts: 683
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

And I consider this a problem. Just because the home you own is "worth" much more than you paid for it,doesn't mean you could afford to buy it at today's "value".

but if you sold it at today's "value" you'd definitely hit a windfall and have way more cash than before.

I'm not a human in real life, I just play one on the internet. 

Jan. 11, 2017, 1:11 p.m.
Posts: 2285
Joined: Feb. 5, 2005

but if you sold it at today's "value" you'd definitely hit a windfall and have way more cash than before.

Up until you try buy something else in Vancouver.

I've been trying to talk by folks into cashing out, retiring 8 years early, and buying waterfront in the Kootenays.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That's the problem with cities, they're refuges for the weak, the fish that didn't evolve.

I don't want to google this - sounds like a thing that NSMB will be better at.

Jan. 11, 2017, 1:12 p.m.
Posts: 2345
Joined: Sept. 5, 2012

Yeah, inheriting a $4 million dollar home sucks ass.

fucking government will bleed the estate dry with taxes and such

#northsidetrailbuilders

Jan. 11, 2017, 1:15 p.m.
Posts: 14004
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

fucking government will bleed the estate dry with taxes and such

https://turbotax.intuit.ca/tax-resources/deceased-tax-returns/is-inheritance-taxable.jsp

Inherited property
From a tax standpoint, two general types of inheritances exist. These are:

  • cash and personal property, and * property that may grow or decline in value, such as investments or real estate.

At the time of inheritance, there's no tax for you as recipient on either type, since these are taxed while still being part of the estate. In the case of cash and personal property, that's usually it. Property with changing value, such as stocks and land, is called capital property. When you receive an inheritance of this type, you receive it at its fair market value. For example, consider some stock worth $10,000 when you receive it. You're not taxed on this at the time of the inheritance, but if you sell the stock in two years for $12,000, you are taxed on the $2,000 increase, called a capital gain.

Jan. 11, 2017, 1:21 p.m.
Posts: 683
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Up until you try buy something else in Vancouver.

I've been trying to talk by folks into cashing out, retiring 8 years early, and buying waterfront in the Kootenays.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

it depends what you're buying in vancouver though.

if you're basically buying straight across then there's not much point after you factor in transfer tax, realtor/lawyer fees, moving costs, etc in which case i would suggest people would be better off renovating. that would apply in the past as well but is probably more compelling now with current pricing.

if you're buying down via a smaller home or moving further away then it comes out as a win.

I'm not a human in real life, I just play one on the internet. 

Jan. 11, 2017, 1:53 p.m.
Posts: 15468
Joined: May 29, 2004

it depends what you're buying in vancouver though.

if you're basically buying straight across then there's not much point after you factor in transfer tax, realtor/lawyer fees, moving costs, etc in which case i would suggest people would be better off renovating. that would apply in the past as well but is probably more compelling now with current pricing.

if you're buying down via a smaller home or moving further away then it comes out as a win.

So an 80 year old widow shouldnt expect to be able to live out her days in her family home without deferring the tax burden onto her estate?

To many people a home is just that….a home,not a cash cow that should be subject to market fluctuations. I remember about 10 years ago folks were starting to be taxed out of their own homes in NV.

Jan. 11, 2017, 1:57 p.m.
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sept. 27, 2004

So an 80 year old widow shouldnt expect to be able to live out her days in her family home without deferring the tax burden onto her estate?

To many people a home is just that….a home,not a cash cow that should be subject to market fluctuations. I remember about 10 years ago folks were starting to be taxed out of their own homes in NV.

Economics's have put and end to that way of thinking.

"X is for x-ray. If you've been bikin' and you haven't had an x-ray, you ain't goin' hard enough." - Bob Roll

Jan. 11, 2017, 2:02 p.m.
Posts: 14635
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

well sure but trust me at around 80 you want to get them outa that house with the 35 yars of national geographic mags, the 20yars worht of saved empty yogurt containers in the basement and the cellar full of 25 yar old preserves into a 1 or 2 bedroom condo with an elevator/no stairs/ no storage

Forum jump: