I see the HOG opposite to how you guys do. They are putting a premium tax charge on people who own property but don't live in it. But it's way easier to sell the idea of a discount to the majority who live in the home they own than to propose an extra tax to those who don't.
None of you are lining the pockets of principal resident homeowners with your tax dollars. It's the owners of multiple properties who are being charged extra.
So a discount to single home principal resident homeowners is actually a premium tax on those that own multiple homes? Do I have that right?
Under 65? The criteria are clear. Own a principle residence up to 1.6Mil, get 570 from the gov't/taxpayer.
And before you suggest that you are unfairly treated because you get that tax passed onto you as a renter, consider the fact that you have no skin in the game and have taken on zero risk as a renter. I see a number of comments here that between the lines suggest that owning property is a risk free way to easy street. If so you're assuming two things; real estate always goes up, and just because it did the owner's basement filled with cash as a result. Look south for evidence to the contrary to point one.
No-one here is saying any of that; there's no-one saying between the lines that homes are risk free. What is being said is that there no sympathy when youre net worth increases 100-400k from last year and your property taxes go up as a result. Specifically, it's absurd that taxpayers are giving owners $570 with no means test. MSP, EI, Social Assistance/Disability reductions are based on income… what makes property tax reductions so special?
And there's no risk as a renter? That's as hyperbolic as saying the Homeowner's grant is just a premium tax on those multiple properties owners in disguise.
And as far as point two is concerned, consider your own deal and tell me how different your financial situation would be if the value of your piece of shit 45 year old car quadrupled and the insurance, gas and maintenance went way up too. Wouldn't mean shit unless you were to sell it and buy a scooter; the trunk is not full of cash.
I would say that my car is worth x4 more and run the numbers on the new costs relative to those gains. Plus, unlike cars, you can also borrow against those against those gains through leverging.
But i don't live in my car and wont be forced to sell if my income, or lack thereof, couldn't cover the 500-1k increase. And IF that increase really did put me in the position of real hardship where it just consumed, say +20% of my disposable income, I would sure hope that the level of help afforded to me is not the same level of help extended to those there it consumed 2% of someone else's disposable income.
It's a personal choice not to sell, grab the gains and reduce your costs of ownership. But it's not MY choice to support you, without advocating gov't to demand a test to determine whether or not you need taxpayer support. Especially in the face of '000,000s dollars in gains y-o-y.
And don't say property gains are really zero. By that analogy are the value of one's stocks/equity in a business/pension(if youre so lucky) also zero until you sell? No, that's just silly; ppl's net worth isn't wholly based on the the cash in their mattress.