New posts

2016 BC Property Assessment

Jan. 14, 2017, 9:48 a.m.
Posts: 6
Joined: Jan. 12, 2006

fist bump

"your place went up 200k last year and is worth ONLY 1.3 mil? awe, poor muffin, i bet things are hard so here's some taxpayer money for your assessment increase"

Taxpayer grants for ppl with property values up to 1.6mil? Taxpayer funded downpayment schemes? Does anyone here think that subsidizing the country's highest cost property ownership is a responsible use of gov't effort and taxpayer money? Seriously… I just dont get it. What is the logic behind your support in subsidizing such a 'well off' segment of the population?

Sadly I'm starting to see how ppl like Trump get elected now; At some point a situation between two groups becomes so divergent that one group would rather burn the whole thing to the ground to try and instigate a change in just one area… I think BC might be close to this point. And like the Trump election, I bet that more than a few ppl don't understand how that can happen and don't see the small compromises needed ahead of time to avoid it.

Yep.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/dear-vancouver-renters-you-just-cant-catch-a-break/article33625132/

Yep.

"All of those perks for homeowners, by the way, are subsidized by you through your provincial tax dollars. Some estimates put the total amount at almost a billion dollars. Feels good to help, doesn’t it?"

Jan. 14, 2017, 10:01 a.m.
Posts: 13946
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

^^ cause homeowners aren't paying any taxes. It's all just perks.

Jan. 14, 2017, 10:21 a.m.
Posts: 2327
Joined: Sept. 5, 2012

so nice of people to automatically think that because a person who has a property worth 1.6Mil that their bank account and income reflects that , that,s fucking ignorant !!

I know lots of single income family blue collar workers sitting in situations like that because they where smart 25yrs back and bought land with a small house in the sticks .

#northsidetrailbuilders

Jan. 14, 2017, 10:34 a.m.
Posts: 8256
Joined: Nov. 21, 2002

Id agree with most of the article except this: "There is no interest-free loan for you to put toward a down payment because buying anything in Metro Vancouver is beyond your reach."

You need 5% down on a 300k apartment and the govt will match your downpayment with a 2 yr interest free loan. So you need to save ~$7500 to buy a place. Say $10k. Thats not beyong reach. It just means you ride the bus or your bike, you share a basement suite with a roomate, you have no data plan, you cook your meals at home, and dont ride a 2017 carbon super mtb. The choice is yours.

WTB Frequency i23 rim, 650b NEW - $40

Jan. 14, 2017, 10:40 a.m.
Posts: 15457
Joined: May 29, 2004

a property worth 1.6Mil

The property is valued at 1.6 m….not worth 1.6 m…..an important distinction as that same property may well only be valued at .5 m one day depending on where the market goes…

Jan. 14, 2017, 10:50 a.m.
Posts: 7306
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

in port moody they are asking for a 5% raise to the property taxes. Not a huge amount but still for some it might be one more increase.

I guess the shutting down of Burrard Thermal was a kick in the pants to the city's budget.

Jan. 14, 2017, 11:02 a.m.
Posts: 2327
Joined: Sept. 5, 2012

The property is valued at 1.6 m….not worth 1.6 m…..an important distinction as that same property may well only be valued at .5 m one day depending on where the market goes…

it would take a war or natural disaster for property to take a dive like that today . every district and city has set a precedent in housing sales cost wise . they may drop a 100k in some spots , but for the most part we are stuck at this over inflated market .

#northsidetrailbuilders

Jan. 14, 2017, 4:40 p.m.
Posts: 1084
Joined: May 29, 2003

so nice of people to automatically think that because a person who has a property worth 1.6Mil that their bank account and income reflects that , that,s fucking ignorant !!

I know lots of single income family blue collar workers sitting in situations like that because they where smart 25yrs back and bought land with a small house in the sticks .

Completely understandable and I would be proud to support tax money into this grant to those that need it. Just put in a some sort of threshold test on this grant (eg: an income test?). That way instead of throwing taxpayer money at those that can easily cover any rises, we can give those grant $s to ppl like you mention and provide give much more help.

^^ cause homeowners aren't paying any taxes. It's all just perks.

Do you think ppl in DemonMike's example are pleased about their tax dollars propping up those that make enough to cover any rise?

Jan. 14, 2017, 5:29 p.m.
Posts: 813
Joined: Nov. 18, 2015

I'm just guessing, but I'm not so sure it's as much about keeping the housing market propped up as it is about making sure that even the most professional locals can afford to stay in Vancouver.

Who just starting their career has $250k plus for a down payment for a very average house? Assume your a doc making whatever,$250k, assume that you have $0 in student loans (which would be rare) and assume that you don't have help. You're renting for 5years before you have enough for a down payment for an average house. People will leave. Everyone will leave. Then what we end up with is a foreign city within Canada.

The govt needs to find a way to assist with local house purchases. People who work here need to be able to live here. Mainland china sends money to their wives and kids who live here and the only tax they pay is property and sales tax - they don't earn income here so they don't pay income tax - and they use our healthcare system and schools like anyone else. I wonder if any of the first responders who look after my neighbourhood live anywhere close? I doubt it. Stuff like that needs to change.

I think that Canadians should be able to write off their mortgages like they can in the US. That would greatly assist in after tax dollars and would allow many who can't afford a home now (even with great jobs!) to get into a home.

Jan. 14, 2017, 6:24 p.m.
Posts: 2327
Joined: Sept. 5, 2012

I think one of the reasons we have seen such a huge rise in market value is interest rates being so low and the amount needed to purchase percentage wise is reduced and from what I gather now government funded for those who qualify .

When we bought our 1st house we paid $156K , we had around 15% down and with my earning around $55K per yr at that time we where left with a mortgage of 149K and a interest rate of 10.5% . Our statement after the 1st full year showed we paid over $10K in interest .

For my earnings we where at max the bank would lend us , funny thing is if we where starting over today we could not afford to buy that 750sqft house that was built in the 30,s on my wages as it,s close to $500k in value with this grossly inflated market .

#northsidetrailbuilders

Jan. 14, 2017, 6:36 p.m.
Posts: 13946
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

Do you think ppl in DemonMike's example are pleased about their tax dollars propping up those that make enough to cover any rise?

I'm 100% in support of means testing this and other tax rebates.

Jan. 15, 2017, 12:28 a.m.
Posts: 955
Joined: Oct. 23, 2006

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.

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. 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.

Jan. 15, 2017, 6:53 a.m.
Posts: 1084
Joined: May 29, 2003

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.

Jan. 15, 2017, 7:08 a.m.
Posts: 799
Joined: Nov. 6, 2006

the home owner is the taxpayer ffs.:stupid: who do you think pays the lions share of taxes in our system anyhow.correct me if I'm wrong,but the more people the gov can help get into the market the deeper the taxpayer well gets,no?

Jan. 15, 2017, 8:14 a.m.
Posts: 1084
Joined: May 29, 2003

the home owner is the taxpayer ffs.:stupid: who do you think pays the lions share of taxes in our system anyhow.

Confine this to what we're discussing - the grant and rising property taxes; Do think tax breaks should go to those that can easily afford it? To me, a person who is can afford it, that's greedy and downright irresponsible.

Say there are 1 Mil homeowners, each receiving the full 570. That's 570 Mil.
Now, take that same amount of money, apply a means test to that group and only help the bottom 25% that truly need it. They go from 570 to 2280 from the grant, a possible life changing amount. The rest are stuck with rationalizing a one year's increase of '000,000s in property gains at a net of +1-2k/year. Shucks, seems pretty reasonable to me.

This f'd up market cuts both ways.

Forum jump: