1026 replies to this topic

[UDeMan]

ok, found a link to the article

 

http://www10.giscafe...-Spending-Power

[lanforod]

Victoria-is-Canada's-third-wealthiest-city.jpg

Victoria's majestic beauty and mild winters have drawn plenty of affluent residents from across Canada and the world, but now, thanks to high-rising real-estate prices, average Victorians are considered some of Canada's wealthiest residents. Citified.ca

 

Victoria's population the third wealthiest in Canada: report

http://victoria.citi...-canada-report/

 

BC’s capital has clenched third place on the podium of Canada’s wealthiest metropolitan areas, according to a report published by Toronto-based Environics Analytics.

 

Joining Canada’s stalwarts of riches – Vancouver and Toronto – Victoria has officially displaced Calgary as the (formerly) entrenched third most fabulously wealthy region in the country. [Full article]

 

Pretty sure you mean 'clinched', Mike. Clenching happens regularly in Victoria, but obviously not enough, given the plans for a new sewage plant...

Edited by lanforod, 18 September 2016 - 09:08 PM.

[spanky123]

Relying on proeprty values to determine net worth is a bit of a mugs game. You don't make money on a primary residence unless you sell and then you have to live somewhere else. Unless you plan to significantly downsize or move to a lower cost jurisdiction then you are going to have to pay elevated prices for a new place to live.

[Mike K.]

You could always sell and rent a future home, or sell and move away with money in the bank. 

 

I'm sure the folks who bought houses in the 1980's for $75,000, who are now listing them for $950,000 with plans to downsize in a condo are going to make out alright

 

@Lanforod, you don't say. Fixed. Thanks.

[VicHockeyFan]

Relying on proeprty values to determine net worth is a bit of a mugs game. You don't make money on a primary residence unless you sell and then you have to live somewhere else. Unless you plan to significantly downsize or move to a lower cost jurisdiction then you are going to have to pay elevated prices for a new place to live.

 

Or you could die.  Or at least significantly deteriorate to the point where you move to a care home.  Some time between then and just after you die, your kids will take over your net worth.

[VicHockeyFan]

You could always sell and rent a future home, or sell and move away with money in the bank. 

 

I'm sure the folks who bought houses in the 1980's for $75,000, who are now listing them for $950,000 with plans to downsize in a condo are going to make out alright

 

 

That's right, my mother bought her home in 1965 for $16,500.  Sold it last year for about $600,000.  Unless she lives to 140, she has more than enough to keep her very well.

[Bingo]

Or you could die.  Or at least significantly deteriorate to the point where you move to a care home.  Some time between then and just after you die, your kids will take over your net worth.

A good care home can run you $60,000 a year, which doesn't last long in today's world.

I'm already spending my kids inheritance, as they are already away further ahead than I was at their age.

I hope to be posting here for a few more years yet though.

[spanky123]

^ Actually a 'good' care home is your own home with in-home care. That will set you back far more than $60K a year though. My point is that declaring one part of the country more wealthy than another largely based on just home values isn't the best measure.

[Mike K.]

Their study relied on 178 different factors, not just home values, but obviously home values play a huge part in net worth (as they should, a home is an asset).

 

This is why we have traditionally had a flood of wealthy Canadians from large cities moving to Victoria to retire. Once-upon-a-time most of them could afford to sell the family home for $600,000 in Name-Your-Big-City and buy a nice two-bedroom condo in Saanich for $450,000. Some money in the bank, retirement/pension income, mild winters. All good.

[Bingo]

 Actually a 'good' care home is your own home with in-home care. That will set you back far more than $60K a year though. My point is that declaring one part of the country more wealthy than another largely based on just home values isn't the best measure.

 

I wonder if we will be able to stay in our own home as we age?

The caregivers will likely get paid while they live upstairs and we live in some room in the basement with a hole in the door for the food tray.

[AllseeingEye]

That's right, my mother bought her home in 1965 for $16,500.  Sold it last year for about $600,000.  Unless she lives to 140, she has more than enough to keep her very well.

Must've been a pretty decent home size and/or location wise for the time. My parents bought their second home also in 1965 on Cedar Hill Rd - the lot was twice the size of your standard city lot, the backyard was huge - for the princely sum of $8000.

[VicHockeyFan]

Must've been a pretty decent home size and/or location wise for the time. My parents bought their second home also in 1965 on Cedar Hill Rd - the lot was twice the size of your standard city lot, the backyard was huge - for the princely sum of $8000.

 

It was brand new, might have carried a bit of a premium.  Not much over 1600 sq. ft. I think.  Split-level.

[spanky123]

I wonder if we will be able to stay in our own home as we age?

The caregivers will likely get paid while they live upstairs and we live in some room in the basement with a hole in the door for the food tray.

 

Well I hope that I can live in my own place hole in door or not. The last place anyone of us will want to be is in one of the care facilities that your CPP and OAP payments will cover.  

[Nparker]

My parents bought their first home in Powell River in 1966. It was about 2300 square feet (only half of which was finished at that time) and cost $20,000. In 2015 it was assessed at $206,000. They sold that house and moved to the CRD in 1978. Their 2000 square foot house in Brentwood Bay was purchased for $72,000 and assessed at $510,000 last year. Wealth dependent on property value is a rather inconsistent measure.

[spanky123]

Well the one point we can agree on is that for most people the bulk of their net worth is tied to home ownership. What does that say then for the prospects for today's < 30 who have no hope of ever owning a home and where rental accommodations are the norm.

[VicHockeyFan]

Well the one point we can agree on is that for most people the bulk of their net worth is tied to home ownership. What does that say then for the prospects for today's < 30 who have no hope of ever owning a home and where rental accommodations are the norm.

 

That's a very crazy generalization.  Home ownership rates in this country are hardly moving.

 

Home Ownership Rate in Canada decreased to 66.50 percent in 2014 from 67.80 percent in 2013. Home Ownership Rate in Canada averaged 65.73 percent from 1997 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 67.80 percent in 2013 and a record low of 63.90 percent in 1999. Home Ownership Rate in Canada is reported by the Statistics Canada.

 

http://www.tradingec...-ownership-rate

 

Also, remember, a lot of young people today are on the verge of inheriting their parent's home(s).

[Nparker]

...Also, remember, a lot of young people today are on the verge of inheriting their parent's home(s).

Only if their parents die very young. With extended life expectancies a good number of those "young people" might well be in their 60s before they inherit their parents' homes. Not to get too personal, but my parents were older than those of many of my peers and even I was well into my 40s before I received any financial benefit from my parents' estate. I know lots of people in their 50s whose parents are in very fine health and living comfortably in the family home.

[Bingo]

Also, remember, a lot of young people today are on the verge of inheriting their parent's home(s).

 

That's a very crazy generalization, they would be wrong to have such high expectations.

[VicHockeyFan]

Maybe I was a bit off with "young people" inheriting the wealth.

 

http://www.huffingto...n_10318872.html

 

Baby Boomers To Inherit $750 Billion In Largest-Ever Canadian Transfer Of Wealth

 

 

One of Canada's big banks estimates that $750 billion will be inherited by members of the Boomer generation over the next decade.

 

CIBC calls it the "largest intergenerational wealth transfer in Canadian history over such a period of time."

 

The bank says there are currently about 2.5 million Canadians over the age of 75 with a total net worth of $900 billion or more.

 

The bank adds that the beneficiaries will be mainly Canadians currently aged between 50 and 75 years.

 

[Bingo]

Only if their parents die very young. With extended life expectancies a good number of those "young people" might well be in their 60s before they inherit their parents' homes. Not to get too personal, but my parents were older than those of many of my peers and even I was well into my 40s before I received any financial benefit from my parents' estate. I know lots of people in their 50s whose parents are in very fine health and living comfortably in the family home.

 

And just so their squabbling children don't to have to fight over the estate, they leave it to the Friends of Beacon Hill Park or Jimmy's Dispensary.