199 replies to this topic

[VIResident]

I’m hearing banks are now backing off the included property tax payment, and requiring homeowners to figure it out themselves.

In my first year they forgot to pay, and the muni sent me a letter with a big late fee. Went to the bank, and they said oops, yup we messed up.

Now multiply that by 5000 mess-ups and the bank is paying out a million bucks in late fees.

 

Some mortgages require taxes be paid yearly, anyone considering the property tax deferral program, best to check your mortgage terms - check mouse print on mortgage.  Banks like to have everything neat and tidy - in their favour and why they liked to pay the 'taxes' on your behalf - they were assured it was paid.  

[marks_28]

Maybe we should get rid of the homeowners grant? Why is the Province subsidizing homeownership? Where is the renters grant?

[Mike K.]

Because homeowners subsidize renters, and the government controls how much homeowners can raise the rent, and controls many facets of the rental industry, with policies geared towards favouring the renter.

Renting is not supposed to be a long-term strategy. The goal should be to move on to ownership. There’s a lot of money being made by people telling other people renting is a good thing, and pushing for more rental housing but not being quite so vocal about homeownership opportunities. That means they are pouring efforts into ensuring more rental income from more people for many years longer, perhaps a lifetime. We should be pushing for more ownership opportunities and mechanisms to help people become homeowners.

[Victoria Watcher]

indeed. we should have a national goal of 90% ownership.

and there are many ways to help facilitate that including the coop model.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 July 2021 - 07:29 AM.

[Rob Randall]

Because homeowners subsidize renters,

 

Of course, the owner of a luxury home pays more taxes than a studio suite renter. But do you have facts to back up the assertion that renters are not paying their fair share--taking into consideration square footage and building value?

 

 

Which property pays the most tax, the one on the left or the right?

Edited by Rob Randall, 04 July 2021 - 07:30 AM.

[Sparky]

^ You mean tax per occupant right?

[Victoria Watcher]

seems like a trick question.        or one that's not well-defined i guess.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 July 2021 - 07:39 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

^ You mean tax per occupant right?

 

 

it's not taxed "per occupant", so we can't answer.   

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 July 2021 - 07:40 AM.

[Sparky]

Property tax money is spent on services that occupants receive for the most part.

A guy living in an expensive house pays more than a guy in a cheap house.

[laconic]

Condos pay for their own garbage collection

The property taxes for the Promontory penthouse are in excess of $40,000. A large portion of those taxes go toward education, though there are almost no children in the building, nor in Bayview One or Encore.

[Mike K.]

Which property pays the most tax, the one on the left or the right?

The one with 40 vehicles using the streets, the one with 40 homes drawing water, several homes using the educational system, 40 homes using emergency services, flushing toilets, using municipal services and requiring large water mains for servicing, and so on.

The small one paid to build the street and establish the neighbourbood for the big one, though.

[Mike K.]

But do you have facts to back up the assertion that renters are not paying their fair share--taking into consideration square footage and building value?

I’m not saying renters are not paying their fair share. We all pay our fair share of taxes, I’m sure we can all agree, but renters are being unfairly burdened by their municipal governments (I’ll explain below).

But just as a starting point a renter relies on someone else to provide them with housing to rent. That someone else had to make the money to buy the home (a down payment at least), and make it available for rent at market rates then bound by government restrictions. The government then taxes them more, as this rental unit is not “their” primary residence.

Furthermore, renters in purpose built stock are now being forced by municipal governments to subsidize other renters. The City of Victoria’s affordability mandate is one example, where a certain portion of rents must be “affordable,” meaning the other renters pay ‘more’ per each unit so someone else pays less. So not only does the renter get zero equity, they now have to subsidize someone else’s rent.

It is imperative to address the lack of home buying opportunities, but the way to do it (suburban housing) has been rejected by the figure heads calling for more affordable housing. We call that a very unfortunate catch-22 that is setting people up for financial problems 20-years down the road. We need to encourage more homeownership, it’s just that simple. But simple things become politicized and turn into unmanageable monsters (like renters paying rent for other rentals directly, never mind social housing paid for through their tax dollars).

[Victoria Watcher]

we need more townhouses and small-lot subdivisions. but those are vehemently opposed too. almost exclusively by people that already own nearby large-lot SFDs.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 July 2021 - 09:03 AM.

[Mike K.]

We need to stop with the urban containment boundary that is now forcing renters to pay rent for other renters.

[Mike K.]

And what’s even more concerning is statistically speaking, if you can’t buy a home where you want to buy it by the age of 40 and you didn’t buy where maybe you didn’t want to buy just to build up equity, you’re unlikely to ever buy a home where you want to buy it. By 45, forget it altogether.

Sitting around waiting for townhomes to be built in your favourite neighbourbood so you can afford to buy a home there, just means you’re sitting around for an extra decade paying rent. Over that decade you would have built up considerable equity, that you could then use to afford to buy that townhome where you initially wanted to buy it.

Along the way you’ll find plenty of people and things to blame, but you’ll never admit that your peers led you astray, that maybe you believed in something that’s meant to keep you beholden to a landlord.

Come 2022 we’re going to see the affordable rental rhetoric on overdrive. Political hopefuls will emerge promising affordable housing (rentals subsidized by renters) with simple solutions, like removing spot zoning, or blanket zoning entire neighbourhoods, or increasing taxes on SFD residences. None of this will make people who couldn’t be homeowners before become homeowners, and none of it will make renting cheaper, but people will believe it, because it’s easier to continue down the path you’re on than to recognize you’ve been led astray.

[Victoria Watcher]

the “problem” we have here is that affordable homes become second homes for wealthier Canadians and international buyers.

you don’t have that issue in Regina. or Winnipeg. Or Fort St. John.

not much you can do about it. It is what it is.

[Mike K.]

Wrong.

Victoria has one of the LOWEST non-resident ownership rates of any Canadian city. People buy here to live here, overwhelmingly so. The foreign ownership thing is a scapegoat, though.

[Victoria Watcher]

Wrong.

Victoria has one of the LOWEST non-resident ownership rates of any Canadian city. People buy here to live here, overwhelmingly so. The foreign ownership thing is a scapegoat, though.

source? pretty sure if you go door knocking in Songhees you won’t find many 9-5 workers. bus drivers and teachers or mechanics.

I should also add retirees. very few of then buying up housing stock in Regina.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 July 2021 - 09:43 AM.

[Sparky]

We need to stop with the urban containment boundary that is now forcing renters to pay rent for other renters.

 

Whoa!!!.....hold on there for a moment Kemosabe. 

 

Before you start a civil war, let me educate you on the inspiartion behind the Urban Containment Boundary.

 

Back in the day (late 50's early 60's) when the perverbial writing on the wall was starting to dry regarding the desire of all peoples East of here wanting to relocate to Vancouver Island, it was acknowledged by the peoples of Rural Saanich that no one was to be trusted because of thoughts like yours.

 

It was decided to create the Urban Containment Boundary (read were gonna build a wall) in order to preserve a way of life.... so that when everyone starts to figure out that they screwed up almost every other district in the lower island by pandering to newcomers, they have destroyed the very reason for comming here in the first place. I know this because I travelled to Langford and Victoria yesterday and was more that estatic to return.

 

If you really insist on achieving "affordable housing" on Vancouver Island... sink the ferries and blow up the air strip,  (I am working on how to prevent float planes from landing)....

...but whatever you do....don't even think about spreading your subdividing/development/ mass housing ideas in these parts just because someone else can't afford otherwise.

 

That's Socialism.

[Mike K.]

source? pretty sure if you go door knocking in Songhees you won’t find many 9-5 workers. bus drivers and teachers or mechanics.

I should also add retirees. very few of then buying up housing stock in Regina.

Statscan. There’s a citified article on that, too.