1003 replies to this topic

[LeoVictoria]

I’d say drop the home owners grant for non-elderly non-disabled and cut income taxes by same amount.

Always bad idea to tax what we want to encourage more of (income) while subsidizing largely unproductive allocation of capital held by wealthy.

The entire idea of one level of government paying the taxes of another level is bureaucratic insanity

Edited by LeoVictoria, 13 January 2020 - 02:11 PM.

[VIResident]

Lantzville approves 23-per cent property tax increase

District facing millions in upcoming infrastructure costs

https://www.nanaimob...mT9ODBFcI5XiMVo

 

(the 13 tiny municipalities that make up the 'Greater Victoria' are not immune - wait for it)

Edited by VIResident, 24 January 2020 - 05:57 AM.

[spanky123]

^ True but could argue that $1,000 a year in property taxes was too low to start with.

[RFS]

There is no reason why Lantzville should be a separate muni from Nanaimo 

[VIResident]

^ True but could argue that $1,000 a year in property taxes was too low to start with.

True. 

[Nparker]

I've just had the "pleasure" of once again assuring Big Brother that I am the owner and occupier of my home.    The Speculation Tax exemption declaration may be the most irritating bit of bureaucracy I have to endure each year.  How long until the next provincial election? 

[DustMagnet]

I've just had the "pleasure" of once again assuring Big Brother that I am the owner and occupier of my home.    The Speculation Tax exemption declaration may be the most irritating bit of bureaucracy I have to endure each year.  How long until the next provincial election? 

 

The best way to complete the assertion is online.

The best way to inform me is via postal mail with a letter and a brochure.

 

One of this things is not like the other.

[VIResident]

Concerns about taxes on homes may be warranted

 

......"It seems to have started with a report that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. has provided a $250,000 grant to researchers at the University of British Columbia, where the focus is on housing wealth and inequality, according to the CMHC. The project is considered the first one sponsored by the Crown corporation as part of the Liberal government’s National Housing Strategy.

The CMHC said reports that it was researching the taxation of homes of Canadians are “misleading.”

But is there reason to be concerned? Sure. Generation Squeeze, an advocacy group for younger Canadians that is involved in the UBC study, has said “many Canadians bank on profits from home ownership to secure their financial future and gain wealth. We need to make it so that no Canadian relies on gains in housing wealth to feel secure, and we need to rethink policies that, by encouraging the financialization of housing, push the cost to buy or rent a home even further out of reach.”

https://www.theglobe...y-be-warranted/

Edited by VIResident, 11 September 2020 - 04:58 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

financializarion of housing.

everyone hates high housing costs. except the vast majority of Canadians that for decades have done well financially due to home ownership.

anyone that earns a windfall from home ownership is free to send a cheque in any amount to the CRA voluntarily. they will accept it.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 11 September 2020 - 05:08 AM.

[Mike K.]

There is hardly a place on earth where homeownership hasn’t benefitted the homeowner financially.

We have an issue with spending in our society. It’s really that simple.

Look at how much money youth spend on concerts, and travel, and designer clothing, and marijuana, and drinks at the bar. None of that brings you closer to homeownership.

Then look at how many people who reside in rental apartments and drive a brand new vehicle with payments spread out over 72-96 months. You think a bank will give you a mortgage with that overhead? No way.

My immigrant friend who arrived with nothing in his pockets is now condo shopping. He’s not wealthy, he just works works works and puts money aside. Every overtime call he gets, he takes. And he works nights, gets home at 3AM. Complaints? None. Motivation and determination? Through the roof. Success? Guaranteed.

[Mike K.]

Of course, considering how universities are complicit in pumping out expensive but ultimately worthless degrees, I look forward to UBC identifying how so many of its programs setup graduates to carry a high debt load while providing them with next to no employment opportunity in their field of study.

[spanky123]

If you take two people with identical income where one buys a house, one rents and uses the delta between the two costs to invest in the stock market then the renter would statically come out ahead as historical returns on the stock market have been higher than in housing when you net out the costs. Most people who buy houses for themselves are not doing it as a preferred investment. What housing does do for folks is act as a forced savings plan so that when they do retire they have some money in the asset.

 

Now of course most people who rent don't take all of their savings and put them in the stock market, they use the money as Mike suggested.

Edited by spanky123, 11 September 2020 - 06:54 AM.

[spanky123]

Of course, considering how universities are complicit in pumping out expensive but ultimately worthless degrees, I look forward to UBC identifying how so many of its programs setup graduates to carry a high debt load while providing them with next to no employment opportunity in their field of study.

 

Interesting that SIPP is now on the micro-credentialing kick (probably because UVIC or Camsoun are promoting it). Instead of promoting micro-credentialing as a compliment to a university or college degree, they should be telling folks the truth in that in some cases micro-credentialing will provide you better job prospects at a small fraction of the cost of a university or college degree.

[A Girl is No one]

Concerns about taxes on homes may be warranted

......"It seems to have started with a report that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. has provided a $250,000 grant to researchers at the University of British Columbia, where the focus is on housing wealth and inequality, according to the CMHC. The project is considered the first one sponsored by the Crown corporation as part of the Liberal government’s National Housing Strategy.
The CMHC said reports that it was researching the taxation of homes of Canadians are “misleading.”
But is there reason to be concerned? Sure. Generation Squeeze, an advocacy group for younger Canadians that is involved in the UBC study, has said “many Canadians bank on profits from home ownership to secure their financial future and gain wealth. We need to make it so that no Canadian relies on gains in housing wealth to feel secure, and we need to rethink policies that, by encouraging the financialization of housing, push the cost to buy or rent a home even further out of reach.”
https://www.theglobe...y-be-warranted/

But wait... we already pay property taxes... what more do they want? I guess this would be more like a wealth tax, putting the government in a position of incentivizing people to save less and expect the government to look after them when they get old I guess. Cradle to grave.

[m3m]

If you take two people with identical income where one buys a house, one rents and uses the delta between the two costs to invest in the stock market then the renter would statically come out ahead as historical returns on the stock market have been higher than in housing when you net out the costs.

Except there is no significant difference in your monthly costs between renting and buying. At least in Victoria where rents are high.

[A Girl is No one]

Except there is no significant difference in your monthly costs between renting and buying. At least in Victoria where rents are high.

Are you saying that rent is the same as a mortgage+property tax+maintenance+insurance+ in some cases utilities which some rents include?

[m3m]

To illustrate my point. Here are two basically identical condos in the Janion. 1 for rent, 1 for sale.

The rental is $1,325 per month. To buy it is $330,000. Even with 5% down payment, your monthly mortgage payment combined with condo fees are going to be cheaper than renting.

https://www.usedvict...t_36439616.lite

https://www.realtor....ctoria-downtown

Edited by m3m, 11 September 2020 - 07:52 AM.

[Mike K.]

I’m not sure if that’s actually true.

The owner will always have a higher cost burden, all things being equal, while a renter is rent-protected and not responsible for general upkeep.

One quick example are fluctuating strata fees which the owner would be responsible for in full, while a renter would only pay as much as the maximum rent increase allowance. The owner carries a higher tax burden and higher insurance burden, and depending on the mortgage structure variable rates can impact costs as can a renewal.

[Mike K.]

In the example above, where are you getting the mortgage rate? And whom is it available to? Will a particular person qualify for a $300,000 mortgage?

And what are the condo fees? What’s the insurance? And what’s the tax burden? How old is the condo? Does it require upgrades? Is a levy coming from the strata?

[spanky123]

But wait... we already pay property taxes... what more do they want? I guess this would be more like a wealth tax, putting the government in a position of incentivizing people to save less and expect the government to look after them when they get old I guess. Cradle to grave.

 

The suggestion is that the Feds will remove the capital gains exemption on the sale of a primary residence.