Jump to content

      



























Photo

2017 Property Assessment Increase


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#101 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:13 PM

While I don't necessarily disagree, a lot of people would be hurting come property tax time if the HOG were to suddenly disappear. What's only $500 extra to some people would be a hardship to others; the property rich, income poor folks especially.

Getting rid of MSP premiums would be a much better place to start in disposing of costly to administer programs that could be funded alternatively.

If a government were ever to get rid of the HOG they could just extend the tax deferment option to ALL owner occupiers to soften the blow. As it is a huge percentage of BC owner occupiers already qualify for tax deferment.

  • at least one of the owners over 55
  • widowed and not re-married (any age)
  • disabled
  • dependent kids or stepkids under 18
  • kids or stepkids of any age attending post-secondary
  • disabled dependent kids

While it would be good policy to get rid of the HOG and cut another provincial tax I doubt it will happen for the reasons folks have outlined.  Bottom line - it is easy to fool people by taking their money and giving it back.



#102 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:32 PM

The amount homeowners would have to pay out of their pockets to their local municipality would increase; in essence their taxes would go up from the taxpayers' perspective.

 

That's not it in essense or result. The property assessment is unchanged, the amount homeowners have to pay remains the same - do you honestly think the municipality would get more money?   That the homeowner may or may not qualify for money from an external source doesn't change those facts.

 

Even if someone were to buy into that unusual notion that a discontinued grant equals increased taxes, well... it could then be said that the province wasn't spending money on HOGs anymore, so they could reduce the provincial tax load an equal amount (or less likely, pay a very high price come election time).


"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

#103 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:06 PM

...The property assessment is unchanged, the amount homeowners have to pay remains the same..

No it doesn't. The HoG is money paid by the province to municipalities to offset property tax costs. If I no longer qualified for the HOG or it was discontinued, the amount that I would have to pay the City of Victoria out of my post-tax dollars would increase by $500+ dollars because the CoV still requires the same operating revenue whether it is paid by me or by the province in the form of the grant. Unless I get an equivalent reduction in taxes from the BC government, I am paying $500+ more in taxes than I pay now.



#104 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:34 PM

Property-rich, income-poor people have all kinds of financial instruments in the private sector to get money to pay taxes, or live, or whatever.  Let's let them use those, rather than a government program.

 

If you say "old people do not like to have debt", or whatever, let's teach them some financial literacy so they are not scared of these options.  The worst thing an older person can do is live simply and conservatively, just to pass on a mortgage free $800,000 home on to heirs.  It's sad.


  • nerka likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#105 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,702 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:59 PM

^Unless, of course, you are the heir. :)


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#106 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 07:00 PM

...The worst thing an older person can do is live simply and conservatively, just to pass on a mortgage free $800,000 home on to heirs...

If it's what they want to do, and assuming they are paying their fare share of taxes and aren't using a disproportionate amount of "society's assets" what business is it of mine if seniors want to leave a valuable, debt-free property to their heirs?



#107 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 07:08 PM

^Unless, of course, you are the heir. :)

 

In the case of my mom, I will be an heir, unless of course I die first (now taking bets on my life expectancy, some thought I would not get here).  And I'm 1000% happy that she sold the old family home after more than 50 years there, and moved into a upscale (read: expensive, per month) senior's home that she loves.  And if she spends all the money from the house sale and her savings and dies with zero money left, she will have timed it perfectly.

 

^  As to the above, I think it's my families' business to tell my mom to spend her money and enjoy how many years she has left, to the fullest.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#108 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 07:15 PM

... As to the above, I think it's my families' business to tell my mom to spend her money and enjoy how many years she has left, to the fullest.

But if that's not what she wants to do, I guess you'll just have to live with that inheritance.


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#109 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 07:31 AM

The amount homeowners would have to pay out of their pockets to their local municipality would increase; in essence their taxes would go up from the taxpayers' perspective.

Yes we'd stop being subsidized by the poor and by renters and my face would melt as a result.  Carry on bribing me please.



#110 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 09:52 AM

Makes you wonder how many seniors are fed terrible financial information solely to benefit the heirs.

It should be the job of the heirs to ensure their mother and father are taken care of without worries like taxes. Especially in this market where the value of real-estate is through the roof.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#111 snub

snub

    Reflecting

  • Member
  • 442 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 06:12 PM

........snip..........   I'm surprised it does not cost all that much to the province to go from $1.2M to $1.6M.

 

I believe I heard this will be costing the government  $12 million. At $590.00 per home, that's, I don't know, a sh!tload of homes worth over $1.2 million.



#112 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 06:22 PM

...At $590.00 per home, that's, I don't know, a sh!tload of homes worth over $1.2 million.

Approximately 21,000 if my math is correct.



#113 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,241 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 11 January 2017 - 07:32 PM

The vast majority of those likely got the discount last year. They would be located in Vancouver or Victoria, and the property value has increased several hundred thousand dollars. So it's costing the government 12 million, but that isn't 12 million they didn't spend last year, it should be the same amount roughly that the program cost last year.



#114 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 21 December 2017 - 06:24 PM

Was one of those lucky folks that got an advance warning letter for a significant increase in our assessment.

 

Our little investment condo that we bought last spring at Stadacona Centre increased by 45% over last year

 

Its now assessed at basically close to what we paid for it.



#115 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 21 December 2017 - 06:45 PM

...Our little investment condo that we bought last spring at Stadacona Centre increased by 45% over last year...

Was it possibly under assessed as a result of the long period when it was under remediation?



#116 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 21 December 2017 - 06:54 PM

maybe, but the remediation was a few years back



#117 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 21 December 2017 - 07:00 PM

maybe, but the remediation was a few years back

True enough, but sales were likely pretty null until some time after remediation was complete. I recall during the time my building was under remediation our property assessments were reduced significantly and then took a big jump about a year or so after all the work was done and resale value returned.


  • rjag likes this

#118 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 22 December 2017 - 12:22 AM

Was one of those lucky folks that got an advance warning letter for a significant increase in our assessment.

 

Our little investment condo that we bought last spring at Stadacona Centre increased by 45% over last year

 

Its now assessed at basically close to what we paid for it.

 

Congrats, as a prize you get to pay more taxes.


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#119 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 22 December 2017 - 06:23 AM

This will be interesting to see how the calculations work out. We all know that if every property has the assessed value increased by the same amount, and the mill rate didn't change, then your tax bill would be the same as last year.

Now that you have been notified that yours will increase higher than the average, you will pay more than last year as the mill rate is most likely not going to decrease.

For a while there the assessed value was "supposed" to reflect the actual value, but in most cases properties still sold for higher than assessed value. Perhaps the goal is to tighten that gap a little especially when there is an arm's length sale that can be referenced.

#120 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 22 December 2017 - 07:09 AM

This will be interesting to see how the calculations work out. We all know that if every property has the assessed value increased by the same amount, and the mill rate didn't change, then your tax bill would be the same as last year.

Now that you have been notified that yours will increase higher than the average, you will pay more than last year as the mill rate is most likely not going to decrease.

For a while there the assessed value was "supposed" to reflect the actual value, but in most cases properties still sold for higher than assessed value. Perhaps the goal is to tighten that gap a little especially when there is an arm's length sale that can be referenced.


There is no change in policy. Assessed value reflects estimate of market value as of July. In a rising market that will always be lower than current market value since at this point it is almost 18 months out of date

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users