Massage Adagio

I can't afford to pay the tax on my $6.7 million home - boo hoo boo hoo

JimDandy

Well-known member
May 17, 2004
2,931
464
83
66
Lower Mainland, B.C.
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/242500/Fake-tax-notices-mailed-out

Fucking cry me a river. Anyone that owns a $6.7 million home should not be complaining about their property taxes. It's like someone that drives a Lamborghini and then complains that the insurance or the gas is too expensive.

Sell your $6.7 million house and rough it in a $2 million home. Then you will have $4.7 million to pay the property taxes on it.

JD
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
The Lamborghini is a bad analogy. Many of these people who bought these homes didn't buy them at a multi-million dollar price tag. They appreciated significantly after being bought. They are not independently wealthy. That money is locked into the home.

How would you like it if you struggled and saved and scraped enough together to buy a home and then after years of that living there somebody moves the goal posts on you and makes it unaffordable to keep it and then says "boo hoo, just sell it and move hours away to a different city"?

It's not a Lamborghini. It's buying a Honda but then somebody raises the payments by 10x and saying if you don't like it, sell it and ride the bus because these days no one can even afford the Honda.

Besides this is a surtax. Their property taxes were already higher because it's a percentage of the appraised value. They didn't even complain about that. They're complaining about a surtax on top.
 

Gardener

Active member
May 9, 2017
327
66
28
The Lamborghini is a bad analogy. Many of these people who bought these homes didn't buy them at a multi-million dollar price tag. They appreciated significantly after being bought. They are not independently wealthy. That money is locked into the home.

How would you like it if you struggled and saved and scraped enough together to buy a home and then after years of that living there somebody moves the goal posts on you and makes it unaffordable to keep it and then says "boo hoo, just sell it and move hours away to a different city"?

It's not a Lamborghini. It's buying a Honda but then somebody raises the payments by 10x and saying if you don't like it, sell it and ride the bus because these days no one can even afford the Honda.

Besides this is a surtax. Their property taxes were already higher because it's a percentage of the appraised value. They didn't even complain about that. They're complaining about a surtax on top.
100% agree
 

JimDandy

Well-known member
May 17, 2004
2,931
464
83
66
Lower Mainland, B.C.
They can get a line of credit based on the increased appraised value of their property and pay the surtax with that. They will still be financially much better off than me and 99% of the people on this board.

JD
 

JimDandy

Well-known member
May 17, 2004
2,931
464
83
66
Lower Mainland, B.C.
There is something inherently wrong with property tax.
So how do you propose that the government pay for the services provided to those property owners? The roads in front of homes do not maintain themselves. The trees on the public lands surrounding the houses do not trim themselves. And on and on.

JD
 

johnnydepth

Average Sized Member
Nov 14, 2015
1,686
451
83
winnipeg
So how do you propose that the government pay for the services provided to those property owners? The roads in front of homes do not maintain themselves. The trees on the public lands surrounding the houses do not trim themselves. And on and on.

JD
Absolutely, but tax is tax. Increase income tax, luxury item taxes, etc... Taxing property creates a permanent lien leaving the "homeowner" in a position where they could possibly lose their home. I use quotes because people falsely believe they are property owners.
 

MissingOne

awake but not woke
Jan 2, 2006
2,170
350
83
As an older person, I run the risk of being taxed out of the home I purchased 30 years ago, as a result of real estate appreciation driven by external forces over which I have no control. Sure I could sell my home and I'd get some cash, but that cash wouldn't buy me another home in my community. I would have to move to the hinterland, farther away from the services that I increasingly need as I grow older, such as public transportation, adequate medical services, etc. Not to mention farther away from friends and family.

I already made such a move once, 30 years ago, when I moved out of Vancouver (way out) so that I could afford to purchase a house. It was easy enough to do when I was much younger, even though it meant giving up a good job at the time. Now, well, I could do it if I had to, but it would mean a serious decline in my quality of life, at a time in my life when I'm thinking that it's maybe about time to relax a bit.

Fortunately, for me it's still just a risk; the taxes have gone up to painful levels but not enough to force me out yet. But, I watch with trepidation as retirees who've cashed out from Vancouver flood into our rural community with wads of money, pushing prices up yet more, and as the busloads of offshore investors are toured through by teams of real estate agents. I kind of feel like a squirrel sitting in my tree, watching as the chain saws come ever closer, and knowing that there's nothing I can do about it.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
So how do you propose that the government pay for the services provided to those property owners? The roads in front of homes do not maintain themselves. The trees on the public lands surrounding the houses do not trim themselves. And on and on.

JD
For the record this surtax is (allegedly) specifically for schools. It's not quite the same general infrastructure you're talking about. Plus, again, these people are already contributing to the tax pool in proportion to the value of their property. What's the justification for an additional school surtax specifically for them?
 

JimDandy

Well-known member
May 17, 2004
2,931
464
83
66
Lower Mainland, B.C.
Absolutely, but tax is tax. Increase income tax, luxury item taxes, etc... Taxing property creates a permanent lien leaving the "homeowner" in a position where they could possibly lose their home. I use quotes because people falsely believe they are property owners.
Do you think it is fair for a person making minimum wage and living in a 1 bedroom apt. that they can barely pay the rent on to pay extra taxes so that the government can pay for the upkeep of a $6.7 home? Or for that matter, even a $1 million home.

JD
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
Do you think it is fair for a person making minimum wage and living in a 1 bedroom apt. that they can barely pay the rent on to pay extra taxes so that the government can pay for the upkeep of a $6.7 home? Or for that matter, even a $1 million home.

JD
The government doesn't pay for the upkeep of the home. It pays for the upkeep of infrastructure. So using your own argument about contributing to infrastructure we all use, renters don't use roads?
 

johnnydepth

Average Sized Member
Nov 14, 2015
1,686
451
83
winnipeg
Do you think it is fair for a person making minimum wage and living in a 1 bedroom apt. that they can barely pay the rent on to pay extra taxes so that the government can pay for the upkeep of a $6.7 home? Or for that matter, even a $1 million home.

JD
Good point. However still ways around this. Renters can receive tax breaks by submitting rent receipts. Also, perhaps we charge extra tax on rental properties, business properties, etc.. but nothing that is directly tied to the property. Point is property tax is a way for the government to ensure that they maintain control of all property. As pointed out above guys have spent their lives to pay off a house only to risk losing it because of property tax. Ridiculous and shameful policy.
 

nightswhisper

Member
Feb 20, 2016
789
8
18
They can get a line of credit based on the increased appraised value of their property and pay the surtax with that. They will still be financially much better off than me and 99% of the people on this board.

JD
A house and a home are different. Yes, they are worth more, net-worth wise. But this does not mean they should move out of their home because of extenuating circumstances. Happiness cannot be measured by wealth. And paying off taxes with interest sounds like a horrible idea.

Absolutely, but tax is tax. Increase income tax, luxury item taxes, etc... Taxing property creates a permanent lien leaving the "homeowner" in a position where they could possibly lose their home. I use quotes because people falsely believe they are property owners.
I disagree.

To make the country wealthier, the population needs to be wealthier. This means that the average individual should be taxed less and given a market in which they are encouraged to spend money aggressively.

Having a happy population that loves to spend money makes the government a lot more money through monetary velocity (how often money is spent buying stuff) than having an unhappy population hoarding savings because the taxes are so high.

However, we seem to have a socialist mindset as a country.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,712
572
113
Upstairs
As an older person, I run the risk of being taxed out of the home I purchased 30 years ago, as a result of real estate appreciation driven by external forces over which I have no control. Sure I could sell my home and I'd get some cash, but that cash wouldn't buy me another home in my community. I would have to move to the hinterland, farther away from the services that I increasingly need as I grow older, such as public transportation, adequate medical services, etc. Not to mention farther away from friends and family.

I already made such a move once, 30 years ago, when I moved out of Vancouver (way out) so that I could afford to purchase a house. It was easy enough to do when I was much younger, even though it meant giving up a good job at the time. Now, well, I could do it if I had to, but it would mean a serious decline in my quality of life, at a time in my life when I'm thinking that it's maybe about time to relax a bit.

Fortunately, for me it's still just a risk; the taxes have gone up to painful levels but not enough to force me out yet. But, I watch with trepidation as retirees who've cashed out from Vancouver flood into our rural community with wads of money, pushing prices up yet more, and as the busloads of offshore investors are toured through by teams of real estate agents. I kind of feel like a squirrel sitting in my tree, watching as the chain saws come ever closer, and knowing that there's nothing I can do about it.
Depending on how old you are, you can defer property taxes in BC.
 

Big_Guy_Rye

Pragmatic Pariah
May 7, 2018
802
620
93
Everywhere in BC
So how do you propose that the government pay for the services provided to those property owners? The roads in front of homes do not maintain themselves. The trees on the public lands surrounding the houses do not trim themselves. And on and on.

JD
I would have no problem paying my taxes, if I KNEW that the money went to infrastructure...

...but more often than not it goes to buying homeless shelters, "free needles" for junkies, publicly funded events that no one agrees with, ...etc.

I'm driving through potholes, but that okay because at least there's a parade for people I don't relate to....
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
Depending on how old you are, you can defer property taxes in BC.
Ah but there's a catch. So you're 55 and defer your $12K tax bill for 20 years (with interest by the way). Then you die. Then your kids inherit your house but they're not 55, so that deferred tax bill (principal and interest) is immediately due. You left them your house but now they can't afford the quarter million dollar bill.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,712
572
113
Upstairs
Ah but there's a catch. So you're 55 and defer your $12K tax bill for 20 years (with interest by the way). Then you die. Then your kids inherit your house but they're not 55, so that deferred tax bill (principal and interest) is immediately due. You left them your house but now they can't afford the quarter million dollar bill.
Where's the catch?

Deferred tax is due upon sale of the property. Before or after death.

On a $2 million home, deferred tax for 20 years is say $250,000. Still a pretty good inheritance.
 

Mrmotorscooter

Well-known member
Dec 19, 2017
1,247
1,620
113
They can get a line of credit based on the increased appraised value of their property and pay the surtax with that. They will still be financially much better off than me and 99% of the people on this board.

JD
Once you are retired and on a pension the Banks will not Give you a line of credit on what your property is worth, you must be employed with an income for that to happen. Your only option is to go to Alpine Credit or another company like that and you will pay premium interest for a loan like that renewable in a yearly basis with renewal fees, its Harsh!
Its really not fair if its your family homestead that you built and owned since day one, why should you be forced to sell just because everything went crazy around you. There should be a grandfather clause for long term residents who wish to live out their lives in their homes they've lived in all those years!
 
Vancouver Escorts