5 ms·

Millennial here. I just got the property assessment notice on my modest 1 bedroom condo. The "value" of it has gone up by $200,000 (around 30%) in the last two

Millennial here. I just got the property assessment notice on my modest 1 bedroom condo. The "value" of it has gone up by $200,000 (around 30%) in the last two years according to the assessment office. So I can expect a nice fat tax bill later this year. The boomer generation, in full control of politics my entire adult life and for the foreseeable future, has made real estate in my city into a ponzi scheme, and I don't ever expect to live in a house here. What I can expect is to shoulder the tax burden of a large population of people who have not saved nearly enough for retirement, are leveraged against their massively overpriced properties, and are projected to live for a very, very long time. And the data shows that quite clearly. > Between 1982 and 2010, mortgage debt grew from $99 billion to $994 billion (in current dollars), while consumer debt increased from $48 billion to $460 billion. [1] > The average market value of an owned dwelling quadrupled, from $71,800 to $303,500 (current dollars) between 1982 and 2008. [1] > The indebtedness of Canadian households increased from $147 billion in 1982 to $1,454 billion by 2010—in current dollars. [1] > More than 1.5 million families who have a main provider between 45 and 64 had no private pension savings in 1999, the agency reported Friday. These households will have to rely almost solely on public retirement plans Old Age Security and the Canada or Quebec Pension Plans. [2] [1] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2011002/article/11429-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2011002/article/11429-... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/many-not-saving-enough-for-retirement-statscan-1.270403 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/many-not-saving-enough-for-ret...

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
>What I can expect is to shoulder the tax burden of a large population of people who have not saved nearly enough for retirement Them saving more wouldn't help much. Saving has a counter-party, someone who gets real goods and services now in exchange for repaying the debt later. Who's the counter-party for the retirees' savings? Obviously it can't be the retirees, since they're busy, you know, being retired. What'd increased saving would cash out to is shoveling money into repaying education loans held by pension funds that pay the boomers, rather than paying taxes that fund retirement programs. It doesn't mean you don't support retiring boomers, it just means that you get better compensation today for doing so.
jknoepfler 10y ago
I'm sorry, did you just complain about making 30% ROI on $200k over two years? Oh no, your tax burden.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  It's unrealized earnings. They don't have $200k to spend on taxes, and if they sell the home they still need to buy (or rent) in an area that's very expensive to live. That extra tax burden is not something most people plan on (smart or not, sometimes these booms are more unexpected than others).
- phil21 10y ago
  Some people just want a place to live close to work/whatever that doesn't have high maintenance (e.g. rent/mortgage/taxes). In a "hot" city it's trivial to get very modest places that have monthly tax bills more than rent is on a similar sized place in the mid-tier NFL city I grew up in. That's a lot of cashflow to be burning - even if the investment is appreciating faster than the burn. It eventually forces you to sell and move, when your goal was not an investment but a place to live and make a home.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  This is nonsensical. I have to pay that extra tax NOW. That's real money that I have to pay out. An extra 30% on something I nominally own? That's not real. I can't pay the taxes with that. What should I do to get that extra 30%? Take out an extra mortgage on that alleged increase in house value? Sell it and move to a worse house in a worse neighbourhood, somewhere I don't really want to live that I can still afford the taxes? I bought a house that I wanted to live in, that I could afford the taxes on, and now I can't afford the taxes through no fault of my own. There is no solace to be taken in the fact that if I sold it, I might get 30% more than I paid. I don't want the money. If I wanted the money, I wouldn't have bought the house to live in, in the first place. I want what I bought two years ago; the house I could afford to live in. 30% increase in alleged value is of no use to me, and it's costing me money.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

>What I can expect is to shoulder the tax burden of a large population of people who have not saved nearly enough for retirement Them saving more wouldn't help much. Saving has a counter-party, someone who gets real goods and services now in exchange for repaying the debt later. Who's the counter-party for the retirees' savings? Obviously it can't be the retirees, since they're busy, you know, being retired. What'd increased saving would cash out to is shoveling money into repaying education loans held by pension funds that pay the boomers, rather than paying taxes that fund retirement programs. It doesn't mean you don't support retiring boomers, it just means that you get better compensation today for doing so.

jknoepfler 10y ago

I'm sorry, did you just complain about making 30% ROI on $200k over two years? Oh no, your tax burden.

Jtsummers 10y ago
It's unrealized earnings. They don't have $200k to spend on taxes, and if they sell the home they still need to buy (or rent) in an area that's very expensive to live. That extra tax burden is not something most people plan on (smart or not, sometimes these booms are more unexpected than others).
phil21 10y ago
Some people just want a place to live close to work/whatever that doesn't have high maintenance (e.g. rent/mortgage/taxes). In a "hot" city it's trivial to get very modest places that have monthly tax bills more than rent is on a similar sized place in the mid-tier NFL city I grew up in. That's a lot of cashflow to be burning - even if the investment is appreciating faster than the burn. It eventually forces you to sell and move, when your goal was not an investment but a place to live and make a home.
EliRivers 10y ago
This is nonsensical. I have to pay that extra tax NOW. That's real money that I have to pay out. An extra 30% on something I nominally own? That's not real. I can't pay the taxes with that. What should I do to get that extra 30%? Take out an extra mortgage on that alleged increase in house value? Sell it and move to a worse house in a worse neighbourhood, somewhere I don't really want to live that I can still afford the taxes? I bought a house that I wanted to live in, that I could afford the taxes on, and now I can't afford the taxes through no fault of my own. There is no solace to be taken in the fact that if I sold it, I might get 30% more than I paid. I don't want the money. If I wanted the money, I wouldn't have bought the house to live in, in the first place. I want what I bought two years ago; the house I could afford to live in. 30% increase in alleged value is of no use to me, and it's costing me money.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago