6 ms·
> The locals who have not sold are now much wealthier. And now have to pay much higher property taxes, which they might not be able to afford with their curren
by TheCoreh 9y ago
> The locals who have not sold are now much wealthier.
And now have to pay much higher property taxes, which they might not be able to afford with their current income. For sure, they should be able to sell the property and buy a comparable one cheaper elsewhere (Thus netting some profit) however they're basically being priced out of the property they own, with no real choice. (Issue #1)
Unless they can find a similar paying job wherever they move to (which might not be the case), they now need to face a much longer commute to work every single day, wasting hours that could previously be spent on leisure, with family, or doing work on the side to earn extra money. (Issue #2) The amount of profit they net from the sale of the property might be useful to compensate for this effect, if they're able to invest it properly, and depending on the specifics and market conditions.
(Renting the property will probably result in a comparable outcome to investing the profits from the sale, which might or might not be enough to break even considered the increased commute time)
- msie 9y agoAt least in the province of British Columbia (where Vancouver is), home owner grants reduce the amount of property tax locals pay. Plus there are grants for seniors or people with low-incomes.
- msie 9y agoAnd the vast majority of people who need it, get the grant.
- eru 9y agoThat's why we need land value taxes.