3 ms·

Ridiculous ageist policy. If you don't have a home and you're above 40, I'd argue you need the benefit even more.

• mjevans 5y ago
  Agreed, this should be a tax code line with a small number of ORed entry conditions. - OR - at least one of * First time home buyer * Total homes owned plus being purchased will remain at one after the transaction is completed, and net-worth is under 20% the cost of a median home within the home's metro area. * Qualified for a federal benefits program excluded from the upper 60% of society The phrasing on the last one is specific, it's the wording required to select for economically disadvantaged individuals in a mechanically testable way. The exact number might be tweaked, this is just a back of the napkin ballpark. Other entry qualifiers can be added to the list. The second allows someone to move homes and if they need the benefit, not be locked out of assistance moving to an economically 'hotter' area that might have better jobs.
• unglaublich 5y ago
  What about no age discrimination at all?
• onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  The home ownership rate is already >70% for people 40+. This is just pandering to young people in Vancouver & Toronto. Any tax savings will be passed on to owners in the form of higher prices. The only thing you'll do is pay higher property taxes and insurance.
• belval 5y ago
  Just so you don't get angry for no reason: the actual policy says nothing about a specific age. You could be 60 and use it to buy a house. It also doesn't have to be your first one. If you had a house than sold it and lived in an apartment for 4 years you are eligible again. If you own your house but your spouse doesn't they can use this for your next house.