4 ms·

Most seniors are on a fixed income -- the ones on GIS, certainly. It's not clear to me why anyone over age 55 should be eligible, when the retirement age in Can

Most seniors are on a fixed income -- the ones on GIS, certainly. It's not clear to me why anyone over age 55 should be eligible, when the retirement age in Canada is 67. The government is effectively paying them to live in their house, no? They're charging 1% interest but raising money in the bond market at 3.4%. Presumably if they were actually collecting the property tax, they would have less of a shortfall to cover in the bond market.

cratermoon 12y ago
> how are you financially vulnerable if you have an asset worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? For most people, the house they own is not an asset, it's their home. Taking out home equity loan is very unwise financially, and selling it, while it will generate a fixed sum, is not only complex but can introduce additional taxes. In addition all that, the former homeowner must now find a new (rented) residence and move, and live for who knows how long on the proceeds from the home sale.
- cldellow 12y ago
  > selling it [..] can introduce additional taxes Hmm, can you provide an example? The deferment programs are only available on one's principal residence. Sale of principal residences are exempt from capital gains in Canada. > it's _their home_ I get that it's your home and it would be sad to sell it. It would be sad to sell it when you're 30, too. But let's say we rationalize it as being OK to evict a 30-year-old, but not OK to evict a 55-year-old. I still have issue with the fact that: * there's not a means test * the interest charged doesn't match market interest, so when you finally die and your estate settles up with the government, you've paid less tax than the fellow down the road due to interest rate arbitrage I can't find usage stats on BC's tax deferment program, which is a shame as theirs seems the most open to abuse. e.g. this CFP [1] recommends that anyone who can (i.e. is over 55) take advantage of it, regardless of financial need. Which makes sense: it is one of the few ways in Canada to transfer your personal tax burden onto others. [1]: http://business.financialpost.com/2011/05/31/property-taxes-defer-them/ http://business.financialpost.com/2011/05/31/property-taxes-...
  - bsdshepherd 12y ago
    You seem genuinely open to discussion. UI issues prevent offering all I'd like, but I suggest you add sociology - particularly the family unit and successive generations - with your economic views. The arguments on this post lack enough dimensions to be of any use other than generating conflict. Eviction based solely on age is a fruitless direction to move in. A (35/50) y.o. with a 4 bedroom house is not comparable to a 4 bedroom house, owned by two (35/50) y.o. people who (are raising/raised) 3 children, one of whom (birthed/returned home with) a child. There are many other dimensions to consider, but I am unable and unwilling to continue.
- goalieca 12y ago
  Home ownership is not a right. Just ask any of my 20/30-something year old friends.
  - VexXtreme 12y ago
    That's correct, it's not a right, but being free from having your primary and only residence confiscated because you're unable to pay a "property tax" (usually due to a decreasing living standard) should be a right.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      My primary and only residence will be confiscated if I'm unable to pay a "rent".
      - VexXtreme 12y ago
        It's different. If your home was previously paid for in full, then it's your private property. If I'm paying someone on a monthly basis to allow me to live in their residence, then it's obviously not mine. Asking someone to keep paying an annual tax on something that's: 1. completely theirs 2. essential to their life is a form of feudalism and serfdom and a flagrant violation of their right to be secure in their life, possessions and property. You can try to argue this as much as you want and invoke all sorts of broken analogies, but it is what it is.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        You beg the question. That said, I really don't think this is likely enough to go anywhere constructive or useful, so I'm going to beg off.
        VexXtreme 12y ago
        I agree. It all comes down to your personal belief system. If I believe that theft is wrong and immoral and you disagree, then we will never be able to reach common ground. Goodbye.

cratermoon 12y ago

> how are you financially vulnerable if you have an asset worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? For most people, the house they own is not an asset, it's their home. Taking out home equity loan is very unwise financially, and selling it, while it will generate a fixed sum, is not only complex but can introduce additional taxes. In addition all that, the former homeowner must now find a new (rented) residence and move, and live for who knows how long on the proceeds from the home sale.

cldellow 12y ago
> selling it [..] can introduce additional taxes Hmm, can you provide an example? The deferment programs are only available on one's principal residence. Sale of principal residences are exempt from capital gains in Canada. > it's _their home_ I get that it's your home and it would be sad to sell it. It would be sad to sell it when you're 30, too. But let's say we rationalize it as being OK to evict a 30-year-old, but not OK to evict a 55-year-old. I still have issue with the fact that: * there's not a means test * the interest charged doesn't match market interest, so when you finally die and your estate settles up with the government, you've paid less tax than the fellow down the road due to interest rate arbitrage I can't find usage stats on BC's tax deferment program, which is a shame as theirs seems the most open to abuse. e.g. this CFP [1] recommends that anyone who can (i.e. is over 55) take advantage of it, regardless of financial need. Which makes sense: it is one of the few ways in Canada to transfer your personal tax burden onto others. [1]: http://business.financialpost.com/2011/05/31/property-taxes-defer-them/ http://business.financialpost.com/2011/05/31/property-taxes-...
- bsdshepherd 12y ago
  You seem genuinely open to discussion. UI issues prevent offering all I'd like, but I suggest you add sociology - particularly the family unit and successive generations - with your economic views. The arguments on this post lack enough dimensions to be of any use other than generating conflict. Eviction based solely on age is a fruitless direction to move in. A (35/50) y.o. with a 4 bedroom house is not comparable to a 4 bedroom house, owned by two (35/50) y.o. people who (are raising/raised) 3 children, one of whom (birthed/returned home with) a child. There are many other dimensions to consider, but I am unable and unwilling to continue.
goalieca 12y ago
Home ownership is not a right. Just ask any of my 20/30-something year old friends.
- VexXtreme 12y ago
  That's correct, it's not a right, but being free from having your primary and only residence confiscated because you're unable to pay a "property tax" (usually due to a decreasing living standard) should be a right.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    My primary and only residence will be confiscated if I'm unable to pay a "rent".
    - VexXtreme 12y ago
      It's different. If your home was previously paid for in full, then it's your private property. If I'm paying someone on a monthly basis to allow me to live in their residence, then it's obviously not mine. Asking someone to keep paying an annual tax on something that's: 1. completely theirs 2. essential to their life is a form of feudalism and serfdom and a flagrant violation of their right to be secure in their life, possessions and property. You can try to argue this as much as you want and invoke all sorts of broken analogies, but it is what it is.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        You beg the question. That said, I really don't think this is likely enough to go anywhere constructive or useful, so I'm going to beg off.
        VexXtreme 12y ago
        I agree. It all comes down to your personal belief system. If I believe that theft is wrong and immoral and you disagree, then we will never be able to reach common ground. Goodbye.