50 responses so far ↓

• 1 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 24, 2011 at 1:22 pm

  Yet another unhappy and unintended consequence of our boomtown real estate market.

  People who have bought and lived in the ‘hood for 30 years, working middle class jobs, perhaps paid their taxes, perhaps been able to put away some some decent but modest savings, watching that being eaten away at as the market changes.

• 2 Sharon // Jan 24, 2011 at 1:26 pm

  HA! you think residential assessments are confusing… try looking at a commercial property and figure out what method they use to pin a value on the property.

  Not to mention the fact that the tenant is also entitled to appeal in addition to the property owner!

  Oddly the assessment side is not as outrageous as the taxation side – which isn’t saying much.

• 3 Tiktaalik // Jan 24, 2011 at 1:29 pm

  Yeah property taxes don’t seem like a terribly fair way to handle things given that they don’t consider the income of the person that owns the property.

  Are there other countries/cities that don’t have this disconnect and handle gathering revenue for the city in a different way?

• 4 Bill Smolick // Jan 24, 2011 at 1:32 pm

  And yet when Al sells his property, he hopes to reap the rewards of the boom. I love it when folks try to have it both ways. That’s what truly makes Vancouver awesome.

• 5 rf // Jan 24, 2011 at 1:42 pm

  Hilarious! They’re property goes up $300k and they complain about having to pay an extra $2-3k in taxes! Poor them!

  If you can’t afford the taxes, move. For half of these people it’s the only taxes they pay!

  Boomer Entitlement is a ever-growing disease. They act like deferring there taxes and paying $200 in interest (also deferred) is a hardship.

  If they want to live in a property worth 5X the national average and have the option at anytime to sell for a massive tax free profit, save us the tears.

  Has this site gone so far to the left that we feel sorry for people worth a mere $2million?

  They won the national real estate lottery. It’s Puget Drive for heavens sake! The reason it costs 30% more to build on it is because only multi-millionaires can afford to do it, and they will in a heartbeat for those views.

  I’ll reiterate. The Dreher’s dilemma is that if they sell their house, they will only realize $297,000 of a (likely) $300,000 in tax free gains on their property in the last year or so.

  And Frances writes only writes about the sob story part.

  How about Lesson 5: Have a clue.

• 6 spartikus // Jan 24, 2011 at 2:00 pm

  What rf said, except for the part about this being the tears of “the left”. Anti-tax rhetoric has a home, and it’s not on the left side of the spectrum…

• 7 Morven // Jan 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm

  There is a negative aspect.

  Do not forget that one of the indirect impacts of high assessment values (and the taxes) is the cascade effect of owners downsizing and moving to areas with lower assessed values, then driving up those property values, gentrifying the new area and disenfranchising local residents and tenants.

  That is what happens when you proudly proclaim yourself as a global city.
  -30-

• 8 Sharon // Jan 24, 2011 at 2:18 pm

  Residents have it sweet in Vancouver. regardless of the assessment, the residential roll pays 52% of the cost of what it consumes. Such a deal.

• 9 Bill Smolick // Jan 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm

  > If you can’t afford the taxes, move. For half of these people it’s the only taxes
  > they pay!

  I’m not sure where the assertion “for half of these people…” comes from. It’s certainly not based on any facts, but why let that get in the way of a good biased rant after all.

  The “if you can’t afford the taxes, move” argument is a good one in a city as diverse as Vancouver. I’m a bit more sympathetic in places like Whistler, Rossland etc which have become resort towns where even wealthy people can’t afford to live.

  Of course I sort of see Vancouver on it’s way to become a resort city, the likes of which is rare. Vegas and Monaco provide models of some sort. Not a good sort, mind you, but some sort.

• 10 Morry // Jan 24, 2011 at 3:32 pm

  @The Fourth Horseman

  This is a major problem for those people who have PAID their way for 4o yrs, And now that people who buy homes asINVESTMENTS are forcing property assessments and the taxes beyound the affordability of decent hard working people who have done nothing but good for this city! The assessments on those homes should be frozen once a person reaches 60/65.

  The BC Assessments Authority should be ashamed for what they are doing. They are no better than mafia.

  And as for the politicians that lack the guts and will to address Investment housing should be turfed out.

• 11 Morry // Jan 24, 2011 at 3:34 pm

  RF. We know your sort!

  Envious lazy lie about. Hope they cut your welfare cheque 10%.

• 12 Joe Just Joe // Jan 24, 2011 at 4:06 pm

  I hate paying taxes even more then the next guy, but I fail to see the issue here. Forget assesment values for a minute and look at your acutual tax bill. It is very low compared to a similar sized house in other Canadian cities, and a downright steal compared to most US cities. What exactly are people complaining about here? Even if there homes have tripled in value over the last 15yrs their taxes have risen at around the inflation rates.

• 13 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm

  What Morven said, #7.

  And rf, and those that seem to take delight in long-time residents complaints on the assessments: yeah, their property assessment (and price of home) has gone up. And they could cash out if they wanted to. But, if they don’t want to, they might have to, now. $6K+ is a bump for most people. House rich, and all that. Should they charge it back to their homes amd wait it out till they sell or die? that would seem to be prefferable–unless they guess wrong.

  Yes, and some of them on fixed incomes have deferred property tax, and charge it back to their home to be paid at a later date. I don’t agree that a 100% deferral every year is reasonable.

  In fact, I think it is a crime for those with income to be able to defer, which they can do now if they are 55 years of age! No other requirements, from what I make of the rule. Yet, I am sure that many do who have plenty of income—it is a universal loophole that is completely ridiculous.

  Means test on property tax, anyone?

• 14 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm

  Joe @ #12 is correct, too.

  I would say that people must pay part of their property tax after age 60. I would further think that a means test would be required to see if they should be able to defer any part of that tax.

  We need those taxes, obviously.
  People can place a bet against their property, by deferring part of their property tax, they can leverage against their property by buying a condo to move into eventually or theycan sell outright.

• 15 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 24, 2011 at 4:14 pm

  Morry, #10.

  Yes.

• 16 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 24, 2011 at 4:34 pm

  Sorry to be a “space hog”…

  Someone here said, “for some people, property taxes are all they pay”.

  Indeed! In fact, the investor class (non immigrant) as well as the landed immigrant, who make their living off-shore (where they may pay lower income tax) is also reaping the benefits of not paying income tax, and for landed immigrants, they can defer the nasty property taxes too!

  I have expounded on other remedies on this elsewhere on Frances’s blog—short story, non-landed investor should pay a premium onreal estate.

  I don’t have a remedy for landed immigrants that don’t pay income taxes here, as I know there is similar reciprocity for Canadians (not who can work and be taxed in another jurisdiction at the lower rate (the stipulation that the Canadian have no real estate holdings in Canda while they are away, and I think that it kicks in when the Canadian is out of the country for at least 2 years—though I am pretty sure that those rules have work arounds). This sucks, mightily, IMO.

  That is the larger problem, I think. If we are turning into Vegas or Monaco, and every indication is that we are, and people are comig here who have no intention of working here, or, who have another tax jurisdiction, property taxes alone will not help us, even if they reach parity with the US. And deferred property taxes will help, even less.

  That is why we are looking at the travesty of enhanced gaming and larger casinos. Not enough money in taxes, and you can’t milk the middle class forever. Yes, we will drive the middle class from Vancouver. Our tax laws are crap. The rich, from here and around the world will take advantage of our tax laws and continue to live here “rent free”.

  And the poorer and more desperate amongst us, can fill the newacky casino and support the whole system. That is our local and provincial governments for you: desperate, short term moves (cash grabs) and zero long-term planning for real, sustainable business. They also like to milk or give away our resources (hello, forestry and mining sectors, come on down!) with no thought as to value-adds or how to leverage off them.

  Beautiful British Columbia: come for the resources, stay for the gaming! Real estate investors, don’t pay anything for the priveledge!

  Thus endeth today’s rant.

• 17 Sharon // Jan 24, 2011 at 4:45 pm

  you are mixing apples and oranges. Property tax is NOT income, or capital gains tax. PT are fees for services. It has nothing to do with immigration. Every house and business in this city pays property tax whether they can afford it or not.

  If you want to pay less property tax, shorten the wishlist you hand to the city and be more vocal about controlled city budgets and efficient spending. Consumption of services should be the benchmark for taxation – not how much you can afford to pay. The business community should be taxed based on what they use plus what they can write off – nothing more, nothing less.

• 18 Morven // Jan 24, 2011 at 4:59 pm

  Let us be quite clear.

  The property tax deferral applies to Canadian citizens and permanent residents who have lived in their property at least one year, provided they meet the strict criteria set by the provincial government (age being one)

  Not everyone is eligible.

  It is a charge against the property by the provincial government who then pays the property tax to the city. It is not paid by the city and the tax does not come out of the city budget.

  Those who are deferring their property tax are not encumbering the city budget. It has to be repaid with interest to the province when the property is sold or transferred.

  Before you assail the deferees, make sure of your facts.
  -30-

• 19 spartikus // Jan 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm

  shorten the wishlist you hand to the city

  Perhaps you could offer up suggestions. I’ve heard this now for years and yet it’s always short – on this side of it – on details.

  Consumption of services should be the benchmark for taxation

  Why stop there? Why should only businesses pay for the services they directly consume. User-fees for everyone! We can knock Hong Kong off it’s perch!

  The business community should be taxed based on what they use plus what they can write off – nothing more, nothing less.

  But presumably we’ll all pay for the bureaucracy that has to determine what services each individual business uses.

• 20 Chris B // Jan 24, 2011 at 5:48 pm

  What Joe said…

  In Ontario, you can count on your taxes being about 1.25% of the assessed value of the house – so a house worth $400K will pay $5000 a year in property tax. And then sewer and water on top of that.

  Plus, there is no homeowners grant.

  Why? Part of this is greater servicing costs (winter puts a bigger strain on budget, plus greater road repairs), part of it is downloading from the Province and part of it is the fact that Vancouver charges so much more on the business side so it can charge less on the residential side.

• 21 Sean // Jan 24, 2011 at 7:34 pm

  The flip side of the pain of taxes is the services and benefits we get from living in the city. We have a terrific library system, amazing parks and community centers, a good and growing cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, etc.

  I don’t particularly like paying taxes, but I love living in the city!

• 22 Sharon // Jan 24, 2011 at 7:53 pm

  Spartikus, you are making some assumptions about the consumption model. I am not suggesting we pay for every time the fire department gets called to our house. I suggest we all proportionately share for the fire department being on standby – whether we use it or not. I am suggesting we all pay for parks – but perhaps the proportionate share be slightly skewed to residents seeings as a business never goes to a park but there is benefit to quality of life for the park to be available to employees. There is lots of room to consider global good in the consumption model but it is a far cry from the way we allocate costs now.

  Literally, MMK tells us that residents pay .52 for every 1.00 they consume. Is that fair and is that sustainable? Is it reasonable for homeowners grants to be applied beyond the 50% off price tag already there?

  Assessment is only useful in determining what your proportionate share of the tax bill will be assigned to your household. Let’s have this discussion again in July when we actually see what happens to the tax bill.

• 23 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 24, 2011 at 8:23 pm

  Morven,

  Here is the eligibility requirments in full. What strict deferrals!?

  I did refer to age 55 limit and the fact that Canadian citizens/permanent residents were eligible.

  Pretty simple eligibility roles, and certainly covers a lot of people—No criteria for means testing or income testing here. Which I do not agree with. Which is the point.

  Yes, the province covers this and the city is not on the hook, as the province covers it. Yes, the province charges some interest and collects upon sale. But I ask you—with baby boomers making up the bulk of the tax paying citizenry right now, and with so few criterion (25% assessed value in your home? You can achieve that in one year in Vancouver in the current climate!), I can speculate that a good many people will be able to defer paying property tax and owe money to the provincial governement.

  If they don’t sell and stay put, and given the extended life cycles of Canadians today, one could conceivably defer taxes —that is, money NOT going to tax coffers at the province—for thirty years—or until age 85. That is a tax underwritten by everyone else in the province.

  Eligibility Criteria

  To qualify for the Property Tax Deferment Program, you must:

  *be the registered owner(s) of the home
  *be 55 years of age or older OR a surviving spouse OR a person with disabilities as defined in the Regulations to the Land Tax Deferment Act
  *be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident under the Immigration Act
  (Canada)
  *have lived in British Columbia for at least one year immediately prior to applying
  *apply on the home in which you live
  have a minimum equity of 25% in your home based on assessed values as determined by BC Assessment
  *have a current fire insurance policy on your home

• 24 spartikus // Jan 24, 2011 at 8:24 pm

  Sharon,

  You continually imply much of the services provided by the City are simply a “wishlist” and the taxpayer should rethink them. I would like to know which services you talking about.

• 25 Ready To Rumble // Jan 24, 2011 at 8:36 pm

  Taxpayers should be more upset about the fact that our mayor, Gregor Robertson pays no property tax. [Removed for lack of any evidence to support this.]

  I pay both residential and commercial taxes . Although I don’t enjoy paying them, I consider myself fortunate to do so, therefore no complaints. However, it does rankle me to see someone playing the system. Sort of like when you’re running really late for work and you’re catching Skytrain and you think ” I could make it if I didn’t have to wait and pay, I pay all the time, the system owes me one.” But your conscience won’t let you steal that ride, you wait, you pay and then you see some flake without a conscience take the free ride. You think to yourself “he’ll probably be elected mayor someday.”

• 26 Morven // Jan 24, 2011 at 10:34 pm

  The Fourth Horseman # 23

  All valid points.

  In fact, tax deferral is a provincial policy; property tax is a city policy.

  One reason for the tax deferral for the elderly was to promote community stability. And in fairness, in a city like Vancouver, it would be prudent to maintain property tax deferral for the elderly with property tax credits for low income households.

  As I understand it, the provincial liberals did introduce property tax deferrals for economically stressed families in 2010. It is not only the elderly that benefit from tax deferrals.

  But why not ask the Liberal and NDP leadership candidates for their views. Might be an interesting debate.
  -30-

• 27 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 25, 2011 at 12:29 am

  Morven,

  ‘And in fairness, in a city like Vancouver, it would be prudent to maintain property tax deferral for the elderly with property tax credits for low income households.’

  I completely agree. I don’t want to see elderly people, who have supported the community for many years, through both property and income taxes, be pushed out of their long-term residences because of this heated real estate market.

  And I agree that the leadership candidates from both provincial parties should be asked how to handle this question, going forward. From what I can see, it is just too broad a tax deferral policy and is ripe for exploitation.

• 28 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 25, 2011 at 12:36 am

  PS The test for “low income” would be an interesting—and vexing one.

  How do you test for income, if you don’t declare income in this country? Yet, you can be here for a year, as a citizen or permanent resident, and still meet all the eligibility requirements for the tax deferral, as the regulations currently stands.

  This is nuts.

• 29 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 25, 2011 at 12:46 am

  I think an accounting of net worth is the only way to make that property tax deferral dog hunt.

  Now, THAT would be interesting. Sort of like giving your info to the bank, because you are borrowing from the province, in a manner of speaking. I wonder if people would then demure, on that basis alone?!

• 30 rf // Jan 25, 2011 at 9:15 am

  @Morry!

  So the poor income deprived aging millionaires should now get a tax break on their house, a tax break on pharmacare, free rides on the ferries and discounted bus passes.
  They want a boost in their CPP, OAS, and meanwhile collect the GIS.
  They are going to live until they’re 87 and when they can’t take care of themselves their kids will sell the house and then stick them in a governement funded care home. Their care home costs will be subsidized down to about $1100/month (all inclusive) because net worth doesn’t determine what they pay to be in a provincial funded care home.

  Funny…in the UK you have to pay your own way in a care home unless you have less than about CAD$37k in ASSETS.

  Here, you get subsidized if you have less then $25k in INCOME. Assets are ignored!

  And Morry, I checked my last pay stub from 2010. Over$100k in federal taxes withheld. I don’t see a line for all of my welfare. Hopefully they didn’t cut it.

  But I don’t own a place (by choice and what I consider to be worth affording).

  All the more reason to gripe about millionaires who think they are special and deserve a tax break. You don’t hear me asking for one.

  And since when do we only have to pay our way for 40 years?!!!!!! That’s less than half a lifetime. Who’s the lie about?

• 31 rf // Jan 25, 2011 at 9:29 am

  And here’s a scenario. Someone puts $150k into a bluechip dividend paying stock portfolio, instead of a house 40 years ago, and the stock portfolio over 40 years is now worth $2million (a completely plausible scenario).

  The person uses the dividends to pay their rent each month.

  So they are now getting a 4% dividend yield on the portfolio, about $80,000 a year.

  They are renting a great place in a great neighbourhood for $5000/month.

  Would you have sympathy for them if they suggested that they should not have to pay any more taxes on the dividends if their rent went up. Should we cap their rent?

  What’s the difference?

  Are these millionaires more special because they put all of their money in their house?

• 32 Morven // Jan 25, 2011 at 9:40 am

  rf # 30

  If you believe tax deferrals for the elderly (whether they live in a high or low value house) are a bad public policy, then encourage VISION/NPA and Liberal/NDP to support your proposal.

  Selectively attacking the elderly without any other tax system reforms, is plainly discriminatory.

  What we may need is reform, not revenge
  -30

• 33 Max // Jan 25, 2011 at 10:12 am

  @ rf # 31

  You cannot blame or penalize people who are smart with their money.

  Some people learn eaarly and understand what will benefit them down the road and make those financial adjustments accordingly.

  We keep hearing about how yong people today don’t have a chance at owning a home.

  Perhaps.

  But, those same young people do not want to sacrafice the new decked out car, all the new tech toys, the $100 pair of yoga pants, the vacation once or twice a year.

  It is all relevant.

• 34 Sean // Jan 25, 2011 at 10:39 am

  @rf # 31

  “Someone puts $150k into a bluechip dividend paying stock portfolio, instead of a house 40 years ago…”

  40 years ago virtually no one just starting out in life would have been able to cough up $150K as an investment, let alone as a payment on a house.

• 35 rf // Jan 25, 2011 at 10:55 am

  @Max 33- I think if you reread my post you will see that we are on the same side. I couldn’t agree more with your comment.

  @Morven 32 – I made no reference to tax deferrals. I’m talking about tax breaks/cuts. My original point was that the deferral is a valid strategy and the ‘poor’ Dehmers should use the option and stop whining about paying $1000 more a year on their lottery like housing victory.

  My whole point was that people who whine about property taxes going up do to massive gains on their home is no different than people who whine about having to pay capital gains taxes when they have a windfall in the stock market.

  We are lucky to live in a place where just about anyone who’s owned a home for 40 years has won the financial equivalent of the old 6/49 lottery.

  It’s not like this everywhere else.

  I’m not shedding tears for people with net worths of $2million who whine about $1,000/year tax increases.
  Just because someone thinks they are poor, it doesn’t mean that they are.

  Fair point Sean.

• 36 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 25, 2011 at 11:16 am

  House rich and cash/investment/income poor, I understand. The home may be the only real asset an older person (yet to be defined in my mind) or “low income” family may have.

  It may be that they can can defer 100% or 50% or another amount (after all, shouldn’t one be paying SOME property tax each year?). That it can now be charged back to the home and be collected upon disposal of the home is an option, though I have always been leery, as in the possible, though unlikely event of a crash, one could end up with negative equity in the family house. That’s one of the reasons I think using the term “investment” when talking about the principal residence is a huge mistake. IMO you are gambling, if you don’t pay some property taxes as you go along.

  My gripe is that the current rules, as they stand, obviously have the potential to allow far too many people to skip paying at all.

  No-one should want to force a senior on a low income with few assets who bought 20 or 30, years ago from a home. This is a frightening and uncertain time for those on the margins, even if their home value is skyrocketing. Do we say that under all market conditions e.g. because Vancouver is a destination of choice, you, old man/old woman must now give up your home, the place you have paid off, and worked hard for, so many years ago, because of market conditions that are out of your control? Grandma, pack your bags, and move to Abbotsford! Gee, I hope not.

  Max, @33, I hear ya, about younger people who buy toys. But they also cannot buy a home on $60K a year, unless they have a partner who makes at least the same amount. But hey, there are still rental options, and the potential to at least save some money based on that. I think the days of everyone being able to buy a home–and even the wisdom in doing so, at least in this market—may be a thing of the past, at this point.

  But back to the main issue: that to me, is the issue: a property tax means test could solve the dilemma of people who are able to pay but who are not paying.

  I would love to know how many people are taking advantage of the deferral for 2010 and 2011 in Metro Van. Is it available—or FOIable?

• 37 Morven // Jan 25, 2011 at 11:24 am

  The deferred tax is not a tax avoidance. The owner is borrowing the money in effect from the provincial government. They still have to pay the money plus interest when they sell.

  The city still gets the property tax each year but routed through the government. The owners are not avoiding the tax. Period.

  Take the deferment away and you take it from the asset rich as well as the asset poor elderly property owners. If you want to change it, talk to the provincial government.
  -40-

• 38 Max // Jan 25, 2011 at 11:29 am

  I would like to mention this – I purchased my condo in 1993. (Vancouver)

  My property taxes were lower thnt what I was paying when I lived in Maple Ridge.

  When my first tax notice arrived, I thought it was incorrect and made several inquires checking to make sure I would not be receiving a shock when they came due.

  They were lower by roughly $600.00 and that included the home owner’s grant.

• 39 rf // Jan 25, 2011 at 1:05 pm

  Max just reminded me! These seniors already get an extra homeowners grant just for being over 65. That numbers has increased over time with inflation!

  Now they want another handout.

• 40 Max // Jan 25, 2011 at 1:55 pm

  This is off topic but…

  Yesterday’s Vancouver 24 hours had an article by Bob Mackin: Interest to buy Olympic Village (page 5)

  Francesco Aquillini (owner of Rogers Arena and the Vancouver Canucks) stated: “We’ve spoken with (the City of Vancouver) about buying the enitre packge at a certain price, but the price expectation that they want is a little too high.” (Vancouver Board of Trade meeting on Friday)

  “We’ve got some partnerships with some Asisan developers who have buyers waiting to purchase expensive units in Vancouver.”

  In the meantime, Aquilini hopes to build an office tower nd three residential towers around Rogers Arena plus a %50M practice rink across the street at the Plaza of Ntions. The rink would include a sports science centre, gymnasium and hotel-style rooms for players to take pre-game naps.

  *******

  Now, I would be curious to know what the offer was (monetary and other aspects) and what the city is asking.

• 41 wc // Jan 25, 2011 at 3:16 pm

  “Someone puts $150k into a bluechip dividend paying stock portfolio, instead of a house 40 years ago…”

  40 years ago $150K would have bought you about four or five houses on the west side.

• 42 Sean // Jan 25, 2011 at 11:13 pm

  @rf #35

  “My whole point was that people who whine about property taxes going up do to massive gains on their home is no different than people who whine about having to pay capital gains taxes when they have a windfall in the stock market.”

  I have two comments on this:

  #1 – Property value appreciation is not a windfall. Everyone has to live somewhere, and once you’ve made the initial purchase, an increase in the value of your house isn’t something that earns you extra income or lets you buy more stuff. Sure, you can realize a gain when you sell the house, but then you have to plow the proceeds back into some other place to live, all of which have ALSO appreciated in value.

  #2 – I agree that people seem overly sensitive about taxes and assessments. There seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding that if your assessment doubles then your property taxes must double too. Assuming the city’s budget itself hasn’t increased this would ONLY be true if YOUR property value doubled and everybody else’s STAYED THE SAME – which of course never happens. In reality the fundamental reason property taxes go up is because the city budget goes up (or the city shifts some proportion of business taxes over to residents!). And in fact unless you make improvements to your house, it’s value will tend to go DOWN relative to the citywide average (because the average includes new housing stock which is continually being built), which means you’ll pay a SMALLER proportion of tax.

• 43 Morven // Jan 26, 2011 at 8:03 am

  rf # 39

  A discussion of tax deferrals and home owner grants should be based on factual data.

  The home owner grant has been an element of public policy for a long time. The Socreds, NDP and Liberals have all supported this policy over the years and all have ensured that there is an assessed value cap above which no grant is paid.

  Above that cap (currently at an assessed value of $ 1.3 million) there is no home owner grant.

  There is no automatic entitlement for age.

  The policy is aimed at those living in lower assessed value homes not the high end which effectively excludes many living in west side Vancouver.
  -30-

• 44 Morry // Jan 26, 2011 at 10:12 am

  I am 70 years old. I have sacrificed all my working life to be able to live in my house and have always paid my taxes. I have contributed to society. 50 years of paying and now you want me to move to some little shack away from my neighbourhood, friends, social support, medical facilities etc etc… all just because week-kneed politicians are allowing FOREIGN INVESTORS to jack up house prices! .. .and raising my Taxes when i am an longer earning high incomes. Bugger off junior! And to the foreigners who park their families here in a second or third home, have them make use of all our benefits, education and health care on our backs, while the father hikes back to where they can rake in the money and don’t pay income taxes in this country… Bugger off to you too!

  I and other seniors will not be bullied by Inflated Assessments . We’ll fight back.!

• 45 rf // Jan 26, 2011 at 12:29 pm

  Nothing like a racist rant to tell everyone how entitled they are.

• 46 Sean // Jan 26, 2011 at 12:36 pm

  #Morry #44

  “…week-kneed politicians are allowing FOREIGN INVESTORS to jack up house prices! .. .and raising my Taxes when i am an longer earning high incomes.”

  See my point 2 in my post #42. Your taxes don’t go up just because the value of your house goes up. Assuming that the city itself doesn’t increase its budget, your taxes only go up if the YOUR house price appreciates MORE than the AVERAGE house price in Vancouver. If your house goes up by 10% and the average house price in Vancouver ALSO goes up 10%, then you’re paying the same proportion of the total municipal budget as you did before (actually it’s likely to be a little less since the total number of taxed properties has probably increased slightly what with new condo developments etc.)

  Over the last 40 years the biggest reason your taxes have increased has a lot less do with the value of your house than because the City’s total budget has increased year after year.

  Speculation that increases the cost of housing hurts new people who are trying to buy a house, it doesn’t have nearly as big an impact on people who have already bought one.

  If you’re upset about property tax increases, you should be directing your anger at the civic politicians who increase the city budget, and (in the last few years) shift the proportion of the tax burden from commercial to residential properties.

• 47 Mo // Jan 26, 2011 at 7:29 pm

  RF : read and weep.
  “The Australian Government (based in Canberra, Australia’s capital city) is aware of the fact that some of Australia’s citizens are cautious about foreign individuals or companies buying residential real estate (defined as all Australian real property, including vacant land).”

  And I wonder who would defend this country: . fly-nighters who hod convenient citizenship or people committed to country and god… No mater what race or creed.

  You raised a racist card for nought. We are talking economics and people and capital that blow with the wind. Much as you would. God help us from the likes of you and your ilk.

• 48 rf // Jan 27, 2011 at 8:36 am

  Ah yes, Morry…..if it weren’t for those lousy foreigners in other countries, oil would be cheaper too. How dare China grow up and industrialize! Now gas is more expensive, bread is more expensive, everything costs more because of them foreigners.

  ‘But buying real estate on my block is the way that foreigners really cost me money!’

  ‘Natural gas prices were going up too, because of those lousy foreigners and their ‘demand’! I signed up for a fixed gas price for 3 years so prices would stop going up! But then those lousy foreigners stopped speculating! and the price went down! I could have paid less! I want it both ways!

  Which way do you want it, Morry? House worth $400,000 less but taxes $2,000/year cheaper, or the way it is now?

  Oh right….you want it both ways.

• 49 Higgins // Jan 27, 2011 at 12:07 pm

  Mo # 47

  Funny you brought that Australian angle up. A new report says that Vancouver has become the most Unaffordable city in Canada, house wise. Gold at home, Bronze abroad. Sydney and Hong Kong are the Silver and Gold medalists worldwide.
  Read it here:
  http://www.canada.com/Home+prices+less+affordable+across+Canada/4162894/story.html
  I think Morry #44 makes a good point. Read his post again and then try to spell aloud V-A-N-C-O-U-V-E-R. I don’t know why but for some reason I always end up spelling V-A-N-K-O-N-G… of course, price wise.

• 50 Morry // Jan 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm

  @rf I’ll give it to you … one way!

  “Which way do you want it, Morry? House worth $400,000 less but taxes $2,000/year cheaper, or the way it is now?”

  CHEAPER HOUSES IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE! Does me not one bit of good to have a 1.5 million dollar house.

  I want to have younger people with families around me. having cheaper houses would do that.
  If the rest of the world is doing so good let them stay there and prosper. IF they want to emigrate here great. STAY AND WORK HERE AND PAY TAXES HERE … don’t take and not give.