Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Sure, and they can pay upkeep on all eight of them. In that context, the EHT is pretty much just an extension of the property tax, which itself already has incentives and penalties.
|
The car owner is 100% aware of insurance and upkeep costs, before they get the car. Just like a home owner is aware of the standard property taxes, insurance and maintenance (lawn mowing to comply with city bylaws, or strata fees in a condo). The EHT applies to those after they own their home. If anything, it should have grandfathered existing owners. Any new homes purchased and left empty would be taxed. I don't agree with this either, but then new buyers are aware of this and existing buyers don't have significant changes to them after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the latter (and so is Victoria, which I believe offers a $2k break), but they have to realize that supply is low and demand is high - second homes are becoming a luxury no matter where you go. And how do they afford flight tickets twelve times a year, but not a 1% increase in property tax?
If I'm reading this correctly, they literally own a second home just to avoid commuting to work. That could be its own meme. |
Depends on the situation. Some live in Victoria, and take the ferry over a couple times a month. Others might live in Burnaby or Fraser Valley and literally work 24/7 during deal time. All the lawyers, accountants, business partners etc are in DT core and a extra condo serves as Business person's base. Others need to bounce between Vancouver, Toronto, NYC etc and need a base that is set up to come and go as needed. Office set up, documents stored, clothes ready. Family sometimes accompany them.
I have family that lives in Calgary that own a condo in a BC resort town. They come and go from there as they please. Sometimes they stay a few weeks, sometimes a night as a base when they drive out here. They are not speculators. In fact, they bought when there was excess supply and little demand. Should they have gotten a tax rebate for that, since at the time there was way more supply than demand? They should have gotten a 1% tax rebate for stimulating the economy in times of need. The province wants to tax them more when supply is low and demand is high.
Arguing that if someone can afford to pay for something others can't, doesn't justify having them pay extra tax on top of their regular expenses. So what if someone can drop $10k on a Hermes bag. That doesn't mean some silly Super Luxury Tax should be implemented on luxury things to fund XYZ Affordable Justice League Fund. I don't have kids, so I have more disposable income. Should a Bachelor Tax be implemented to help single moms? And in my previous post, I'd assume gay couples have a higher percentage of childless homes. Should a gay tax be implemented if a couple does not have children (or even straight couples that choose not to have children). There should be a DINK tax (dual income no kids)!
Threaded Mode