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-...
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.
An absolute right granted by law (e.g., Constitutional Rights which may not be infringed, or if you subscribe to them, universal human rights) would generally superscede others. There's a fairly strong argument against such rights in general, and I happen to see the discussion of rights in general as being greatly muddied.
That's not to say that many of the claims granted by these rights are bad. I think there are very strong arguments in favor of free speech (though not unlimited), of freedom of religion, of due process. Also of education and healthcare, possibly of a minimum income. Other rights I'm less convinced of, particularly in a resource-constrained world.
But the right to remove someone from their home without consequence strikes me as a peculiar one. Even Russia's serfs were considered to be bound to the land. They couldn't be moved separately from it (nor did they have the right to move themselves, but this wasn't terribly different from restraints on internal migration, say, as in England under its Poor Laws in the 17th century).
You could argue that it is a form of double taxation (since you've already paid for the property and that income was already taxed before you could use it).
If you force them to move elsewhere, they are likely to end up completely isolated and it is much bigger problem for them then for younger person.
The house you need at 50 when your kids have left is not the house that you needed at 30, it will likely be too big for two anyway.
Traditionally people would move into a place in their mid 20's to early 30's and stay there until they either died or went into care but that is definitely changing.
And property taxes are only a small factor in that, the cost of heating and maintaining (both in money and in labour) as well as walking stairs usually figure in there as well and possibly as larger factors.
That's nothing to do with communism.
I don't and won't pay shit. It's my property. Come and take it, but there WILL be consequences.
I don't know if you're genuinely evil or you're just one delusional latte sipping socialist hipster who thinks he can live off other people's money and labor. Sickening.
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.
That said, I really don't think this is likely enough to go anywhere constructive or useful, so I'm going to beg off.
Goodbye.
There are monthly costs related to the building syndicate so they can fix the building for you and keep the maintenance services.
Same go for having a house.
If you had a house in the middle of nowhere, then you might be right to complain.
Initially you're doing well in life. You're making decent money at your tech job and you eventually end up buying a pretty nice house. Things are good for a while, but at some point you get old/sick and are unable to work anymore. You are able to survive on what you have and perhaps have a fairly decent life, but it's not a lot. You like the house where you live and you consider it yours. But for some reason, the price of real estate in your neighborhood skyrockets and the government reevaluates your tax liabilities based on the new valuation of your house.
You used to have a pretty good life, but now you just can't afford the new property tax anymore and are forced to sell the property, move halfway across town and buy some dingy shack that you actually can afford.
Question: is it fair of the government to evict you from the place that you fully own and where you lived for ages, because of someone's rent-seeking behavior and based on certain factors that are completely outside of your control? Are you telling me that you wouldn't feel even a little bit upset in that kind of scenario?
edit: Also, I thought that downvoting is reserved for rude discourse and blatant violations of the HN rules, not if you disagree with someone's opinion. This place is becoming just like Reddit.
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.