An Increase in Property Value isn't always Beneficial for the Home Owner.

Addressing the opening remarksCon's method to show how one side "outweighs" the other has no place in this debate since this is not an "on balance" debate. His Burden is to show that an increase in property value is always beneficial for the homeowner. An issue I see immediately is that Con stated: "My BOP is to demonstrate that home owners *always* benefit from a rise in house values every time they occur."Both "benefit" and "house values" are not a part of his burden. Rather, it's "beneficial" and "property values" that are a part of his burden. The reason I chose the term "beneficial" instead of "benefit" when shaping this resolution is because there is a slight difference in the definition of those terms.Benefit: An advantage or profit gained from something. [1] Beneficial: Favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. [2]Furthermore, my opponent said: "house values", but this debate revolves around "property values", which can include the house value but is not solely limited to it. Once more, my opponent tries to shift his burden.I cannot make it anymore clear that his burden is to show that "an increase in property values is always beneficial for the homeowner." Any divergence from this burden is an automatic loss for Con as he would be failing to uphold his BOP.RebuttalsI. An increase in property value..."Falling property values does not preclude the need for increased property taxes."Con is under the assumption that I think an increase *is the only way* property taxes can be increased. I merely stated one manner in which property taxes can increase, and never said it was the only way. "My opponent has failed to demonstrate that the financial position the home owner is worse than it was beforehand and thus the rise in house value has been advantageous and favourable."This works only under Con's faulty view of his own BOP. What matters is if the increase in property taxes that follow the rise of property value is always beneficial for the home owner. I've already presented my argument showing that it isn't always beneficial. "... when a homeowner increases the value of their home through renovations or improvements, they gain a favourable outcome in the living conditions of their home."While this is applicable to the homeowners willing to renovate, it dismisses all the homeowners who face property value spikes against their will. This claim from Con is null solely due to the fact that it only accounts for a small fraction of homeowners and is ultimately irrelevant to the full scope of this debate. III. Rising property taxes affecting those on fixed or low incomes."Unless it can be demonstrated that these taxes constitute a larger cost than the increase in their property, the homeowner still gains a benefit in the increase in the value of their home."False. This only works under the faulty assumption that the homeowner has enough money to cover the increase in property taxes that will follow. If they do not have the money to cover the additional property taxes, it is not beneficial for them. "Due to the rise in the value of their home they will be in a position to either draw down on their mortgage, or alternatively take out a reverse mortgage to assist in paying for their property taxes." All mortgages are paid back with interest. Thus, every loan is a financial loss for the person who takes it out, as they are ultimately paying more than what the original loan was for through payments with an interest rate. A reverse mortgage is nothing more than a short-term solution. In the long-run, once the mortgage runs dry the burden then falls solely on the homeowner to keep up with the increased property taxes. Thus, drawing down on a mortgage, or taking out a reverse mortgage, does nothing to show that an increase in property value is always beneficial for the homeowner. All Con is suggesting is a means to putting off the inevitable, nothing more. "There is no need for our hermit to move and uproot himself " he just needs to visit his local bank manager " they would love to provide a tiny mortgage."The very fact that the hermit needs to take out a mortgage in the first place, thus losing money he'd otherwise have due to the interest rates of the mortgage, is why, in this case, it isn't always beneficial. *Con then argues about how renting is worse than owning a home, but that entire line of argumentation is nothing more than a red herring fallacy since comparing the two is irrelevant to the scope of the resolution.* [3] III. "Taxes on capital...""Rising house values are one of the single largest sources of wealth generation for home owners and it is taxed at a very low or non-existent rate."Con is claiming that rising house values are taxed at a low or non-existent rate. The following are two articles which show the exact opposite of Con's claims:http://www.twincities.com...http://www.twincities.com...The latter shows a property tax increase of 40% or more! Con's claim is nothing more than false. Regardless of what the point centers around, it was used to strengthen Con's "on balance" approach which is irrelevant. As is his perception that I must show that the taxes are greater than the gains in house value. All I need to show is that such increases in property taxes aren't always beneficial, which I have done. IV."Local Council Rates (Taxes) are relative.""A huge property value increase only results in a relatively tiny property tax increase."Con, once again, attempts to shift this into a "on balance" debate. This does not fulfill his burden. Con is merely beating a dead horse here by ignoring the select cases I've given where it isn't beneficial."My opponent has failed to demonstrate that municipal taxes outweigh the benefits obtained."I haven't failed anything, as that point is a moot one that I've already responded to in previous rounds. The burden Con placed on me is nothing more than a misguided attempt from his previous round at shifting the goalposts to make this an "on balance" debate. III."Homeowners still benefit from payment of taxes."I never categorized taxes as being a cost with no benefits. I said it was an irrelevant cost if the original property owner doesn't need to rely on those benefits. Aside from Con ignoring my previous response, the entire line of argumentation from him was shown to be moot in my last round as it only applies to "on balance" debates. "Although the hermit may have got along fine without increased services, as populations increase, service quality and diversity would also increase resulting in a further advantage to the Hermit."That advantage is only applicable if the hermit can afford the spike in property taxes in the first place. Everything Con argues is somehow dependent on the assumption that they can magically afford the spike, when my whole point this entire time has been that there is no evidence to support that they can always afford such things. IV."Financial risks can be managed.""As can be seen from my opponents approach to this debate, he is of the mistaken opinion that just because there are financial costs associated with an event, that the event in itself (rise in house values) is not beneficial."I never once implied that simply because there are financial costs, that the event in itself is not beneficial. What I have been arguing this entire time is that if homeowners are unable to keep up with the costs associated with an increase in their property value, then it isn't always beneficial. This is evident throughout my approach, and is supported by the cases of the hermit as well as low and middle income homeowners which I provided in previous rounds. Sources[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://www.nizkor.org...