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

In conclusion I quite agree with my opponent in that this is not an "on-balance" debate. I indeed have to demonstrate, and have done so, that every time there is a property value increase, a home owner *always* in a more beneficial position compared to had it not occurred at all. Whether or not there are marginal costs incurred does not negate the fact that the event has been beneficial and advantageous to the homeowner " and that is what is core within the resolution. My opponent has failed to address this in his rebuttals and has instead clung to a segregated view of the varying downstream effects rather than viewing the event in its entirety to determine if it is beneficial to homeowners. In the first round my opponent believed this debate would prove valuable to potential homeowners, but by sticking to a totally non pragmatic evaluation methodology that is not employed in the financial or business world, potential homeowners would see themselves avoiding high growth properties and search instead for real estate with poor long term prospects. All to avoid a relatively miniscule cost increment compared to their much larger growth in their balance sheet. In doing so he is forced to concentrate his efforts in nit picking over meanings of synonyms such as "benefit" vs "beneficial" or "property values" vs "house values" rather than coming up with only one real scenario where a "home owner" would truly be in a less advantageous position than they were otherwise. Rebuttals 1.An increase in property values "While this is applicable to the homeowners willing to renovate". 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." It was my opponent himself that brought up the argument in regards to property improvements in his opening arguments using approx. 333 words to do so. To state that a rebuttal is null and irrelevant to the debate is ludicrous as I would be remiss not to provide a response. As it stands, my opponent has not rebutted that those that undertake home improvements have advantageous outcomes. Taking the two references my opponent put forward in the last round, even those home owners whose property increases in value by just over 24 per cent only see tax increases that constitute less than one third of one percent of their house value. To suggest that this scenario is not beneficial to a home owner flies in the face of common sense and financial reasoning. (1) (2) III. Rising property taxes affecting those on fixed or low incomes. "This only works under the faulty assumption that the homeowner has enough money to cover the increase in property taxes that will follow". Using once again the statistics my opponent provided, the increase in household assets far outstrips the rise in taxes by up to 155 times! (2) Those that have a much larger asset base due to rising values are in a more than capable situation to arrange their finances not only to cover their taxes, but any other situation in their lives (health, unemployment, retirement) "A reverse mortgage is nothing more than a short-term solution" Due to the massive difference between the large capital and the minor tax increases in property, the gains in property values will always outstrip those of taxes. If we look at the statistics provided, if these homeowners sold their properties only a few years ago they would have forgone up to $30,000 in capital growth for the sake of saving a few hundred dollars in taxes. The rise in your property value will always outstrip that of your mortgage due to its high starting base, and the mortgage"s tiny one. (2) The inevitable outcome of this approach is a rising property value consistently outstripping tax increases and an improved balance sheet, rather than any need to sell up and out of your community. "Red Herring" If we look at the context around the resolution - my opponent refers to "potential home owners" aka renters - and their potential interest in this topic. This argument is hardly a red herring as home owners are in an advantageous position by protecting themselves from inflationary rental pressures brought on by rising property values. Potential home owners need to know that they will be paying for both tax increases and property value increases if they continue to rent. This is a key advantage home owners enjoy as property values rise. III. "Taxes on capital..." Both of the articles my opponent has provided in his rebuttal deal with property taxes that relate to the holding of property and the associated services that local municipalities provide to the advantage and greater good of their citizens. They have nothing to do with the low or non-existent taxes levied on capital gains realised by home owners upon disposal of their homes " a point my opponent has not been able to refute. IV."Local Council Rates (Taxes) are relative." The "on balance" issue once again crops here also. My opponent"s basic argument is if a home owner incurs only a single penny of additional expenses, the property value increase has not been beneficial - irrespective of what other benefits they have derived. This is not a reasonable approach and one that would lead to questionable outcomes if it was used for decision making purposes in the real world. I will leave it up to the voters to determine which of the two interpretations of the resolution is the more appropriate for potential homeowners to find value in this debate. III."Homeowners still benefit from payment of taxes." Even though a home owner may not need to rely on the advantages received from the municipality that provides the services his taxes pay for, he is the beneficial recipient either directly or indirectly from better roads, utilities, schools, emergency services, security and the like. Just as it is hard to avoid taxes that you may not want to pay"it is even more difficult to not be the beneficial recipient of their eventual distribution back into the community. My opponent's main argument has been that payment of taxes are not beneficial to home owners, whereas this is clearly not the case, and thus his entire premise collapses. "Magically afford the spike" There is no need to invoke any magic when it comes to finance. When the growth in assets outstrips the growth of expenses by a factor of up to 15500% - as per the evidence provided by my opponent, - you are in an extremely advantageous position to arrange your finances to pay them. IV."Financial risks can be managed." "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." The evidence provided by my opponent has in fact shown the great chasm that exists between the significant property value gains home owners have achieved and the comparatively miniscule increases in property taxes. They are so far apart that even the poorest of the poor would find it more financially beneficial to retain their property via refinancing and watch year after year their wealth grow as their property value increase at a much higher rate than their mortgage balance. To suggest that it would be more beneficial for these individuals to stay in a home that enjoys a rate of growth that mirrors their own meagre income is counterproductive. It would leave them little opportunity to further grow their wealth, and home owners would find themselves in a long term situation that is not beneficial, not advantageous, and certainly not good. 1) http://www.twincities.com... 2) http://www.twincities.com...