Tax increases by removing deductions!!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>very classist thing to say . . .

Which part? That rich people are better able to support their country through their taxes than poor people? That's just math. That rich people who vote for wars cause greater expenditures? That's easily proved.

I've highlighted what you changed from your second revision. Now I agree with your 2nd try - rich people have more money and normally pay more taxes, true. Wars cause expenses, true. Doesn't take a rocket scientist once you've removed the class bias, Does it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

It allows people with mortgages to have the same interest costs as land lords for whom the interest is a business expense

And the property is generating income. So that makes sense.

Quote

With a 33% combined state and federal marginal tax rate, without the deduction your pre-tax costs would be 50% higher to own your first few homes than to rent them. That's significant.

I rent. Why should I subsidize home owners by paying a higher portion of the tax base than someone who makes the same as me and owns? That's significant as well. You might not have to be rich to own a home, but you've got to be doing pretty good. Giving people that are doing pretty good an EXTRA tax break doesn't make much sense to me.

[Wopelao 0]

It is your assumption that they are so well off, usually, in any business there are expenses allocated and generated by the "cost of doing business".

Making that comment of him making good could in turn be said to those not able to feed their own children on constant bases and receiving section 8:

You don't pay much rent, you must be doing good, and not pitching in real estate taxes for the city, and hence not contributing for the kids education. Giving people that have a dozen kids an extra tax break, doesn't make much sense to me either....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why should I subsidize ... by paying a higher portion of the tax base than someone who

You might not have to be rich to own a home, but you've got to be doing pretty good. ....

1 - Subsidizing someone else at the expense of others is what taxes are all about. We are happy if it's in our favor, upset if not. That's life. Easiest fix? Get rid of all services except the very minimal and then we all pay for our own houses, education, unemployment, cheese, baby food, parks, roads, fire fighting services, etc. But them how do politicians get votes? By promising group A that they will be subsidized at someone else's expense.

2 - Anyone can own a home and doesn't have to be "doing pretty good". Your comment is very naive in this area. And really, the bank owns the home.... The government chose to allow the deduction to encourage homebuilding/ownership for various, mostly, economic, reasons. if that's obsolete in today's world? well, we'll see.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Anyone can own a home and doesn't have to be "doing pretty good".

Depends how you define doing pretty good. If you can qualify for a mortgage, then you are doing pretty good. There's a whole hell of a lot of people out there that couldn't. They're not doing pretty good. And personally, I can't afford a home of the same quality and amenities that I have in my apartment in the same area. My rent is $1000/month. I've been house shopping a couple months now and the cheapest place I've found that comes close to being as nice as my apartment is over $400,000 (that's for a one bedroom condo).

Quote

Your comment is very naive in this area.

I guess formerly having my realtors license and being on the county board or realtors adds to my naivety in this area.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I guess formerly having my realtors license and being on the county board or realtors adds to my naivety in this area.

so you are filthy rich enough to afford an apartment equivalent to a $400,000 home

move somewhere cheaper if your current status makes you envious and bitter towards the local home owners' tax status'

lots of poor people find a way to get a home, sometimes the government even helps, they put everything into it. So how do you take away their deduction which might be the breaking point between them owning vs renting?

Or do you only want the RICH, who don't need the deduction (supposedly) to have homes??????

But I supposed once you own a home yourself, suddenly you'll decide that the deduction does make sense. It's how most people are wired.

(Yeah, that's antagonistic, but this thread is degraded anyway)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I guess formerly having my realtors license and being on the county board or realtors adds to my naivety in this area.

You need to move if you can't afford a $400K home selling real estate. Most of the realtors I know around here live in $800k plus homes.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

move somewhere cheaper then

Ahhh...now I get it. I should move away from work and buy a car so that I can get to work so that I can subsidize the tax breaks for home owners. That sounds reasonable .

Bottom line, all deductions are bogus. Get rid of all of them and adjust the tax rates to keep revenue the same. That would hurt me because I get a huge one for my local and state taxes. But why should people who don't get the city services I enjoy subsidize my lifestyle? I can recognize when something unfairly benefits me and be against it. Can you?

On the flip side, guess what happens to real estate prices if you lose the deduction?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess formerly having my realtors license and being on the county board or realtors adds to my naivety in this area.

You need to move if you can't afford a $400K home selling real estate. Most of the realtors I know around here live in $800k plus homes.

I don't sell real estate (note the word formerly), however I could afford a $400k house. But go ahead and do a cost analysis between a 400k house and $1000/month rent. Guess what. If you figure in interest, the tax break, property tax, appreciation, sales commission, etc.....it's CHEAPER to rent. After a period of 7 years, I'd have lost less money than I would buying. The break even point is about $310,000. A house for that price in this city would be either run down or in a dangerous neighborhood.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Bottom line, all deductions are bogus. Get rid of all of them and adjust the tax rates to keep revenue the same. That would hurt me because I get a huge one for my local and state taxes. But why should people who don't get the city services I enjoy subsidize my lifestyle? I can recognize when something unfairly benefits me and be against it. Can you?

and here's the great part - we completely agree (if you look above you'll see me advocating the exact same thing)

other stuff

- no move somewhere completely different and work somewhere else. You are obviously in an area and a job that doesn't match your lifestyle desires. You are perpetuating the high cost of living in your area by putting up with it. It's pretty common, don't feel bad.

- real estate prices take away a benefit and the prices "might" go down - {I'd think they would, but there's a lot of subjectivity in pricing, don't you think?} but it's a good point, don't know if it would offset the deduction or not, but it would kill the current owners, wouldn't it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

no move somewhere completely different and work somewhere else. You are obviously in an area and a job that doesn't match your lifestyle desires.

Actually it matches it perfectly. I like living in an apartment and walking to work. I don't think I should pay a higher burden on taxes than someone who likes living in a house in the suburbs and commuting. Hell, if anything THEY should pay more. Their choice ends up requireing more gov't services than mine. (roads, pollution, traffic cops, public transit, etc.)

Quote

real estate prices take away a benefit and the prices "might" go down - {I'd think they would, but there's a lot of subjectivity in pricing, don't you think?} but it's a good point, don't know if it would offset the deduction or not, but it would kill the current owners, wouldn't it?

Prices are starting to level off now in this area. Houses are staying on the market longer. Interest rates are going up. Take away the deduction and I think prices would drop. People are mortgaged to the hilt now. Scrap the deduction and a whole lot of new home owners won't be able to afford their current house and will have to sell. Scrapping the deduction would probably be disastrous for a lot of people. For that reason I doubt it will go through. If they do make that change it will have to be gradual to avoid shocking the market.

[rehmwa 2]

nice discussion, see you tomorrow

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants