Poorly chosen words obscure Obama's point

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the proposition was that renters get passed some of the tax credits from their landlord. Maybe that's true in some states, but I don't believe CA is one of them.

Rent isn't risk free. Depending on your location/rent control, at any moment you can get 30 (or 60) days notice to get out, as soon as the owner decides he no longer needs you to carry the mortage for him.

It's almost semantics as to whether or not the renter or the landlord builds the housing. Neither succeed without the other.

Renters definitely subsidize home owners, but the chaos that would be caused by a 'fairer' system is a big detriment to making that change.

1 - CA is only 1 of 50 states
2 - "risk" - renters don't have an investment risk, you are only talking about a housing risk - totally different thing and has nothing to do with tax incentives - notice is a contractual thing, why should that come with a tax incentive? Is this another CA thing?

your other two points are fine, but still moot to the incentive discussion - though I don't consider it "fairer" to give incentives to the renter when they have no financial risk in the property - that's just nuts. When you rent a car from Hertz, do you carry the same financial risk that Hertz does? Yet some states do anyway. I'd just as soon the gov stays out of all of this and strip down to the minimums.

Heard of the Northwest and Delta Merger? Well, I'm from Minnesota and we have a HUGE corporate tax and companies are bailing like crazy. Including Northwest. Well, the genius legislature here is proposing 2 things - 1-give the new airline tax incentives to stay (but still charge EVERYBODY else the high rate); or preferably 2-try to find some way to make it illegal for them to leave in the first place.

what we aren't seeing is them just deciding to reduce the personal and corporate tax rates (and the spending) which is driving everyone out

I honestly believe that they consider a society where everybody is equally miserable is preferable over one where people get to succeed or not on their own effort and sweat.

see the analogy? (even as a Californian, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to see 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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

1 - CA is only 1 of 50 states

The largest (over 10% of the country's people), and a trendsetter, but yes, 1 state. I can only address the one I know.

Quote

2 - "risk" - renters don't have an investment risk, you are only talking about a housing risk - totally different thing and has nothing to do with tax incentives - notice is a contractual thing, why should that come with a tax incentive? Is this another CA thing?

Your word was risk, not investment risk. You said what risk do renters take.

Quote

your other two points are fine, but still moot to the incentive discussion - though I don't consider it "fairer" to give incentives to the renter when they have no financial risk in the property - that's just nuts. When you rent a car from Hertz, do you carry the same financial risk that Hertz does? Yet some states do anyway. I'd just as soon the gov stays out of all of this and strip down to the minimums.

"Fair" is an equal tax burden. Because mortage interest is tax deductable, along with the 250/500 2 year exemption on capital gains, along with the 1031 deferrals on commercial property, it's quite obvious that land ownership and investment is favored by tax law, at the expense of those who don't partake.

This is a choice we have made, just as (to some degree) we favor marriage and children with tax law. How fair it seems depends on how closely your situation and desires are in step with these ideals. In San Francisco, not very much - the geography and pop density results in a lot of rentals or condos at best, and it's not in my estimation the best place to raise a kid, both socially and financially.