Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A high proportion of rental properties are purchased with cash, haven't you been paying attention to the boom in cash purchases?
Rental properties don't have a reputation as drivers of home improvement spending.
Please provide me with the statistics that show a "high proportion" are paid in cash.
The fact remains, you DO NOT pay taxes. You haven't answered my question - if the goods you purchase from a store include taxes. Does that mean you believe that you pay taxes for that too?
Would you agree that ultimately, unless a landlord is renting at a loss, they are passing on 100% of expenses to the lessee? And presumably taking a profit.
No as I explained. If the tax only applies to one group in an otherwise competitive environment, its a rent that is taxed and it will not drive up the cost to the consumer. If there were a higher county tax in one county then on county line road how are they going to pass the tax along if there is lots of completion across the street?
It might even lower it in theory if taxes on labor and capital were also reduced.
Quote:
Also, in the scenario you describe above, one could easily say that the landlord is "eating" some other cost as opposed to the RE tax. I.e. upkeep, maintenance, mortgage, etc. Making it somewhat academic.
There is no cost to a rent, necessarily, by definition. Otherwise its capital or an expense.
Quote:
Bottom line, for each piece of property out there, someone is paying the property tax and essentially no property is going untaxed.
Land with no market value is not taxed. Property taxes are not necessarily a land tax either. For example, one that defrays the cost of fire protection is a user fee for the protection of capital. So for example in that case buildings might need to incur more user fees.
Quote:
So, the full tax base is being exploited, regardless of owner occupied or rental property. Meaning all the money that can be wrung out of property taxation is being gotten. As such, even if the landlord sold the property to the renter, the tax body would not get a penny more in revenues, barring any increase in the tax bill. I don't think anyone is getting a free ride.
Rent by definition is a free ride. For example people who own water in California are making money doing nothing as we speak because water "rents" are rising.
If water prices made water desalination economically viable then all water pumped out of the ground is likely now a rent. Can't have it both ways like neoclassical theorists attempt. You cannot discard the labor theory of value and suggest that value is independent of labor while while saying people don't make money without labor.
To the extent that its socially desirable is another argument. An argument can be made that private water does provide some protection from over exploitation. However that is not the debate. Either way however one cannot dismiss the role of government when it comes to resource rights. Its a right granted by the sovereign.
Seeing as how the lower classes spend most of their income on consumables and the upper income doesn't, I support this. Because I support the upper class' s ability to furthrr entrench themselves in the upper class. One might argue that the lower class receives the benefits of taxes...sure. Now where is my proposal for the next tax payer funded monorail to Disney world?
Please provide me with the statistics that show a "high proportion" are paid in cash.
The fact remains, you DO NOT pay taxes. You haven't answered my question - if the goods you purchase from a store include taxes. Does that mean you believe that you pay taxes for that too?
I can't find any statistics specifically for rental property, all I can tell you right now is "Foreign buyers' cash offers push up home prices" and "...all-cash sales accounted for nearly one-third of the residential real-estate transactions in April [2014], up from 14% in October 2008, according to the National Association of Realtors."
OBVIOUSLY, foreign buyers are not buying these homes as primary residences.
And, yes, sales tax is broken out separately on the invoices and receipts I receive; and the property taxes are also broken out separately in the rent I pay, so yes, I believe I pay those taxes. Note also that breaking out the property taxes separately provides my landlord the certainty of unchanging income each month, as I cover property tax increases as they come along.
No as I explained. If the tax only applies to one group in an otherwise competitive environment, its a rent that is taxed and it will not drive up the cost to the consumer. If there were a higher county tax in one county then on county line road how are they going to pass the tax along if there is lots of completion across the street?
It might even lower it in theory if taxes on labor and capital were also reduced.
There is no cost to a rent, necessarily, by definition. Otherwise its capital or an expense.
Land with no market value is not taxed. Property taxes are not necessarily a land tax either. For example, one that defrays the cost of fire protection is a user fee for the protection of capital. So for example in that case buildings might need to incur more user fees.
Rent by definition is a free ride. For example people who own water in California are making money doing nothing as we speak because water "rents" are rising.
If water prices made water desalination economically viable then all water pumped out of the ground is likely now a rent. Can't have it both ways like neoclassical theorists attempt. You cannot discard the labor theory of value and suggest that value is independent of labor while while saying people don't make money without labor.
To the extent that its socially desirable is another argument. An argument can be made that private water does provide some protection from over exploitation. However that is not the debate. Either way however one cannot dismiss the role of government when it comes to resource rights. Its a right granted by the sovereign.
??? Arizona allows cities and counties to impose a "Transaction Privilege Tax" (TPT) of up to 3 percent on landlords. This tax is often EXPLICITLY tacked on top of the rent, e.g. rent $1000 + $30 TPT.
??? Arizona allows cities and counties to impose a "Transaction Privilege Tax" (TPT) of up to 3 percent on landlords. This tax is often EXPLICITLY tacked on top of the rent, e.g. rent $1000 + $30 TPT.
Owner pays for trash and HOA dues $87.00, tenant pays for own utilities and Buckeye TPT tax on rent of property ($27.75)
What does this have to do with the classical economic theory of a rent?
Real estate has both natural unearned wealth and capital improvement. This was written about hundreds of years ago, and was universally uncontested that one plot of land was better than another as is. What does a universal , non discriminatory fee, charge, edict, command, threat, suggested donation etc have to do with the price of tea in China? Landlords can be fans of pro bowling. They may be cleaved in half. They may eat ice cream sundaes . They may get their hand caught in a garbage disposal. They may eat veal or be vegetarians. They may sing , dance and twirl. Landlords might like karaoke. They might like opera. They may be mugged, intimidated, bamboozled, swindled, kicked , spun , twirled , lifted, poached, baked, frozen, thawed, roasted, battered, steeped, stewed, poked , prodded, pinched, felt up, grabbed, molested, propositioned; and finally a landlord may either endorse or oppose Antidisestablishmentarianism.
It has nothing to do with the gap between a market value of land against that which has no market value, and this concept does not only apply to landlords. A landlord with a worthless ground rent is the biggest victim of all. It applies to any value, not a product of human labor with property right guaranteed by da guberment with now labor theory of property in sight; ya know like that mad fool John Lock, same guy who had all the founding fathers under his spell.
This thread is a different point of view from Majoun's thread where he suggests eliminating the sales tax and shifting the tax burden onto property tax owners entirely. I was going to post a response, but I think this deserves an entirely new thread.
I would do the complete oppose of Majoun's suggestion to eliminate sale taxes. I say jack up the sales tax up to 15%, 20% or higher and eliminate most other forms of taxation. With sales taxes, EVERYONE who buys goods and services pays the sales taxes. Illegal aliens get paid mostly under the table, so they do not pay income taxes. Also do not own property, so they don't pay property taxes. While it is possible for an illegal alien to buy property in this country, try getting a loan from a bank with no documented income, good luck with that. But illegal immigrates can still take advantage of our educational system, emergency medical, police protection, and other services. And they do not pay dime into the system to support it. If only property owners pay taxes, your shifting the whole tax burden onto one class of people, it's just not a fair form of taxation. The main point of Majaun's argument is people will tend to buy goods and service from states with lower sales tax rates, wouldn’t it make more sense just to level the playing field and made all states charge the same percentage of sales tax? If a state wants to charge less taxes than another state, then the federal government steps in and charges a federal sales tax to level the playing field. So if PA has a 20% Sales tax and Delaware has a 0% tax rate, the Federal government steps in and would charge a 20% Federal sale tax, Delaware would change their sales tax policy pretty quickly to avoid losing sale tax revenue to the federal government.
I would suggest limit all form of total Federal tax/fees/anything to not exceed 1% and let each states/locals to experiment whatever they desire. People then can vote with their votes or vote with their feet.
No as I explained. If the tax only applies to one group in an otherwise competitive environment, its a rent that is taxed and it will not drive up the cost to the consumer. If there were a higher county tax in one county then on county line road how are they going to pass the tax along if there is lots of completion across the street?
It might even lower it in theory if taxes on labor and capital were also reduced.
There is no cost to a rent, necessarily, by definition. Otherwise its capital or an expense.
Land with no market value is not taxed. Property taxes are not necessarily a land tax either. For example, one that defrays the cost of fire protection is a user fee for the protection of capital. So for example in that case buildings might need to incur more user fees.
Rent by definition is a free ride. For example people who own water in California are making money doing nothing as we speak because water "rents" are rising.
If water prices made water desalination economically viable then all water pumped out of the ground is likely now a rent. Can't have it both ways like neoclassical theorists attempt. You cannot discard the labor theory of value and suggest that value is independent of labor while while saying people don't make money without labor.
To the extent that its socially desirable is another argument. An argument can be made that private water does provide some protection from over exploitation. However that is not the debate. Either way however one cannot dismiss the role of government when it comes to resource rights. Its a right granted by the sovereign.
I can only say that common sense has failed me here and I defer to your much deeper understanding of economics. While I understand that market forces and competition define pricing in the simplest sense, since all improved or developed property in any given locale is taxed, the taxes will get paid. And if my landlord has no other income and owes property tax on the building I rent, and he takes a portion of my rent payment to the county assessor to cover taxes, it is rather academic. It seems a case where theory and reality are a matter of perspective.
Reminds me of an old joke. A young fellow asks his father what is the difference between theory and reality. The father tells the boy to ask his sister and mother if they would sleep with a rich man for a million dollars. They both say, "of course"
He returns to his father and relates what they said. The father says, "There you have it!" "In theory we are sitting on two million dollars, in reality we are living with two prostitutes."
What does this have to do with the classical economic theory of a rent?
Real estate has both natural unearned wealth and capital improvement. This was written about hundreds of years ago, and was universally uncontested that one plot of land was better than another as is. What does a universal , non discriminatory fee, charge, edict, command, threat, suggested donation etc have to do with the price of tea in China? Landlords can be fans of pro bowling. They may be cleaved in half. They may eat ice cream sundaes . They may get their hand caught in a garbage disposal. They may eat veal or be vegetarians. They may sing , dance and twirl. Landlords might like karaoke. They might like opera. They may be mugged, intimidated, bamboozled, swindled, kicked , spun , twirled , lifted, poached, baked, frozen, thawed, roasted, battered, steeped, stewed, poked , prodded, pinched, felt up, grabbed, molested, propositioned; and finally a landlord may either endorse or oppose Antidisestablishmentarianism.
It has nothing to do with the gap between a market value of land against that which has no market value, and this concept does not only apply to landlords. A landlord with a worthless ground rent is the biggest victim of all. It applies to any value, not a product of human labor with property right guaranteed by da guberment with now labor theory of property in sight; ya know like that mad fool John Lock, same guy who had all the founding fathers under his spell.
quote No as I explained. If the tax only applies to one group in an otherwise competitive environment, its a rent that is taxed and it will not drive up the cost to the consumer.
The TPT tax applies only to landlords and definitely drives up the cost to the consumer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
