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.
Sure cut it but not before they cut welfare, Section 8 food stamps.
Government takes more from renters in the form of zoning and other regulatory costs (you REALLY ought to read Thomas Sowell's Markets and Minorities, esp Chapter 7 where he proves that zoning regs redistribute income upward from renters to owners) and higher property taxes that it gives to renters in rent subsidies.
2) Apartment rents are usually based on square footage, not ground rent.
You don't know what ground rent is. It has nothing to do with what people pay for rent. It has to do with the value of the land apart from the structure.
Quote:
3) Nope, it was strange and surreal. Actually it evolved out of the elimination of local school millages. A bipartisan group of legislators proposed a state school tax of 14 mills on all property to replace the local school millage. (Historically, school millages applied equally on all property.) Then someone observed that this would be an enormous corporate windfall (especially for the Big Three automakers) who would be getting a property tax cut of billions and billions of dollars...most of which would be flowing to out-of-state stockholders.
So the legislators decided on a state school tax of 6 mills plus a new "nonhomestead tax" or 18 mills on property other than farms and owner-occupied primary residences. So those property tax dollars were retained within the state, at the expense of landlords and tenants who got screwed as collateral damage.
Oh that I can believe. The only way to make money in this country is to appropriate resources and hide them under tax laws for capital.
Quote:
4) Yes, by unit. Buying a home becomes a top priority upon the birth of a first child, so by the time that child enters school, many parents own houses.
If we have a social safety net, then you have to pay for other people's children. Pick one.
Government takes more from renters in the form of zoning and other regulatory costs (you REALLY ought to read Thomas Sowell's Markets and Minorities, esp Chapter 7 where he proves that zoning regs redistribute income upward from renters to owners) and higher property taxes that it gives to renters in rent subsidies.
Its far worse than that. Our entire economic system funnels money to rent collectors.
There is alot of dedcutio that should be canceled especailly in not see benefits by employers as income. What needs to be done is total tax reform that would elminate most dedcutions ;simply the tax code not only geting rate lower and broden tax base but make it easier to catch those who cheap gov';t reports amounts to 300 billio per year in tax loss.Just aimig at one small portiito is useless really.Of course that would mean not allowing any tax deduction including state taxes also if done fairly.
You don't know what ground rent is. It has nothing to do with what people pay for rent. It has to do with the value of the land apart from the structure.
Oh that I can believe. The only way to make money in this country is to appropriate resources and hide them under tax laws for capital.
If we have a social safety net, then you have to pay for other people's children. Pick one.
1) The value of the land is generally not a substantial factor in apartments. The value of the land is dwarfed by the value of the improvements.
2) The net property tax cut on owner-occupied homes was twice as great as the tax cut on rental property. There was a corresponding 50% increase in theales tax. I like to describe it this way: The legislature put 1/3 of a loaf in renters' pockets and 2/3 of a loaf in homeowners' pockets while taking out 1/2 of a loaf from everyone's poskets. Net result: renters lost 1/6 loaf and homeowners gained 1/6 loaf.
3) I don't regard K-12 education as part of a social safety net, but if you insist, I will play along. Yes, we have to pay for other peoplle's children, but we should not do so at unequal, regressive, and unfair rates. The school property tax rate on owner-occupied homes is 6 mills and the school property tax rate on rental property is 24 mills. Please explain how that is rational or fair.
Home owners do not deserve free government handouts for buying a home. Buying a home is a personal decision. Why should someone's personal decision be subsidized by tax payers? Just another bunch of lazy bums looking for free handouts. I thought conservatives were all about free market economics, since when do government subsidies help the market move towards supply and demand equilibrium? Oh wait that's right they don't, they just create nothing more than inefficiency.
Do you think parents deserve deductions singles don't have?
Do you think charitable donations deserve a deduction?
Do you think paying college tuition should generate a deduction?
Should you be able to deduct what you pay in state taxes?
I was prevented from owning a home by the government.
I was renting a guest house (kinda like Kato Kaelin) and the owners put the property up for sale as they prepared to move.
I wanted to buy the guest house and had financing set up through my employer, but the owners could not sell it to me separate from the rest of the property because it was on a dedicated lot which was not large enough to be legally split.
Government prevents people from owning a house every day through minimum lot size requirements and other restrictions which increase the financial resources required to buy a home.
Your situation is not common enough that it's something the average buyer ever faces.
Zoning regulations are in place for a reason. In the end, however, the government is a representative democracy. You have the power to petition the government to change the zoning restrictions on subdivision of lot sizes. Get enough people to agree that the lot sizes should be changed, or that you should get a variance, and you're good to go.
Or, you can buy somewhere else where your wants meet the desires of the community at large.
The government provides liquidity to the mortgage markets, and guarantees mortgages for people that would otherwise have higher interest rates from banks, but for the guarantees. Every state also has a state insurance guaranty association, that protects homeowners where their homeowners insurance goes belly up because of poor business decisions.
Yes, landlords get all those numerous writeoffs but rents remain inflated. Heck, 20 years ago I paid more to rent a studio apartment than my next door neighbor Bob paid to own a 3BR house.
Renters can enjoy the tax breaks when they actually buy a home. Well I TRIED to buy a home, remember? And the only obstacle was government. It would help if Americans still had property rights and were allowed to buy real property in increments the can afford.
What do you say to renters who are never able to buy a home, and who therefore never enjoy the tax breaks? "Sorry, thanks for the subsidy!"
You tried to buy PART of THAT home. Because of regulations, it wasn't available, as you wanted to purchase it. But you could just as easily have purchased another home.
The government didn't stop you from buying A home. Why aren't you looking around now for one?
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.
