U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:26 AM
 
66,447 posts, read 30,309,848 times
Reputation: 8662

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
??? Burger flipper rents a room in a house. Burger flipper enjoys $500/mo housing consumption and $500/mo nonhousing consumption.

Licensed professional owns her home, rents out spare bedrooms to live in house for free. Enjoys $500/mo housing consumption (cost = zero) and $500/mo nonhousing consumption.

Licensed professional enjoys consumption equal to burger flipper, at $500/mo lower cost.
Nothing is stopping burger flipper from doing the same. Burger flipper needs to re-evaluate his bad life and financial decisions that led to burger flipper's inability to do the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:30 AM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,589,342 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
The FairTax plan is redistribution on top of the economic "rent" we all pay for housing.

Homeowners would enjoy untaxed housing consumption, while renters would be fully taxed on their housing consumption.

Imagine a homeowner paying $10K/yr in mortgage payments and a renter paying $10K/yr in rent. The renter would pay thousands of dollars more tax than the homeowner, and would probably tilt the playing field in favor or owning.
Forgive me, I might be a little lost in the conversation. Why would the renter be taxed on their housing consumption and not the homeowner?

If rent and mortgage pmts were both equal to $10K/yr then it's a toss up on who comes out ahead. The homeowner has some tax credits, but has to pay for repairs and the house may lose value when you factor in inflation. The renter has no such risk. Homeownership is usually beneficial, but not always.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
??? Burger flipper rents a room in a house. Burger flipper enjoys $500/mo housing consumption and $500/mo nonhousing consumption.

Licensed professional owns her home, rents out spare bedrooms to live in house for free. Enjoys $500/mo housing consumption (cost = zero) and $500/mo nonhousing consumption.

Licensed professional enjoys consumption equal to burger flipper, at $500/mo lower cost.
Okay, I think I see what you are saying. The homeowner still incurs a cost though. It is just an invisible cost. If the homeowner has a house that can be rented out for $1000 and decides to only rent out 1 room for $500 then he/she is giving up the revenue they would generate if they rented out the entire house. So, the cost doesn't change it just isn't clearly visible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:31 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,043,990 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Nothing is stopping burger flipper from doing the same. Burger flipper needs to re-evaluate his bad life and financial decisions that led to burger flipper's inability to do the same.

??? You're the one who wants to prohibit a willing seller from selling me a home I can afford to buy.

And tell me what I can do now? I've done everything I've agreed for the past ten years. What more can I do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:31 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,305 posts, read 14,038,513 times
Reputation: 6501
because the opposite of trickle down prosperity, is trickle up poverty

trickle up poverty has never worked
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:37 AM
 
26,589 posts, read 52,277,138 times
Reputation: 20410
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Isn't that a Bad Thing for burger flippers? (You of all people should know where I'm going with this.)

Trickle down did not work for all those renters in California who worked to get local rent controls on the ballot.
Seldom does anything work for everybody...

Any fair discussion will include the ramifications had Prop 13 not been swept into law by the groundswell it was...

Many renters I know fully intend to own... not all by any means and regional areas like San Francisco are very different... it is the only place I'm familiar where my friends that rent plan to never leave and units are passed down one generation to the next...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:39 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,912,172 times
Reputation: 18049
I have to awnder why people after what they see the results of wealth sharing since the mid 60's still beleieve in it. Espeacilly seeig the european example that is even longer and see what market sytem has done for other centrally contorlled economies that basically sdtarve the people.just comparing Spouth to noraqth korea shoews that socialist central control doesn't work.Now that the real tricle down economics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:43 AM
 
66,447 posts, read 30,309,848 times
Reputation: 8662
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
??? You're the one who wants to prohibit a willing seller from selling me a home I can afford to buy.
Not me. ELECTED officials and those they appoint have done so.

Quote:
And tell me what I can do now? I've done everything I've agreed for the past ten years. What more can I do?
You defaulted on a student loan and have done nothing to increase your income sufficiently so that you can buy a home in your area. The onus is on you, and you dropped the ball.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:45 AM
 
66,447 posts, read 30,309,848 times
Reputation: 8662
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
because the opposite of trickle down prosperity, is trickle up poverty

trickle up poverty has never worked
Oh, it's working. Increasing numbers of people are living in poverty. Obama is achieving his goal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:45 AM
 
26,589 posts, read 52,277,138 times
Reputation: 20410
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
??? Burger flipper rents a room in a house. Burger flipper enjoys $500/mo housing consumption and $500/mo nonhousing consumption.

Licensed professional owns her home, rents out spare bedrooms to live in house for free. Enjoys $500/mo housing consumption (cost = zero) and $500/mo nonhousing consumption.

Licensed professional enjoys consumption equal to burger flipper, at $500/mo lower cost.
One is an entrepreneur and willing to accept the trade of privacy in their home for income...

It is not really hard to understand.

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 02-07-2013 at 09:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:48 AM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,589,342 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
I have to wonder why people after what they see the results of wealth sharing since the mid 60's still believe in it. Especially seeing the european example that is even longer and see what market system has done for other centrally controlled economies that basically starve the people.just comparing South to north korea shows that socialist central control doesn't work.Now that the real trickle down economics.
Are you saying trickle down economics does work? Every body knows that controlled economies don't work, but so far there hasn't been anything that shows support for trickle down economics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top