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.
I agree with you about renters paying their share although I don't agree with your antigrowth positions. Renters indirectly pay property taxes and cannot right off mortgage interest or property tax on their state or local income taxes. We're renting this year and our taxes will go up 50% as renters because of our lost deductions. I'm not sure why you can't itemize charitable contributions though. We will because our charitable contributions, state income taxes and personal property taxes will be more than the standard deduction.
The standard deduction for a married couple with no dependent children is more than we could itemize.
Now, if we bought a 500K McMansion at 6.5%.........
I agree with you about renters paying their share although I don't agree with your antigrowth positions. Renters indirectly pay property taxes and cannot right off mortgage interest or property tax on their state or local income taxes. We're renting this year and our taxes will go up 50% as renters because of our lost deductions. I'm not sure why you can't itemize charitable contributions though. We will because our charitable contributions, state income taxes and personal property taxes will be more than the standard deduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturnfan
The standard deduction for a married couple with no dependent children is more than we could itemize.
Now, if we bought a 500K McMansion at 6.5%.........
The fair thing to do is to eliminate the income tax, and deduction inequity would disappear.
What you are overlooking is that the mortgage interest deduction may well push the itemized total over the standard deduction allowance, especially if a lot of interest is assessed because of the loan amount.
Why should I subsidize someone else's decision to live extravagantly?
We need a fair tax system that collects revenue instead of trying to achieve social goals. I choose to rent. You choose to buy. Am I a lowlife and you a country squire?
Last edited by autumngal; 06-21-2008 at 05:47 PM..
Not everyone who owns a home owns a "McMansion". There are several posters on this forum who, by the descriptions of their houses, are certainly not in McMansions. And what is a "McMansion" anyway? A $300K house? $400K? $500 and over? What's wrong with selling your $300K 2 bed/1ba ranch house in the Northeast and buying a $325K 4bed/2.5ba house? With lower property taxes no less?
I'm not sure owners pay more than their fair share of property taxes. I'm sure that the tax is passed along in the rent and even if it's not completely covered, even if you only rent out one house, it is a business and you either make a profit (and pay taxes) or lose money and take a deduction. So if an owner chooses NOT to pass along property taxes and takes a hit because of that, it's a nice tax deduction.
I've been an owner.
I've been a landlord.
I've been a renter.
I feel as though there are pros and cons to each--tax wise, lifestyle wise.
Impact fees are a bunch of nonsense. And if the people who live here can't stand the growth and overcrowding, they are free to move somewhere where growth is frowned upon.
No, we should fight growth and overcrowding if growth isn't managed and is driven by developer greed. Most developers don't give a darn about the long term future of an area. They build their cheap trash and go looking for another area to spoil.
The businesses and residents who come here for lower cost will also be likely to move on elsewhere once overcrowding turns the Triangle into an overcrowded, overtaxed pile of junk like the one they came here to escape. The low cost seekers will move on to spoil another nice area by overcrowding it and driving up taxes.
Then, who will clean up the mess? What about the abandoned retail and foreclosed homes? Who will pay off the bonds that were issued for infrastructure if the recipients of the services decide to leave? If impact fees collected the money up front, this issue would be moot.
This information could not be any more inaccurate.
The amount of tax that a landlord pays on a living unit or family unit is no where near what an owner pays for their living or family unit, yet the renter of a living unit gets to take advantage of the same school systems, roads, parks etc. Some owners pay as much in real estate tax as some renters pay for their entire rent for the year. These McMansions as some people foolishly call them pay even more, so they are helping the renters cover their costs. Instead of hating people that can afford bigger homes, people should be thanking them everyday for helping fund the things we need and enjoy.
You do not need to be an owner to itemize or claim charitable contributions. People that think that need some tax advice.
The tax deduction that owners get is only on a portion of what they pay and then they only get a portion of that portion back and they get it from the Federal government, not the State or local government. It is the county funds that pay for the majority of the schools and county & state funds that pay for the infrastructure. Guess what? It is the real estate taxes that fund these, not the Federal taxes that home owners get a slight break on.
The complaining that some non owners do about owners getting a slight tax break is really getting old. They need to stop complaining about something they could take advantage of themselves. No one stops someone from becoming an owner. If their choice is to rent, then don't complain about the benefits of owning.
It's amazing what we can learn when we pay attention to facts rather than fiction.
PS: No one ever said Free Ride.
We're renting a McMansion as the class warfare crowd calls them. So our taxes really are no different from any of our neighbors (our rent covers the owners' mortgage, taxes and insurance plus HOA dues)--it's just that the home owner pays them. Apartment renters may pay less, but so do people who live in $100k condos. That's life.
I agree that many renters don't pay much into the system, but I think you generalize too much. There are also plenty of homeowners with three kids and middle class wages that pay next to nothing. I won't even get into the "fairness" of the stimulus rebate for people who make too much to get one.
Mike, I'm with you on the fair tax.
We're renting a McMansion as the class warfare crowd calls them. So our taxes really are no different from any of our neighbors (our rent covers the owners' mortgage, taxes and insurance plus HOA dues)--it's just that the home owner pays them. Apartment renters may pay less, but so do people who live in $100k condos. That's life.
I agree that many renters don't pay much into the system, but I think you generalize too much. There are also plenty of homeowners with three kids and middle class wages that pay next to nothing. I won't even get into the "fairness" of the stimulus rebate for people who make too much to get one.
Mike, I'm with you on the fair tax.
I am sure that the mjaority of owners would be more than willing to not have their portion of a portion Federal tax deduction on mortgage interest, to in turn pay a living unit tax instead. A living unit tax would be a tax on each individual in the household, as they get to take advantage of all the cities and towns have to offer. It would not be tied to owning and this way, all the renters would pay the same amount as an owner. The renters could then get a $600 yearly rent reduction from their landlord, as the landlord would not have to pay property taxes. However, the renter would now have to pay $5,000 in a living unit tax instead. This will partly cover their use of roads, bridges, schools, parks, etc. Yes, I think that is the fair way to go and I am willing to bet the almost all homeowners would go for that. Then the renters would have to pay an equal share and they could not complain about the portion on a portion Federal tax deduction that owners get.
Okay, raise your hands..............how many renters want to get a $600 rental discount to pay a $5,000 living unit tax instead.
No, we should fight growth and overcrowding if growth isn't managed and is driven by developer greed. Most developers don't give a darn about the long term future of an area. They build their cheap trash and go looking for another area to spoil.
The businesses and residents who come here for lower cost will also be likely to move on elsewhere once overcrowding turns the Triangle into an overcrowded, overtaxed pile of junk like the one they came here to escape. The low cost seekers will move on to spoil another nice area by overcrowding it and driving up taxes.
Then, who will clean up the mess? What about the abandoned retail and foreclosed homes? Who will pay off the bonds that were issued for infrastructure if the recipients of the services decide to leave? If impact fees collected the money up front, this issue would be moot.
The time to act is before the area is ruined.
It sounds like it's time for you to move since you hate it so much. Things change, that's how life goes.
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.
