Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-30-2007, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,395,118 times
Reputation: 972

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
Exactly. Except you will still have to fund the programs that the dems would build off increased tax revenues, and when they don't collect as much as they thought they would from the rich, guess who gets to foot the bill? Your average middle class family who is struggling to remain middle class.
just like how supposedly hillarys health insurance program would be funded by cigarette taxes. hmm... what happens if the ones that smoke continue to quit? no more taxes from that, so the "forgotten man" has more weight thrust apon there shoulders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-01-2007, 05:14 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,404,183 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
here is a problem with limiting people on the size of the house. your wealthy tax base will slowly dissapear. The more wealthy will find other ways of hiding there money, and buy smaller homes as to not have to pay the large tax. Then you will be left with a smaller tax base, and therefore less tax gained by the gov't
The wealthy tax base will slowly disappear? I mean, sure, once their mortgage interest deduction -- the linchpin of megawealth -- was limited by a carbon tax, the super-rich would be scrambling to get out of their mansions and sublet a basement room somewhere, but surely they would all try to do it at once. Are you saying that a lot of rich people are just plain too stupid to realize what's good for them? I mean, come on...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2007, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,395,118 times
Reputation: 972
no, I am saying that rich people are smart enough to move there assets out of the country to avoid paying taxes. They will find other Shelters to hide money in. Thus giving up larger houses, living in smaller ones of course to protect there wealth will cause the tax base to dwindle. Setting up for liberals to raise taxes again, which this time wont be hitting the very wealthy, it will hit the mid. classes. When you try to redistribute wealth, you bring everyone down. not the poor up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2007, 07:26 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,404,183 times
Reputation: 4013
I guess the rich have cleverly held back a reserve of assets, subjecting them to the withering toll that liberal-inspired taxes take, just in case somebody proposes a carbon tax. Then, just at that critical moment, they'll move all those assets overseas and teach those liberals a thing or two! Is that the way it works?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2007, 07:33 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,602,837 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
I guess the rich have cleverly held back a reserve of assets, subjecting them to the withering toll that liberal-inspired taxes take, just in case somebody proposes a carbon tax. Then, just at that critical moment, they'll move all those assets overseas and teach those liberals a thing or two! Is that the way it works?
Well its not much of a stretch to think that a lot of people choose bigger homes with a higher mortgage due to the tax break covering some of the difference. Set up a square footage chart for tax deductions, and I'll be very surprised if people continue to build much bigger than they need unless they just don't care about taxes. If you get a large percentage of the wealthy building a category or 2 lower with the new deductions, over time the revenue collections will not grow with the budgets required by the programs that Dingell is proposing. There will be a gap created and someone will fill in the gap. Regardless of if some of that gap is filled by taxing the rich, I think it would be inevitable that the middle class will get some tagalong taxes to go with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2007, 07:59 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,404,183 times
Reputation: 4013
Why wouldn't the wealthy simply riffle through the portfolio, find a capital loss or two to liquidate, and use the proceeds to just pay off the mortgage entirely? Otherwise, there is no particular relationship or connection between receipts and outlays at the federal level. Actual receipts from diverse revenue sources vary all the time...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2007, 08:15 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,602,837 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Why wouldn't the wealthy simply riffle through the portfolio, find a capital loss or two to liquidate, and use the proceeds to just pay off the mortgage entirely? Otherwise, there is no particular relationship or connection between receipts and outlays at the federal level. Actual receipts from diverse revenue sources vary all the time...
Why do that when they can simply drop the 1000sq ft game room they already knew they weren't going to use and get a bigger tax deduction?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2007, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,395,118 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
Why do that when they can simply drop the 1000sq ft game room they already knew they weren't going to use and get a bigger tax deduction?
exactly, its much easyer to call up your designer and tell them to drop the sqft. instead of going through all the hassle of your proposal.

What about the people that are designing these homes? Wont a bunch of the "middle class" designers be without work then? hmm... it does not take more than two months of work to design four cookie cutter models. and plop them on 150 lots. whereas it does take a minimum of 6 mo. of work to design someones dream home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2007, 08:51 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,404,183 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
Why do that when they can simply drop the 1000sq ft game room they already knew they weren't going to use and get a bigger tax deduction?
Why would they do that when, since they are rich, they are quite likely to be living in a house that is over 4200 sqft already?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2007, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,395,118 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Why would they do that when, since they are rich, they are quite likely to be living in a house that is over 4200 sqft already?
most likely they would choose a house plan that is in a lower tax bracket. Being rich does not mean they have to spend the money. I know quite a few very wealthy people that live in 1500-2000 sqft houses.

The one thing I have learned being around wealthy people. They dont like anyone taking money from them, unless they are getting something out of it. They will fight tooth and nail, or find a way around having to let the government take hard earned money from them.

Here in Boulder Colorado, the local governement was looking at restricting the size of homes within the county, and instituting a 2 year moritorium on building. Even with the the news that they were "thinking about it" caused quite a few homes that were very far in design to halt. They then found lots just outside the county in other counties that were not instituting this to build the home. Here is a good example of shrinking tax base in Boulder County Colorado. BTW the County decided not to do the moretorium on building while they decide.

Boulder is natorious for harsh buidling requirements. They wont allow larger subdivisions to be built. Or make it extremly difficult to build in. With the combination of wealty large homes dissapearing, and not letting smaller homes and larger populations of people moving in the county. They will loose the tax base.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:53 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top