Tax breaks versus Entitlements

[le roi]

Originally Posted by freemkt

You sir are misguided if you believe renters don't pay the tax.

it's misleading to refer to your landlord's taxes as "Yours."

sometimes these costs are passed on, sometimes not. sometimes landlords have to lower the rent and eat the tax.

Originally Posted by tinman01

It isnt the home owners fault that you cant afford a home of your own.

ha, so this is your justification for him getting screwed on taxes? that's rich.

this ain't rocket science. Michigan has two rates: Homestead rates and non-homestead rates. Because non-homestead rates are higher, it is the primary owners (homesteaders) in michigan who are the ones getting the "break." It is this way in a lot of states, though thankfully not mine.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by tinman01

According to our HR dept the company is paying 60%.
And no you are not paying for my healthcare. You are not paying any of my bills.

We're all paying for your company's tax deduction for your insurance.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Why should any homeowner pay more so that you can have a break? That is a local or state issue at any rate. No doubt you get to claim it as a deduction. It isnt the home owners fault that you cant afford a home of your own.

No I can't get a deduction. The tax code isn't written that way.

No homeowner should pay more so that I can have a break...and no renter or landlord should pay more so that homeowners can have a break.

The school tax rate on my rented home is 24 mills and the school tax rate on the homeowner's home is 6 mills. The unsuccessful legislative proposal would have put 14 mills on all property. Why should my home be taxed at 24 mills so that the homeowner can get a break (from 14 mills down to 6 mills)?

And one could say that it is the homeowners' fault I can't afford a home of my own, because the local homeowners (collectively) lobbied for and got a maximum occupancy restriction which says that no more than TWO unrelated persons can live in a house (or any other dwelling unit), regardless of the size or carrying capacity of the house. What affect do you think that has on the rent people pay?

So the homeowners made the cost of living higher, on top of the nonhomestead tax they voted for.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by old_cold

Wouldn't the only 'fair' tax be a head tax?
The government spends X and divides that amount by the population.
Note, it says fair ,not well received or popular when it has been done.
If there are 20 seats on a bus , all riders pay the same amount to take advantage of that service in an amount to cover the expenses for operating that bus.
Why should it be different for running the government?
Perhaps government spending would better reflect what expenses it should incur
(Ok OK...minors without voting power get half off)

But with school property taxes - the unfair tax I'm talking about here - not everybody is a rider but everybody has to pay, and some have to pay a rate 4x as high as others.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by freemkt

But with school property taxes - the unfair tax I'm talking about here - not everybody is a rider but everybody has to pay, and some have to pay a rate 4x as high as others.

Not everybody will use everything.
That's just part of being a society.
But if everybody had to pay the same, what we pay for might be a little more equitable.