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.
If I own a piece of property and my expenses each month on that property are $100 and I charge you $120 rent, I make $20 profit on my investment. If the government now taxes me an extra $23 on that property my expenses will now be $123, leaving me with a loss of $3. You better believe the next opportunity I get I am going to raise the rent to $143. I am not in business to lose money. No, the renter is not officially paying the taxes but indirectly they are.
The sad reality of any tax program meant to help working and middle-class homeowners is how quickly the original intent can be lost, and the reform program can actually lead to further iniquities. That is the case in the city of Baltimore Maryland where the Homestead Property Tax Credit acts as a tax cap that prevents increases in a property's value from adding to the tax bill the homeowner actually pays. The tax credit is meant to apply to one residence per homeowner, and applies only during the stay of the owner in that house. The reality is far different. Particularly in Baltimore the problem is this: the Homestead Credit has been in place for decades. Therefore, a homeowner who stayed put for those decades pays a fraction of the property tax that a new neighbor would pay.
They are talking about ground rents to fix it. You have the gall to blame it?
Land value tax would meet the reform goals that Delegate Rosenberg and Baltimore city officials desire in order to permanently remove the distortions of the Homestead tax credit
How does that change what I said?
It is mostly a unique concept to Baltimore.
They needed to change it long ago.
I would never buy in Baltimore (in part) because of it.
I would eliminate property and sales taxes and arrange for the states, counties and municipalites to refieve a share of the federal taes collected in their areas.
If I own a piece of property and my expenses each month on that property are $100 and I charge you $120 rent, I make $20 profit on my investment. If the government now taxes me an extra $23 on that property my expenses will now be $123, leaving me with a loss of $3. You better believe the next opportunity I get I am going to raise the rent to $143. I am not in business to lose money. No, the renter is not officially paying the taxes but indirectly they are.
If there are two of the exact same buildings where one is in a good location while another is in a bad location then say one rent is $1000 a month while the other is $800 a month. Real estate is - location, location location - so the battle cry of speculation goes. So that means $200 is from location(which cannot be manufactured or discouraged). So if the value of the location is taxed $100 and you decide to pass it on, then rent will be $1100. Since the value is really only $200, and not $300, people will tend to rent for $800 and you will lose money. So you will set the price to $1000 again to maximize revenue. You are not going anywhere since you are still making $100 more a month per tenant than the same exact building at $800.
Like I said, its established economic theory since Ricardo that you argue against. Stop trying to wing it with "common sense". Look into monopoly price discrimination. Its the same principle on economic rent extraction only to a business instead of da guberment. In the case of da guberment it would be land value discrimination to extract the economic rent( which was not earned by the owner. Its wind fall).
If there are two of the exact same buildings where one is in a good location while another is in a bad location then say one rent is $1000 a month while the other is $800 a month. Real estate is - location, location location - so the battle cry of speculation goes. So that means $200 is from location(which cannot be manufactured or discouraged). So if the value of the location is taxed $100 and you decide to pass it on, then rent will be $1100. Since the value is really only $200, and not $300, people will tend to rent for $800 and you will lose money. So you will set the price to $1000 again to maximize revenue. You are not going anywhere since you are still making $100 more a month per tenant than the same exact building at $800.
Like I said, its established economic theory since Ricardo that you argue against. Stop trying to wing it with "common sense". Look into monopoly price discrimination. Its the same principle on economic rent extraction only to a business instead of da guberment. In the case of da guberment it would be land value discrimination to extract the economic rent( which was not earned by the owner. Its wind fall).
Like I said - next opportunity I get, I am raising that rent. Since we'll all be seeing an increase in our taxes, so will all the other landlords. I'll still be in the same pecking order but like everyone else, eventually passing on that 23% increase. I can't stay in business if I lose money. That is as simple as economics gets.
We'll just see how long that lasts.
Flat tax won't work.
Loopholes, deductions, exemptions, expenses, writeoffs, profits, losses,
nope, won't work.
What do you know about what people call the Fair Tax? Seemingly you know very little about it in that in that tax there are no loopholes, deductions, exemptions, or any other of what you list. Everybody pays the tax on what they buy but there are no excise taxes or income taxes involved. One tax, only and every family gets to have a rebate for necessities like food, clothing, housing etc. Everyone gets a probate in the form of a rebate considering what is seen as necessary to live. Of course, the wealthy will buy more so they get to pay more. You need to look into the Fair Tax. You can do so by going to nealboortz.com
A flat sales tax would be extremely regressive and would likely drive the poor and middle class into an even more desperate situation. They spend most of their incomes, whereas the rich do not.
You also need to look into the Fair Tax which is flat and only on what you buy but it has ways to taking care of those poor people you worry about.
Now explain to our libs why that is. Of course, even they can see that they need more flexibility in how they raise money. Legislative bodies need to have a way to raise taxes when they think they need the money.
I saw someone on a talk show one time, for the life of me I can't remember who/where,who proposed something along those lines that made a great deal of sense. It was miniscule, I believe in the range of hundreths of a percent, but applied to virtually everything. He did a quick overview of the numbers and I'd like to hear more.
Try the Fair Tax at nealboortz.com You may really see something. I did and I had always been against any kind of flat tax.
Like I said - next opportunity I get, I am raising that rent. Since we'll all be seeing an increase in our taxes, so will all the other landlords. I'll still be in the same pecking order but like everyone else, eventually passing on that 23% increase. I can't stay in business if I lose money. That is as simple as economics gets.
Its as good as simpleton economics gets. That's the problem. You cannot pass on the tax without losing money.
Many people, as soon as they grasp the idea that taxes upon labour products shift to consumers, jump to the conclusion that similarly taxes upon land values would shift to users.
But this is a mistake and the explanation is simple.
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.
You have the gall to blame it? 
