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.
Fair tax? There is no fairness in taxing by percentage of income. As long as higher earners pay more in absolute terms, there is wealth redistribution (i.e. theft of the rich by the poor).
The only taxation that deserves to be called "fair" is a flat tax for everyone. Something like $6000 yearly per working adult and $3000 per child.**
**(don't start debating the numbers with me, this is only an idea of what it would be, I don't feel like calculating exactly what would be needed to fund the government)
Home ownership has entirely different meaning and purpose for low earners - doesn't matter to me if the home does not appreciate in value. Rents will indefinitely rise, and the stability and certainty of a fixed-rate mortgage payment is of vast utility to a low earner. If achieved early in life, the low earner can expect to enjoy at least a modest retirement in a paid-off home, and thus will never be kicked out of his home, which beats the pants off renting and always having to pony up more and more cash for rent and always vulnerable to being priced or tossed out of "your" so-called home, and never being able to retire at all since roughly half your income is handed over to your landlord every month.
For low earners, I consider owning a home to be a crucial defensive move.
Have you ever actually owned a home?
First of all, lower income brackets with poor credit generally have to settle for high interest, variable rate loans (there's that pesky economic liberty also applying to the lender thing......So you'd have to have the government dictate to the lenders how to loan money to high risk borrowers)
Second of all, there's a lot more to it than being able to buy a home and pay the mortgage.
You have to pay property taxes and keep homeowners insurance on it.
(Which I'm sure you think should be subsidized, right?)
You have to keep the home in decent livable shape......
If you need a new roof, thats several thousand dollars.
If the water heater goes you have to buy a new one.
Cracks in the sidewalk? You have to fix them so you don't get sued when someone trips over them etc, etc.
Are you going to demand these things be paid for by the government robbing Peter to pay for Pauls tax breaks as well?
And how long do these people recive these benefits?
What if they (like most people do over time) get a better job that pays more?
And now that they make more money, do they get to sell the house and turn a profit on it when it was basically paid for with someone else's money in the form of susidized tax credits?
Simply providing an "affordable" mortgage to someone who would not otherwise be able to afford the home, let alone the upkeep is like giving someone a car who can't afford to insure it or even change the oil in it.
What's your point? That companies become obsolete faster than they used to?
My point is simply what I have already stated, and this is just my opinion, not something I'm trying to push as fact or even persuade anyone that I'm correct......
That for many people, home ownership and the debt that usually accompanies it, is over rated in todays economy, where it may make economic sense to be able to be easily mobile when one opportunity is ending or another opportunity knocks.
First of all, lower income brackets with poor credit generally have to settle for high interest, variable rate loans (there's that pesky economic liberty also applying to the lender thing......So you'd have to have the government dictate to the lenders how to loan money to high risk borrowers)
Second of all, there's a lot more to it than being able to buy a home and pay the mortgage.
You have to pay property taxes and keep homeowners insurance on it.
(Which I'm sure you think should be subsidized, right?)
You have to keep the home in decent livable shape......
If you need a new roof, thats several thousand dollars.
If the water heater goes you have to buy a new one.
Cracks in the sidewalk? You have to fix them so you don't get sued when someone trips over them etc, etc.
Are you going to demand these things be paid for by the government robbing Peter to pay for Pauls tax breaks as well?
And how long do these people recive these benefits?
What if they (like most people do over time) get a better job that pays more?
And now that they make more money, do they get to sell the house and turn a profit on it when it was basically paid for with someone else's money in the form of susidized tax credits?
Simply providing an "affordable" mortgage to someone who would not otherwise be able to afford the home, let alone the upkeep is like giving someone a car who can't afford to insure it or even change the oil in it.
??? The alternative to owning for these people is paying rent, which quickly becomes more expensive than owning, since rents go up and up over time. Paying the mortgage timely during the first few years makes your loan seasoned and will allow you to refinance at a lower rate, allowing you to reduce your cost further. Property taxes in many states are higher on rental property than on owner-occupied homes; in Michigan a rental house has more than $1,000 extra property tax annually. If you have an average-sized or larger house you can rent out rooms and make money; I know several people who did this and made money on top of living in their home for free.
??? The alternative to owning for these people is paying rent, which quickly becomes more expensive than owning, since rents go up and up over time. Paying the mortgage timely during the first few years makes your loan seasoned and will allow you to refinance at a lower rate, allowing you to reduce your cost further. Property taxes in many states are higher on rental property than on owner-occupied homes; in Michigan a rental house has more than $1,000 extra property tax annually. If you have an average-sized or larger house you can rent out rooms and make money; I know several people who did this and made money on top of living in their home for free.
Mortgage payments may or may not be cheaper than rent in a given market, it's all about supply and demand and fluctuations in intrest rates.
There is no hard and fast rule except that at least some of your mortgage goes to paying off the home.
There is no guarantee of getting a lower rate when refinancing , it depends on the whims of the market at any given time.
And since when do renters pay property tax?
That's paid by the landlord/homeowner.
And having a home big enough to rent out rooms requires not only a bigger more expensive house to begin with but a strong rental market to rent to as well.
I'm not sure if it would succeed in reality, but it's the only way to tax that's fair, if that's what you care about.
If you don't think it's right that you have to pay for the government services of other people, then you have to throw out taxing based on income ("from each according to his ability", i.e. socialism). It's a joke to hear conservative politicians and thinkers talk about taxing everyone by a flat percentage of income and insinuate that it's somehow "fair". It's not fair at all that a rich guy pays the government $1,000,000 a year and a poor man pays $5,000, while both receive the same services. Making them both pay the same percentage of their income would still mean that the richest guy is taxed 1000X more than the poorest, and he in effect pays for the government services of the poor (i.e. socialism).
The only fair income tax: a flat fee of ~$8,000 per adult between 18 and 65, and add ~1/2 or 1/3 of that per child and charge their parents.
"fair share" is a phantom % of YOUR money that the liberals want you to give up...which means that if you are wealthy then whatever your paying is never enough
if it ever gets to the point where the wealthy is being taxed say 95% of their income to where there is no incentive to make more money they will still say the wealthy is not paying a fair share
this is why noone has ever stated what actual % is "fair"... they just run their mouths about it
"fair share" is a phantom % of YOUR money that the liberals want you to give up...which means that if you are wealthy then whatever your paying is never enough
if it ever gets to the point where the wealthy is being taxed say 95% of their income to where there is no incentive to make more money they will still say the wealthy is not paying a fair share
this is why noone has ever stated what actual % is "fair"... they just run their mouths about it
Mortgage payments may or may not be cheaper than rent in a given market, it's all about supply and demand and fluctuations in intrest rates.
There is no hard and fast rule except that at least some of your mortgage goes to paying off the home.
There is no guarantee of getting a lower rate when refinancing , it depends on the whims of the market at any given time.
And since when do renters pay property tax?
That's paid by the landlord/homeowner.
And having a home big enough to rent out rooms requires not only a bigger more expensive house to begin with but a strong rental market to rent to as well.
When you go shopping, who pays the merchant's taxes? Most conservatives say that consumers bear taxes on business, while most liberals believe the taxes fall on business owners. If business taxes are borne by consumers, how do renters magically escape paying property taxes?
When you go shopping, who pays the merchant's taxes? Most conservatives say that consumers bear taxes on business, while most liberals believe the taxes fall on business owners. If business taxes are borne by consumers, how do renters magically escape paying property taxes?
Because the renters are the source of the property owner's revenue, they are paying the property tax. An owner, or at least a smart owner, factors in the property tax, including its average yearly increase, among many other things when setting the price of rent.
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.
