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.
Actually I am not free to buy a home, because government prohibits the sale of the tiny homes I can afford to buy. Minimum lot size requirements add a burdensome expense of unwanted extra land which takes properties out of my affordability range.
What do you consider affordable? How much do you currently pay in rent per month? give me a number.
We already redistribute wealth--but only among the working class (which as a whole is much poorer than it was when I was young). Liberals think our very aggressive income tax system is fair and sensible, while ignoring the fact that the ultra-rich and powerful, as well as Big Business and Big Government, actually profit from the tax system that drains the working class dry.
A national sales tax would be much FAIRER than an income tax system (it wouldn't punish savers and hard workers so much), but we all know that Big Government has grown far too large and corrupt to EVER abandon the multi-trillion-dollar cash flow coming from the working class via income taxes.
The experience of my extended family over the past 30 years proves the point that the people who puts extreme effort into studying in school, investing in higher education, working like a dog for decades, and doing everything RIGHT, will be living a very similar quality of life to those who never put a bit of effort into anything, while creating a large number of children to be financed by the taxpayer. The former may have a larger net worth, but they are indistinguishable in terms of quality of life--vacations, free time, buying both necessities and luxuries, etc.
There simply aren't many jobs left in this nation that can compete with the financial advantage of having the taxpayer pay for everything you want/need--even if you ignore the fact that full time workers lose 2000 hours a year working at their jobs, plus commute time and costs associated with working.
We already redistribute wealth--but only among the working class (which as a whole is much poorer than it was when I was young). Liberals think our very aggressive income tax system is fair and sensible, while ignoring the fact that the ultra-rich and powerful, as well as Big Business and Big Government, actually profit from the tax system that drains the working class dry.
A national sales tax would be much FAIRER than an income tax system (it wouldn't punish savers and hard workers so much), but we all know that Big Government has grown far too large and corrupt to EVER abandon the multi-trillion-dollar cash flow coming from the working class via income taxes.
The experience of my extended family over the past 30 years proves the point that the people who puts extreme effort into studying in school, investing in higher education, working like a dog for decades, and doing everything RIGHT, will be living a very similar quality of life to those who never put a bit of effort into anything, while creating a large number of children to be financed by the taxpayer. The former may have a larger net worth, but they are indistinguishable in terms of quality of life--vacations, free time, buying both necessities and luxuries, etc.
There simply aren't many jobs left in this nation that can compete with the financial advantage of having the taxpayer pay for everything you want/need--even if you ignore the fact that full time workers lose 2000 hours a year working at their jobs, plus commute time and costs associated with working.
Except that every national sales tax proposal I've seen would redististribute vast sume upward from renters to homeowners, which is a lot like imposing an individual mandate to own a home and then imposing a tax for not owning a home.
So if you do an 80/20 mortgage with zero down, you can afford roughly an $80,000 (taking into account property tax) home on a 30 year mortgage while paying the same as you currently pay in rent. You said you live in Michigan. the mean home price is only $130,000 for your state. You can absolutely afford a home paying the same for a mortgage as you pay in rent.
Hell, prices are so cheap in Michigan that you can get a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house for what you pay in rent!
You complain about not being able to afford to buy all the time, but you can afford $600/mo? There are literally millions of people in this country who buy homes for less than that.
??? I live in Michigan where a rental property is taxed 30% - 100% more than if it's owner-occupied. In other words, in Michigan, rental properties typically have larger tax bills than neighboring owner-occupied homes of greater value. And the upward redistribution to which I refer occurs through the supply controls known as zoning and demonstrated by Thomas Sowell (Markets and Minorities, Chapter 7).
Actually I am not free to buy a home, because government prohibits the sale of the tiny homes I can afford to buy. Minimum lot size requirements add a burdensome expense of unwanted extra land which takes properties out of my affordability range.
First of all, you ARE free to buy a home. You just can't buy the fictitious home that live in your fantasies.
Secondly, you continue to say that you COULD afford to buy this magical home, but you also continually talk about not being able to pay the barest of rents. How could you possibly buy a home in that case?
Your affordability range appears to be next to nothing, which won't by you ANY property, no matter how small.
??? If the renter moves, the property tax deferral would be lost.
Renters pay more for housing than to homeowners, how is it that homeowners drive economic growth while spending less?
Exactly how do renters pay more?
My home costs me $1000 a month. I also have to pay insurance and property taxes. And I put a down payment on my home.
A renter in my neighborhood pays $900 a month. They might pay insurance, but that is optional. They pay no property taxes.
Just last month I spent quite a bit of money to enclose my yard and put up a new fence. That put money into our local economy. This weekend I am buying a new refrigerator. Two weeks ago I spent money on air conditioning repair.
The renter in my neighborhood spent zero on their home.
Who exactly drives economic growth in this case? Who spent less on the property?
First of all, you ARE free to buy a home. You just can't buy the fictitious home that live in your fantasies.
Secondly, you continue to say that you COULD afford to buy this magical home, but you also continually talk about not being able to pay the barest of rents. How could you possibly buy a home in that case?
Your affordability range appears to be next to nothing, which won't by you ANY property, no matter how small.
??? I have rented and lived in tiny houses, but the houses cannot be sold independently of additional property which makes it unaffordable to me.
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.
