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 09-26-2008, 07:48 AM
 
485 posts, read 1,408,991 times
Reputation: 161

Advertisements

Some one told me that they had heard there was a plan floated to tax people as income on the value of their homes if owned outright or if they owed less on it than it was worth. I said that I couldn't believe that idea would float. Talk about punishing people who are doing the right thing financially!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2008, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,575 posts, read 7,215,565 times
Reputation: 835
yeah right. I freaking dare the government to try that one. property taxes are already bad enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marysally View Post
Some one told me that they had heard there was a plan floated to tax people as income on the value of their homes if owned outright or if they owed less on it than it was worth. I said that I couldn't believe that idea would float. Talk about punishing people who are doing the right thing financially!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 08:48 AM
 
485 posts, read 1,408,991 times
Reputation: 161
The idea apparently was that if your payment was less than you would pay if you rented the house, the difference would be considered income. Or if you owned outright, the total amount you would pay if you were renting the house would be considered income.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Limestone,TN/Bucerias, Mexico
1,452 posts, read 3,029,745 times
Reputation: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by marysally View Post
The idea apparently was that if your payment was less than you would pay if you rented the house, the difference would be considered income. Or if you owned outright, the total amount you would pay if you were renting the house would be considered income.
That's a little hard to imagine! Do you have a supporting link?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 09:03 AM
 
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
8,768 posts, read 19,230,464 times
Reputation: 8684
Quote:
Originally Posted by marysally View Post
The idea apparently was that if your payment was less than you would pay if you rented the house, the difference would be considered income. Or if you owned outright, the total amount you would pay if you were renting the house would be considered income.
Yes, I heard the Democrats floated that as a trial balloon back in 94, just prior to the Gingrich Revolution. It's the concept of 'imputed income'. And you can see what happened during that election cycle.

Let's say you own a home worth $250,000. Your payments on that home are about $2,000 a month. The government uses census data (there is a reason they ask all of those extra questions) to figure out what a $250,000 home in your neighborhood would rent for. Let's say it would rent for $3000 a month. This means that you could rent your home for $1000 a month more than your payments. But you're not renting your home, you're living in it. You must know that this just isn't fair to people who have to rent homes. They don't get the tax deductions you get. They don't own their own homes because, unlike you, they haven't, as Dickie Gephardt likes to phrase it, "won life's lottery."

Well, since you're so rich and since you own your own home, the Democrats would really like to get a little more money from you, to spend on those poor renters and people who aren't as "fortunate" as you are. This would all be in exchange of their votes, of course.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
973 posts, read 2,135,234 times
Reputation: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by marysally View Post
The idea apparently was that if your payment was less than you would pay if you rented the house, the difference would be considered income. Or if you owned outright, the total amount you would pay if you were renting the house would be considered income.
Screw that.. what's the point of owning a home then? Once you've worked hard enough to pay off a house, you shouldn't be punished for it. There's no way a law like this would fly..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 11:51 AM
 
80,806 posts, read 38,753,657 times
Reputation: 11817
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0421 View Post
Yes, I heard the Democrats floated that as a trial balloon back in 94, just prior to the Gingrich Revolution. It's the concept of 'imputed income'. And you can see what happened during that election cycle.

Let's say you own a home worth $250,000. Your payments on that home are about $2,000 a month. The government uses census data (there is a reason they ask all of those extra questions) to figure out what a $250,000 home in your neighborhood would rent for. Let's say it would rent for $3000 a month. This means that you could rent your home for $1000 a month more than your payments. But you're not renting your home, you're living in it. You must know that this just isn't fair to people who have to rent homes. They don't get the tax deductions you get. They don't own their own homes because, unlike you, they haven't, as Dickie Gephardt likes to phrase it, "won life's lottery."

Well, since you're so rich and since you own your own home, the Democrats would really like to get a little more money from you, to spend on those poor renters and people who aren't as "fortunate" as you are. This would all be in exchange of their votes, of course.
Here's the white paper:
http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/p...1_bourassa.pdf
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,477 posts, read 56,739,970 times
Reputation: 24820
Not a bad idea if accompanied by a basic deduction equal to the 85 percentile income.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Oxygen Ln. AZ
9,319 posts, read 17,914,906 times
Reputation: 5752
That is the time we should have another revolution.. We busted our rears to pay cash for our retiremet home and I can hear the other seniors screaming in the streets if that takes place. Figures it came from the democratic side of the street. Helping the litte guy, yeah, sure.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2008, 01:48 PM
 
8,647 posts, read 16,534,995 times
Reputation: 4612
I'll just rent my paid for home to myself for 10,000 a month.
Rate this post positively 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, 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