- This topic has 195 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 18, 2011 at 4:54 AM #721940August 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM #720758
jpinpb
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
Yes. I was going to say that. True the renters aren’t cutting a check directly to the bank/government. They are writing a check to the landlord and very likely some of that money goes to the bank/government, so indirectly, the renter is still paying for it.
Maybe we can change the laws where the landlord gets less rent and the renter gets the write-off while cutting a check to the bank/government.
The landlord is a third party.
August 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM #720849Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
Yes. I was going to say that. True the renters aren’t cutting a check directly to the bank/government. They are writing a check to the landlord and very likely some of that money goes to the bank/government, so indirectly, the renter is still paying for it.
Maybe we can change the laws where the landlord gets less rent and the renter gets the write-off while cutting a check to the bank/government.
The landlord is a third party.
August 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM #721450Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
Yes. I was going to say that. True the renters aren’t cutting a check directly to the bank/government. They are writing a check to the landlord and very likely some of that money goes to the bank/government, so indirectly, the renter is still paying for it.
Maybe we can change the laws where the landlord gets less rent and the renter gets the write-off while cutting a check to the bank/government.
The landlord is a third party.
August 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM #721608Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
Yes. I was going to say that. True the renters aren’t cutting a check directly to the bank/government. They are writing a check to the landlord and very likely some of that money goes to the bank/government, so indirectly, the renter is still paying for it.
Maybe we can change the laws where the landlord gets less rent and the renter gets the write-off while cutting a check to the bank/government.
The landlord is a third party.
August 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM #721970Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
Yes. I was going to say that. True the renters aren’t cutting a check directly to the bank/government. They are writing a check to the landlord and very likely some of that money goes to the bank/government, so indirectly, the renter is still paying for it.
Maybe we can change the laws where the landlord gets less rent and the renter gets the write-off while cutting a check to the bank/government.
The landlord is a third party.
August 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM #720777all
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
[/quote]It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.
Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.
[quote=SK in CV]
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?[/quote]No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.
Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.
August 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM #720869Participant[quote=SK in CV]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
[/quote]It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.
Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.
[quote=SK in CV]
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?[/quote]No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.
Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.
August 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM #721470Participant[quote=SK in CV]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
[/quote]It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.
Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.
[quote=SK in CV]
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?[/quote]No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.
Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.
August 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM #721628Participant[quote=SK in CV]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
[/quote]It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.
Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.
[quote=SK in CV]
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?[/quote]No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.
Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.
August 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM #721990Participant[quote=SK in CV]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
[/quote]It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.
Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.
[quote=SK in CV]
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?[/quote]No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.
Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.
August 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM #720792Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
It depends where you sit – if the property tax was not deductible the landlord would have to charge higher rent, so the deduction flows through the landlord to the renter. Having the landlord pay the tax just makes it easier for the government to collect.
August 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM #720884Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
It depends where you sit – if the property tax was not deductible the landlord would have to charge higher rent, so the deduction flows through the landlord to the renter. Having the landlord pay the tax just makes it easier for the government to collect.
August 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM #721485Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
It depends where you sit – if the property tax was not deductible the landlord would have to charge higher rent, so the deduction flows through the landlord to the renter. Having the landlord pay the tax just makes it easier for the government to collect.
August 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM #721643Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=outtamojo]Renters don’t get breaks? Renters get free fire and police protection and those with kids get free
schools and anything else property tax pays for.[/quote]Unless the landlords are in the red every month for the same amount as their property taxes (after deductions are taken into account), then it’s the renters who are paying the property tax — through the landlord.
If the landlords are making a profit, then they are the ones getting something for free.[/quote]
It depends where you sit – if the property tax was not deductible the landlord would have to charge higher rent, so the deduction flows through the landlord to the renter. Having the landlord pay the tax just makes it easier for the government to collect.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.