- This topic has 195 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM #722005August 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM #720797
outtamojo
Participant[quote=jpinpb][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.[/quote]
Yes but for me, back-tracking in the theoretical world gets rather circuitous. The landlord demands the renter cover his property taxes- the renter doesn’t have to pay what the landlord demands but they cave and do. Who pays the renter- its the employer (what about section8 ?). So is it the employer who indirectly pays for property tax 2 steps removed because employees demand a certain wage? Who pays the employer- its the user of that business’ goods and services. Is that person a renter or a landlord? For me, bottom, line, its the guy or gal who cuts the check. Renters can always go somewhere else but landlords cannot avoid the gov, short of bankruptcy.Couldn’t you also say that a break given to landlords is a break given to renters indirectly since we are asserting that a tax on a landlord is also a tax on a renter? Net profits on rentals are taxed again btw.
August 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM #720889Participant[quote=jpinpb][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.[/quote]
Yes but for me, back-tracking in the theoretical world gets rather circuitous. The landlord demands the renter cover his property taxes- the renter doesn’t have to pay what the landlord demands but they cave and do. Who pays the renter- its the employer (what about section8 ?). So is it the employer who indirectly pays for property tax 2 steps removed because employees demand a certain wage? Who pays the employer- its the user of that business’ goods and services. Is that person a renter or a landlord? For me, bottom, line, its the guy or gal who cuts the check. Renters can always go somewhere else but landlords cannot avoid the gov, short of bankruptcy.Couldn’t you also say that a break given to landlords is a break given to renters indirectly since we are asserting that a tax on a landlord is also a tax on a renter? Net profits on rentals are taxed again btw.
August 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM #721490Participant[quote=jpinpb][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.[/quote]
Yes but for me, back-tracking in the theoretical world gets rather circuitous. The landlord demands the renter cover his property taxes- the renter doesn’t have to pay what the landlord demands but they cave and do. Who pays the renter- its the employer (what about section8 ?). So is it the employer who indirectly pays for property tax 2 steps removed because employees demand a certain wage? Who pays the employer- its the user of that business’ goods and services. Is that person a renter or a landlord? For me, bottom, line, its the guy or gal who cuts the check. Renters can always go somewhere else but landlords cannot avoid the gov, short of bankruptcy.Couldn’t you also say that a break given to landlords is a break given to renters indirectly since we are asserting that a tax on a landlord is also a tax on a renter? Net profits on rentals are taxed again btw.
August 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM #721648Participant[quote=jpinpb][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.[/quote]
Yes but for me, back-tracking in the theoretical world gets rather circuitous. The landlord demands the renter cover his property taxes- the renter doesn’t have to pay what the landlord demands but they cave and do. Who pays the renter- its the employer (what about section8 ?). So is it the employer who indirectly pays for property tax 2 steps removed because employees demand a certain wage? Who pays the employer- its the user of that business’ goods and services. Is that person a renter or a landlord? For me, bottom, line, its the guy or gal who cuts the check. Renters can always go somewhere else but landlords cannot avoid the gov, short of bankruptcy.Couldn’t you also say that a break given to landlords is a break given to renters indirectly since we are asserting that a tax on a landlord is also a tax on a renter? Net profits on rentals are taxed again btw.
August 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM #722010Participant[quote=jpinpb][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.[/quote]
Yes but for me, back-tracking in the theoretical world gets rather circuitous. The landlord demands the renter cover his property taxes- the renter doesn’t have to pay what the landlord demands but they cave and do. Who pays the renter- its the employer (what about section8 ?). So is it the employer who indirectly pays for property tax 2 steps removed because employees demand a certain wage? Who pays the employer- its the user of that business’ goods and services. Is that person a renter or a landlord? For me, bottom, line, its the guy or gal who cuts the check. Renters can always go somewhere else but landlords cannot avoid the gov, short of bankruptcy.Couldn’t you also say that a break given to landlords is a break given to renters indirectly since we are asserting that a tax on a landlord is also a tax on a renter? Net profits on rentals are taxed again btw.
August 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM #720922(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantI also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billionHere’s why:
1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.
2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.
August 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM #721014ParticipantI also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billionHere’s why:
1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.
2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.
August 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM #721615ParticipantI also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billionHere’s why:
1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.
2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.
August 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM #721772ParticipantI also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billionHere’s why:
1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.
2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.
August 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM #722135ParticipantI also disagree with the thesis that eliminaiton of the mortgage interest deduction would result in increased tax revenue for Government.
There’s no way they would reap the $100 Billion claimed (see #1 below). I think there can lso be an argument made that the end result might even result in a loss in revenue to state & local governments equal to or larger than the $100 billionHere’s why:
1. People respond to changes in tax code. I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense.
2. Elimination in MID would put downward pressure on home prices. In the long-run property prices will be lower than they would have been if the MID were in effect, resulting in decreased property tax revenues to local/state governments.
August 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM #720936briansd1
Guest[quote=FormerSanDiegan] I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense. [/quote]
You wouldn’t move to a rental.
Your wife won’t be able to decorate; you won’t be able to add sweat equity and you would not have pride of ownership. Remember some of the things that are worth paying an ownership premium for?
If the MID is ever eliminated, it will be phased out over a decade or more.
But if the Tea Party is going to made advances, I want them to eliminate the MID cold-turkey just to spite the people who kept pushing the MID (and pride of ownership, etc..) as a reason to buy. That entertainment would be better than reality TV.
August 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM #721029Guest[quote=FormerSanDiegan] I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense. [/quote]
You wouldn’t move to a rental.
Your wife won’t be able to decorate; you won’t be able to add sweat equity and you would not have pride of ownership. Remember some of the things that are worth paying an ownership premium for?
If the MID is ever eliminated, it will be phased out over a decade or more.
But if the Tea Party is going to made advances, I want them to eliminate the MID cold-turkey just to spite the people who kept pushing the MID (and pride of ownership, etc..) as a reason to buy. That entertainment would be better than reality TV.
August 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM #721630Guest[quote=FormerSanDiegan] I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense. [/quote]
You wouldn’t move to a rental.
Your wife won’t be able to decorate; you won’t be able to add sweat equity and you would not have pride of ownership. Remember some of the things that are worth paying an ownership premium for?
If the MID is ever eliminated, it will be phased out over a decade or more.
But if the Tea Party is going to made advances, I want them to eliminate the MID cold-turkey just to spite the people who kept pushing the MID (and pride of ownership, etc..) as a reason to buy. That entertainment would be better than reality TV.
August 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM #721787Guest[quote=FormerSanDiegan] I, for example would rent out my primary and move into a rental. The mortgage interest I currently pay would turn into a business expense. [/quote]
You wouldn’t move to a rental.
Your wife won’t be able to decorate; you won’t be able to add sweat equity and you would not have pride of ownership. Remember some of the things that are worth paying an ownership premium for?
If the MID is ever eliminated, it will be phased out over a decade or more.
But if the Tea Party is going to made advances, I want them to eliminate the MID cold-turkey just to spite the people who kept pushing the MID (and pride of ownership, etc..) as a reason to buy. That entertainment would be better than reality TV.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.