Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]”Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008, according to a Tax Foundation analysis of new data from the Internal Revenue Service. ”
http://tinyurl.com/2ablhte
[/quote]Wow, FSD, acc. to your chart, CA taxpayers had the highest real estate indebtedness (showing up in the form of tax deductions) of ALL the states, even more than Mass. and NY, which are typically high-priced markets. This fact doesn’t necessarily speak to the most “wealth” here but rather the most “debt” or largest RE “debt-load.”
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]”Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008, according to a Tax Foundation analysis of new data from the Internal Revenue Service. ”
http://tinyurl.com/2ablhte
[/quote]Wow, FSD, acc. to your chart, CA taxpayers had the highest real estate indebtedness (showing up in the form of tax deductions) of ALL the states, even more than Mass. and NY, which are typically high-priced markets. This fact doesn’t necessarily speak to the most “wealth” here but rather the most “debt” or largest RE “debt-load.”
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]What I find interesting about this proposal is that on the surface they expect to get additional revenue, based on people’s mortgages today. However, if this tax law changed, don’t you think those affected would make changes ?
For example, one could choose to rent a similar property, and hold their existing house as a rental. A rental property is taxed as a business and the mortgage interest is a business expense. Getting rid of business expenses will be a much harder sell than limiting primary residence mortgage interest deduction.
If this change is made, people will adapt and there will be other unintended consequences. For example, higher end property values could decline significantly, resulting in lower property taxes and less money in Local/state Government coffers. SO, it’s likely that the long-term net result would be equivalent to the Federal Government taking funds from state/local governments.
It’s even possible that the net effect after taking into account people’s obvious response to lower their tax burden would be fewer dollars net going into government hands.[/quote]I think you are right FSD. If this law is phased in, I believe that there will be a far lower percentage of resident owners and a lot more rental properties, whether owned by lenders, REITs or individuals who didn’t want to or couldn’t sell.
If this law gets completely phased in before I turn 59.5, I will attempt to sell my property. If I can’t get at least 90% of my own investment back out from sale, then I’ll just retire the loan at that time. If I desire to move, I’ll just rent it out indefinitely and deduct it from my taxes by depreciating it and go rent somewhere.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]What I find interesting about this proposal is that on the surface they expect to get additional revenue, based on people’s mortgages today. However, if this tax law changed, don’t you think those affected would make changes ?
For example, one could choose to rent a similar property, and hold their existing house as a rental. A rental property is taxed as a business and the mortgage interest is a business expense. Getting rid of business expenses will be a much harder sell than limiting primary residence mortgage interest deduction.
If this change is made, people will adapt and there will be other unintended consequences. For example, higher end property values could decline significantly, resulting in lower property taxes and less money in Local/state Government coffers. SO, it’s likely that the long-term net result would be equivalent to the Federal Government taking funds from state/local governments.
It’s even possible that the net effect after taking into account people’s obvious response to lower their tax burden would be fewer dollars net going into government hands.[/quote]I think you are right FSD. If this law is phased in, I believe that there will be a far lower percentage of resident owners and a lot more rental properties, whether owned by lenders, REITs or individuals who didn’t want to or couldn’t sell.
If this law gets completely phased in before I turn 59.5, I will attempt to sell my property. If I can’t get at least 90% of my own investment back out from sale, then I’ll just retire the loan at that time. If I desire to move, I’ll just rent it out indefinitely and deduct it from my taxes by depreciating it and go rent somewhere.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]What I find interesting about this proposal is that on the surface they expect to get additional revenue, based on people’s mortgages today. However, if this tax law changed, don’t you think those affected would make changes ?
For example, one could choose to rent a similar property, and hold their existing house as a rental. A rental property is taxed as a business and the mortgage interest is a business expense. Getting rid of business expenses will be a much harder sell than limiting primary residence mortgage interest deduction.
If this change is made, people will adapt and there will be other unintended consequences. For example, higher end property values could decline significantly, resulting in lower property taxes and less money in Local/state Government coffers. SO, it’s likely that the long-term net result would be equivalent to the Federal Government taking funds from state/local governments.
It’s even possible that the net effect after taking into account people’s obvious response to lower their tax burden would be fewer dollars net going into government hands.[/quote]I think you are right FSD. If this law is phased in, I believe that there will be a far lower percentage of resident owners and a lot more rental properties, whether owned by lenders, REITs or individuals who didn’t want to or couldn’t sell.
If this law gets completely phased in before I turn 59.5, I will attempt to sell my property. If I can’t get at least 90% of my own investment back out from sale, then I’ll just retire the loan at that time. If I desire to move, I’ll just rent it out indefinitely and deduct it from my taxes by depreciating it and go rent somewhere.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]What I find interesting about this proposal is that on the surface they expect to get additional revenue, based on people’s mortgages today. However, if this tax law changed, don’t you think those affected would make changes ?
For example, one could choose to rent a similar property, and hold their existing house as a rental. A rental property is taxed as a business and the mortgage interest is a business expense. Getting rid of business expenses will be a much harder sell than limiting primary residence mortgage interest deduction.
If this change is made, people will adapt and there will be other unintended consequences. For example, higher end property values could decline significantly, resulting in lower property taxes and less money in Local/state Government coffers. SO, it’s likely that the long-term net result would be equivalent to the Federal Government taking funds from state/local governments.
It’s even possible that the net effect after taking into account people’s obvious response to lower their tax burden would be fewer dollars net going into government hands.[/quote]I think you are right FSD. If this law is phased in, I believe that there will be a far lower percentage of resident owners and a lot more rental properties, whether owned by lenders, REITs or individuals who didn’t want to or couldn’t sell.
If this law gets completely phased in before I turn 59.5, I will attempt to sell my property. If I can’t get at least 90% of my own investment back out from sale, then I’ll just retire the loan at that time. If I desire to move, I’ll just rent it out indefinitely and deduct it from my taxes by depreciating it and go rent somewhere.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]What I find interesting about this proposal is that on the surface they expect to get additional revenue, based on people’s mortgages today. However, if this tax law changed, don’t you think those affected would make changes ?
For example, one could choose to rent a similar property, and hold their existing house as a rental. A rental property is taxed as a business and the mortgage interest is a business expense. Getting rid of business expenses will be a much harder sell than limiting primary residence mortgage interest deduction.
If this change is made, people will adapt and there will be other unintended consequences. For example, higher end property values could decline significantly, resulting in lower property taxes and less money in Local/state Government coffers. SO, it’s likely that the long-term net result would be equivalent to the Federal Government taking funds from state/local governments.
It’s even possible that the net effect after taking into account people’s obvious response to lower their tax burden would be fewer dollars net going into government hands.[/quote]I think you are right FSD. If this law is phased in, I believe that there will be a far lower percentage of resident owners and a lot more rental properties, whether owned by lenders, REITs or individuals who didn’t want to or couldn’t sell.
If this law gets completely phased in before I turn 59.5, I will attempt to sell my property. If I can’t get at least 90% of my own investment back out from sale, then I’ll just retire the loan at that time. If I desire to move, I’ll just rent it out indefinitely and deduct it from my taxes by depreciating it and go rent somewhere.
Participant[quote=flu]$800k for a home in Santee????Gee, anyone want to spend this much for that location, I have a bridge to sell to you….[/quote]
I’m in total agreement, flu. SkyRanchOwner seems like (s)he has a “vested interest” in seeing that all new units out there are sold ASAP. It’s almost as if . . . (s)he works in the “Sky Ranch” sales office – LOL!
Participant[quote=flu]$800k for a home in Santee????Gee, anyone want to spend this much for that location, I have a bridge to sell to you….[/quote]
I’m in total agreement, flu. SkyRanchOwner seems like (s)he has a “vested interest” in seeing that all new units out there are sold ASAP. It’s almost as if . . . (s)he works in the “Sky Ranch” sales office – LOL!
Participant[quote=flu]$800k for a home in Santee????Gee, anyone want to spend this much for that location, I have a bridge to sell to you….[/quote]
I’m in total agreement, flu. SkyRanchOwner seems like (s)he has a “vested interest” in seeing that all new units out there are sold ASAP. It’s almost as if . . . (s)he works in the “Sky Ranch” sales office – LOL!
Participant[quote=flu]$800k for a home in Santee????Gee, anyone want to spend this much for that location, I have a bridge to sell to you….[/quote]
I’m in total agreement, flu. SkyRanchOwner seems like (s)he has a “vested interest” in seeing that all new units out there are sold ASAP. It’s almost as if . . . (s)he works in the “Sky Ranch” sales office – LOL!
Participant[quote=flu]$800k for a home in Santee????Gee, anyone want to spend this much for that location, I have a bridge to sell to you….[/quote]
I’m in total agreement, flu. SkyRanchOwner seems like (s)he has a “vested interest” in seeing that all new units out there are sold ASAP. It’s almost as if . . . (s)he works in the “Sky Ranch” sales office – LOL!
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]Does anybody reading Piggington know if these folks typically make a cash for keys offer?[/quote]
northparkbuyer, if you don’t mind my asking, are you a friend or relative of the occupant of this property? You seem to be very concerned about their welfare, hence the title of your thread “Eviction.”
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]Does anybody reading Piggington know if these folks typically make a cash for keys offer?[/quote]
northparkbuyer, if you don’t mind my asking, are you a friend or relative of the occupant of this property? You seem to be very concerned about their welfare, hence the title of your thread “Eviction.”
-
AuthorPosts
