Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=MadeInTaiwan]
As a side note while I benefit from the mortage interest deduction, I still feel that it is one of the worst regressive taxes. Mortgage interest deduction should be capped based on an area’s (state/city) medium household income.[/quote]Currently the cap is interest on debt up to $1 Million. Perhaps capping it at local confoming or FHA limits makes sense.
Or (more likely) they can leave the cap at $1 Million and much like the AMT, let inflation handle the problem.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.”[/quote]
Yes, we (CA) rock in the debt department.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.”[/quote]
Yes, we (CA) rock in the debt department.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.”[/quote]
Yes, we (CA) rock in the debt department.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.”[/quote]
Yes, we (CA) rock in the debt department.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.”[/quote]
Yes, we (CA) rock in the debt department.
Participant[quote=MadeInTaiwan][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
[/quote]
Interesting counterpoint. But in this case the capital allocation would shift from consumers to the Federal Government. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government makes more productive investments than private individuals ?
Participant[quote=MadeInTaiwan][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
[/quote]
Interesting counterpoint. But in this case the capital allocation would shift from consumers to the Federal Government. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government makes more productive investments than private individuals ?
Participant[quote=MadeInTaiwan][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
[/quote]
Interesting counterpoint. But in this case the capital allocation would shift from consumers to the Federal Government. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government makes more productive investments than private individuals ?
Participant[quote=MadeInTaiwan][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
[/quote]
Interesting counterpoint. But in this case the capital allocation would shift from consumers to the Federal Government. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government makes more productive investments than private individuals ?
Participant[quote=MadeInTaiwan][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
[/quote]
Interesting counterpoint. But in this case the capital allocation would shift from consumers to the Federal Government. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government makes more productive investments than private individuals ?
Participantbearishgurl –
That’s another interesting observation. I think you are right that the long-term equilibrium result is the concentration of property ownership into fewer, more corporate hands, since rental owners would have an unfair tax advantage over owners who live in the property.
Participantbearishgurl –
That’s another interesting observation. I think you are right that the long-term equilibrium result is the concentration of property ownership into fewer, more corporate hands, since rental owners would have an unfair tax advantage over owners who live in the property.
Participantbearishgurl –
That’s another interesting observation. I think you are right that the long-term equilibrium result is the concentration of property ownership into fewer, more corporate hands, since rental owners would have an unfair tax advantage over owners who live in the property.
-
AuthorPosts
