Fair Tax Act

[The Don]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It's funny and sad that people judge an idea on the principle of "change this but leave everything else the same" instead of seeing it as part of a broader policy change.

Well implementing a tax which enables people or corporations to compulsorily purchase your home is quite the glitch.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Yes, implementing a COST scheme in the current system would be devastating, because taxation isn't the core problem when it comes to real estate development in the US.
Japan has figured it out, with rents in Tokyo being more affordable than in most big US cities.

What measures do you propose to mitigate the devastating effects of the tax you're suggesting ?

The fact that it would allow someone (or some corporation) to simply purchase my house without my consent is, IMO, an unacceptable "bug".

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

But in order to get taxation from real estate, when need a system that can't easily be manipulated.

We have a system of property taxes which isn't easy to manipulate. Properties are placed in tax bands based on their values. If you think your property is in the wrong band you can appeal it. We did so successfully on our flat in Bristol, we were unsuccessful in Don Towers.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If you are worried about low income renters getting evicted, just have the State own those properties, as is usual in many, many places: Singapore, for example, or the city of Vienna.

In many big cities the biggest constraining factor is the size of housing stock. even if every house and flat in London was publicly owned and rented out cheaply, there's still be a significant shortfall leading to homelessness.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

In short: don't be so quick to shoot the Messenger for problems that have nothing to do with the message.

The problem is that the side effects of the tax you're proposing are worse than the problem you're trying to solve. The upward pressure on property value assessments as people try to avoid having their houses bought out from under them will make housing less, rather than more, affordable.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Yes, but European countries also tax income and wealth too, quite often on a very progresive basis.

IMO that's the right way to go about it. If you spread the tax burden across income, assets and consumption then it's less easy to avoid taxation through tax avoidance measures.

For example, if all a taxes were raised through consumption taxes, those who could would buy assets through offshore entities and then lease the assets in a tax efficient way. The average Joe or Jane couldn't afford to do this and so, once again, the tax burden would shift to the struggling middle.

[Random]

Originally Posted by The Don

IMO that's the right way to go about it. If you spread the tax burden across income, assets and consumption then it's less easy to avoid taxation through tax avoidance measures.

For example, if all a taxes were raised through consumption taxes, those who could would buy assets through offshore entities and then lease the assets in a tax efficient way. The average Joe or Jane couldn't afford to do this and so, once again, the tax burden would shift to the struggling middle.

Actually, incorporating yourself isn't that hard. There's paperwork to be sure, but it's quite doable. It's not worth it for most people who earn a paycheck because current tax law treats that stuff as income anyway, but if we are going to ditch income taxes for a consumption tax, I see a lot of single person corporations forming overnight.

Food, shelter, transportation, clothing, if they are not exempt from the consumption tax they can easily be transformed into "business expenses".

All you really need is an employer who is willing to write checks to "John Smith, LLC", instead of "John Smith". Of course, then people would look at shuffling around business taxes...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Random

Actually, incorporating yourself isn't that hard. There's paperwork to be sure, but it's quite doable. It's not worth it for most people who earn a paycheck because current tax law treats that stuff as income anyway, but if we are going to ditch income taxes for a consumption tax, I see a lot of single person corporations forming overnight.

Food, shelter, transportation, clothing, if they are not exempt from the consumption tax they can easily be transformed into "business expenses".

I work from my home, I guess that means my house and everything in it and all the utilities are business expenses. *sips business tea while sitting in business chair and browsing business internet while streaming business Disney+*

[Random]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I work from my home, I guess that means my house and everything in it and all the utilities are business expenses. *sips business tea while sitting in business chair and browsing business internet while streaming business Disney+*

Providing free beverages to your employee might be fine. Office chair is probably fine as well. You might need internet to do business (pretty hard to avoid in this day and age) so that would be fine.

Trying to explain how Disney+ is a business expense might be more problematic.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by The Don

...

The problem is that the side effects of the tax you're proposing are worse than the problem you're trying to solve. The upward pressure on property value assessments as people try to avoid having their houses bought out from under them will make housing less, rather than more, affordable.

what is the problem of the rich overpaying for real estate when there are firm rent control and eviction protections in place?
after all, the goal is for everyone to have affordable housing, and for those of low to medium income, owning property usually binds to more assets than is desirable.
Being bought out of your house at an overpriced rate (without the possibility of the new owner to quickly evict you or force you to pay overpriced rent) sounds like a sweet deal to me.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

doesn't matter - it's the purchase being taxed, not the entity buying it.
If a corporate entity wants to offset the tax it paid for a private plane, it would have to write off other assets.

But yeah, this is not the best way to tax the rich, as it would be IMMENSLY profitable to find ways around it.


a better idea would probably be the Common Ownership Self-Assessed Tax (COST): the principle being that there is a fixed tax rate for real estate by type and grade, but each owner can assess by themselves how much the object is worth. This could drastically reduce your tax burden, but the flipside is that you HAVE TO SELL AT THAT PRICE if someone offers to buy.
This would make it almost impossible to cheat on your taxes, as any deliberate undervaluation would mean you lose your property.

This would be awful for me. Right now my home can rent out for approximately double my mortgage payment (this is because I refinanced at an insanely low rate, but did not take cash out). So, a business, might see it as a great investment opportunity and snatch it up at appraised cost.

So whats the issue, they offer me fair market price and I get that money... because to buy an equivalent home right now, I'd have to finance at a far higher rate. And of course theres moving costs. And then I'd have to overvalue my next home or risk it being bought up too! Your system would vastly lower the amount of people in the US being homeowners, and increase renters.

Or I could overvalue it by 30 or 40% and pay lots of extra property taxes

ETA: and I could afford to do that. Lots of people, especially older homeowners couldn't. They literally could not afford to pay an extra 2 or 3 thousand a year in property taxes to keep their home safe from being bought from underneath them.

ETA2: and this would add to the problem of making it make much more business/profitability sense to buy up property and rent it out, instead of financing new builds... further increasing the percentage of income spend on housing.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

what is the problem of the rich overpaying for real estate when there are firm rent control and eviction protections in place?
after all, the goal is for everyone to have affordable housing, and for those of low to medium income, owning property usually binds to more assets than is desirable.
Being bought out of your house at an overpriced rate (without the possibility of the new owner to quickly evict you or force you to pay overpriced rent) sounds like a sweet deal to me.

They haven't paid over market price unless I've inflated the value of my house and overpaid property taxes.

They have my house, so they'll want me out. Are you suggesting that the new owner will have to allow me to keep living there ? If so at what price? How long do I get to stay ? What if I simply do not want to leave "my" house ?

At the moment I own Don Towers free and clear so anything I have to pay the new owner puts me at a financial disadvantage.

[JoeMorgue]

The idea that some of you can't comprehend why someone wouldn't want to leave their home against their will provided they get paid a lot is scary.

"I don't want to move every time someone with enough money to spend on the value of my house comes by" should require exactly zero explanation.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The idea that some of you can't comprehend why someone wouldn't want to leave their home against their will provided they get paid a lot is scary.

"I don't want to move every time someone with enough money to spend on the value of my house comes by" should require exactly zero explanation.

Or essentially play a game of roulette by trying to guess what an investor values my house at and pay enough extra in taxes for the privilege of staying in the home that I bought And if I get it wrong, my penalty is paying moving fees then going thru the cost of financing another house or renting at whatever overinflated prices this system creates... again

And thats before considerations that some people value their home and land intrinsically. I, in this case, don't.

[JoeMorgue]

Why just my house? Why shouldn't I be required to sell anything I own the second someone else has enough money to buy it?

The whole concept is absurd. "Let's give everyone in society a weird hybrid power of eminent domain and a hostile takeover."

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Why just my house? Why shouldn't I be required to sell anything I own the second someone else has enough money to buy it?

The whole concept is absurd. "Let's give everyone in society a weird hybrid power of eminent domain and a hostile takeover."

I mean in a way its democratizing leveraged hostile takeovers that only billionaires and huge firms can do... ie Twitter. I don't think thats a good thing though.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

what is the problem of the rich overpaying for real estate when there are firm rent control and eviction protections in place?

The whole involuntariness thing. Not to mention a massive trap for the unwary.

Quote:

after all, the goal is for everyone to have affordable housing, and for those of low to medium income, owning property usually binds to more assets than is desirable.

Which in a lot of circumstances is a good thing. My brother in law is kinda stupid and irresponsible. Sure, the equity in the house he owns free and clear from inheritance might bring more return if wisely invested but if he got his hands on it he'd do something stupid. He's hardly unique.

It being illiquid is for the working poor is on the whole a feature more than a bug.

Quote:

Being bought out of your house at an overpriced rate (without the possibility of the new owner to quickly evict you or force you to pay overpriced rent) sounds like a sweet deal to me.

I honestly find this train of thought disturbing. It's like encountering a strident libertarian or communist. Fatally inconsistent with how humans behave.

Not everywhere is a city. I can think of neighborhoods where if someone got a house bought out from under them like this that house would be burnt to the ground within a week. Or rural properties that if this happened there would be gunfire at some point.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Random

Actually, incorporating yourself isn't that hard. There's paperwork to be sure, but it's quite doable. It's not worth it for most people who earn a paycheck because current tax law treats that stuff as income anyway, but if we are going to ditch income taxes for a consumption tax, I see a lot of single person corporations forming overnight.

Food, shelter, transportation, clothing, if they are not exempt from the consumption tax they can easily be transformed into "business expenses".

All you really need is an employer who is willing to write checks to "John Smith, LLC", instead of "John Smith". Of course, then people would look at shuffling around business taxes...

You can be sure that the government would pass laws that prevent individuals reducing their tax burden by incorporating.

For example, Australia has an 80/20 law. If more than 80% of your income comes from one source then you are classified as an employee for tax purposes regardless of what entity you impose between yourself and the person who contracts with you.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Random

Providing free beverages to your employee might be fine. Office chair is probably fine as well. You might need internet to do business (pretty hard to avoid in this day and age) so that would be fine.

Trying to explain how Disney+ is a business expense might be more problematic.

To whom would one have to explain it?
Once the IRS is abolished, is there really going to be a tax investigative agency with the resources to go after a business for $40-60?
And even if there were, is there anything to stop one from tap dancing through an explanation? “Well, we here at Ladewig Amalgamated, LLC are always looking to diversify. The subscription fee is a business expense because we are trying to decide if we are going to invest in Disney stock. It’s very similar to our research into Diageo (NYSE: DEO) which owns Crown Royal, Captain Morgan, Johnny Walker, Ketel One, etc.” Or “our company provides daycare to all its employees - of course we have to have Disney+.”

[Blank]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Being bought out of your house at an overpriced rate (without the possibility of the new owner to quickly evict you or force you to pay overpriced rent) sounds like a sweet deal to me.

Lets say A owns a house that business B buys with 200,001 dollars loaned from C and rolls over the house to C for 200,002 dollars - can C evict A immediately or not? How big of a chain is needed for eviction rights?

Who sets the scale for this "overpriced" rent?

[gnome]

The ostensible "Market value" of anything is not always equal to the personal value (utility?) to the owner. If I really love my house, I might turn down millions to sell it.

In fact, it could be argued that's how any market economy works, even fundamental bartering. Two people trade something that are of approximately the same "objective" value, to the extent there is such a thing, but each of them values what they receive more than what they're giving up.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Blank

Lets say A owns a house that business B buys with 200,001 dollars loaned from C and rolls over the house to C for 200,002 dollars - can C evict A immediately or not? How big of a chain is needed for eviction rights?

Who sets the scale for this "overpriced" rent?

these are not problems caused by the suggested scheme - they are inherent in any renter/landlord system.

[pzkpfw]

The suggested scheme will turn owners into renters.

It will benefit the already rich. Just what we need more of.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The idea that some of you can't comprehend why someone wouldn't want to leave their home against their will provided they get paid a lot is scary.

"I don't want to move every time someone with enough money to spend on the value of my house comes by" should require exactly zero explanation.

Note that this could happen again and again and again and again...

Every time, costing you a fortune.

If you want radical reform ideas, how about "Eat the rich" ?

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by The Don

IMO that's the right way to go about it. If you spread the tax burden across income, assets and consumption then it's less easy to avoid taxation through tax avoidance measures.

For example, if all a taxes were raised through consumption taxes, those who could would buy assets through offshore entities and then lease the assets in a tax efficient way. The average Joe or Jane couldn't afford to do this and so, once again, the tax burden would shift to the struggling middle.

Yeah, the problem is we don't tax capital gains or wealth (especially top end inherited wealth) nearly enough as is. The top 10% of earners/owners are getting away with paying a far too small a share of any state's expenditure burden.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Random

Providing free beverages to your employee might be fine. Office chair is probably fine as well. You might need internet to do business (pretty hard to avoid in this day and age) so that would be fine.

Trying to explain how Disney+ is a business expense might be more problematic.

TV Cricket.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by novaphile

To a developer, my land is worth 1.5 million, but it only costs me $1000 per year in taxes to live here.

The assessed value is $600k (single house on a suburban block).

Should I be forced to sell my home to a developer?
(Who will get the profit from building four multi-storey homes on this block)

(Note I was recently offered $800k to sell, but if anyone gets the benefit of redeveloping my home, it's going to be me. Why should I be forced to hand over that profit to a developer?)

Capitalists hate people like me that have assets that they can't exploit.

I know it differs from place to place, but the cost of redevelopment can be crippling, particularly if neighbours complain about the redevelopment destroying the quality of their lives.

I know many savvy people who own large blocks of land have put in requests for subdivision, and because they are often older people on pensions, are treated leniently by councils. They then sell the land with the development approval to the developer.

Another thing some people are doing in sought after areas are joining with neighbours and selling multiple blocks at a time, sometimes up to ten. Developers can have a picnic with that much land.

Sell the land for much more than their value and let the pros look after developments.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

The suggested scheme will turn owners into renters.

It will benefit the already rich. Just what we need more of.

you are presuming that people want to own real estate for the heck of it, not for the income it can generate.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

you are presuming that people want to own real estate for the heck of it, not for the income it can generate.

Well in the UK most (just under 65%) properties are owned by the people living in them so yes, people own them for the heck of it, not for the income they generate.

19% of properties are private rentals.

17% are social rentals.

Under 1/5 of properties are owned by the "rapacious" landlords that you're attempting to manage through the ridiculous COST. A significant proportion of those properties are owned by people like Mrs Don and I (and many of our friends) who own a single rental and/or holiday property rather than large corporates.

edited to add...

The US home ownership level is slightly higher than in the UK at a little over 65%.

My 80-year old mother in law lives in the house that she and her husband had built in 1967 and is reluctant to leave it for a large number of reasons including the sheer volume of stuff that she has and the fact that she knows the house and knows that it's in great shape. She pays the property taxes assessed on it in full.

Why should she be kicked out of her house and have to find a new one because a property developer wants to pay one dollar over the assessed value and spend tens of thousands of dollars in transaction and moving costs ?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

you are presuming that people want to own real estate for the heck of it, not for the income it can generate.

Most people want to own real estate so they have somewhere to live. It's jerks who want to make money off it that screw things up for everyone.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Most people want to own real estate so they have somewhere to live. It's some jerks who want to make money off it that screw things up for everyone.

At least IMO.

Mrs Don and I own a rental flat (apartment) and we consider it part of our retirement portfolio. It's the flat we lived in for almost 20 years before we moved out to Don Towers so we haven't done too much to skew the local property market apart from not releasing it onto the market. The (market) rent that we charge is approximately half of what it would cost someone to borrow 90% of the value of the apartment at current mortgage rates - which are still low by historical standards.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Don

At least IMO.

Mrs Don and I own a rental flat (apartment) and we consider it part of our retirement portfolio. It's the flat we lived in for almost 20 years before we moved out to Don Towers so we haven't done too much to skew the local property market apart from not releasing it onto the market. The (market) rent that we charge is approximately half of what it would cost someone to borrow 90% of the value of the apartment at current mortgage rates - which are still low by historical standards.

Nope, your hands are dyed deep in the blood of the proletariat as you savagely beat elderly pensioners with gardening implements (you have the garden implements and use them to savagely beat, I mean, not that you are implement-less and savagely beating elderly pensions who themselves are holding gardening implements; in the latter scenario one wonders why they wouldn't defend themselves with them, it really makes it sound like if they're not making the slightest effort they almost deserve to be beaten) in order to create your evil real estate monopoly! Oh, it starts off small, with a single house. But then you get another, and then two more, then you trade them in for a hotel! Before we know it everyone else is bankrupt, in jail, or searching desperately for free parking! All so you can sip fancy tea out of your gilded chalice with emeralds and cabochon rubies (did you know the etymology of "cabochon" comes from "cabbage"? Meaning "head". I always thought it was related to blisters). I hope you feel deeply, deeply ashamed of yourself. Either that or yeah, I meant the real estate investment corporations and those "flipping" on a large scale. Irregardless, I really want to drink my tea from a chalice because that would look so awesome on my morning video meetings.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by The Don

At least IMO.

Mrs Don and I own a rental flat (apartment) and we consider it part of our retirement portfolio. It's the flat we lived in for almost 20 years before we moved out to Don Towers so we haven't done too much to skew the local property market apart from not releasing it onto the market. The (market) rent that we charge is approximately half of what it would cost someone to borrow 90% of the value of the apartment at current mortgage rates - which are still low by historical standards.

That's the thing about markets. Individual actors rarely have much impact on the market. Lots of individual actors doing similar things however....

Related note, California has a law generally referred to as Prop 13. Basically, property taxes do not increase on housing until the housing is sold. It is one of the many factors that have created the housing shortage there. Lots of old people squatting on houses meant for their family of 5 that no longer live there. I undertand the argumetn that its unfair to force them out of their houses. On the other hand, it reduces the supply of housing and its unfair to drive up the cost of housing for the young families out there too.

ETA, it basically has the same impact as rent control. Artificially lowering the cost of housing for those that already have it generally reduces the availability of housing for those that don't.

[JoeMorgue]

A certain point a difference in scale BECOMES a difference in kind.

One person owning one rental property isn't a problem.

Huge businesses scooping up properties the moment they hit the market is.

It's the difference between reselling and scalping basically.

[Solitaire]

Originally Posted by Blank

Wouldn't this type of a swap in taxation focus cause a massive inflation spike?

I can see some individual rich guys wanting this but in general this
would slaughter the economy and consumer market businesses or
am I just missing the magical economic genius in this?

Everyone working at a business pretty much pays income taxes directly out of
their wages and they never see that money. In theory consumption tax should
equal the withholding the and their take home pay will remain the same.

So no inflation.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Solitaire

Everyone working at a business pretty much pays income taxes directly out of
their wages and they never see that money. In theory consumption tax should
equal the withholding the and their take home pay will remain the same.

So no inflation.

Prices would go up by X

Take home pay for most people would go up by less than X (due to the progressive nature of payroll taxes).

There would be inflation - it doesn't matter if wages keep pace, it's still inflation, indeed wages keeping pace would tend to exacerbate the situation.

Most people would however suffer a fall in standard of living.

Those with big salaries would come out ahead - which is the whole point.

[The Great Zaganza]

The problem of housing in the US is mostly due to the lack of Public Housing, which is a normal part of the housing market everywhere else, and the ability of small local governments to set their own rules about what gets to be built or not.
Rent Control wouldn't be necessary if the state just provided cheap housing for the poorest 1/3 of renters, thus giving the other renters a much stronger negotiating position in the supply/demand for housing.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The problem of housing in the US is mostly due to the lack of Public Housing, which is a normal part of the housing market everywhere else, and the ability of small local governments to set their own rules about what gets to be built or not.
Rent Control wouldn't be necessary if the state just provided cheap housing for the poorest 1/3 of renters, thus giving the other renters a much stronger negotiating position in the supply/demand for housing.

And a property tax regime which allows houses to be bought out from underneath owner-occupiers (nearly 2/3 of households) fixes this how ?

In any case, IMO you're thinking too small. The poorest 1/3 or rentals is only 10% of households.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by ahhell

That's the thing about markets. Individual actors rarely have much impact on the market. Lots of individual actors doing similar things however....

Related note, California has a law generally referred to as Prop 13. Basically, property taxes do not increase on housing until the housing is sold. It is one of the many factors that have created the housing shortage there. Lots of old people squatting on houses meant for their family of 5 that no longer live there. I undertand the argumetn that its unfair to force them out of their houses. On the other hand, it reduces the supply of housing and its unfair to drive up the cost of housing for the young families out there too.

ETA, it basically has the same impact as rent control. Artificially lowering the cost of housing for those that already have it generally reduces the availability of housing for those that don't.

Squatting? In a house that they own?

A lot of bitterness in that one comment there.

I read that as "Old people should get out of the way."

How about "old people are allowed to enjoy the things that they worked and paid for" hmmm?

[Solitaire]

Originally Posted by The Don

Prices would go up by X

Take home pay for most people would go up by less than X
(due to the progressive nature of payroll taxes).

There would be inflation - it doesn't matter if wages keep pace, it's still
inflation, indeed wages keeping pace would tend to exacerbate the situation.

Most people would however suffer a fall in standard of living.

Those with big salaries would come out ahead - which is the whole point.

Prices would rise by 30% in the form of a sales tax. The lower half of the
tax paying population earns on average 20,000 dollars and pays 4% on
their income plus 16% on social security and medicare taxes. So they
would get a boost in income of 25% if paid in full, leaving a 5% deficit.

Hm.

But the 5000 dollar rebate changes that calculation. But I have to subtract
out the earned income tax credit of 4000 dollars leaving a 5% increase in
income. A 30% rise in income with a 30% rise in cost, no change.

Hm.

But the one's with large incomes pay less in taxes? Something missing here.

Digs out a table.

The top 5% of income earners average 560,000 dollars a year and pay about
25% of their income, which works out to about 140,000 dollars in taxes a year.
Okay, if they don't spend as much as their income they come out ahead.

Hm.

What did we spend last year?

OMG!

6.272 trillion!

We need to implement the fair tax and keep the current income tax now!

[dudalb]

Apparenly, despite McCarthy's promises, it is going to die without getting to a vote.
It never had a chance; most House GOP did not like it.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by gnome

The ostensible "Market value" of anything is not always equal to the personal value (utility?) to the owner. If I really love my house, I might turn down millions to sell it.

In fact, it could be argued that's how any market economy works, even fundamental bartering. Two people trade something that are of approximately the same "objective" value, to the extent there is such a thing, but each of them values what they receive more than what they're giving up.

There's a name for that, endowment effect or ownership effect. Most people tend to overvalue things they own. With a house there's also the expense and nuisance of movie which mean you'd have to pay some amount more than I know my house is worth to move just because moving is a pain in my ass. My uncle advised us to buy a bigger house rather than spend money on a new deck because that would give us a better return on investment. Sure, but then I'd have to move and be in a new house where I wanted to change some other thing.

Anyrate, no tax regime is perfect they all have their pros and cons. Wealth taxes are generally a poor choice, mostly because they are the easiest to avoid.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by novaphile

Squatting? In a house that they own?

A lot of bitterness in that one comment there.

I read that as "Old people should get out of the way."

How about "old people are allowed to enjoy the things that they worked and paid for" hmmm?

You're reading way to much into it.

Setting property taxes too high has negative consequences, setting them too low has negative consequences. That's all I'm saying, I just thought saying the were squatting a better turn of a phrase.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Random

Providing free beverages to your employee might be fine. Office chair is probably fine as well. You might need internet to do business (pretty hard to avoid in this day and age) so that would be fine.

Trying to explain how Disney+ is a business expense might be more problematic.

Research might make Disney a business expense, your researching the Mental defects caused by watching Fairtales, so Fox Fraud News would also be for business because it's all Fairly tales as well.