IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags consumption tax , irs

Reply
Old 13th January 2023, 02:32 AM   #81
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 36,002
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 02:37 AM   #82
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 36,002
Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle View Post
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.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 07:33 AM   #83
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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...
__________________
The road to Fascism is paved with people saying, "You're overreacting!".
Random is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 08:36 AM   #84
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 64,874
Originally Posted by Random View Post
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+*
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 09:11 AM   #85
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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 road to Fascism is paved with people saying, "You're overreacting!".
Random is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 09:19 AM   #86
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 19,336
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
...

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.
__________________
"The only true paradise is paradise lost"
Marcel Proust
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 09:52 AM   #87
lobosrul5
Illuminator
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 4,161
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 13th January 2023 at 09:59 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 10:38 AM   #88
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 36,002
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 10:46 AM   #89
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 42,380
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.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 13th January 2023 at 10:49 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 11:06 AM   #90
lobosrul5
Illuminator
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 4,161
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
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.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 13th January 2023 at 11:08 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 11:09 AM   #91
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 42,380
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."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 11:12 AM   #92
lobosrul5
Illuminator
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 4,161
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
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.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 13th January 2023 at 11:17 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 12:59 PM   #93
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 5,353
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2023, 08:06 PM   #94
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 19,888
Originally Posted by Random View Post
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.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2023, 05:13 AM   #95
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,710
Originally Posted by Random View Post
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+.”
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

Last edited by Ladewig; 14th January 2023 at 05:25 AM.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2023, 05:43 AM   #96
Blank
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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?
Blank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 09:34 AM   #97
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,505
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.
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 15th January 2023 at 09:36 AM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 12:02 PM   #98
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 19,336
Originally Posted by Blank View Post
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.
__________________
"The only true paradise is paradise lost"
Marcel Proust
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 12:32 PM   #99
pzkpfw
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 152
The suggested scheme will turn owners into renters.

It will benefit the already rich. Just what we need more of.
pzkpfw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 02:16 PM   #100
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 4,020
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
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" ?
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 04:00 PM   #101
Gulliver Foyle
Graduate Poster
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 04:01 PM   #102
Gulliver Foyle
Graduate Poster
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by Random View Post
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.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 11:45 PM   #103
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 52,528
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post

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.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 02:18 AM   #104
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 19,336
Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
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 only true paradise is paradise lost"
Marcel Proust
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 02:29 AM   #105
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 36,002
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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 ?

Last edited by The Don; 16th January 2023 at 02:34 AM.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 07:13 AM   #106
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 64,874
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 07:28 AM   #107
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 36,002
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 07:43 AM   #108
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 64,874
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 08:08 AM   #109
ahhell
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,096
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.

Last edited by ahhell; 16th January 2023 at 08:10 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 10:23 AM   #110
JoeMorgue
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 42,380
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.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 02:59 PM   #111
Solitaire
Neoclinus blanchardi
 
Solitaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,754
Originally Posted by Blank View Post
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.
__________________
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
Solitaire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 12:18 AM   #112
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 36,002
Originally Posted by Solitaire View Post
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 Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 12:56 AM   #113
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 19,336
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 only true paradise is paradise lost"
Marcel Proust
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 02:30 AM   #114
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 36,002
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 02:37 PM   #115
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 4,020
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
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?
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 04:19 PM   #116
Solitaire
Neoclinus blanchardi
 
Solitaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,754
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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!
__________________
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
Solitaire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2023, 05:04 PM   #117
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 57,259
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.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2023, 05:22 PM   #118
ahhell
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,096
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
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.

Last edited by ahhell; 25th January 2023 at 05:25 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2023, 05:25 PM   #119
ahhell
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,096
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
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.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2023, 06:03 PM   #120
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,232
Originally Posted by Random View Post
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.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.