2018 Midterm Election Results

[Fanatical Meat]

Lol I don't understand why is mortgage tax deductible in the first place. Why should other taxpayers shoulder your voluntary debt choice?

It encourages an ownership society as opposed to a rent.
Remember during the depression land was a huge thing.

 

[sdifox]

It encourages an ownership society as opposed to a rent.
Remember during the depression land was a huge thing.

No it encourages taking on too much debt.

 

[Vic]

Oh man, Thanksgiving is gonna be fun. I'm doing Turkey day with my sister and her husband in Santa Monica this year. Her in-laws are from OC and are YUUUUUUGE MAGA Trump fans and lifelong Republicans.

I recommend alcohol.

 

[soundforbjt]

I recommend alcohol.

Pot's legal in CA now right? Make them some brownies for an appetizer.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No it encourages taking on too much debt.

Alright so make it like Egypt was. All land purchases must be made in cash.
Then effectively all land will be owned by the top 5%. Everyone else will pay rent and have little input into the rules & regulations plus pay ever increasing rents.
My point is land = debt the only terms are if you ultimately own the land or you lease the land. Either result is debt unless you can pay cash.

 

[JSt0rm]

yeah we want to motivate people to own property. Is it the best solution? Does it come with other issues? Yes. But I dont think its a bad policy. Eskimo has made some valid arguments as to why we should remove it and they do make sense but I do feel the overall value of a middleclass who owns homes is valid. Its same for getting tax write offs for children. Children are needed to maintain this thing and the gov is willing to incentivize that via a tax break. Does someone who doesnt have kids need to pay more for those that do? Probably. But the net gain to society by having children makes it worth it.

 

[JSt0rm]

the alternative in hot markets is massive landowners owning all homes and then you have another set of problems.

 

[sdifox]

Alright so make it like Egypt was. All land purchases must be made in cash.
Then effectively all land will be owned by the top 5%. Everyone else will pay rent and have little input into the rules & regulations plus pay ever increasing rents.
My point is land = debt the only terms are if you ultimately own the land or you lease the land. Either result is debt unless you can pay cash.

Why does it always involve extremes? I am talking about people spending more on a bigger house because the interest is deductible.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why does it always involve extremes? I am talking about people spending more on a bigger house because the interest is deductible.

Because you’re previous words weren’t as concise as these words

 

[Maxima1]

yeah we want to motivate people to own property. Is it the best solution? Does it come with other issues? Yes. But I dont think its a bad policy.

It's inane. If you want to make it more equitable between homeowners and renters, then you should like a real estate tax. It's a better tax than taxing income.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/

Economists have all sorts of problems with the mortgage-interest deduction. For one thing, because wealthier people own bigger homes with bigger mortgages, the benefit disproportionately benefits the rich. In 2013, 73 percent of that $70 billion went to the wealthiest 20 percent of earners; 15 percent went to the richest 1 percent. The poorest 20 percent, who rarely own homes, got essentially nothing.

The problems don’t stop there, economists say. The mortgage-interest deduction also gives people an incentive to borrow as much money as possible — to buy bigger homes and make smaller down payments. That probably isn’t good for either homeowners or the economy (remember the housing bubble?), and it might even drive up home prices artificially, making homes less affordable for new buyers.

Perhaps because of the effect on prices, the mortgage-interest deduction doesn’t even seem to encourage homeownership. Thomas L. Hungerford, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute, notes that Canada and the United Kingdom have homeownership rates similar to that of the U.S., even though they don’t let borrowers write off the interest on their mortgages. “Having the mortgage-interest deduction does almost nothing for increasing homeownership rates,” Hungerford said. Economists at the libertarian think tank Reason reached the same conclusion in a 2011 report.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It's inane. If you want to make it more equitable between homeowners and renters, then you should like a real estate tax. It's a better tax than taxing income.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/

Economists have all sorts of problems with the mortgage-interest deduction. For one thing, because wealthier people own bigger homes with bigger mortgages, the benefit disproportionately benefits the rich. In 2013, 73 percent of that $70 billion went to the wealthiest 20 percent of earners; 15 percent went to the richest 1 percent. The poorest 20 percent, who rarely own homes, got essentially nothing.

The problems don’t stop there, economists say. The mortgage-interest deduction also gives people an incentive to borrow as much money as possible — to buy bigger homes and make smaller down payments. That probably isn’t good for either homeowners or the economy (remember the housing bubble?), and it might even drive up home prices artificially, making homes less affordable for new buyers.

Perhaps because of the effect on prices, the mortgage-interest deduction doesn’t even seem to encourage homeownership. Thomas L. Hungerford, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute, notes that Canada and the United Kingdom have homeownership rates similar to that of the U.S., even though they don’t let borrowers write off the interest on their mortgages. “Having the mortgage-interest deduction does almost nothing for increasing homeownership rates,” Hungerford said. Economists at the libertarian think tank Reason reached the same conclusion in a 2011 report.

Sounds great until Republicans eliminate the tax or cap it so the wealthy don’t pay extra.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's inane. If you want to make it more equitable between homeowners and renters, then you should like a real estate tax. It's a better tax than taxing income.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/

Economists have all sorts of problems with the mortgage-interest deduction. For one thing, because wealthier people own bigger homes with bigger mortgages, the benefit disproportionately benefits the rich. In 2013, 73 percent of that $70 billion went to the wealthiest 20 percent of earners; 15 percent went to the richest 1 percent. The poorest 20 percent, who rarely own homes, got essentially nothing.

The problems don’t stop there, economists say. The mortgage-interest deduction also gives people an incentive to borrow as much money as possible — to buy bigger homes and make smaller down payments. That probably isn’t good for either homeowners or the economy (remember the housing bubble?), and it might even drive up home prices artificially, making homes less affordable for new buyers.

Perhaps because of the effect on prices, the mortgage-interest deduction doesn’t even seem to encourage homeownership. Thomas L. Hungerford, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute, notes that Canada and the United Kingdom have homeownership rates similar to that of the U.S., even though they don’t let borrowers write off the interest on their mortgages. “Having the mortgage-interest deduction does almost nothing for increasing homeownership rates,” Hungerford said. Economists at the libertarian think tank Reason reached the same conclusion in a 2011 report.

nothing is perfect.

 

[Maxima1]

nothing is perfect.

It's not even close to being good policy. It's stupid.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's inane. If you want to make it more equitable between homeowners and renters, then you should like a real estate tax. It's a better tax than taxing income.

Hardly. Landlords just pass the cost down to renters.

 

[Maxima1]

Hardly. Landlords just pass the cost down to renters.

That's incorrect. Because the supply of land is fixed, landlords already act as monopolists.

 

[sdifox]

Taxing income is tricky. Just tax consumption. Every single consumption gets taxed. Money that cannot be used may as well not exist.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's incorrect. Because the supply of land is fixed, landlords already act as monopolists.

When the costs of ownership go up, rents go up.

 

[ivwshane]

Taxing income is tricky. Just tax consumption. Every single consumption gets taxed. Money that cannot be used may as well not exist.

Do you know which segments of the population drive our economy? Would it make sense to tax that segment more? What do you think would happen?

 

[Jhhnn]

Taxing income is tricky. Just tax consumption. Every single consumption gets taxed. Money that cannot be used may as well not exist.

Consumption taxes alone would allow the wealthiest to escape taxation more than they already do. They're extremely regressive.

 

[Maxima1]

When the costs of ownership go up, rents go up.

They already try to charge as much as they can, so that doesn't make sense, especially if the tax was wholly on land value.

Adam Smith himself:.

"Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground." – Adam Smith

"Both ground- rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." – Adam Smith

Open Letter to Gorbachev

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_(1990)

 

[Jhhnn]

They already try to charge as much as they can, so that doesn't make sense, especially if the tax was wholly on land value.

Adam Smith himself:.

"Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground." – Adam Smith

"Both ground- rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." – Adam Smith

Open Letter to Gorbachev

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_(1990)

All of which is immaterial to the topic at hand.

 

[sdifox]

Consumption taxes alone would allow the wealthiest to escape taxation more than they already do. They're extremely regressive.

How so, if you do not use the money, what is it good for?

 

[Jhhnn]

How so, if you do not use the money, what is it good for?

It's good for real estate & financial instruments. It spends just as well out of the country as in it, as well.

 

[JSt0rm]

That's incorrect. Because the supply of land is fixed, landlords already act as monopolists.

oh yeah its wrong., Some weird shit you show up with is the right way to go because reasons.

 

[Vic]

Hardly. Landlords just pass the cost down to renters.

The mortgage interest deduction doesn't apply to rental properties, only primary and secondary residences. Landlords write off mortgage interest paid on rentals the same as any business expense.