391–400 of 461 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money is a fungible commodity but a house isn’t. You can’t sell part of a house. If that’s where all of your wealth is. You
You can’t sell part of a house. Sure you can: https://point.com/how_it_works
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some land is more valuable than other land. Living on top of more valuable land consumes a more valuable resource.
The land isn’t more valuable because of some inherent virtue of the land. It’s only more valuable because tech bro’s want it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t sell part of a house. Sure you can: https://point.com/how_it_works
Fair enough so we should also tax equity in private companies. That money could also be used for positive economic activity.....
The pros and cons of a mark to market capital gains tax are pretty far outside of the scope of this thread, so I will save my thoughts on them for another day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could make that argument about any property (e.g. art). I guess your definition of "consumption" is "having something someone else doesn't"? But that isn't what most people mean, I think. Edit: I think a tax on imputed rent could maybe be considered a consumption tax, and it would indeed make sense for it to be higher or lower depending on the location of the property. But a tax on the value of the whole property…
Imputed rent is (roughly) proportional the the value of the property, So a tax on one is the same as a tax on the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This logic makes no sense and people like myself can afford to keep our houses mainly because of prop 13. Since buying my house almost 8 years ago the market has double at no fault of my own. This would double my taxes making a good portion unable to be written off thanks to new IRS rules. Yet, you want to call that locked-in? I love my house and where I live but it would be painful with that extra $2k a month tax bi…
When someone proposes a four plus one housing development around the corner from your house to help address the state's housing shortage, would you oppose it? You can't move if you don't like it, after all, since you'd lose your property tax break. If you oppose such developments, then the higher value of your home _is your fault_.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imputed rent is (roughly) proportional the the value of the property, So a tax on one is the same as a tax on the other.
Yes, there's a consumption component and a non-consumption component. Of course when either component goes up the total goes up. But the tax is on the total value and therefore it's not a consumption tax.
That makes a 10% tax on imputed rent the exact same thing as a 1% tax on the value of the property.
So your point is really just an argument about the rate, not an argument about the fundamentals of what is being taxed.
Note that property taxes tend to be a fraction of sales taxes for exactly this reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This logic makes no sense and people like myself can afford to keep our houses mainly because of prop 13. Since buying my house almost 8 years ago the market has double at no fault of my own. This would double my taxes making a good portion unable to be written off thanks to new IRS rules. Yet, you want to call that locked-in? I love my house and where I live but it would be painful with that extra $2k a month tax bi…
When someone proposes a four plus one housing development around the corner from your house to help address the state's housing shortage, would you oppose it? You can't move if you don't like it, after all, since you'd lose your property tax break. If you oppose such developments, then the higher value of your home _is your fault_.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone proposes a four plus one housing development around the corner from your house to help address the state's housing shortage, would you oppose it? You can't move if you don't like it, after all, since you'd lose your property tax break. If you oppose such developments, then the higher value of your home _is your fault_.
Im in favor of any housing that makes sense but dont espouse the logic that just because someone wants to move to a town everyone has to agree to let giant apartment blocks get put up. I did indeed buy where Im at because I enjoyed the small town culture but I understand the need for managed growth. My town is already overwhelmed with infrastructure and water issues that poorly planned growth will exacerbate. There i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there's a consumption component and a non-consumption component. Of course when either component goes up the total goes up. But the tax is on the total value and therefore it's not a consumption tax.
Let's say that imputed rent is, on average, 10% of the total value of the property. That makes a 10% tax on imputed rent the exact same thing as a 1% tax on the value of the property. So your point is really just an argument about the rate, not an argument about the fundamentals of what is being taxed. Note that property taxes tend to be a fraction of sales taxes for exactly this reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say that imputed rent is, on average, 10% of the total value of the property. That makes a 10% tax on imputed rent the exact same thing as a 1% tax on the value of the property. So your point is really just an argument about the rate, not an argument about the fundamentals of what is being taxed. Note that property taxes tend to be a fraction of sales taxes for exactly this reason.
Yes, I understand this point but the ratio between rents and property values varies wildly. So yes you can compute an average ratio and say it is "equivalent" to a tax on imputed rent if you adjust by that ratio, just as you could average out the number of bathrooms in each house and say it is "equivalent" to a bathroom tax. But it's not a very compelling argument!
Does it vary all that much within a specific property tax jurisdiction?