31–40 of 112 posts
Landlords who took big losses from tenants who didn't or couldn't pay their rent and suffered a loss will be able to deduct more of their loss from their personal income tax.
However, this will only occur if they took losses, so it is really a discount of ~35% on negative income. This would also apply to someone who is not rich, i.e. a software dev sole proprietor who cashed out big losses in March in the stock market and then applied those losses against their normal income to end up reporting 64k in income instead of 100k (normally 36k in losses would have to be stretched over 12 years of tax returns).
I understand this doesn't fit the narrative, but please comment if it is incorrect instead of downvoting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where have you heard that landlords are forgiving rent? That's not the case at all. You still owe all of that rent. This kind of attitude is increasing bizarre in the current world.
> Where have you heard that landlords are forgiving rent? I assume he's confusing it with evictions being put on hold. > You still owe all of that rent. Indeed.
Without interest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is not going to put their money into the economy the same what that 1000 people with moderate income, like say restaurant workers getting $1,700 would. Those people poorer will spend all that money. Wealthier people spend or invest all of their money. Only drug dealers hoard cash, and that's only because they have difficulty laundering it.
It doesn’t seem hard to argue that purchasing stocks or expensive real estate is not as beneficial for the economy as thousands of people spending the same amount in their local economies.
I agree, but it doesn't make any sense. Investing is literally putting money to work. Storing it in a mattress is not putting it to work.
For example, what happens to the money when people buy real estate? The seller of that real estate gets the money. They don't hoard it, they also spend/invest it.
What happens to the money you put in your bank account? The bank loans it out to people who spend/invest it. (Banks don't make money hoarding cash, they make money loaning it out.)
Think about it another way. Wealthy people in general are not stupid with money, if they were they wouldn't be wealthy very long. They put it to work. That means spending it or investing it to people who spend it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is not going to put their money into the economy the same what that 1000 people with moderate income, like say restaurant workers getting $1,700 would. Those people poorer will spend all that money. Wealthier people spend or invest all of their money. Only drug dealers hoard cash, and that's only because they have difficulty laundering it.
Poorer people spend all their money - they have no choice…
Landlords who took big losses from tenants who didn't or couldn't pay their rent and suffered a loss will be able to deduct more of their loss from their personal income tax.
The reason why you get better yields from being a landlord or investing in shares than from keeping it in the bank is because you also accept risk. These people accepted the risk, and their reward during normal times is a better yield. By bailing them out (and specifically only the ones who also get income tax)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone pays a million less in taxes then someone gave them a million dollars back. so yes, you are giving them something. One can argue in some irrational way that taxes are theft so you never 'give' someone something if you reduce their taxes. At the end of that game, you have more money than you had before, gift or other political arguments aside. Someone who was going to pay a million in taxes and now has 1 mil…
> is not going to put their money into the economy the same what that 1000 people with moderate income, like say restaurant workers getting $1,700 would. Those people poorer will spend all that money. Wealthier people spend or invest all of their money. Only drug dealers hoard cash, and that's only because they have difficulty laundering it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely this is what I’m paying taxes for. Could go to healthcare for all, fixing my roads and access to education, creating a strong resilient nation for all of us. But this is so much better.
This is what an oligarchy looks like.
Everywhere a candidate’s name is printed.
>because of additional language that applies the policy retroactively “so losses in 2018 and 2019 can be ‘carried back’ against the past five years.” Damn, must be nice.
Surely this is what I’m paying taxes for. Could go to healthcare for all, fixing my roads and access to education, creating a strong resilient nation for all of us. But this is so much better.
And arguably, had we done that then we wouldn't be dealing with this now.