Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are numerous items written by economists that discuss in detail why state and local taxes and mortgage interest should not be deductible from federal taxes. It's very highly agreed upon. Perhaps you should seek out some of this literature. I also strongly suspect that you are overestimating the magnitude of the tax increase you will see but if course it's very hard to know without the details of your particular…
> There are numerous items written by economists that discuss in detail why state and local taxes and mortgage interest should not be deductible from federal taxes. It's very highly agreed upon. Perhaps you should seek out some of this literature. Could you show at least one? When I look for this, I don't see articles supporting your position.
Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers
271–275 of 275 posts
Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is housing prices fall and rents follow?
Nope, at least not in the short term. In the short term, house price is locked for the current owner, and usually by their payments to the mortgage holder. If the expenses rise, so do the prices. And since this will happen on the whole market, the price rise would not be substantially constrained by the competition. On the long term, this could depress the housing market and thus lead to lower prices. That would depe…
If the expenses rise, so do the prices.
Not sure I understand. If expenses rise, housing prices fall, not increase.
And yes, a landlord might say "my expenses went up so rent will go up as well". However, the market sets prices, not landlords. He might raise the price, the tenant leaves and his place sits empty.
There are plenty of people out there losing money as landlords because their rents are higher than what people will pay.
Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renters are already paying all of the property tax. The expenses for any business (including being a landlord) are, in the long term, paid by the customers. Otherwise the business becomes insolvent.
I concede renters may be paying a part of it. However if a landlord is like a business owner, and property tax is a business expense, why should they not be allowed to deduct it (just like any other business expense)? Amazon has expenses too related to storing products in warehouses, which they can deduct. Part of that cost is priced into the product. So in theory, customers should be able to deduct a portion of ever…
I don't think other business expenses should be deductible either, as that incentivizes inefficient businesses.
I would favor eliminating all business deductions, combined with lowering the tax rate enough to make the change revenue neutral.
Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
I concede renters may be paying a part of it. However if a landlord is like a business owner, and property tax is a business expense, why should they not be allowed to deduct it (just like any other business expense)? Amazon has expenses too related to storing products in warehouses, which they can deduct. Part of that cost is priced into the product. So in theory, customers should be able to deduct a portion of ever…
Just my opinion, but society benefits from having manageable costs of living. I acknowledge that landlords have a business to run, but we also have a policy favoring ownership. Not allowing a property tax or non-occupied mortgage interest deduction raises the costs of being a landlord, disfavoring that activity a bit from a policy perspective. That, in turn, may lower housing costs (and increase owner-occupation of p…
> allowing regular folks to build wealth in the form of their primary residence
Sometimes that's true, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes people wind up with underwater mortgages, rather than building wealth.
Re: Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we taxes people based on the benefits they receive from the government, then the homeless would pay a fortune. This is provably and patently false. Homeless people don't have their good protected by the police, don't get fire protection, don't drive, don't get deductions for businesses, don't get inheritance from their wealthy, millionaire parents, don't get lobbying influence. The entire system is set up to the…
My point was that we are not taxed based on the benefits we consume (if we were they'd be fees not income taxes). I did not mean to imply the homeless have it easy.
I'm sorry I must not have been clear. My point wasn't that you were saying the homeless had it easy, my point was that the homeless cannot use the system because the benefits of the system belong to those who already have money.