Posted on 10/12/2005 3:14:09 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
I think they mean the cost of the dwelling at $300,00 not the cost of the mortage interest.
The average home in Vegas is $300,000, so the impact would be quite measurable.
Not going to be able to find a garden shed for that price out here in California.
It's not likely to go anywhere...but they just floated this out there to make the RATS go on record about it, undermining their "standing up for the little guy" schtick.
And how did Rove know they would oppose it? Because this would essentially be a tax for living in the "blue zone." LOL
George Bush may not be the man we all thought he was. His panal's suggestion that homeowners pay even more is evidence of that. His recent reform of the bankruptcy laws in favor of big business is more than troubling. His failure to secure the borders is further worry. His nomination of a virtual unknown to the Supreme Court is even more troublesome! How much do we need before we say that the man is less than we thought he was?
Property taxes pay for local stuff like schools, cops, etc.
We shall see if the panel suggestion is law or not.. God forbid people pay off their bills how evil... Every President has failed to secure the border.. Unknown to us, not unknown to him...
thanx for helping me out...I decided to check out the IRS to get the skinny and you are right. It's the size of the mortgage, not the size of the interest.
Well thank goodness the NRST was $hitcanned.
That abomination would've KILLED new home sales.
"A home is NOT an investment, W/G, but merely a place to live."
Posted on 03/26/2001 16:27:50 PST by pigdog
To: pigdog, Willie Green
It's amazing how many people view a home as an "asset," as well. It's a frickin' LIABILITY.
What a bunch of moroons!
You are correct...But no matter how you twist it, this is a tax increase...
Rush stressed today that these "ideas" are the fantasies of this "tax commission" and not to be confused with what GWB wants. The purpose of this commission was to lower taxes not raise them, Rush said.
This was just brain storming. See, you treat them like adults and they set you up so they can attack you.
Once the government is in the act, you can't get it out. Conforming loan limits will be raising to about $400,000 by the end of the year. If the federal government DOES put a cap on the mortgage interest deduction, it will most like correspond to these loan limits.
It really is a dirty trick to lower the deduction to $300K +/- right after the biggest housing bubble in the history of the world.
Be careful what you wish for. There is a slimey concept called "imputed income". If you rent a property, that rental is a recurring "service" and subject to tax. If you occupy that property as the owner, you are not collecting tax for the government and you are not paying tax on the rent of another piece of property. The government decides that living in your own property is "saving" the rent and associated tax on that rent. That "savings" is labeled "imputed income". The government will decide the fair rental value of the property you own and occupy and tax you on the "imputed income" that could could have collected as rent.
Yeah, spending and the borders have me worried too. But, what alternative was there? A raving Al Gore? A Teresa-piloted Kerry toy?
An asset is something that produces positive cash flow and increases your net worth. A house is only an asset to the mortgage banker, the government taxing authority and insurance agents. The "owner" experiences negative cash flow to satisfy all these parties in exchange for a place to live.
A piece of investment property that rents for more than the cost of mortgage P&I, taxes and maintenance is potentially an asset, but only if it is cash flow positive to the owner.
That's not a good reason to dump NRST by itself. Homes are favored now for a variety of reasons, one of which is the deduction of interest (another is the fact that the excess liquidity keeping the economy going has to go somewhere). Under NRST, there would be a lot of repricing, because certain economic distortions would be gone (or replaced by new ones, if you're pessimistic). For example, home prices would drop, but so would interest rates (less competition for funds if they're not deductible). There would also be a lot of accountants and tax lawyers displaced. But the mere fact that homes would be less overpriced isn't enough reason to stick with an overly complex (income) tax structure.
I'm well aware of imputed income. For example, pity the poor bastards who had options vest followed by a stock downdraft. But, under a consumption based tax system, income -- imputed or not -- doesn't matter.
The man is less than we thought he was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.