16 Dec 09
Originally posted by FMFExactly. I don't see why poor people can't rent. Like I said, I'd have been perfectly happy renting were it not for the tax advantages of buying. Poor people don't need income tax advantages because they don't pay income tax.
So you're saying the poor shouldn't be worried about not being able to own a house?
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76Bernanke = Time Man of the Year.
Exactly. I don't see why poor people can't rent. Like I said, I'd have been perfectly happy renting were it not for the tax advantages of buying. Poor people don't need income tax advantages because they don't pay income tax.
A very good article and won that I wish these populist nitwits on Capitol Hill would take to heart (or maybe the paranoid conspiracy theorists in the public that reward those politicians with cheap, uninformed votes).
I'd offer a link to the article but my Iphone keeps going to lame smartphone versions of the webpages.
16 Dec 09
http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&ncl=dfpkOX1vY9w3ckMbQGYNgNFc_-FDM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/biz/international-business/US-govt-forgo-billions-of-dollars-in-tax-over-Citi-Report/articleshow/5344785.cms
US govt forgo billions of dollars in tax over Citi: Report
PTI 16 December 2009, 09:02pm IST
NEW YORK: The US government quietly agreed to forgo about $38 billions in potential tax payment from troubled financial giant Citigroup as part
Twitter Facebook Share
Email Print Save Comment
of a deal that help the company repay bailout funds, a media report has said.
"The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout
that helped it survive the financial crisis," the 'Washington Post' reported.
The government had injected $45 billion in the entity, hit by global financial crisis in 2008. Citi has to pay back $20 billion bailout money to the US government, since the government got a 34% stake in Citi for $25 billion.
...
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotWTF?!?!
http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&ncl=dfpkOX1vY9w3ckMbQGYNgNFc_-FDM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/biz/international-business/US-govt-forgo-billions-of-dollars-in-tax-over-Citi-Report/articleshow/5344785.cms
US govt forgo billions of dollars in tax over Citi: Report
PTI 16 December 2009, 09:02pm IST
NEW YORK: The US g ...[text shortened]... y to the US government, since the government got a 34% stake in Citi for $25 billion.
...
16 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB126096701015693553.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Bernanke = Time Man of the Year.
A very good article and won that I wish these populist nitwits on Capitol Hill would take to heart (or maybe the paranoid conspiracy theorists in the public that reward those politicians with cheap, uninformed votes).
I'd offer a link to the article but my Iphone keeps going to lame smartphone versions of the webpages.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946375_1947251,00.html
16 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76It might make sense if almost everyone rented. The typical apartment complex generally has a lot more people living within a given area of land than a typical housing development -- especially when every house comes with a rather large lawn.
Exactly. I don't see why poor people can't rent. Like I said, I'd have been perfectly happy renting were it not for the tax advantages of buying. Poor people don't need income tax advantages because they don't pay income tax.
If a large majority of people rented, a much higher percentage of a town's population could be located near the commercial center. Many people would actually be able to run many errands on foot or bicycle - providing them with exercise and keeping the car and it's pollution in the parking lot. While out walking, people might actually meet some of their neighbors. The space that would have been used for housing could instead be used to provide parks and open space.
So a case could be made for a government program that offered special tax breaks to encourage people to rent. At the very least, the incentives to own a house should be phased out.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou're equating renting with living in an apartment complex. While there is no doubt a statistical correlation, it is not inherent.
It might make sense if almost everyone rented. The typical apartment complex generally has a lot more people living within a given area of land than a typical housing development -- especially when every house comes with a rather large lawn.
If a large majority of people rented, a much higher percentage of a town's population could be located near the ...[text shortened]... courage people to rent. At the very least, the incentives to own a house should be phased out.
You could own your apartment as a condominium or co-op in an apartment building and you can rent a free standing single family house.
16 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I'm looking at it from a general viewpoint. Obviously, there are a wide variety of ways of renting.
You're equating renting with living in an apartment complex. While there is no doubt a statistical correlation, it is not inherent.
You could own your apartment as a condominium or co-op in an apartment building and you can rent a free standing single family house.
My main point is that many people make arguments for why owning a home is much better than renting -- the main one being that homeownership supposedly contributes to community stability because people who own a home are more likely to stay long-term.
But it seems to me that there are at least as many arguments (if not more) that could be made in favor of renting. The best government policy might be to just stop favoring one approach over the other and just let the marketplace determine how the chips fall.
If you consider all of the homeownership incentives to be a form of government spending (after all, an alternative would be to eliminate all these incentives and cut the OVERALL tax rate accordingly) - it represents an awful lot of wasteful government spending that's not really accomplishing anything. Those who clamor for "less gummint" might want to consider this as a major area to target.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by zeeblebothellooo????
http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&ncl=dfpkOX1vY9w3ckMbQGYNgNFc_-FDM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/biz/international-business/US-govt-forgo-billions-of-dollars-in-tax-over-Citi-Report/articleshow/5344785.cms
US govt forgo billions of dollars in tax over Citi: Report
PTI 16 December 2009, 09:02pm IST
NEW YORK: The US g ...[text shortened]... y to the US government, since the government got a 34% stake in Citi for $25 billion.
...
---
"The US government quietly agreed to forgo about $38 billions in potential tax payment from troubled financial giant Citigroup as part ..."
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76I think the best of all worlds is owning a condominium -- say, a townhouse complete with garage and (if living in the east) a basement. The condo association takes care of the outside, which as I'm sure you know is a big time, aggravation and money saver. Big jobs like getting new roofs, repaving driveways and putting in new decks can be done much cheaper when some or all of the units in the association coordinate and divide the costs. Trash pickup, lawn maintenance -- all much cheaper.
Home ownership is a royal pain in the derriere. It costs a fortune. Real estate taxes, homeowners insurance, repairs, maintenance, utility bills. It's a constant source of worry. Should I put more insulation in the attic? Would it save money in the long run to replace the windows?
Yes, it will hopefully be a nice savings vehicle, if housing prices ever go ba ...[text shortened]... ong the powers that be wants me to own my own home and tax policy strongly reflects that.
I suppose it all depends on how greatly one desires the freedom to paint the front door hot pink and hang a tire from a tree. Condo associations frown on those things.
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by telerionCan you give us an example of a more or less "capitalist" country that has more or less achieved this?
['everybody owns a house'] would be a goal [of capitalism] only in the sense that growth would make the real price of homes inexpensive enough that everyone could afford one.
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by FMFNo, I don't think I can. I'll ask around though.
Can you give us an example of a more or less "capitalist" country that has more or less achieved this?
On the other hand, there has been considerable progress over the centuries in terms of what people can afford. Obviously we're not there yet, and it's debatable whether we will ever be. Maybe.
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI agree 100%. Here too the housing market is full of government meddling but I don't understand why it's required. Can't afford a house? Tough luck. There are much more useful places for these tax dollars to go, not to mention the waste associated with the needless bureaucracy.
I'm looking at it from a general viewpoint. Obviously, there are a wide variety of ways of renting.
My main point is that many people make arguments for why owning a home is much better than renting -- the main one being that homeownership supposedly contributes to community stability because people who own a home are more likely to stay long-term.
...[text shortened]... . Those who clamor for "less gummint" might want to consider this as a major area to target.