The hypocrisy is stunning

[JerryBaumchen 874]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

No what the Ds say about Trump's Tax cuts is that they lowered revenues and increased the deficit and that only absolute morons would believe in "trickle down economics."

 

Hi Sky,

Uh, that would be 'morans.'

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 874]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Fact - you are NOT paying taxes that you could.   So you are getting subsidies.  A rose by any other name . . .

Hi Bill,

Since we are going to be facetious, if the gov't does not take every penny I have, am I getting a subsidy?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  This place is starting to be fun.

 

Edited March 15 by JerryBaumchen

[billvon 1,943]

40 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Since we are going to be facetious, if the gov't does not take every penny I have, am I getting a subsidy?

Well, you are certainly not paying your fair share!

[Phil1111 690]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

I'm sure he is, and is trying to use that to claim that you have no credibility. 

Some people with no credibility according to BH:..

Brent's idea of trickle down:

[gowlerk 1,610]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Probably no RC people are receiving direct subsidies from the government.

The RC people are in on the "Birds Aren't Real" plot. They help operate the secret surveillance system. They are probably getting many hundreds of billions for their fake birds.

https://birdsarentreal.com/

[TriGirl 254]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:19 PM, billvon said:

Also agreed.  The MID was intended to encourage home ownership, but I don't see a compelling reason to do that.

It encouraged me to purchase homes instead of rent, as it gave me a significant reduction in my tax burden even at my lower income level.  Encouraging people to own their own homes instead of renting from a few very wealthy landlords (who then would be making even more money from that business) keeps the wealth balanced a bit more, and keeps the society invested (literally and figuratively) in communities.

However, since the last administration doubled the personal exemption, I get no more financial benefit from home ownership (aside from possible appreciation, which can be a gamble).  My itemized deductions, including charitable donations, no longer exceed the personal exemption. If more people are in my same situation, they no longer have an incentive to purchase instead of rent and may be less likely to donate to charity (although, I still donate to charity -- it was just nice to have it essentially be my little input directing where government support should go!) 

 

[billvon 1,943]

28 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

It encouraged me to purchase homes instead of rent, as it gave me a significant reduction in my tax burden even at my lower income level.  Encouraging people to own their own homes instead of renting from a few very wealthy landlords (who then would be making even more money from that business) keeps the wealth balanced a bit more, and keeps the society invested (literally and figuratively) in communities.

Yep.  And the secondary effect of that was that everyone bought a house and drove prices well beyond what low (or even middle) income people can afford.  In other words, the market adjusted to the new savings by increasing the price of a new home.

It's great for the people who can afford homes.  For those who can't, it keeps them poorer, because now they 1) have to rent since they can't buy the now-more-expensive homes and 2) they do not get the benefit of the deduction - thus they can't save as much for that eventual house.

So I don't see a compelling reason to use something like the MID to accomplish greater home ownership, since it has effects that both hinder and encourage home ownership.

[DougH 236]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

And the secondary effect of that was that everyone bought a house and drove prices well beyond what low (or even middle) income people can afford.

Home prices have continued to rise after the standard deduction changes, and the SALT limitations. It barely made a dent on demand.

The much bigger problem with home prices (and rent) is supply. New building is deliberately restricted by current residents and local governments. 

[billvon 1,943]

4 hours ago, DougH said:

The much bigger problem with home prices (and rent) is supply. New building is deliberately restricted by current residents and local governments. 

Well, it of course is not in 99% of the country.  I can get 36 acres of land in Arizona for $46K in a development and build (almost) whatever I want on it - commercial, residential, agricultural, RV campsites etc.  See below.

I think what you are saying is that it is deliberately restricted in places everyone wants to live (in nice houses with decent yards near big cities.)  And yes, that's definitely true.  Everyone wants to be the last one in, and new residents quickly set to work ensuring that the non-local riffraff (i.e. them, before last month) cannot take over the place.  This drives property prices through the roof, since these people seek to limit the supply of new properties.

Here in CA, there has been an attempt to get around this by making ADU's ('granny flats') legal, with the state government overriding all the HOAs, towns and community groups that want to restrict new housing.  This either puts control of new housing in the hands of homeowners or is a dictatorial power grab by Newsom depending on which side of the aisle you are - but in either case it hasn't done much so far.  There have been under 1000 applications for new ADU's as of a year ago in a study looking at some of the bigger cities.

Another thing happening here is that they have been building out light rail.  You can now get a trolley from Chula Vista (some of the last remaining cheap-ish property in San Diego) all the way to UTC/Sorrento Valley which is a huge employment hub.

But those are both just patches on top of a basic problem, which is that everyone wants a house with a fair amount of land very close to where they work.  And as more and more people get rich, they compete for the same land, which is why houses here are going for more than a million now.  There's no way around that basic problem in a housing market driven by capitalism.  Market forces will adjust to ANY attempt to make homes more affordable, whether it's a tax break or a law requiring affordable housing.

 

https://www.landwatch.com/apache-county-arizona-recreational-property-for-sale/pid/411461693

[JerryBaumchen 874]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Well, it of course is not in 99% of the country.  I can get 36 acres of land in Arizona for $46K in a development and build (almost) whatever I want on it - commercial, residential, agricultural, RV campsites etc.  See below.

I think what you are saying is that it is deliberately restricted in places everyone wants to live (in nice houses with decent yards near big cities.)  And yes, that's definitely true.  Everyone wants to be the last one in, and new residents quickly set to work ensuring that the non-local riffraff (i.e. them, before last month) cannot take over the place.  This drives property prices through the roof, since these people seek to limit the supply of new properties.

Here in CA, there has been an attempt to get around this by making ADU's ('granny flats') legal, with the state government overriding all the HOAs, towns and community groups that want to restrict new housing.  This either puts control of new housing in the hands of homeowners or is a dictatorial power grab by Newsom depending on which side of the aisle you are - but in either case it hasn't done much so far.  There have been under 1000 applications for new ADU's as of a year ago in a study looking at some of the bigger cities.

Another thing happening here is that they have been building out light rail.  You can now get a trolley from Chula Vista (some of the last remaining cheap-ish property in San Diego all the way to UTC/Sorrento Valley which is a huge employment hub.

But those are both just patches on top of a basic problem, which is that everyone wants a house with a fair amount of land very close to where they work.  And as more and more people get rich, they compete for the same land, which is why houses here are going for more than a million now.  There's no way around that basic problem in a housing market driven by capitalism.  Market forces will adjust to ANY attempt to make homes more affordable, whether it's a tax break or a law requiring affordable housing.

 

https://www.landwatch.com/apache-county-arizona-recreational-property-for-sale/pid/411461693

Hi Bill,

As you were saying:  Kotek, lawmakers want to speed homebuilding, but Oregonians say they don’t want increased construction in their communities: Poll - oregonlive.com

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 1,345]

On 3/15/2023 at 12:03 PM, billvon said:

Fact - you are NOT paying taxes that you could.   So you are getting subsidies.  A rose by any other name . . .

That I could?  You still have no clue.  I pay every tax and fee that is available to be paid, to the feds, to the state, county and city, for flying RC models.  Every one.

Stop trying to be cute on this, it just makes you look silly.

[kallend 1,345]

On 3/15/2023 at 3:18 PM, billvon said:

Well, you are certainly not paying your fair share!

Define "fair".

You are starting to look trollish.

[billvon 1,943]

37 minutes ago, kallend said:

Define "fair".

Not supporting the USA as much as you could.

[JoeWeber 1,865]

Just now, kallend said:

Define "fair".

You are starting to look trollish.

Golly, Professor, it's not like we're talking about your guns.