Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Real estate more than anything really keeps the economy humming... ...just sayin... There are so many knock on effects... (construction, major appliances, realtors, mortgage brokers, ongoing repairs and maintenance, renovations, property taxes)... The list goes on. There's a reason real estate is favored in the tax code ("it's the economy stupid" if you remember that one)...
Real estate is generally a NON-PRODUCTIVE use of society resources.
As a government you want to encourage businesses that increase productivity in society or significantly reduce operating costs.
Real estate does NONE of those. It does rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The reason that real estate is "favored" in the tax code.....is that "we have the best government money can buy".
So the solution is no write offs at all and a flat tax rate. That includes taxing poor people at the same rate. Is that fair?
I don’t see why you have an issue with the current tax structure. You paid less than your fair share by using real estate deductions. That makes you every bit as bad as as the really wealthy people. Also makes you a hypocrite because you complain about them not paying what they should, yet you didn’t pay your fair share either.....................
.
Yes, it is fair to tax poor people at the same rate. Everybody should pay taxes to support society.
Yes, I pay LESS than my fair share.
REALLY I should be stupid and pay LESS, so Obama, Biden, Trump and EVERYBODY else in the Senate and 494 members in the House can pay less???
The BEST investment advice I EVER GOT was invest like rich people, remember they make the rules.
Real estate is generally a NON-PRODUCTIVE use of society resources.
As a government you want to encourage businesses that increase productivity in society or significantly reduce operating costs.
Real estate does NONE of those. It does rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The reason that real estate is "favored" in the tax code.....is that "we have the best government money can buy".
Where do you get this malaky - how do you produce anything without a factory - that requires real estate. How do you have a productive work force without a place to live - that requires real estate. How do you grow crops without land designated for that - ie real estate. You seem to think we go back to hunter gatherers, living in caves - that is not productive. In general, real estate is a great use of resources.
The reason real estate has favored tax treatment is to encourage financing, building and maintaining real estate.
National sales tax. 10%. No more tax returns, at all. Abolish everything else.
A 10% isn't enough.
B It is classically regressive, in that poor people spend every penny the get, and maybe then some, but rich people do not. So us poor folks would pay your 10%, Lebron James, who makes $50 million per year, doesn't spend all that so his rate would be less than your 10%. (Lebron went from being a poor kid in Akron Ohio, living in Section 8 housing, to being a Billionaire. God Bless him.)
B It is classically regressive, in that poor people spend every penny the get, and maybe then some, but rich people do not. So us poor folks would pay your 10%, Lebron James, who makes $50 million per year, doesn't spend all that so his rate would be less than your 10%. (Lebron went from being a poor kid in Akron Ohio, living in Section 8 housing, to being a Billionaire. God Bless him.)
A: Spend less. The consumption component of US GDP (~$25T) is 69% or ($17.25T). 10% of that, even assuming some decrease in marginal consumption, is $1.5T. That's more than enough for the federal government to operate if all superfluous functions are eliminated. And unlike an income tax, everyone pays.
B: Who cares? Everyone has full control of their wallet. FICA is also a classically regressive tax in that sense, and people scream bloody murder at the mere thought of getting rid of it. And since the wealthy consume orders of magnitude more than the poor, they would still bear the lion's share of the government's operating expenses.
Last edited by albert648; 07-10-2023 at 06:53 PM..
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,345 posts, read 8,557,056 times
Reputation: 16679
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509
Yes, it is fair to tax poor people at the same rate. Everybody should pay taxes to support society.
Yes, I pay LESS than my fair share.
REALLY I should be stupid and pay LESS, so Obama, Biden, Trump and EVERYBODY else in the Senate and 494 members in the House can pay less???
The BEST investment advice I EVER GOT was invest like rich people, remember they make the rules.
Well it follows that everyone should strive to invest to take advantage of the tax code.
I still don’t understand why you think others should pay more under the guise of paying their fair share when you admit you don’t.
Fine example to your daughter to point out the inequity that she suffers yet you are part of the inequity.
Not sure about your statement of paying less and being stupid. That made no sense.
You have got to be one of the most hypocritical people on this forum.
B It is classically regressive, in that poor people spend every penny the get, and maybe then some, but rich people do not. So us poor folks would pay your 10%, Lebron James, who makes $50 million per year, doesn't spend all that so his rate would be less than your 10%. (Lebron went from being a poor kid in Akron Ohio, living in Section 8 housing, to being a Billionaire. God Bless him.)
It wouldn't be classically regressive if we poor people would stop blowing so much of our time, effort, and money on the likes of Lebron James and invest our energy, instead, into things that could truly change of our lives. How many poor people can recite last night's box score and can break down that game winning move, but can't do a lick of calculus? -They take the SAME effort.
A: Spend less. The consumption component of US GDP (~$25T) is 69% or ($17.25T). 10% of that, even assuming some decrease in marginal consumption, is $1.5T. That's more than enough for the federal government to operate if all superfluous functions are eliminated. And unlike an income tax, everyone pays.
B: Who cares? Everyone has full control of their wallet. FICA is also a classically regressive tax in that sense, and people scream bloody murder at the mere thought of getting rid of it. And since the wealthy consume orders of magnitude more than the poor, they would still bear the lion's share of the government's operating expenses.
A - Wishful Thinking, but thanks for proving my point. You really think that $1.5 Trillion (your number, not mine) will cover what we now spend???
In fiscal year 2023, the federal government is estimated to spend $6.3 trillion, amounting to 24.2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $6.3 trillion, over $4.8 trillion is estimated to be financed by federal revenues.
B - Who cares? Well, for openers the ~ 50% of folks who are currently paying almost nothing, but would be paying 10% in your plan. And the high earners will love it because they will pay less.
Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, Tax Year 2020
Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Bottom 50% All Taxpayers
Average Tax Rate 26.0% 22.4% 20.3% 17.1% 14.8% 3.1% 13.6%
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
