patrick.net

Can we tax churches? (*hides*)

personally, though I’d MUCH rather see housing prices go up due to high savings/down-payments than high debt levels

I'm not sure debt levels would go down, the numbers would all just get bigger. People will still put 20% down, the 20% will just be a lot bigger, and the total home price would just inflate to the new equilibrium. Then we're stuck fighting against qualified mortgage interest deduction caps, which people would start screaming bloody murder about.

Can we tax churches? (*hides*)

No need to hide. However, what is the point of taxing entities? I mean, why tax churches when we can tax church-goers? (*hide*)

Much of "The Futurist" is simple demogogery. And I say that as a decidedly free market capitalist.

Why not tax them for any amount they take in minus expenses plus social services they provide? Do they use snow removal, street lights, and benefit from national security?

Sounds fair.

Don't churches tax people? :) I remember that the tax rate is 10%.

Gas tax: funds highways, construction, military stationed in Iraq, etc.
Water tax: to tax for infrastructure for water
Electricity tax: fund for putting up electric poles, etc.
Property tax: Fund schools, lamp posts, library

We can have electronic toll roads that charges according to weight, distance, and speed.

We can charge more for water.

We can pass along all costs of electricity to consumers.

RE: We can have electronic toll roads that charges according to weight, distance, and speed.

Imagine a world without speeding vehicles (we can charge a huge fee for speeding, such fee can be flat or proportional to income). The world will be so much safer.

We can debate it but a "good friend" tells me that the mortgage deduction limits are being scheduled as we speak. In other words if you lean heavily on "bulking up" your Schedule A the good times are behind you. I for one hope he's right (usually is). We made the int. on 2nd mortgages and even 2nd homes deductible and then wonder why we have an entire population that believes debt=wealth.

How to get back on track? Let's consider this perhaps as an alternative to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Lenders have used debt to income (DTI) ratios for years. If you are below the median income then you get 2 for 1 credit for the dollars you pay toward your mortgage. If you are above the median income your deduction is 50 cents on each dollar you spend on your mortgage. I believe it was Face Reality that said why shouldn't Highly Compensated Employees go for the gusto on their mortgages b/c their day to day expenses are about the same as anyone elses, so this should nip that in the bud.

We can debate it but a “good friend” tells me that the mortgage deduction limits are being scheduled as we speak. In other words if you lean heavily on “bulking up” your Schedule A the good times are behind you.

I always think that there is every political reason to proceed with that tax reform. Think about it, most people have mortgages less than 300K and many people do not itemize. With this reform, only a few people (sadly most people in some states) will be adversely affected, but a lot more people can benefit from it.

One agent once told me to BUY before they take away the deduction. :)

I could not help but laugh.

I believe it was Face Reality that said why shouldn’t Highly Compensated Employees go for the gusto on their mortgages b/c their day to day expenses are about the same as anyone elses, so this should nip that in the bud.

Yes, everyone should spend as much as possible on the mortgage because

DEBT = WEALTH :)

Peter P,

Portland tried to have HOV lanes during the commute (as did Vancouver) and they were not widely used. In fact they were a failure. Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean we should just up and quit! The High Occupancy Vehicle lanes just didn't suit most commuters lifestyles. Toward the end they were actually putting HOV "stickers" up for sale in an effort to justify the program.

Portland tried to have HOV lanes during the commute (as did Vancouver) and they were not widely used. In fact they were a failure. Now don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t mean we should just up and quit! The High Occupancy Vehicle lanes just didn’t suit most commuters lifestyles. Toward the end they were actually putting HOV “stickers” up for sale in an effort to justify the program.

Instead of an "inflexible" HOV lane, how about a "premium" lane that charges a higher rate during certain time. HOVs and other "incentivized" vehicles will be given free credit to use the lane. The idea is that we can use price to improve traffic flow more effectively.

Peter P,

One of the reasons I am not on board with the Sched. A abuse is that I had it dialed in to a fine science. I was well paid, commuted long distances, paid no city taxes and parked on the company's dime. B/c I couldn't deduct dry cleaning, client lunches and especially commuting expenses I took the attitude that the mort. ded. "scam" was perfectly legit. Now I work at home and seldom drive but can write each mile driven and from Katrina on we were afforded an additional differential. Anyway, I know first hand that people are milking MD for all it's worth!

Peter P,

O.K that I can get on board with! The joke was that the city knew no one would carpool and it used as "ticket writing" revenue. It didn't happen to me often, but it was frustrating to be stuck in a car by yourself in grid-lock and look over at a completely empty lane!

Fewlesh,

Normally I would agree with you about "riding your bike to work" but I believe Portland is considered one of the most bike friendly cities in America. Cyclist use resources! Believe it. When the Hawthorne Bridge was refurbished (at a cost of 110mil) 10 foot bike lanes were added on each wing. Cyclist have refused to even pay a $10 a year reg. fee. "Well I pay OTHER taxes". O.K, but so do we all. Cycling has become the ultimate free ride in Portland. Yes we have drink and peddle offenders.

Normally I would agree with you about “riding your bike to work”...

I am ver adverse to bicycles since I broke my teeth falling off a bike at Stanford. :(

We made the int. on 2nd mortgages and even 2nd homes deductible and then wonder why we have an entire population that believes debt=wealth.

DinOR, I would love to see the 2nd home interest deduction AND capital gains exemptions completely eliminated. Does anyone "need" a second home? Why should I have to indirectly subsidize Specuvestor McDebtor's amateur experiments in momentum investing just because I'm a saver/renter?? Fuck, I'd just like to buy a FIRST home at a price reflecting actual housing-NEED demand valuations.

The big problem I see is, homedebtors and the industries they support (NAR, banks, mortg. lenders, etc.) are too numerous and powerful to let this happen anytime soon. After the coming Panic of '06-'11 (?), such changes *might* be politically tenable, but we'll have to wait and see.

Peter P,

Teeth and pavement do not mix. I can visualize NEW highways being fitted with the high technology you've been talking about but I just can't imagine how it would be retro-fit into existing roadways. Up here we have DEQ so when you go to get your pollution bill of clean health they can upgrade your car then?

Harm,

Good point. I never thought about it that way but you're absolutelt right! We are indirectly subsidizing some putzes 2nd home. Hey, wait a minute, damn that ticks me off! Like I need another reason to hate serial homedebtors. Like Peter P and I were discussing earlier about taking advantage of mr. specuvestor mcdebtor amateur experiments in "self impalement"! I'm a big guy, I'm a sport and I know when to give people a break. These aren't those people.

I just can’t imagine how it would be retro-fit into existing roadways.

We can use a network of transponders, in-car GPS receivers, and overhead sensors/cameras. I am not worried about technical feasiblity. I am more worried about outcries over "privacy".

Peter P,

O.K, more like trucking companies use to monitor their own employees progress on their deliveries. Not "mag" sensors installed in the actual roadway to actually control the vehicle?

I don't understand where all of the privacy issues would come in? It's Monday. It's 7:30am. We're all on our way to work, right?

I don’t understand where all of the privacy issues would come in? It’s Monday. It’s 7:30am. We’re all on our way to work, right?

Right. But people will make the slippery slope argument because the technology will enable the government to track vehicles. I do not have problem with that, but many people have problems with everything.

Actually, I think it is even possible to hook up the system to an anonymous payment system so that the privacy issue can be minimized.

But the cheapest way is to tax gasoline. ;) A $2/gallon tax should do wonder.

My favorite reasonable tax world? [...]
--Fewlesh

Very reasonably stated. Now if only we can get past all the self-interested incumbants.

I'd settle for starting with baby steps. How about we stop *both* subsidizing tobacco farmers *and* taxing cigarettes to [supposedly] compensate for smoking-related health costs.

There are a lot of good proposals here. Anybody care to guess what the odds are of seeing any them realized within our lifetimes?

Aside from Bush's floating a couple of "tax refom" balloons, I haven't seen any concrete proposals, much less bills in the works. Unfortunately, whenever there's an organized vested interest that stands to lose money/power/influence, there is bound to be substantial opposition to ANY change, no matter how sensible.

I hate HOV lanes. I am usually schlepping my kids around, and I drive a hybrid, so I am allowed to use them most of the time, but when I get into that nearly empty lane and start driving some moron always seems to want to swing into the lane six inches in front of my car from a dead stop. Everytime I am driving in one in somewhat crowded conditions and the HOV lane is moving faster than the others I am just waiting for that moron to decide to come on over.

I know what you are taling about. I never drive more than 40mph faster than the vehicle next to me.

Perhaps we need special seperaters like those in LA. :)

"These are all public goods well worth the costs (assuming, of course, that they are well managed and government corruption is kept to a minimum). "

Well managed with minimal corruption?! Let's get real here.

The real issue is total government spending, not tax reform.

Every Gen X and Y'er should pay a special tax for a slush fund for Boomers called the D&Z fund: the Dope & Zep fund.

This way, every month, a check will come in the mail for Boomers to have a little extra scratch to buy a Zep CD and some home grown should they be upside down on their housing equity and credit cards.

Society will benefit because the Boomers will be pacified, a la Karl Marx's
"opiate of the masses."

A world of peace will be in the offing as Gen X and Y then go on to rebuild in the wake of the grand Boomer fiasco experiment gone awry.

If religion is the opium of the masses, then D&Z is the opiate of the Boomer asses!

Instead of an “inflexible” HOV lane, how about a “premium” lane that charges a higher rate during certain time. HOVs and other “incentivized” vehicles will be given free credit to use the lane. The idea is that we can use price to improve traffic flow more effectively.

Unless we see a stabilisation of metro populations (or at least commuters), commuter incentive lanes, or highway widening won't reverse bottleneck problems for very long. Even if everyone, someday drives a small, carbon-fibre hydrogen cell vehicle, traffic's still going to be a bitch. Then there's parking the thing. In the future, I suspect the solution will somehow be a combination of mass transport, telecommuting, and perhaps de-centralizing work centers. At some point, it looks like local governments will need to get involved to make things flow smoothly.

Well managed with minimal corruption?! Let’s get real here.

Boy, and here I thought I was being cynical ;-) .
Well, I'm not that old (37) and even I can remember a time when California public schools and its university system (UC, Cal State) were the envy of the nation. I myself graduated from a public high school, and a great one at that --tons of AP/honors student who went on to college. Now we're right up there with Mississippi* (look out Arkansas* --we're closing on 'ya!).

*Advance apologies to anyone in those states who has a high regard for their local schools.

http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/01.03.html
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=6874

No more money for our schools. Since the 1970's their purpose has been to prepare the masses for a life of taxation and slavery. Don't think. Conform. Don't Question. Consume. Pay Taxes. Obey. .....Sleep. Come to think of it, the public school system prepares people to be the raw material needed for Realtorsâ„¢ to make a killing. If you can read this, curse a teacher.

Once you're in the Matrix, the jack into your brain feeds a signal that says, "Hey, you have rights! No taxation without representation. It also says, "Relax, sleep, your elected officials will represent you. Taxes are a good thing. Sleep." It's time to unplug from the grid.

Also, get rid of deductions for employee benefits. Why should there be a tax break for employers and employees for health care, but not for unemployed people? Ditto for dental, life insurance, etc. None of those things should be managed by the employer — they should all be chosen by the employee outside of work, since they are not related to employment.

Ouch. Well, thanks to the magic of corporate benefit cram-downs, you may soon be getting your way, Scott.

I do see your logic in terms of separating benefits from employers; however, practically speaking it's very hard for most people to get adequate (and affordable) medical coverage as individuals vs. group coverage through an employer. I know this from personal experience, after going seven years as a contract employee --mostly without any medical insurance-- to FT with excellent coverage. If there were a way to effectively pool individuals to get decent coverage at group rates and to prevent insurance companies from cherry-picking/PEC screening, then I'd be inclined to agree.

Last time I talk to a friend, she say that some of her client intentionally give themself HIV by sleeping with people they know to be HIV+. Why, because they get welfare, FREE HOUSING and the drug”alone” cost the state 10K per years.

. :!: 8O :!:

Last time I talk to a friend, she say that some of her client intentionally give themself HIV by sleeping with people they know to be HIV+. Why, because they get welfare, FREE HOUSING and the drug”alone” cost the state 10K per years. If this thing grow, what out.

Such people should be exiled to an island.

Unless we see a stabilisation of metro populations (or at least commuters), commuter incentive lanes, or highway widening won’t reverse bottleneck problems for very long.

It is very easy to solve. The solution is progressive electronic highway toll. Fees should be a function of speed, distance, and weight. We can solve the problem very quickly.