patrick.net

ja says

An extra reason not to use a subsidy that applies only to richest owners. I think BB was with me. But I'll allow you to correct me if I misread.

If BB were with you, then both of you were wrong. The richest owners do not get to deduct MID, as MID caps out at $1M. Alternative Minimum Tax would also intervene for the richest homeowners.

MID came into being as a result of 1986 tax reform; prior to that all consumer interest payment was deductible since the 1913 introduction of income tax

Yes.. and the tax reform didn't go far enough IMHO, since it left home mortgate. Not sure if you have a point or just nostalgic.

Are you from some communistic revolutionary country? In this country, precedence and continuity are the basis of law. You obviously have no respect for either.

Funny how? As most people in this forum, I'm against MID because it distorts free market. I just want to bring it a step further and deduct MID but taxing imputed income, what would add even fewer distortions.

Funny because your proposed tax would cause many people who choose standard deduction now to use MID instead in order to offset the imaginary income that you are ascribing to them.

The ghost cities in China result from precisely what BB proposes: massive construction of housing supply by the government bureaucrats. A

Yes.. and because goverment manipulation of interest rates makes housing the only sound investment for middle classes. We are not as far as China in goverment manipulation of the market, but I wish it would be even less.

You are once again talking nonsense. The ghost cities in China are not due to government manipulation of interest rate per se. Their lending rate for real estate in China is in the 6-12% range depending on whether one has to borrow from the shadow banking system. Their ghost cities are the result of bureaucratic planning malinvestment exactly as proposed by BB and you: why can't we build a new city a few miles away from the existing one at lower cost, and people will move there! Well, people don't.

Chinese bureaucratic planners are just like you and Bill, suffer from typical Marxist end-state fantasy, instead of seeing city as a living process. People don't want to be the first 1000 living in a city with 100,000 units already built; it would be no different from living in an abandoned section of Detroit, with empty houses all around you inviting criminals, while the chicken-and-egg problem preventing convenience stores showing up due to lack of customer density. So hardly anyone moves into the new city, as the brand new city rots in the rain.

ja says

~ smartest people concentration

Yes.. and it comes with extra cost of over-saturation. Its a vicious circle, because incremental benefit of another person going to the city is higher with the size of the city, but so are the costs. After certain critical size, costs surpass benefits. Solution is to create new cities, but this has tremendous upfront costs. Anyway, that's a offtopic theory of mine based on Urban Metabolism.

The forming of city as commerce centers has nothing to do with "smartest people concentration" or any such elitist nonsense. It takes all sorts of people to make a city work, including dumb burger flippers who after 8hrs of work at the food cart would just go home, watch TV and make love with their spouse. Self-important know-nothing like yourself can only leach off other productive people in the city. It would be even dumber if you think yourself or any government bureaucrats can spot "critical size," as it is a moving target with numerous factors.

Reality says

What theory do you have besides some jumbled random ideas? Do you want to tax the personal pleasure that one derives from looking at the stock certificates?

The day this kind if pleasure is traded in the open market, yes. Till then, I'll wait.

Reality says

Another google genius who doesn't know what he is citing. Here's a hint: we are not talking about international trade here.

Clap, clap. You win. offer curve is used mainly on international trade context. Fewer use it as synonymous of supply curve. Let's not google down the last entries, but let's open another thread about the sex of angels.

Reality says

so your scheme wouldn't net much tax revenue at all, but only serve to complicate people's tax filings, as now they all have to itemize and/or file schedule E.

Good, I guess you are advocating for a simplified version of 1040. No need of schedules if you are *only* declaring imputed income rent.

Reality says

What "average deduction of a rental bossiness" are you talking about? You are making sh*t up as you go. There is no "standard deduction" number for rental income. Every house is different. Take a look at Schedule E, and see how much book keeping you'd have to do to fill it out.

Reality says

You are talking about a 25% or so tax on something that is hard to verify: just because someone owns a house doesn't mean he is living there therefore renting to himself at all! Even if the owner does live there, the drastically high tax would invite massive disputes regarding what the real market value of the "imputed income.

No hard to verify. I never said anybody has to verify if you are living on it or not. In the same way that you can rent two houses for the whole year and only live on each half of the year. The imputed income applies for everything that you own. Same that if you earn dividends on you capital and you decide to burn the check you receive for them.

ja says

The day this kind if pleasure is traded in the open market, yes. Till then, I'll wait.

There already are stocks of defunct companies sold as collectibles. Obviously the value is there is not the value of the company itself.

Clap, clap. You win. offer curve is used mainly on international trade context. Fewer use it as synonymous of supply curve.

Mostly morons like you.

so your scheme wouldn't net much tax revenue at all, but only serve to complicate people's tax filings, as now they all have to itemize and/or file schedule E.

Good, I guess you are advocating for a simplified version of 1040. No need of schedules if you are *only* declaring imputed income rent.

Once again you are showing your cluelessness and utter lack of experience filing tax returns. We already know you never filed a return for a business. Assuming you have filed for stock trading gains, since you talk about stocks so much, do you pay tax according to the 1099 number from your broker on total proceeds from securities sold, without using Schedule D to deduct your purchase cost? If you are going to impute income from renting to oneself, obviously the person would have to expense cost associated with being one's own landlord. That means Schedule E requirement.

No hard to verify. I never said anybody has to verify if you are living on it or not. In the same way that you can rent two houses for the whole year and only live on each half of the year. The imputed income applies for everything that you own. Same that if you earn dividends on you capital and you decide to burn the check you receive for them.

What a joke! Do you impute dividend income according to SP500 average even if the company doesn't pay dividend or is losing money on top of that? What if the house is not in livable condition? As in being renovated? Renovation can take months, sometimes years, during which there is no rental income even for property intended for renting to others. Or simply in an abandoned or broken condition like pipes broken, roof leaking etc.. You can not collect rent from other people even if you try. Your scheme to raise taxes would probably lead to many abandoned homes. Also, what about just vacant rental homes intended for renting to others? You can't just bureaucratically decide hence forth vacancy is not legal therefore must be non-existent, or is that part of your alternative universe scheme?!

Reality says

If BB were with you, then both of you were wrong. The richest owners do not get to deduct MID, as MID caps out at $1M. Alternative Minimum Tax would also intervene for the richest homeowners.

Clap, Clap. Let's correct "richest up to some limits".

Reality says

Are you from some communistic revolutionary country? In this country, precedence and continuity are the basis of law. You obviously have no respect for either.

?? Just for wanting to change a law?
No, I would put communist and McArthians both in the same fire

But, anyway, let's not go off topic. MID was not even intended for the purpose it is today used. IF we are not getting rid of it, it's just for political reasons, not because it's good economy

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&

Reality says

Funny because your proposed tax would cause many people who choose standard deduction now to use MID instead in order to offset the imaginary income that you are ascribing to them.

Obviously, if you can tax rental imputed income, you would be able to have both deductions.

If you are so worried of the details to dismiss the big picture, ask about them (to me, or check the blogs of anybody proposing it). But don't imagine things..
Reality says

Their lending rate for real estate in China is in the 6-12% range depending on whether one has to borrow from the shadow banking system. Their ghost cities are the result of bureaucratic planning malinvestment exactly as proposed by BB and you: why can't we build a new city a few miles away from the existing one at lower cost, and people will move there! Well, people don't.

Chinese bureaucratic planners are just like you and Bill, suffer from typical Marxist end-state fantasy, instead of seeing city as a living process

I would argue that the government is just getting a lift from the bubble, not riding it:

http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2012/06/macroeconomics-of-chinese-kleptocracy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BronteCapital+%28Bronte+Capital%29

Reality says

Self-important know-nothing like yourself can only leach off other productive people in the city. It would be even dumber if you think yourself or any government bureaucrats can spot "critical size," as it is a moving target with numerous factors.

Again, if you have proof that cities don't attract talent, please share.
But I think it's unquestionable that it empowers people. And those who get there accelerate their lives. For professors and for burger flippers. Google Geoffrey West if you are interested in more details of what I meant.

In any case, I didn't talked about government spotting a cap size. Don't know if this will be possible one day.

The main issue with so called "imputed rent" is in the consequences - it will increase barriers to entry into homeownership and as a result will increase the number of people renting, in essence causing rental rates to skyrocket and perpetuate a permanent underclass of sorts. I don't see why united states should support this defacto aristocracy in the making.

dublin hillz says

The main issue with so called "imputed rent" is in the consequences - it will increase barriers to entry into homeownership and as a result will increase the number of people renting

My point is that it will *not* reduce those barriers.
Renting could be as good as owning, depending on the market price and on your personal needs.

There is huge opportunity cost. For instance, all the money we can get via that tax, could go to reduce the tax rate. This would benefit everybody, not just the house owners.

ja says

My point is that it will *not* reduce those barriers.

Then why is owners to renters ration roughly 2:1 in the united states while it's exactly reversed in switzerland?

ja says

Funny because your proposed tax would cause many people who choose standard deduction now to use MID instead in order to offset the imaginary income that you are ascribing to them.

Obviously, if you can tax rental imputed income, you would be able to have both deductions.

If you are so worried of the details to dismiss the big picture, ask about them (to me, or check the blogs of anybody proposing it). But don't imagine things..

As I have demonstrated again and again, you are just too inexperienced with business accounting and tax filing to realize the problem. The blogs that you refer to are probably similarly lacking in business and tax experience.

I would argue that the government is just getting a lift from the bubble, not riding it:

Their government has been causing the bubble. After all, their central bank (which in the case of China is actually controlled by the government) is the engine creating all that cheap credit.

Again, if you have proof that cities don't attract talent, please share.

It has nothing to do with "smartest people concentration."

But I think it's unquestionable that it empowers people.

Commerce empowers people. Cities tend to be where commerce takes place. OTOH, there are plenty slums where people people are not empowered at all; they are also in cities.

And those who get there accelerate their lives. For professors and for burger flippers. Google Geoffrey West if you are interested in more details of what I meant.

Perhaps for you, but for me, no need for Geoffrey West to tell me that.

Some would say that without very existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, no thirty-year fixed mortgages would exist. The nature of mortgage lending in other countries would seem to support this.

Would you go that far?