patrick.net

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?