patrick.net

ja says

zzyzzx says

Just remove the mortgage tax deduction.

I'm more for taxing "income - costs". That's the most socially fair.

Today, we tax "-costs" (deduced from your other income)

we never taxed this shadow imputed income

In what sense is it "socially fair"? Private ownership in society ensures properties are taken good care of, and therefore becoming or staying available for use by humanity. Yes, someone else having a roof over their heads is socially advantageous to you: less competition in the market place bidding on limited supply. Your idea of "socially fair" is about as silly as the "socializing the cow" experiment in the former soviet union: very quickly, nobody would be taking care of the cow, and the supply of milk dwindled.

mell says

Reality says

The whole idea of having to pay income tax on something people do for themselves is more than repugnant.

What if I buy stocks for myself with money that has already been income taxed? Why should I pay when I sell them for a gain?

I'm not arguing for income tax. . . however stock trading involves transaction with counterparties. You are not trading with yourself. There is no taxable event if you just move stocks from your brokerage account to your desk drawer by requesting stock certificates.

If you found a stock holding company, and put your after-tax money into it; that vestment action itself is not a taxable event. However, when the company start buying and selling things, taxable events start to take place.

Reality says

mell says

Reality says

The whole idea of having to pay income tax on something people do for themselves is more than repugnant.

What if I buy stocks for myself with money that has already been income taxed? Why should I pay when I sell them for a gain?

I'm not arguing for income tax. . . however stock trading involves transaction with counterparties. You are not trading with yourself. There is no taxable event if you just move stocks from your brokerage account to your desk drawer by requesting stock certificates.

Ok, makes sense. So, assuming the government needs to take some money from the people, what would be fairer ways than today? A transaction/sales/vat tax? A general wealth tax where you just tally up? I don't know, but it's a problem (in many ways) that currently investment debt and wealth is classified in "good" and "bad" via deductions and other loopholes (e.g. you can keep capital gains if you sell your house after 2 years in CA). It should be replaced with a very simple system with no favoritism. Not an easy task ;)

ja says

Yes, in the same way that if you cook a beef and labor costs $12, you should pay
$3 (let's say 25% tax bracket) to uncle Sam. Income tax is a perversion of
economics, since it doesn't incentive prodcution, and one day will get rid of
it. In the meantime, we should make it as fair as possible and, if we cannot tax
the guy cooking beef for himself, we should tax the guy producing 'rental' for
himself

I am sorry but this absolutely ridiculous, but I am sure the restaurant industry would be happy to have this passed. Why the fuck would you tax people on imputed income or cost savings whatever the situation is whether it's cooking at home, owning a car or living in your primary residence?

Reality says

about as silly as the "socializing the cow" experiment in the former soviet
union

But those cows in Kolhoz I am sure were free of antibiotics...

First of all, one has to understand what tax is: systematic armed robbery in order to maintain a geographical monopolizer on the use of violence. It is essentially a mob/gang writ large running a protection racket. In order for such a system to survive in the long run against potential competition from neighboring geographical zones and from internal competition, the extortion racket has to be efficient. That's why taxes have always been levied on transactions where division of labor takes place: division of labor magnifies human productivity, so the the leaches can latch onto those spots and suck blood. You can't get blood out of a stone.

Import tariffs were imposed across the trade interface with maximum division of labor benefits (spices made meats much more valuable, and it was heck lot easier to grow spices in the warm east indies than in the cold Europe). Then industrial manufacturing came along, the economy of scale brought on by machines made the worker much more productive than handicraft, hence the income tax came along to suck blood out of wages.

The problem with taxation on steady ongoing productivity is that once the blood suckers are fed a certain stream of blood, they take it for granted and want "moar." That's essentially the same problem as feudal time when farming technology stagnated, and the lords had to wage wars against each other in order to provide opportunities for looting each others' peasants.

It is important to realize that no amount of blood sucking can keep the vampires at bay for long. There are always more and more "friends" and "family," whores and hangers-on to feed. Such is the reality of politics.

If I have to pick one, the most fair tax system is probably "poll tax" in peace time. It gives everyone an incentive to keep the level of blood sucking down. The hubristic can pay extra to buy additional votes if they want; available for sale on the election day as a way of funding the government for the year. One person one vote; $5000 gives you a second vote! (or whatever budget requirement divided by 50% of natural person eligible, so the electorate is effectively enlarged by 50%, which is the money). Money printing in war time to enable system defense.

CaptainShuddup says

NO you can't deduct property taxes, as for state income I don't know, I live in Florida we don't have intax

YES, you 100% can deduct property taxes.

mell says

What if I buy stocks for myself with money that has already been income taxed? Why should I pay when I sell them for a gain?

Because you increase your total assets (i.e. income). That's the principle of income tax.

dublin hillz says

I am sorry but this absolutely ridiculous, but I am sure the restaurant industry would be happy to have this passed. Why the fuck would you tax people on imputed income or cost savings whatever the situation is whether it's cooking at home, owning a car or living in your primary residence?

Yes, it's ridiculous. But it's equally ridiculous to get taxed if you cook for a friend. Or if you cook for your neighbors and they give you money for it.

But the tax system doesn't care of how ridiculous it is. It cares about where it has a chance to get the money.

A couple of other interesting things about switzerland - they have no capital gains taxes at all and their fine for speeding are tied to a percentage of your salary. I have also heard from a very reliable source who was sent there on an expat assignment that there are cameras everwhere and that it's basically a police state.

ja says

Yes, it's ridiculous. But it's equally ridiculous to get taxed if you cook
for a friend. Or if you cook for your neighbors and they give you money for
it.

I guess in theory yes they could get taxed, but how many percentage of people would declare this income? 0.000001%?

Reality says

So, every time you have sex with your wife, should you or your wife pay uncle Sam? Would that be 25% on $150 or 25% on $5000? Is your wife a cheap whore or a high class call girl?

No. You should pay for both the price of having sex with the women and having sex with the man. Since, supposedly, having sex with your partner creates utility for both.

Or also if you masturbate or if you spend an hour watching a landscape (people can pay for that experience).

The whole idea of having to pay income tax on something people do for themselves is more than repugnant.

As repugnant as doing something for a friend, or for the market.

Income tax is a perversion of economics, since it doesn't incentive prodcution, and one day will get rid of it.

Then work on getting rid of it. Rape is repugnant; that doesn't mean it would be fair to toss either your wife or yourself into a sex-starved jail cell, so you two can get raped too!

In the meantime, if we cannot get rid of it, we should do a second best and try to apply it to everything in equal proportions.

It an troll got to rape a women of your tribe every night and you could not kill it, wouldn't it be fair to share the pain amongst or the women. Or men, if the troll was into that.

dublin hillz says

I guess in theory yes they could get taxed, but how many percentage of people would declare this income? 0.000001%?

That's a little problem I'm still working on. I suggest the government should install a chip on everybody's neck and control how much *real* income we are actually producing. The end of the black market of self-consumed production.

ja says

Yes, it's ridiculous. But it's equally ridiculous to get taxed if you cook for a friend. Or if you cook for your neighbors and they give you money for it.

Why would you be taxed for cooking for a friend? When you cook for a neighbor and get paid for it, that's where income tax comes in: the payment signifies income to you.

ja says

In the meantime, if we cannot get rid of it, we should do a second best and try to apply it to everything in equal proportions.

It an troll got to rape a women of your tribe every night and you could not kill it, wouldn't it be fair to share the pain amongst or the women. Or men, if the troll was into that.

You are proposing a new tax base and a new form of tax. What you are suggesting is essentially that because some women (and men) are raped, all women and men should get raped.

ja says

That's a little problem I'm still working on. I suggest the government should install a chip on everybody's neck and control how much *real* income we are actually producing. The end of the black market of self-consumed production.

Speaking like a true believer of the insane. Do you realize, your ideal of "fairness" is indeed an end state fantasy (like Communism), as in: we will all be equal when we are dead and buried, equally dead!

Meanwhile, we all have some living to do.

Reality says

Why would you be taxed for cooking for a friend? When you cook for a neighbor and get paid for it, that's where income tax comes in: the payment signifies income to you.

You are confusing income/money with value. Money is just a proxy (i.e. convenience) to transfer value. You could use a credit system to get paid when you cook to a neighbor, and paid with that credit when a neighbor cooks for you. This is almost barter economy, and it avoids paying tax, at the expense of being inefficient and using a currency with limited scope.

Reality says

You are proposing a new tax base and a new form of tax. What you are suggesting is essentially that because some women (and men) are raped, all women and men should get raped.

Read my comment. I'm saying it's better for 2 women to get raped once that for 1 women to get raped twice. IT's not a good example, but in a generic sense, it just means to share the costs.

Reality says

Speaking like a true believer of the insane. Do you realize, your ideal of "fairness" is indeed an end state fantasy (like Communism), as in: we will all be equal when we are dead and buried, equally dead!

Meanwhile, we all have some living to do.

I wasn't sure about answering, since it's something so stupid what you said that you probably realized soon after saying it. Anyway, I think it's clear that my concept of fair is not everybody being equal, but all our chosen activities being equally taxable in front of the government. Unless externality can be proven, it should be equally taxable if you build chairs or you bake bread.

ja says

I'm saying it's better for 2 women to get raped

That's where you lost me.

Regarding taxing imputed rents, it makes no sense to me due to this - one of the biggest motivators in america to buy a pad is to avoid paying rent especially when buy/rent ratios are in favor of buying and/or to create an inflation hedge. Taxing the so called imputed rent basically means that you are still paying part of that rent via marginal rate and you still have to pay the mortgage! That's a double whammy. No wonder only around 35% of swiss own a home. It is very hypocritical of them to do that especially when they have developed a reputation as a worldwide tax shelter for everyone else.

ja says

mell says

What if I buy stocks for myself with money that has already been income taxed? Why should I pay when I sell them for a gain?

Because you increase your total assets (i.e. income). That's the principle of income tax.

What about a person that increases their income by 1 million because another person gives that amount of post-tax money to them? How do you justify double taxation?

ja says

You are confusing income/money with value. Money is just a proxy (i.e. convenience) to transfer value. You could use a credit system to get paid when you cook to a neighbor, and paid with that credit when a neighbor cooks for you. This is almost barter economy, and it avoids paying tax, at the expense of being inefficient and using a currency with limited scope.

If you get paid for cooking for your neighbor as a form of barter, of course you are liable to income tax. The key is BEING PAID (and having a profit)! The payment doesn't have to be money; you are liable to income tax so long as it is quid pro quo. Cooking for oneself however does not at all constitute income liable to taxation, as there is no income. Nor does informal backyard BBQ's where nobody is earning a profit.

ja says

Read my comment. I'm saying it's better for 2 women to get raped once that for 1 women to get raped twice. IT's not a good example, but in a generic sense, it just means to share the costs.

Only because you are an idiot male who does not at all understand the psychological damage done to rape victims.

BTW, I'm a man too, and I date women. I also understand the less basket cases out there the better, for women and men who like them.

Your comment make you sound like a moronic dork who doesn't understand the chip you advocate would make things far worse than even the tax collection itself.

ja says

I think it's clear that my concept of fair is not everybody being equal, but all our chosen activities being equally taxable in front of the government.

In front your imaginary Government-God. Your chip idea is so reprehensible, I don't even know where to begin. Do you think the government is staffed by godly saints, or by pimply faced morons just like you or your classmates? If you have a sister or girlfriend, do you really want some pimply faced dork be able to pull up where she's been buying her panties and having her hair waxed just by a few key strokes?

I have a better counter-plan.

Do not have a mortgage deduction or a building tax at all. Instead tax land. For residential land, tax the first 0.25 acres at 0.25%, the second 0.25 at 0.50%, the third at 0.75%, the fourth at 1.00%, and so on, even past 100%.

Consider all land owned by a household over the entire country. Average out the tax rate, rather than letting the tax payer or IRS "choose" which is the first acre, etc.

Use a similar technique for commercial, industrial, and farm land.

This will allow each household to afford basic shelter, but progressively higher tax wealth and opulence.

It's impossible to calculated the price of land under existing buildings and improvements. The assessor's numbers are typically just numbers pulled out their asses, and people don't waste time dispute them much only because the buildings and land are usually taxed at the same rate in a given town/city, and most homeowners do not depreciate their own homes in tax filings. This is the fundamental flaw with Georgism. Henry George himself changed the definition of "land" during his career, because the abstract concept is simply untenable in the real world.

Some land parcels, especially farms, mines and woodlots, need to be large enough size in order to allow mechanization. Breaking up farm land holdings into tiny pieces is not in anyone's interest; anyone who needs to eat anyway.

It's impossible to calculated the price of land under existing buildings and improvements. The assessor's numbers are typically just numbers pulled out their asses

I was at the beach last year and saw an empty lot for sale, in identical size to their neighbors (who happened to have a nice house built on theirs). It was for sale for 1 million $. I figure it safe to assume that the sand lot underneath that house was worth about the same as the neighbors.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "impossible".

Funny how people are A OK with millage being high on RE buildings when it comes to property taxes, so long as they go to the school district. Suggest lowering millage on buildings/improvements, and countering with higher millage on land values, and people throw a fit

errc says

I was at the beach last year and saw an empty lot for sale, in identical size to their neighbors (who happened to have a nice house built on theirs). It was for sale for 1 million $. I figure it safe to assume that the sand lot underneath that house was worth about the same as the neighbors.

Situations like that are extremely rare for built-up areas. BTW, for most sandy beach lots in this country, the empty lot would not even be considered "land" in the strict Georgist sense, as the sand beach has to be maintained every 10-20 years. What you see in the empty lot is actually both "land" and improvement (refilling, and levies/break water retaining sand on the beach)

Funny how people are A OK with millage being high on RE buildings when it comes to property taxes, so long as they go to the school district. Suggest lowering millage on buildings/improvements, and countering with higher millage on land values, and people throw a fit

Because buildings with land lots are frequently traded, whereas empty lot transactions take place much much less frequently in built-up areas, where most property value is located.

Well, insurance companies make their living evaluating the cost to replace the structures that they insure, ground up. So wouldn't assessed value of an entire piece of RE, minus the cost to replace the structure(s) yield a decent estimate of the actual value of the underlying parcel of land?

errc says

Well, insurance companies make their living evaluating the cost to replace the structures that they insure, ground up. So wouldn't assessed value of an entire piece of RE, minus the cost to replace the structure(s) yield a decent estimate of the actual value of the underlying parcel of land?

I wish ;-) The insurance co replacement cost quote is higher than the entire purchase price for every single building/house that I have bought. I'd love to have all the land lots that I own taxed at negative value, and zero tax on the buildings. LOL.

B.A.C.A.H. says

I wish that only US citizens could get the mortgage interest deduction.

I wish only US citizens had to pay taxes in the US.

Reality says

errc says

Well, insurance companies make their living evaluating the cost to replace the structures that they insure, ground up. So wouldn't assessed value of an entire piece of RE, minus the cost to replace the structure(s) yield a decent estimate of the actual value of the underlying parcel of land?

I wish ;-) The insurance co replacement cost quote is higher than the entire purchase price for every single building/house that I have bought. I'd love to have all the land lots that I own taxed at negative value, and zero tax on the buildings. LOL.

Right. I think my homeowners insurance values the structures replacement cost at around 200k, yet the taxman values the real estate at 125k. Does this hold true for a mcdonalds at times square?

Insurance is valuating at replacement cost, but my house is sixty years old, so there's. Depreciation to consider

Depreciation and insurance co's propensity to over-estimate (they are selling a product, why not sell you more than you need) make the insured replacement cost higher than the property's value for most houses in this country . . . so it's no help for estimating land value at all.

Reality says

Depreciation and insurance co's propensity to over-estimate (they are selling
a product, why not sell you more than you need) make the insured replacement
cost higher than the property's value for most houses in this country . . . so
it's no help for estimating land value at all.

Poor logic. Just because something isn't perfect does not mean it has no value. It would seem pretty easy to develop a method to remove the insurance companies systemic error.

tatupu70 says

Poor logic. Just because something isn't perfect does not mean it has no value. It would seem pretty easy to develop a method to remove the insurance companies systemic error.

Do you also happen to hold the old soviet belief that if the bureaucrats had powerful enough computers, they could calculate the prices for everything? at least how much they "ought to" cost? LOL

Reality says

Do you also happen to hold the old soviet belief that if the bureaucrats had
powerful enough computers, they could calculate the prices for everything? at
least how much they "ought to" cost? LOL

Nice dodge. lol is right.

I'm not exactly sure how this works

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_plan

But I imagine they somehow managed to overcome similar problems? Or did they not bother decoupling land values from the physical structures?

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6796

Just a ways up the road from my locale, harrisburg has managed to implement

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/success.html

It's not a dodge. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of postulating some kind of artificial formula can tease out the value of a building from insurance replacement value. I hope you do realize that insurance agents don't even go inside the building (or even outside the building) before they give you replacement values. The typical tax assessor actually go visit buildings.

Reality says

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of postulating some kind of artificial
formula can tease out the value of a building from insurance replacement value.
I hope you do realize that insurance agents don't even go inside the building
(or even outside the building) before they give you replacement values. The
typical tax assessor actually go visit buildings.

Sure, and I was merely pointing out that just because something is difficult does not mean it is impossible. Valuing land is not impossible.