Taxation without representation, home ownership and other forms of taxes.

[BjornP]

Where do I "deny any credit is due"? I deny ALL or most credit is due, and deny that America literally props up the world even countries it's not allied with or obligated to defend. I deny your argument that countries wouldn't have, or be able to have, a welfare state without the US propping them up. You, otoh, are twisting yourself into a pretzel to redefine what your "propping up" meant. Apparantly trading with another country is enough to qualify for that new definition...

Would Denmark spend more on defense if we weren't allied with the US? Yes. But then we'd either ally with someone else, or we'd increase our defense spending by as much we needed to ensure both a good standard of living AND a defense capability that would disintenivize the most likely attackers. Which would not need to mean that we'd have to abandon our welfare state model, just like it hasn't for any other country.

[StCapps]

Where do I "deny any credit is due"? I deny ALL or most credit is due, and deny that America literally props up the world even countries it's not allied with or obligated to defend. I deny your argument that countries wouldn't have, or be able to have, a welfare state without the US propping them up. You, otoh, are twisting yourself into a pretzel to redefine what your "propping up" meant. Apparantly trading with another country is enough to qualify for that new definition...

Would Denmark spend more on defense if we weren't allied with the US? Yes. But then we'd either ally with someone else, or we'd increase our defense spending by as much we needed to ensure both a good standard of living AND a defense capability that would disintenivize the most likely attackers. Which would not need to mean that we'd have to abandon our welfare state model, just like it hasn't for any other country.

Never said they couldn't have a welfare state without America, I said they'd have less wealth to spend on their welfare state. Increasing your defense spending means less wealth to spend on welfare, having America to spend that money for you means more wealth to spend on welfare.

Trading with a nation isn't propping it up, it's when that trade is responsible for much of their prosperity that it's propping them up. The American economy is propping the world up, they are the engine of the world economy, and Denmark are far from the only beneficiaries.

Not giving the US credit for being a huge boon to other nations prosperity and protection, especially nations that have high government spending and spend little on the military, that is being a hater and not giving credit where it is due.

[BjornP]

Never said they couldn't have a welfare state without America, I said they'd have less wealth to spend on their welfare state. Increasing your defense spending means less wealth to spend on welfare, having America to spend that money for you means more wealth to spend on welfare.

Increasing defense spending can be accomplished by increased taxation/decreasing tax breaks on businesses, but yeah, the defense spending can also be accomplished by spending less on government healthcare, education, etc. However, America isn't "spending that money for us". They are not spending more money because we are spending less. The US' higher defense spending has to do with them having a military presence, globally. Them spending money on bases in Japan or Saudi Arabia, sending carriers to Syria or Iran... that's got nothing to do with our spending. The US' military spending is about more than just the European states, and indeed, since it's been quiet in Europe for so long, if it only had a military/political interest in Europe, the US military spending would also be alot lower.

Trading with a nation isn't propping it up, it's when that trade is responsible for much of their prosperity that it's propping them up. The American economy is propping the world up, they are the engine of the world economy, and Denmark are far from the only beneficiaries.

Not giving the US credit for being a huge boon to other nations prosperity and protection, especially nations that have high government spending and spend little on the military, that is being a hater and not giving credit where it is due.

The trade argument is nonsense. Trade is not being "propped up". The US exports alot of goods. If all other countries decided to just cut trade with them at the same time, the US economy would be severely impacted. Does that mean the world is "propping up" the US? Again, a very bizarre definition of "propping up" you're working with, there...

And the "hater" argument is even more nonsense. Not everyone feels the sick need to be a submissive sycophant like yourself. The US does what it does for its own good, and we do what's good for us. If those interests overlap, great. But gushing over their way of life...if their way of life isn't yours, dude... it's pathetic. Some Americans may like submissive foreigners telling them how wonderful they are, but I doubt they truly respect those people.

[StCapps]

Increasing defense spending can be accomplished by increased taxation/decreasing tax breaks on businesses, but yeah, the defense spending can also be accomplished by spending less on government healthcare, education, etc. However, America isn't "spending that money for us". They are not spending more money because we are spending less. The US' higher defense spending has to do with them having a military presence, globally. Them spending money on bases in Japan or Saudi Arabia, sending carriers to Syria or Iran... that's got nothing to do with our spending. The US' military spending is about more than just the European states, and indeed, since it's been quiet in Europe for so long, if it only had a military/political interest in Europe, the US military spending would also be alot lower.

Irrelevant, the end result is you get to save money you'd otherwise have to spend if not for America. Thanks America should be your response, not to call everyone who suggests you should be grateful, a submissive toadie for pointing out the obvious.

The trade argument is nonsense. Trade is not being "propped up". The US exports alot of goods. If all other countries decided to just cut trade with them at the same time, the US economy would be severely impacted. Does that mean the world is "propping up" the US? Again, a very bizarre definition of "propping up" you're working with, there...

The world would be hurt more by the US economy being cut off from them than vice versa. America is the engine of the world economy, they buy more the world's shit than anyone else, and as long as that continues to be the case, they will continue to be the engine of the world economy. The world would be a much poorer place without America, to a degree that is true of no other nation.

And the "hater" argument is even more nonsense. Not everyone feels the sick need to be a submissive sycophant like yourself. The US does what it does for its own good, and we do what's good for us. If those interests overlap, great. But gushing over their way of life...if their way of life isn't yours, dude... it's pathetic. Some Americans may like submissive foreigners telling them how wonderful they are, but I doubt they truly respect those people.

If the US doing what it does for it's own good, benefits everyone else as well, then it doesn't matter what their motives are, the result is the same. America's way of life deserves to be gushed over, whether it's Canada's way of life or not, or whether it's your preference or not. There is zero reason not to gush over America, America is fucking awesome, they have their flaws, but so does everyone else. If you can't admit that, it's you that has the problem, not me.

Also, Canada is a fake country. Americans don't respect people who respect fake countries, especially ones that do nothing but hold their citizens back, and fail to achieve the goals they were brought into existence to achieve.

[The Conservative]

Now here is my issue, we are taxed on the value of the house, year one... lets say $3000 to make it an even value.

Now, next year, the house goes up lets say $10,000 in value, I pay $3,100 in taxes, but why should I? Should I not only pay the value of the increased value, not the total value? Isn't it when you invest in stocks, etc you pay the taxes for the profit you make off the stocks, and nothing if they tank?

So why are houses/property treated differently?

There is no logical reason why we are taxed over, and over, and over again for the entire cost of the property. As far as I am concerned, that is double taxation.

You fail to understand the basic idea of property tax. Its not a one time sales tax, it's a yearly wealth tax. They're levying a tax on the value of all the property in the city every single year. When your value goes up, then you pay more because it's worth more. Now, I don't know how your city does it, but that value reassessment usually isn't automatic. Some cities do an actual revaluation ever 10 years by doing quick appraisals of all the properties, and in between make guesses at the appreciation and raise the base rate to reflect that while your actual assessment stays the same for a decade.

You have no idea what a shitshow this can lead to. In my city they failed to order a revaluation for 30 years, and in that time one area of the city appreciated vastly faster than the others, so when the reval was finally done some people in multimillion dollar brownstones they bought for <$100k found themselves with 2-300% tax hikes into the mid $30k range! Bu they had been underpaying relative to everyone else for decades. Fun, huh?

But back to your problem. There's states with super low property taxes, but they deal with it either by having high taxes on other things, high corporate taxes, or really shitty schools and services. The question is do you want to move to Mississippi and have low taxes and shitty schools?
Mississippi:
2017-2018 average teacher salary: $43,107
State spending per student: $8,771

Mass:
2017-2018 average teacher salary: $79,710
State spending per student: $16,197

https://www.businessinsider.com/teacher ... ate-2018-4

PS: Smitty is right, invest that money and be a landlord by buying a multifamily and living in it. That made me a millionaire.

You should be taxed on the increased value not the entire value, you were already taxed on it once before.

You are being taxed twice for the same thing.

And in mass, it's not worth renting unless you own dozens of properties.

[Speaker to Animals]

LOL

[brewster]

You should be taxed on the increased value not the entire value, you were already taxed on it once before.

You are being taxed twice for the same thing.

What part of "yearly wealth tax" didn't you understand? It's not a one time sales tax. This is where the money to run the local government comes from. Everyone pays, even renters via their landlords. Would you be happier if MA had a 20% VAT tax to run the government? It's more regressive.

[Speaker to Animals]

You should be taxed on the increased value not the entire value, you were already taxed on it once before.

You are being taxed twice for the same thing.

What part of "yearly wealth tax" didn't you understand? It's not a one time sales tax. This is where the money to run the local government comes from. Everyone pays, even renters via their landlords. Would you be happier if MA had a 20% VAT tax to run the government? It's more regressive.

I kind of doubt you can really make the case that all renters pay property taxes indirectly for a few good reasons. In many urban markets, housing shortages result in very high demand for a limited supply of housing, which drives up rent. Rent is really just a product of supply and demand, and the efficient price point is well above break even (including property taxes if the landlord even pays them). You could raise property taxes here in Asheville and I doubt rent would be affected. Landlords would make less profit perhaps, but because of geography and the unbelievable rate of migration from Yankeeland, there is never going to be enough housing in this area. We are even convincing businesses to build those huge apartment complexes on floodways now, hoping that tax breaks and other incentives will offset the costs for when the first floors get flooded every four or five years.

Personally, I think if we are going to fund some level of government (like a city government) from property taxes, then the only people who should be able to vote in that city government are the people who pay property taxes. Otherwise it turns into another Seattle, where the renters just keep voting for more gibs paid by ever increasing property taxes, precisely because rent is already so much higher than break even that property taxes really don't even factor into their rents anyway.

Anywho.. have a fruitful Yom Kippur.

[brewster]

You should be taxed on the increased value not the entire value, you were already taxed on it once before.

You are being taxed twice for the same thing.

What part of "yearly wealth tax" didn't you understand? It's not a one time sales tax. This is where the money to run the local government comes from. Everyone pays, even renters via their landlords. Would you be happier if MA had a 20% VAT tax to run the government? It's more regressive.

I kind of doubt you can really make the case that all renters pay property taxes indirectly for a few good reasons. In many urban markets, housing shortages result in very high demand for a limited supply of housing, which drives up rent. Rent is really just a product of supply and demand, and the efficient price point is well above break even (including property taxes if the landlord even pays them). You could raise property taxes here in Asheville and I doubt rent would be affected. Landlords would make less profit perhaps, but because of geography and the unbelievable rate of migration from Yankeeland, there is never going to be enough housing in this area. We are even convincing businesses to build those huge apartment complexes on floodways now, hoping that tax breaks and other incentives will offset the costs for when the first floors get flooded every four or five years.

Personally, I think if we are going to fund some level of government (like a city government) from property taxes, then the only people who should be able to vote in that city government are the people who pay property taxes. Otherwise it turns into another Seattle, where the renters just keep voting for more gibs paid by ever increasing property taxes, precisely because rent is already so much higher than break even that property taxes really don't even factor into their rents anyway.

Anywho.. have a fruitful Yom Kippur.

Whether renters pay property tax indirectly is not up for argument, they do, it's where the landlord gets his money from. Your argument about the relative elasticity of rent vs tax is a different point. Reserving the franchise for property owners is something we've moved beyond long ago, it would not pass constitutional muster anymore.

As for supply vs demand for housing, you don't really want to get me started. The problem across this country is almost entirely due to restrictive low density zoning by the incumbent residents keeping supply low. Build more homes in the desirable places and prices & rents will come down. California for example is short 3-4 million homes, but the people there don't want higher density and they cast the votes against it, even as they complain about high housing costs. So of course the answer is rent control! Morons. Forget taxes, rent control is really theft.

[The Conservative]

What part of "yearly wealth tax" didn't you understand? It's not a one time sales tax. This is where the money to run the local government comes from. Everyone pays, even renters via their landlords. Would you be happier if MA had a 20% VAT tax to run the government? It's more regressive.

I kind of doubt you can really make the case that all renters pay property taxes indirectly for a few good reasons. In many urban markets, housing shortages result in very high demand for a limited supply of housing, which drives up rent. Rent is really just a product of supply and demand, and the efficient price point is well above break even (including property taxes if the landlord even pays them). You could raise property taxes here in Asheville and I doubt rent would be affected. Landlords would make less profit perhaps, but because of geography and the unbelievable rate of migration from Yankeeland, there is never going to be enough housing in this area. We are even convincing businesses to build those huge apartment complexes on floodways now, hoping that tax breaks and other incentives will offset the costs for when the first floors get flooded every four or five years.

Personally, I think if we are going to fund some level of government (like a city government) from property taxes, then the only people who should be able to vote in that city government are the people who pay property taxes. Otherwise it turns into another Seattle, where the renters just keep voting for more gibs paid by ever increasing property taxes, precisely because rent is already so much higher than break even that property taxes really don't even factor into their rents anyway.

Anywho.. have a fruitful Yom Kippur.

Whether renters pay property tax indirectly is not up for argument, they do, it's where the landlord gets his money from. Your argument about the relative elasticity of rent vs tax is a different point. Reserving the franchise for property owners is something we've moved beyond long ago, it would not pass constitutional muster anymore.

As for supply vs demand for housing, you don't really want to get me started. The problem across this country is almost entirely due to restrictive low density zoning by the incumbent residents keeping supply low. Build more homes in the desirable places and prices & rents will come down. California for example is short 3-4 million homes, but the people there don't want higher density and they cast the votes against it, even as they complain about high housing costs. So of course the answer is rent control! Morons. Forget taxes, rent control is really theft.

Taxation beyond the initial tax of earned income is theft, and even that can be considered theft at times too.