U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

191012141543

Comments

  • KingKobra said:
    @Travis I’m going to guess (without knowing facts) that they don’t want to give a deduction more than once on a single property. If renters got it as well, that would mean that the property owner would get a deduction as well as the people renting. This could lead to a lot of paperwork issues that they don’t want to deal with. 
    I see where you are coming from, and I do think that (though in a different way) the ability to quantify the amount of rent paid, or come up with a fair system is a major hurdle. To your point, where I disagree is that those deductions for the renter are basically just business deductions like any other business expense. One person's expense is another person's income as with all business transactions so I do disagree to that point, but it would generate a new set of tax reporting forms to make renter's or landlords issue a 1099 for rent paid. This already happens in the case of businesses renting from non-corporate entities, but not only do you have to come up with some reporting system to avoid abuse, but also come up with some fair be it a percentage or method of forming a deduction. It's a tough one, but particularly in the last few years of not having those deductions after having them for a few years I really feel their loss and I just can't see any good reason why the system is set up so unfairly. 

    @April_May_June Yeah, my wife and I are in the same boat. So Cal housing is just too insane. We've thought about fleeing the state simply because we would love to own a house but don't have the $500-600k that is necessary to live in our town. It's messed up. Plus, all the flippers come in with cash offers and snatch up all of the fixer uppers so even trying that route is incredibly tough.
  • LordBy said:
    Travis said:
    So, smart people of the Bald Move community, I have a position and I'm wondering if anyone has a rebuttal. This is something that has bugged me for a lot of years and now with so much talk about Schedule A deductions with the new tax plan I have finally gotten to a point where I called a couple of representatives to toss out a feeler, but I've only really thought about one side of the issue so I figured I would bring the more of a gripe than an idea here to see what you fine folks have to say. 

    Renters are getting totally screwed, and it should really stop. I've been a homeowner, and now I'm on the renter treadmill. I'm also a tax preparer so I see this constantly. Why do homeowners get mortgage interest and renters get nothing? I can see where they would get property taxes because there is a state tax deduction and that all makes perfect sense, but why do they get mortgage interest and I don't get some portion of my rent or anything like that? It's not because it generates taxable income for the lender on the other side because my rent does as well. I feel that either the standard deduction should be raised (I don't like the Trump plan on the whole, but I do like that solitary piece of it) or there should be a deduction for renters. If you think about it, it is typically lower income working folks who rent. People who need tax deductions. The rent treadmill is a super tough one to get off of, particularly in Southern California where I live and pay $1900 a month in rent. Why do homeowners get this awesome deduction and renters get totally screwed? It's not like their homeownership is kickstarting the economy or anything. You're simply building equity and being given a nice governmental pat on the back for it (not to mention the 250k/500k capital gain break when you sell). You don't have to mess with the deduction, but either raising the standard deduction to average things out or giving a nice kickback to the renters seems only fair to me. I'm all for these deductions. I like tax breaks for working folks, but I want some consideration as well.

    Also, it's nice that CA gives a renter's credit but it's only $60/$120 and it phases out incredibly low on the scale. It's far from equitable.

    So, where am I wrong? What makes homeowners so special as to deserve such better treatment?

    I don’t necessarily agree with the homeowners mortgage deduction, but I do believe that landlords get to deduct interest expense along with depreciation and maintenance and taxes on their returns so there is a deduction for landlords which, in theory, results in lower rent for renters than if the deduction did not exist.

    For example if I rent out a 200k house for $1.2k/mos, I could deduct depreciation of about $7.25k/yr and if I owe $150k at 5% another $7.5k for interest and maybe another $1.5k in property taxes. So I get $14.4k, my payment is maybe $10k and I pay property taxes so I’m clearing $2.9k cash but I have a loss of almost $2k/yr on my taxes to offset other income.

    The only better deal tax-wise than homeownership is renting out real estate (except the whole part of finding and putting up with renters)
    I see the train of thought, but having a mortgage on the property and being able to deduct that and depreciate the property and what not kind of feels like the cost of doing business to me (and there is no question that it should be a business deduction. If a dentist can write off the interest on an X-Ray machine and depreciate it a landlord should certainly be fully entitled to do so with the structure that they're renting). I mean, perhaps it could theoretically lower my potential rent, but if you take the size and quality of my rental and stack my rent against a mortgage and taxes on the market value of that same property, I bet my rent is higher. Renting, much like purchasing a property is just a business transaction and I suppose my point is that if you are going to give homeowners interest for buying a house (something I am in favor of, don't mistake my position on that, though I do like the $1.1 million limit because at that point do you really need it, plus you're butting up on AMT anyways...) and thus give people a tax break for having a home you should make concessions for the renters too. Like I said, demographically renters as a collective are people who could really use tax breaks but they're shut out of the sort of holy grail of common tax breaks.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Travis said:
    LordBy said:
    Travis said:
    So, smart people of the Bald Move community, I have a position and I'm wondering if anyone has a rebuttal. This is something that has bugged me for a lot of years and now with so much talk about Schedule A deductions with the new tax plan I have finally gotten to a point where I called a couple of representatives to toss out a feeler, but I've only really thought about one side of the issue so I figured I would bring the more of a gripe than an idea here to see what you fine folks have to say. 

    Renters are getting totally screwed, and it should really stop. I've been a homeowner, and now I'm on the renter treadmill. I'm also a tax preparer so I see this constantly. Why do homeowners get mortgage interest and renters get nothing? I can see where they would get property taxes because there is a state tax deduction and that all makes perfect sense, but why do they get mortgage interest and I don't get some portion of my rent or anything like that? It's not because it generates taxable income for the lender on the other side because my rent does as well. I feel that either the standard deduction should be raised (I don't like the Trump plan on the whole, but I do like that solitary piece of it) or there should be a deduction for renters. If you think about it, it is typically lower income working folks who rent. People who need tax deductions. The rent treadmill is a super tough one to get off of, particularly in Southern California where I live and pay $1900 a month in rent. Why do homeowners get this awesome deduction and renters get totally screwed? It's not like their homeownership is kickstarting the economy or anything. You're simply building equity and being given a nice governmental pat on the back for it (not to mention the 250k/500k capital gain break when you sell). You don't have to mess with the deduction, but either raising the standard deduction to average things out or giving a nice kickback to the renters seems only fair to me. I'm all for these deductions. I like tax breaks for working folks, but I want some consideration as well.

    Also, it's nice that CA gives a renter's credit but it's only $60/$120 and it phases out incredibly low on the scale. It's far from equitable.

    So, where am I wrong? What makes homeowners so special as to deserve such better treatment?

    I don’t necessarily agree with the homeowners mortgage deduction, but I do believe that landlords get to deduct interest expense along with depreciation and maintenance and taxes on their returns so there is a deduction for landlords which, in theory, results in lower rent for renters than if the deduction did not exist.

    For example if I rent out a 200k house for $1.2k/mos, I could deduct depreciation of about $7.25k/yr and if I owe $150k at 5% another $7.5k for interest and maybe another $1.5k in property taxes. So I get $14.4k, my payment is maybe $10k and I pay property taxes so I’m clearing $2.9k cash but I have a loss of almost $2k/yr on my taxes to offset other income.

    The only better deal tax-wise than homeownership is renting out real estate (except the whole part of finding and putting up with renters)
    I see the train of thought, but having a mortgage on the property and being able to deduct that and depreciate the property and what not kind of feels like the cost of doing business to me (and there is no question that it should be a business deduction. If a dentist can write off the interest on an X-Ray machine and depreciate it a landlord should certainly be fully entitled to do so with the structure that they're renting). I mean, perhaps it could theoretically lower my potential rent, but if you take the size and quality of my rental and stack my rent against a mortgage and taxes on the market value of that same property, I bet my rent is higher. Renting, much like purchasing a property is just a business transaction and I suppose my point is that if you are going to give homeowners interest for buying a house (something I am in favor of, don't mistake my position on that, though I do like the $1.1 million limit because at that point do you really need it, plus you're butting up on AMT anyways...) and thus give people a tax break for having a home you should make concessions for the renters too. Like I said, demographically renters as a collective are people who could really use tax breaks but they're shut out of the sort of holy grail of common tax breaks.
    Well the lower tier of renters probably are not paying net federal taxes to start with.whereas homeowners and landlords probably are 

    how can you give someone who pays no federal taxes a break on their federal taxes? 

    There's another reason at play beneath the surface, I'm not saying it's right, but this is undoubelty part of the equation. A homeowner or landlord is more likely to live in the same place ten years from now then a renter, so for a congressman it makes more sense to appease that person with a tax break. I'm a young single renter, on a month to month lease, I could break and move tommorow,get a job in Spokane, in New York, in Florida, maybe wander the earth and party in Buenos Aires, doesn't matter, the point is, renters are people more migratory then owners and so why sacrifice revenues and budgets on the count of someone who may not even live in your district next election? 
    gguenotTravis
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited November 2017
    @emnofseattle thank you for your response. A couple of rebuttals: if “lower tier” renters aren’t paying taxes anyway isn’t that a really easy deduction to give? There is no cost to giving someone something they can’t take. 

    To your larger point, I get what you’re saying and pragmatically speaking you are correct. I’m sure that the government doesn’t care about renters because they can’t make enough noise to matter, but from a societal standpoint is that really a good enough reason? I mean, I know that a couple of calls to representatives isn’t going to make this happen and that it is the way it is, but that isn’t a good reason for why it should be that way. I’m just pointing out some bullshit, and being bare minimum proactive (and curious if i’m missing some glaring point that makes my argument fundamentally wrong). I guess all i’m saying is that despite agreeing with your explanation of why things are the way they are, that’s super f’n cynical and it’s a real bummer. 
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Well, hopefully our idiot President has learned his lesson on speaking out and influencing trials.  Bergdahl, a full-on deserter, has received a lesser punishment for his crimes than an overweight soldier would or a soldier who got busted having sexual relations with his wife in any position other than missionary.  Yes, that is how stupid this is.  I don't think he deserved the death penalty or life in prison, but he deserved more than a simple dishonorable discharge.  Hundreds of people having be prosecuted for deserting while on R&R these last 16 years, yet this guy gets nothing. You can say he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, but that is complete BS if you have any idea what real Taliban captives have to deal with.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    Well, hopefully our idiot President has learned his lesson on speaking out and influencing trials.  Bergdahl, a full-on deserter, has received a lesser punishment for his crimes than an overweight soldier would or a soldier who got busted having sexual relations with his wife in any position other than missionary.  Yes, that is how stupid this is.  I don't think he deserved the death penalty or life in prison, but he deserved more than a simple dishonorable discharge.  Hundreds of people having be prosecuted for deserting while on R&R these last 16 years, yet this guy gets nothing. You can say he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, but that is complete BS if you have any idea what real Taliban captives have to deal with.
    So a judge decides not to apply punishment and that's Trumps fault? So your argument is that an army judge is so derelict in his duties he can't deal with a president talking about an issue that was debated about in public and thus didn't perform his duties correctly? 


    Brawn
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Travis said:
    @emnofseattle thank you for your response. A couple of rebuttals: if “lower tier” renters aren’t paying taxes anyway isn’t that a really easy deduction to give? There is no cost to giving someone something they can’t take. 

    To your larger point, I get what you’re saying and pragmatically speaking you are correct. I’m sure that the government doesn’t care about renters because they can’t make enough noise to matter, but from a societal standpoint is that really a good enough reason? I mean, I know that a couple of calls to representatives isn’t going to make this happen and that it is the way it is, but that isn’t a good reason for why it should be that way. I’m just pointing out some bullshit, and being bare minimum proactive (and curious if i’m missing some glaring point that makes my argument fundamentally wrong). I guess all i’m saying is that despite agreeing with your explanation of why things are the way they are, that’s super f’n cynical and it’s a real bummer. 
    It's not right as I said, but it's nothing new. It's long been an open secret the government uses the tax code to reward and punish behavior every bit as much as to collect revenue 
    Travis
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The biggest tragedy for renters is when there is a big disaster and the owners are covered for the full market or replacement value of their property (whichever is higher if you do it right) pre-disaster, while the renters are covered, at best if they have renters insurance, for their belongings after losing their place to live and in some cases losing their entire neighborhoods.

    I support reasonable incentives for homeownership because there are many individual and societal benefits. Can’t get crazy with zero-down mortgages, crazy adjustible-rate or interest-only mortgages, or 125% equity loans and such like the 2000’s; but reasonable incentives are good.

    Programs like Habitat for Humanity, for example, are great for lifting families up out of poverty with significant sweat-equity rather than monetary equity. They have restrictions on tapping that equity.

    I do have a philosophical problem with blanket interest deductions for business combined with depreciation as it’s a bit of double-dipping and favors debt over equity financing because dividends are not deductible.

    The reason companies like Apple have hundreds of billions of cash overseas is because they can borrow against it for like 5%, and deduct the interest, rather than paying any tax at all to repatriate it. If they hit a bad spot and lose money in a year, then they can bring it over without paying tax (because they’ll have a net loss) to retire the debt.

    Sorry, I’m a finance major so I tend to get into the weeds.
    Phoebes89Travis

  • Thomas said:
    Well, hopefully our idiot President has learned his lesson on speaking out and influencing trials.  Bergdahl, a full-on deserter, has received a lesser punishment for his crimes than an overweight soldier would or a soldier who got busted having sexual relations with his wife in any position other than missionary.  Yes, that is how stupid this is.  I don't think he deserved the death penalty or life in prison, but he deserved more than a simple dishonorable discharge.  Hundreds of people having be prosecuted for deserting while on R&R these last 16 years, yet this guy gets nothing. You can say he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, but that is complete BS if you have any idea what real Taliban captives have to deal with.
    I’m not going to defend this guy’s conduct in any way, but I will agree that consideration for “time served” including nearly 5yrs in Taliban custody treated badly with some torture, etc., should legitimately have been taken into account. Not like the guy didn’t get some punishment for his awful decisions and behavior.

    Vengance is not justice.
    BrawnPhoebes89
  • Meanwhile, The New York Times is reporting that Carter Page, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, gave testimony in a hearing yesterday to the House Intelligence Committee that he met with Russian officials in Moscow in 2016 ...
    This is insane.  At this point, I have seriously lost count of all the people involved in Trump's campaign who have been found out to have ties with the Russians, or be outright foreign agents.

    I was not alive for the Nixon administration, so don't know what it was like when all the information about his shady dealings was coming out, but all this seems so much more shady and nefarious than anything Nixon could have dreamt up.
  • An interesting question is what's going to happen to the housing and rental markets in expensive cities if this Republican tax plan goes through.  The cap on mortgage interest deduction gets cut in half, to $500k state taxes are no longer deductible but property taxes up to 10K a year are.  Are people in the 1-2 million dollar house range going to think twice about buying and go to a rental market that's already overheating?  The landlords will have the advantage of being grandfathered in on all the tax rules for a long time. 
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Thomas said:
    Well, hopefully our idiot President has learned his lesson on speaking out and influencing trials.  Bergdahl, a full-on deserter, has received a lesser punishment for his crimes than an overweight soldier would or a soldier who got busted having sexual relations with his wife in any position other than missionary.  Yes, that is how stupid this is.  I don't think he deserved the death penalty or life in prison, but he deserved more than a simple dishonorable discharge.  Hundreds of people having be prosecuted for deserting while on R&R these last 16 years, yet this guy gets nothing. You can say he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, but that is complete BS if you have any idea what real Taliban captives have to deal with.
    So a judge decides not to apply punishment and that's Trumps fault? So your argument is that an army judge is so derelict in his duties he can't deal with a president talking about an issue that was debated about in public and thus didn't perform his duties correctly? 


    When that same judge says he is going to take the President's Tweets and statements into consideration, then yes, he played a part in it.  He was already tweeting saying the NYC attacker deserves the death penalty too.  Normal American's can publicly state these opinions, but our President should not.  
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    edited November 2017

    LordBy said:

    Thomas said:
    Well, hopefully our idiot President has learned his lesson on speaking out and influencing trials.  Bergdahl, a full-on deserter, has received a lesser punishment for his crimes than an overweight soldier would or a soldier who got busted having sexual relations with his wife in any position other than missionary.  Yes, that is how stupid this is.  I don't think he deserved the death penalty or life in prison, but he deserved more than a simple dishonorable discharge.  Hundreds of people having be prosecuted for deserting while on R&R these last 16 years, yet this guy gets nothing. You can say he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, but that is complete BS if you have any idea what real Taliban captives have to deal with.
    I’m not going to defend this guy’s conduct in any way, but I will agree that consideration for “time served” including nearly 5yrs in Taliban custody treated badly with some torture, etc., should legitimately have been taken into account. Not like the guy didn’t get some punishment for his awful decisions and behavior.

    Vengance is not justice.
    But now the precedent has been set for anyone thinking about wanting to go AWOL from the military: you'll only get a dishonorable discharge.  He gave himself up to the Taliban and if you've seen what they do to prisoners, you can bet he was treated pretty damn well.  He even said the Taliban treated him better than the military.  I do dislike the rumor that people died looking for him, as I don't think there was ever any specific mission to rescue him because it was known he was a traitor almost immediately and he location was well-known quickly after.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    Thomas said:
    Well, hopefully our idiot President has learned his lesson on speaking out and influencing trials.  Bergdahl, a full-on deserter, has received a lesser punishment for his crimes than an overweight soldier would or a soldier who got busted having sexual relations with his wife in any position other than missionary.  Yes, that is how stupid this is.  I don't think he deserved the death penalty or life in prison, but he deserved more than a simple dishonorable discharge.  Hundreds of people having be prosecuted for deserting while on R&R these last 16 years, yet this guy gets nothing. You can say he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, but that is complete BS if you have any idea what real Taliban captives have to deal with.
    So a judge decides not to apply punishment and that's Trumps fault? So your argument is that an army judge is so derelict in his duties he can't deal with a president talking about an issue that was debated about in public and thus didn't perform his duties correctly? 


    When that same judge says he is going to take the President's Tweets and statements into consideration, then yes, he played a part in it.  He was already tweeting saying the NYC attacker deserves the death penalty too.  Normal American's can publicly state these opinions, but our President should not.  
    Then the judge should be dismissed or disciplined for dereliction of duty since the presidents actions have no bearing on his obligations to the law. 

    If a judge lowers a judicial sentence because of what an American citizen expressed as an opinion he is not qualified to hold that office, in any event it's not the president's responsibility 
    Brawn
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Thomas said:
    Thomas said:
    Well, hopefully our idiot President has learned his lesson on speaking out and influencing trials.  Bergdahl, a full-on deserter, has received a lesser punishment for his crimes than an overweight soldier would or a soldier who got busted having sexual relations with his wife in any position other than missionary.  Yes, that is how stupid this is.  I don't think he deserved the death penalty or life in prison, but he deserved more than a simple dishonorable discharge.  Hundreds of people having be prosecuted for deserting while on R&R these last 16 years, yet this guy gets nothing. You can say he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, but that is complete BS if you have any idea what real Taliban captives have to deal with.
    So a judge decides not to apply punishment and that's Trumps fault? So your argument is that an army judge is so derelict in his duties he can't deal with a president talking about an issue that was debated about in public and thus didn't perform his duties correctly? 


    When that same judge says he is going to take the President's Tweets and statements into consideration, then yes, he played a part in it.  He was already tweeting saying the NYC attacker deserves the death penalty too.  Normal American's can publicly state these opinions, but our President should not.  
    Then the judge should be dismissed or disciplined for dereliction of duty since the presidents actions have no bearing on his obligations to the law. 

    If a judge lowers a judicial sentence because of what an American citizen expressed as an opinion he is not qualified to hold that office, in any event it's not the president's responsibility 
    Haha, it wasn't an ordinary American citizen, it was the President of the United States, the head of the Executive branch of the United States government.  What do courts do when someone on trial has received potentially unfair media attention in the community they are being tried in?  Don't they usually move it somewhere else?  The President has a much louder voice than a local media outlet.
    Dee
  • It was a military trial, Trump is the Commander in Chief - he should have kept his mouth shut to make sure that the guy got a fair trial.
    ThomasDeePhoebes89
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    It was a military trial, Trump is the Commander in Chief - he should have kept his mouth shut to make sure that the guy got a fair trial.
    He got a fair trial. a "fair trial" does not mean media blackout about your case. Did Barack Obama violate George Zimmerman's rights by saying his son "would look like Trayvon" ? Candidate Trump was unrelated to the case expressing an opinion. 
    Brawn
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    Thomas said:
    Thomas said:
    Well, hopefully our idiot President has learned his lesson on speaking out and influencing trials.  Bergdahl, a full-on deserter, has received a lesser punishment for his crimes than an overweight soldier would or a soldier who got busted having sexual relations with his wife in any position other than missionary.  Yes, that is how stupid this is.  I don't think he deserved the death penalty or life in prison, but he deserved more than a simple dishonorable discharge.  Hundreds of people having be prosecuted for deserting while on R&R these last 16 years, yet this guy gets nothing. You can say he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, but that is complete BS if you have any idea what real Taliban captives have to deal with.
    So a judge decides not to apply punishment and that's Trumps fault? So your argument is that an army judge is so derelict in his duties he can't deal with a president talking about an issue that was debated about in public and thus didn't perform his duties correctly? 


    When that same judge says he is going to take the President's Tweets and statements into consideration, then yes, he played a part in it.  He was already tweeting saying the NYC attacker deserves the death penalty too.  Normal American's can publicly state these opinions, but our President should not.  
    Then the judge should be dismissed or disciplined for dereliction of duty since the presidents actions have no bearing on his obligations to the law. 

    If a judge lowers a judicial sentence because of what an American citizen expressed as an opinion he is not qualified to hold that office, in any event it's not the president's responsibility 
    Haha, it wasn't an ordinary American citizen, it was the President of the United States, the head of the Executive branch of the United States government.  What do courts do when someone on trial has received potentially unfair media attention in the community they are being tried in?  Don't they usually move it somewhere else?  The President has a much louder voice than a local media outlet.
    Sometimes just power through it. George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, etc had to go through judicial processes with media coverage against them that in many cases was falsified to sell stories. 

    sometimes you go ahead with the trial anyway. media coverage isn't a defense.

    there's two options here, either the judge decided correctly to apply a sentence based on the facts of the case, or he chose to send a political message to Trump which is unethical and misconduct. Trump bears no responsibility in the sentence. 
    Brawn
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Travis said:
    LordBy said:
    Travis said:
    So, smart people of the Bald Move community, I have a position and I'm wondering if anyone has a rebuttal. This is something that has bugged me for a lot of years and now with so much talk about Schedule A deductions with the new tax plan I have finally gotten to a point where I called a couple of representatives to toss out a feeler, but I've only really thought about one side of the issue so I figured I would bring the more of a gripe than an idea here to see what you fine folks have to say. 

    l.

    Also, it's nice that CA gives a renter's credit but it's only $60/$120 and it phases out incredibly low on the scale. It's far from equitable.

    So, where am I wrong? What makes homeowners so special as to deserve such better treatment?

    I don’t necessarily agree with the homeowners mortgage deduction, but I do believe that landlords get to deduct interest expense along with depreciation and maintenance and taxes on their returns so there is a deduction for landlords which, in theory, results in lower rent for renters than if the deduction did not exist.

    For example if I rent out a 200k house for $1.2k/mos, I could deduct depreciation of about $7.25k/yr and if I owe $150k at 5% another $7.5k for interest and maybe another $1.5k in property taxes. So I get $14.4k, my payment is maybe $10k and I pay property taxes so I’m clearing $2.9k cash but I have a loss of almost $2k/yr on my taxes to offset other income.

    The only better deal tax-wise than homeownership is renting out real estate (except the whole part of finding and putting up with renters)
    I see the train of thought, but having a mortgage on the property and being able to deduct that and depreciate the property and what not kind of feels like the cost of doing business to me (and there is no question that it should be a business deduction. If a dentist can write off the interest on an X-Ray machine and depreciate it a landlord should certainly be fully entitled to do so with the structure that they're renting). I mean, perhaps it could theoretically lower my potential rent, but if you take the size and quality of my rental and stack my rent against a mortgage and taxes on the market value of that same property, I bet my rent is higher. Renting, much like purchasing a property is just a business transaction and I suppose my point is that if you are going to give homeowners interest for buying a house (something I am in favor of, don't mistake my position on that, though I do like the $1.1 million limit because at that point do you really need it, plus you're butting up on AMT anyways...) and thus give people a tax break for having a home you should make concessions for the renters too. Like I said, demographically renters as a collective are people who could really use tax breaks but they're shut out of the sort of holy grail of common tax breaks.
    Well the lower tier of renters probably are not paying net federal taxes to start with.whereas homeowners and landlords probably are 

    how can you give someone who pays no federal taxes a break on their federal taxes? 

    There's another reason at play beneath the surface, I'm not saying it's right, but this is undoubelty part of the equation. A homeowner or landlord is more likely to live in the same place ten years from now then a renter, so for a congressman it makes more sense to appease that person with a tax break. I'm a young single renter, on a month to month lease, I could break and move tommorow,get a job in Spokane, in New York, in Florida, maybe wander the earth and party in Buenos Aires, doesn't matter, the point is, renters are people more migratory then owners and so why sacrifice revenues and budgets on the count of someone who may not even live in your district next election? 
    I am no expert on this but I think it's true that the tax code is that way to encourage home ownership and reward homeowners v. renters.

    But your assumption that renters are young, peripatetic, or extremely poor people is revealing your rural bias. In Seattle and the surrounding suburbs, and many other expensive markets, there are lots of middle class, older renters, families in rentals, and established and stable renters, because the cost of buying a home and the cost of living in general is higher to the point where a lot of people get priced out of owning a home. Like even around where I live, which is nowheresville just south of Everett and wayyyy north of Seattle, 3-bedroom home prices start around $400K+ and unless you are a very good saver or have someone to help you invest in a home, a lot of people just can't afford that. You also sometimes run across people who have been renting the same house for 20+ years from the same landlord.
    Yeah, way way out there, like a whole 25 kilometers. 

    that was a good laugh...

    anyway yes there are renters who are not poor, not transitory, etc but if you're going to be living somewhere long term it nearly always makes sense to buy rather then rent. unless you're renting from someone with a paid off house who wants to make under market rate for rent, then your rent amount is your landlords expenses plus a profit and you gain no equity. so many of these long term renters, had they bought in '09 wouldn't be facing rapidly escalating rents today. 

    It's a shame too, if only I turned 21 in like '08 or something I'd be living in West Seattle. houses were going in foreclosure auctions for 235, good luck finding that there today! 

    but that aside you can't escape statistics, rural bias or not. Pew Studied this issue on demographics of renters versus owners. 
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/19/more-u-s-households-are-renting-than-at-any-point-in-50-years/







    Travis
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Travis said:
    @emnofseattle thank you for your response. A couple of rebuttals: if “lower tier” renters aren’t paying taxes anyway isn’t that a really easy deduction to give? There is no cost to giving someone something they can’t take. 

    To your larger point, I get what you’re saying and pragmatically speaking you are correct. I’m sure that the government doesn’t care about renters because they can’t make enough noise to matter, but from a societal standpoint is that really a good enough reason? I mean, I know that a couple of calls to representatives isn’t going to make this happen and that it is the way it is, but that isn’t a good reason for why it should be that way. I’m just pointing out some bullshit, and being bare minimum proactive (and curious if i’m missing some glaring point that makes my argument fundamentally wrong). I guess all i’m saying is that despite agreeing with your explanation of why things are the way they are, that’s super f’n cynical and it’s a real bummer. 
    Well another problem I see with this idea is what basis will be used for the renters tax credit you propose? it's easy to calculate interest in a mortgage for a tax deduction. I would like to see what calculation would be used to calculate the amount of the deduction. 
    Travis
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited November 2017
    so I guess being a successful career woman is only noble if you're a socialist. If she's conservative insults about her weight and personal appearance are fair game, so thinks long time liberal LA Times Columnist David Horsey  

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/liberal-columnists-attack-sarah-sanders-for-her-weight-southern-accent/

    Oh he did apologize later, he had no idea writing insensitive worlds about a woman's weight is wrong, he's now been enlightened. 
  • so I guess being a successful career woman is only noble if you're a socialist. If she's conservative insults about her weight and personal appearance are fair game, so thinks long time liberal LA Times Columnist David Horsey  

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/liberal-columnists-attack-sarah-sanders-for-her-weight-southern-accent/

    Oh he did apologize later, he had no idea writing insensitive worlds about a woman's weight is wrong, he's now been enlightened. 
    Ok? Shitty journalists on both sides. Next 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    gguenot said:
    so I guess being a successful career woman is only noble if you're a socialist. If she's conservative insults about her weight and personal appearance are fair game, so thinks long time liberal LA Times Columnist David Horsey  

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/liberal-columnists-attack-sarah-sanders-for-her-weight-southern-accent/

    Oh he did apologize later, he had no idea writing insensitive worlds about a woman's weight is wrong, he's now been enlightened. 
    Ok? Shitty journalists on both sides. Next 
    it's when one particular side does it it's national news for a 24 hour cycle with continuous condemnations and when another does it it's virtual silence 
  • Yea kinda like the rights obsession with Michelle’s fight against obesity campaign and their comments on her weight. I recall that lasted a while.
    Phoebes89
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    It was a military trial, Trump is the Commander in Chief - he should have kept his mouth shut to make sure that the guy got a fair trial.
    He got a fair trial. a "fair trial" does not mean media blackout about your case. Did Barack Obama violate George Zimmerman's rights by saying his son "would look like Trayvon" ? Candidate Trump was unrelated to the case expressing an opinion. 
    What does Obama have to do with Trump running his mouth and disrupting Bergdahl's trial?  Nothing.  Why is it whenever Trump does something stupid, Trump fans all have to instantly cry out "Obama did it too"?  No, Obama made a positive comment about the victim.  He didn't come out and say that Zimmerman should be given life in prison or anything, unlike Trump.  

    Falsely trying to equivocate mistakes by past presidents does make what the current POTUS is doing right.
    JaimieTPhoebes89
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    It was a military trial, Trump is the Commander in Chief - he should have kept his mouth shut to make sure that the guy got a fair trial.
    He got a fair trial. a "fair trial" does not mean media blackout about your case. Did Barack Obama violate George Zimmerman's rights by saying his son "would look like Trayvon" ? Candidate Trump was unrelated to the case expressing an opinion. 
    What does Obama have to do with Trump running his mouth and disrupting Bergdahl's trial?  Nothing.  Why is it whenever Trump does something stupid, Trump fans all have to instantly cry out "Obama did it too"?  No, Obama made a positive comment about the victim.  He didn't come out and say that Zimmerman should be given life in prison or anything, unlike Trump.  

    Falsely trying to equivocate mistakes by past presidents does make what the current POTUS is doing right.
    It doesn't need to be made right, in neither case was either president wrong. It's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of how magical new standards for the office of president seem to be written every day for the purpose of attack Donald Trump. If you can't produce documented evidence you've held every president to the exact same standard then I am not interested in a holier then thou art argument or the "this isn't presidential argument" both are logically invalid anyway, 
    Brawn
  • Can barely go a month without another mass shooting. At least 27 dead in a church in Texas.
  • We need more thoughts and prayers people, come on!
  • "Now is not the time to discuss gun control"

    Excuse me, but ... MY ASS.  This is horrible, and we need to make some changes, because obviously the way things are now doesn't work.

    A two year old was killed today.  What is it going to take?
    gguenotBourbonQueen
This discussion has been closed.