BaseJester, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 9:56 PM, said:
No, I'm not. It's a hypothetical situation, designed to illustrate that just because a policy gives some people money, it's not necessarily a good policy. It's supposed to be obvious that this would be a bad policy. It's a bad policy for the same reasons that the mortgage tax deduction is a bad policy, only more extreme and obvious.
I really think you are ignoring all the other economic factors (and there are a ton of them) that are bolstered not only by active home ownership, but also an increasing property value. If we give a small tax deduction to help acheive that, I think it is a good thing. In addition, and which was my first point, just ending the mortgage tax deduction would cause and immediate -re-collapse of the housing market. Millions (more) of homes would go in foreclosure.
BaseJester, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 9:56 PM, said:
Yeah, you're going to be upside down in that condition.I think it's interesting that you're portraying this as buying a house, but you're treating the actual principal payments as negligible.
I am not treating the principal payments as negligible, it wasn't a part of the discussion.
BaseJester, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 9:56 PM, said:
I don't think I did. I think I said that it should benefit the country as a whole. As in, we're going to make this behavior tax-advantaged because we want more of it because it's good for the country.
I addressed this above.
BaseJester, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 9:56 PM, said:
:-)The Midwest.You just made my case. This person gets a benefit of $3,100 multiplied by his marginal tax rate, say $1000? You're getting about 10 times as much benefit as this person. And this is the first year of a loan for an above-average home price.There seems to be a lot of variance in what people mean by flat tax, so I don't really know if I'm for a flat tax.My ideal tax policy would tax consumption and not income, because investment is a behavior that the United States has a compelling interest in. The mortgage interest deduction is the exact opposite of this ideal, because it causes people to pay less tax if they consume more.
Again, the benefit goes well beyond a tax deduction. More people at Home Depot, more people landscaping, remodeling, paying contractors, paying property tax, which pays for schools. IIRC your wife is a teacher, I would think you would see the benefit of higher home values so that there were the necessary funds going to pay for education.
BaseJester, on Thursday, April 26th, 2012, 4:46 AM, said:
Here are prices of houses sold around my address in Indianapolis.
Map# Address Dist. Sale Price Close Date Bed Bath Sq. Ft. Yr. Built 1 5851 Downing Dr 0.2 $85,000 10/04/2011 3 N/A 1560 1958 2 5883 Victoria Dr 0.2 $148,437 09/30/2011 3 N/A 2268 1970 3 5938 Alton Ave 0.2 $107,298 12/15/2010 3 1 1708 N/A 4 5824 Downing Dr 0.2 $98,884 05/26/2011 3 N/A 960 N/A 5 5817 Downing Dr 0.3 $63,428 02/28/2011 3 N/A 1040 N/A 6 5835 Victoria Dr 0.3 $99,068 12/21/2011 3 1 1385 1962 7 2700 60th St 0.3 $56,250 02/26/2011 2 1
And you say my view point is skewed. As of 2010 the average home price in the U.S. was 272,000.00. Above what I used for my example. Another thing about these decreased property values. You cannot build houses for what you can buy them for. Hell the permits and fees would be half the cost of some of those homes you listed. I recently looked into the cost of adding a 2nd home on my property. I would be in it over $30,000 before a shovel hit dirt. I just looked and in Indiana, the average per sqft cost to build a home is $86. Which puts all of the properties you listed about 25-30% below the raw construction cost.
0
