Jump to content


Tax Reform Thread


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#101 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Respect my Raises!!!!!!

  • Members
  • 23,054 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:56 PM

View Postmrdannyg, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 6:24 PM, said:

Well, if some old white separatists thought something a few hundred years ago, I guess I'm ridiculous for suggesting it might not be relevant any more.edit:I'm genuinely sorry for getting into this (any) discussion with you, again. We're both worse off for it - I am not familiar enough with the arguments to say anything you can't find anywhere else, and you have no interest in doing anything but spraying illogical rhetoric. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.
Dude, spraying illogical rhetoric with you and Wakefield is my favorite part of the day...But yea, this subject has runs its course, we'll call it a draw with me a slight favorite and move on to the next one.Plus these guys are ignoring our rhetoric for stats and facts and stupid stuff.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

#102 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 22,820 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:49 PM

View PostBaseJester, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 11:56 PM, said:

The Midwest.
Maybe you meant the Middle East?
CAPITALISM: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor. - Ron Swanson ---> Video:Ron's Pyramid of Greatness Picture: Poster Size


View PostSuitedAces21, on 20 August 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

tilt you suck.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

titly suck a dick bitch

#103 AmScray

AmScray

    Honk

  • Members
  • 3,805 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Favorite Poker Game:wrhsf235yu

Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:13 AM

View PostFCP Bob, on Tuesday, April 24th, 2012, 7:01 PM, said:

This home just sold for $1.18 Million in Toronto and will most likely be bulldozed and a new home put on the lot and it isn't even in one of the most expensive neighbourhoods.http://www.theglobea...article2362078/Posted Image
I wonder how this could possibly turn out?If only there were something we could reference that was similar to this behavior...
Posted Image

#104 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:46 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Thursday, April 26th, 2012, 2:49 AM, said:

Maybe you meant the Middle East?
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

If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#105 The Ocho

The Ocho

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,916 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:07 AM

View PostBaseJester, 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.

View PostBaseJester, 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.

View PostBaseJester, 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.

View PostBaseJester, 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.

View PostBaseJester, 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.

#106 DJ Vu

DJ Vu

    DJ Vu

  • Members
  • 2,862 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:19 AM

View PostBaseJester, on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 9:56 PM, said:

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.
What kind of investment? Isn't real estate traditionally one of the best long-term investments?I think you and Ocho are both making good arguments. It's an interesting discussion.

#107 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 20,055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:27 AM

Something to keep in mind when most people are talking about reforming the tax system by eliminating a tax expediture like the home mortgage interest deduction they are talking about reducing the overall tax rates at the same time. Somebody like Ocho will lose his mortgage deduction but his overall tax rates will be lower.I think this discussion shows why it's hard to reform things because nobody likes having something taken away from them. There is no question the mortgage interest deduction favours higher income home owners at the expense of people who rent and everybody else but to remove it in one fell swoop would create a lot of adjustment problems like Ocho is talking about but that doesn't mean if it's bad policy to allow mortgage interest deduction (which I think it is for quite a few reasons) that it shouldn't be gradually removed over time so that the adjustment shocks are more gradual and can be planned for.
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#108 The Ocho

The Ocho

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,916 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:56 AM

LOLhttp://realestate.ya...ome-buyers.htmlTopical article today.

#109 iZuma

iZuma

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,336 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:05 PM

hahaha I just emailed myself that link to post in here when I got home.

#110 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:56 PM

View PostThe Ocho, on Thursday, April 26th, 2012, 12:07 PM, said:

I am not treating the principal payments as negligible, it wasn't a part of the discussion.
You wrote:

Quote

Are you delusional. Have you seen what has happened in the last 5 years? I bought a home for 450K, it went up to 700K, it's now worth less than 200K. In 1987 when it was originally built, it sold for 189K. I also remodeled and fixed it up. So unless I put 250K down on the house or more there is no chance I would have equity.
If you put $150k down and paid $150k of principle over the 5 years, your equity is $200k + $150k + $150k - $450k = $50k. Paying principle is a way to build equity, which you precluded in your example.

Quote

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.
No, you're looking at the mean new home price.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#111 The Ocho

The Ocho

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,916 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:10 PM

View PostBaseJester, on Thursday, April 26th, 2012, 6:56 PM, said:

You wrote:If you put $150k down and paid $150k of principle over the 5 years, your equity is $200k + $150k + $150k - $450k = $50k. Paying principle is a way to build equity, which you precluded in your example.
You actually were making some meaningful progress, then you go back to this. Putting 150K down and paying 50K a year in principal?? Now you are talking about uber wealthy people. Hell even rich people can't do that.

View PostBaseJester, on Thursday, April 26th, 2012, 6:56 PM, said:

No, you're looking at the mean new home price.
Are you trying to say there is a difference between the price of a new home and a used home? Cost per sqft is cost per sqft.

#112 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:31 AM

View PostThe Ocho, on Friday, April 27th, 2012, 2:10 AM, said:

You actually were making some meaningful progress, then you go back to this. Putting 150K down and paying 50K a year in principal?? Now you are talking about uber wealthy people. Hell even rich people can't do that.
I'm not saying this particular example is typical.The example you posed was 5 years, not 1, so $10k per year in principle.And, yes, if you bought at the peak with a typical down payment and sold after a massive decrease in housing prices with a typical loan (or an interest-only loan like your example), you would have no equity.

Quote

Are you trying to say there is a difference between the price of a new home and a used home?
Umm, yes?New homes cost more than used homes.

Quote

Cost per sqft is cost per sqft.
That's the unit of measure, and new homes cost more per square foot than used homes.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#113 The Ocho

The Ocho

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,916 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:05 PM

View PostBaseJester, on Friday, April 27th, 2012, 5:31 AM, said:

I'm not saying this particular example is typical.The example you posed was 5 years, not 1, so $10k per year in principle.And, yes, if you bought at the peak with a typical down payment and sold after a massive decrease in housing prices with a typical loan (or an interest-only loan like your example), you would have no equity. Umm, yes?New homes cost more than used homes.That's the unit of measure, and new homes cost more per square foot than used homes.
Upgraded homes cost more, not new homes. If I have a home built in 1980 right next to a home built in 2006 and they are the same size, same sqft, laminate counters, carpet, etc. They will be the same price. The only reason "new" homes cost more, is because of granite, high end appliances, etc.

#114 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:41 PM

View PostThe Ocho, on Friday, April 27th, 2012, 4:05 PM, said:

Upgraded homes cost more, not new homes. If I have a home built in 1980 right next to a home built in 2006 and they are the same size, same sqft, laminate counters, carpet, etc. They will be the same price. The only reason "new" homes cost more, is because of granite, high end appliances, etc.
Existing homes are, on average, cheaper than new homes. This is a fact. The set of existing homes includes the upgraded and well-maintained ones like you describe and also shitty ones.The median existing home price in March 2012 was $163,600.The median new home price in March 2012 was $234,500.http://www.nahb.org/...x?sectionID=131Furthermore, you quoted a mean value, which you cannot use to support an assertion about typical at all. 60% of filers don't even itemize.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#115 The Ocho

The Ocho

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,916 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:24 PM

You have to take sqft into account. New homes are typically larger. Until about 2-3 years ago the average size of a home was going up dramatically. So yes, older homes typically will sell for less if you don't take sqft into account.

Quote

According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average home size in the United States was 2,700 square feet in 2009, up from 1,400 square feet in 1970Read more: U.S. Home Size — Infoplease.com http://www.infopleas...l#ixzz1tHYx98lo


#116 JubilantLankyLad

JubilantLankyLad

    you can't see me!

  • Members
  • 8,410 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in hiding
  • Favorite Poker Game:PANDA

Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:31 PM

In my experience (highly anecdotal, obviously) is that there is a small premium paid for a new house vs a comparably-finished older home, but it's nowhere the 30% indicated above...
there were no special effects, no special effects.

#117 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 27 April 2012 - 07:53 PM

View PostThe Ocho, on Friday, April 27th, 2012, 6:24 PM, said:

You have to take sqft into account.
On the contrary, it's completely irrelevant to this thread. The tax deduction is based on the interest on the mortgage, which is a function of the size of the mortgage. I shouldn't have followed this tangent.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#118 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:39 PM

View PostDJ Vu, on Thursday, April 26th, 2012, 12:19 PM, said:

What kind of investment? Isn't real estate traditionally one of the best long-term investments?
If I buy a house and live in it, I'm consuming my personal wealth at the rate of the physical depreciation of the building and the real interest on the loan. Meanwhile, I might also be gaining or losing wealth based on speculation in the market. This is entirely different animal from investing money in a factory to produce widgets. The factory creates wealth that I'm not consuming.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#119 phlegm

phlegm

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,617 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:51 PM

View PostFCP Bob, on Tuesday, April 24th, 2012, 8:01 PM, said:

$600K doesn't get you much in a lot of places. Ocho is in California where even after the housing bust homes are a lot more expensive then the midwest.This home just sold for $1.18 Million in Toronto and will most likely be bulldozed and a new home put on the lot and it isn't even in one of the most expensive neighbourhoods.http://www.theglobea...article2362078/Posted Image
With prices like that, im guessing this is not a racially diverse neighborhood.Unless of course there is an nba franchise nearby.
I am not an alcoholic

I am a drunk

Alcoholics go to meetings

#120 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 20,055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:17 AM

View Postphlegm, on Friday, May 4th, 2012, 12:51 AM, said:

With prices like that, im guessing this is not a racially diverse neighborhood.Unless of course there is an nba franchise nearby.
I would guess White people make up less than half the people in that part of Toronto.
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users