|
| Thread: Help recreate this fundemental idea for a new united states tax blablabla | |
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted September 02, 2008 09:29 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 21:38, 02 Sep 2008.
|
Help recreate this fundemental idea for a new united states tax blablabla
Please help me to rewrite this, redraw this, and replan it all in all to make a perfect idea. I prommise this idea will go to someone I now know, who is running for the 64th district state representative.
Quote:
There are home owners, and home lessors. The home lessors are proposed a sweet deal, to give up their properties (that they dont live in) to be tax exemt for the rest of their lives, along with thier immediate and adopted children, and to collect 75% of the rent until a dollar amount is reached. That dollar amount would be property cost. In the mean time the government is putting that 25% into the property, maximising its foundations, fixing problems, and all together making it a better property to live in.
So far we have the OPTION to be tax exemt for life including children, the market value of the property paid for, and the government increasing the properties worth.
Increasing the properties worth does not infact increase the cost to live there.
Time goes on, now we are collecting 100% every month from the tennants. This all goes to state, and federal. The state inturn builds up the properties. Left over money goes to federal. Why? So they can divy up the money to less valuable properties and neightborhoods. Poor schools, ect.
So the government is now getting tons of money to put into the economy, rather than letting families live off the fat of the land, which we shouldnt have to spare "yet".
What do you think so far?
I've already emailed what is in quotes. Do you have any reformations to my plan?
What do you think, maybe kids get a 50% tax break instead of exemtion.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 10:26 PM |
|
|
I see a few problems with this. First, this would encourage everybody to buy two houses, so they could have the cost recouped and also be tax-exempt. Second, this assumes that all of this renting would be profitable.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 11:16 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 23:18, 02 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
First, this would encourage everybody to buy two houses, so they could have the cost recouped and also be tax-exempt.
This brings to mind people who have multiple homes they live in summer time, winter time, ect. They dont get tax exempt unless the opt to sell their homes at cost, and become tax exempt. And how are they actualy going to buy a house when anyone in their right mids would only sell to the government??Quote:
Second, this assumes that all of this renting would be profitable.
It would be. Instead of mr greskevovick collecting $400 a month times 80 people, the government would collect 400, times 80 people. Mr Greskevovik doesnt have to sell, but state laws already inplace would crash down on him like they should to begin with, until his properties are in proper order, AND he pays the property taxes, which are already in place.
Seriously, anymore constructive critisisim?? I am piecing this together and I need advice and critique.
In addition, I have decided that the kids will only get a 50% tax break, which is pretty good.
This would encourage buisnesses to start aswell, do you see it this way?
Oh, dont forget, there are taxes on buisnesses. They are still taxed. Only personal taxes become nulified if they opt to sell their homes and properties.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 11:21 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 01:12, 03 Sep 2008.
|
I am inviting this gentelmen to this thread. He is not obligated to communicate via this thread but please keep your comments on topic, and constructive. Thank you. (If you do post here please dont from simmons because they will think its me lol)
Edit: In addition, I forgot about this aspect of the whole deal. This would create JOBS... The money going into the properties, needs workers. I guarentee a government owned building will get more maintanance than most other properties non government owned. There could be maintenance head quarters where there is a list of on call skilled workers and emergency contractors (called last) and even kids could get a job helping or cutting grass, shoveling snow, ect. 18 year olds primarily but maybe 16 year olds can help out.....
Any more thoughts or ideas??
this is your chance to voice your opinions.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 03, 2008 10:26 PM |
|
|
tripple post lol, if no one else posts here I guess I was wrong. The community isnt interesting in shaping the US and they arent interested in telling me how wrong I migiht be either...
Mods if no one posts here just move the thread to the VWLz thanks
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2008 10:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And how are they actualy going to buy a house when anyone in their right mids would only sell to the government??
What if someone has 3 houses, and wants to sell 2 of them? One goes to the government, but why would that person sell the second one to the government? Also, what if a person wants the money now, and can't afford to wait?
Also, two more problems that I thought of. First, since the government would enter the home market in a major way, home prices would shoot up heavily. This would make things more expensive for the government (and, by extension, the taxpayers). Second, a related problem, would be that the government would be crowding people out. If someone would want to buy a house, it would become much harder, since a person would benefit more from selling it to the government. Thus, only the very rich would be able to afford to buy a house.
Quote:
It would be. Instead of mr greskevovick collecting $400 a month times 80 people, the government would collect 400, times 80 people.
But let's say that Mr. Greskevocick (what kind of name is that?) is happy with his business. It's running profitably, but it would make it unprofitable if he expanded. The government, on the other hand, would have to expand, whether it was profitable to do so or not.
Quote:
This would create JOBS...
Broken window fallacy. The government can't create jobs. It can reapportion them, but it can't create them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 04, 2008 01:04 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 01:14, 04 Sep 2008.
|
New text is in bold and or blue
Quote:
And how are they actualy going to buy a house when anyone in their right mids would only sell to the government??
What if someone has 3 houses, and wants to sell 2 of them? good point indeed... I didnt think of that but I'll get back to you. One goes to the government, but why would that person sell the second one to the government? Also, what if a person wants the money now, and can't afford to wait? I had thought of this already, the landlords get a better deal the longer it takes them to get the money. If they die they will have a bennificiary. At anytime recieving say 2500 a month they decide they want it all, then a balance is made to where they recieve it all but less of it
Also, two more problems that I thought of. First, since the government would enter the home market in a major way, home prices would shoot up heavily.why would it? My original unfinished plan itself said the prices would remain the same, but not forever. The government wouldnt go extravegant in all neighborhoods, because the poor neighborhoods are actualy the main priority. After everything equals out in about 100 years or so then they could start looking at marble steps, and panic rooms and steel shutters and doors, ect This would make things more expensive for the government (and, by extension, the taxpayers). Second, a related problem, would be that the government would be crowding people out. If someone would want to buy a house, it would become much harder, since a person would benefit more from selling it to the government. Thus, only the very rich would be able to afford to buy a house. good point but I know there is a solution If someone is buying, forthemselves to live in thats one thing, but if someone is buying to rent, that is another thing. But who would sell to either one??? Well, unfortunatly the buyers would have to make a better deal than the government already has.... Just ask the tennents who they would rather give their hard earned money too. In the long run this would lower taxes for everyone, and a new plan would be in action, collecting several hundred million dollars a month, while most of it goes into rebuilding the economies structures and housing, and schools.
Quote:
It would be. Instead of mr greskevovick collecting $400 a month times 80 people, the government would collect 400, times 80 people.
But let's say that Mr. Greskevocick (what kind of name is that?I dont know but its similar to a guy who rents out 80 small rooms at 400 a month in my neighborhood) is happy with his business. It's running profitably, but it would make it unprofitable if he expanded. The government, on the other hand, would have to expand, whether it was profitable to do so or not.I dont see why it would make it harder for MR. G to expand, or why the government would have too. The prime focus of rebuilding would be maintenance and fixing, then comes painting different colors and refinnishing stuff that doesnt exactly need it
Quote:
This would create JOBS...
Broken window fallacy. The government can't create jobs. It can reapportion them, but it can't create them. Interesting word, I've never heard it before, but basicly the headquarters I mentioned would employ workers to work lol
Thanks mvass. I highly doubt this plan will ever go into action but if it does I know a lot of people who would sooner pay their rent straight to the economy rather than landlords who sometimes even neglect their properties. I worked for slum lords and rented from mean senial people... I also rented from good guys too though.. But its not about right and wrong in this instance. Its about who needs the money and who will do what with the money. So I guess in one sense it is, and one sense it is not about right and wrong.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 04, 2008 01:10 AM |
|
|
Getting back so soon
If someone actualy rents out 100 properties, and they sell 1.... They should get a 1% tax break????? So for the guy with 3 properties he rents out, he gets 33.3% tax break per property he sells.... And he still pays full property tax on the other remaining properties.
The tax exempt doesnt mean you walk into a store and buy a video game then say "I'm tax exempt" and not have to pay anything extra... The tax exempt refers to salary and wages, ect (this needs to be defined by legislation, not me)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2008 01:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
the landlords get a better deal the longer it takes them to get the money
That may be good enough for some people, but not for others. I mean, if people really needed money now they could take out a loan against those payments from the government, but some people lack credit-worthiness to such a degree that they wouldn't be able to do that.
Quote:
why would it?
Because there would be more demand. When there is more demand, while supply stays the same, the prices rise.
Quote:
My original unfinished plan itself said the prices would remain the same, but not forever.
Why would they stay the same? Let's say you own a house, and two people come to buy it. One is willing to pay $100,000, and the other is willing to pay $150,000. Guess how much you're going to get for the house? I'll give you a hint - it's not $100,000. Now imagine that the person with $150,000 is the government, and it got all of that money from the taxpayers. (Can you imagine how expensive this plan would be? The only people that'd benefit from this plan are the very rich (because they own more than one house) and the extremely poor (who can't afford even the cheapest apartment). The majority would be harmed.)
Quote:
Well, unfortunatly the buyers would have to make a better deal than the government already has...
And that's exactly the problem. And the government can always get more money - it can raise taxes or simply turn on the printing presses and print some money. Your average (or even very rich) person can't do either of these things.
Quote:
I dont see why it would make it harder for MR. G to expand, or why the government would have too.
I'm not saying that it would make it harder for Mr. G to expand. I'm saying that if it were profitable for Mr. G to expand, he would have done so already. So if the government buys Mr. G out, and then expands, it is doing something unprofitable. Unless, of course, the government wouldn't have to buy every house that someone wanted to sell to it, but that would compromise the rest of the plan.
Quote:
Interesting word, I've never heard it before, but basicly the headquarters I mentioned would employ workers to work lol
Workers? Where would the money to pay them come from? From the renters? If it were profitable to do so, the private owner would have done so already. From the taxpayers? But that would be taking money from them that they would use elsewhere, which would - guess what - create jobs. As long as you don't stuff your money under your mattress, the money you are spending is providing money for somebody else, and is making people's jobs possible. So if people spend, then jobs are created, so it's fallacious to say that the government can create jobs.
Quote:
I know a lot of people who would sooner pay their rent straight to the economy rather than landlords who sometimes even neglect their properties.
But the landlords would spend that money, which would go into the economy...
Quote:
If someone actualy rents out 100 properties, and they sell 1.... They should get a 1% tax break????? So for the guy with 3 properties he rents out, he gets 33.3% tax break per property he sells.... And he still pays full property tax on the other remaining properties.
Well, I suppose... But if someone owned two properties, and sold one, they'd only get a 50% tax break, then?
Sorry for the quote wars.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 04, 2008 11:23 PM |
|
|
|
I will have to get back to you when I have some more time too. But you brought up some good points though..... Like the landlords spending the money into the economy.. I will reply to this now. The landlors do spend their money but its not guarenteed to go into the US economy, and we are in debt. Secondly the landlords would have time to get jobs, so they will get money, to go into the economy lol... Right? Or am I not right.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 04, 2008 11:26 PM |
|
|
Really I plan to abandon the idea until the politian i wont name replies to me here or via email. I'm tired of the huge thoughts and headaces 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2008 11:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I will reply to this now. The landlors do spend their money but its not guarenteed to go into the US economy, and we are in debt.
"The debt" is the debt of the government. It has nothing to do with whatever debts private individuals have. So if people spend their money in the US, that won't help that much. And I reject economic nationalism - concepts like the "US economy", "Chinese economy", etc. There is only one world economy. So it doesn't matter if they spend it in the US or not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 05, 2008 06:34 PM |
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks for pathcing up my plan and pointing out some irrepairable holes aswell. For now i am going to leave it alone.
|
| |
|
|
