Taxpayers subsidizing 'luxury' housing in Fairfax

[EnderJE]

To me, it's not a matter of starting from scratch or from some other model. It's more about realizing we just don't do government well and getting out of the housing subsidization business completely.

I'm not entirely sure that you see mine. The decision to subsidize the houses was done with a end goal in mind. Subsidization of the houses didn't seem to work so the intent is to try something else. That could be anything (including putting it back on the free market, etc).

 

[mrplunkey]

I'm not entirely sure that you see mine. The decision to subsidize the houses was done with a end goal in mind. Subsidization of the houses didn't seem to work so the intent is to try something else. That could be anything (including putting it back on the free market, etc).

Oh, I'd be fine with the government backing out and putting the houses back on the market.

 

[EnderJE]

Oh, I'd be fine with the government backing out and putting the houses back on the market.

Personally, I still don't get what the entire point was to the move.

"They don't have houses, so we give them castles?"

 

[samoth]

I'd rather subsidize the middle class than the poors.

At least the former contributes to society.

 

[mrplunkey]

I'd rather subsidize the middle class than the poors.

At least the former contributes to society.

That's the problem with so-called "progressive" income taxes in general. We disproportionately penalize income producers and subsidized income sinks.

The ultimate penalty is capital gains tax. That should start at 0%. Heck, if someone can transform something to create value we should give them a 5% tax credit -- not tax them 15% or 20%.

 

[samoth]

The ultimate penalty is capital gains tax. That should start at 0%.

!!!

Sounds great to me, but I can't pretend to know about political stuff. Everything else is taxed, so why not cap gains?

 

[mrplunkey]

!!!

Sounds great to me, but I can't pretend to know about political stuff. Everything else is taxed, so why not cap gains?

This isn't a political issue but rather an economic one.

Consider this: You start a business.

Your income is taxed.
Your payroll is taxed.
You pay sales and use taxes.
You pay property taxes
You pay for permits, licenses, etc. etc.

And then, unless you are an LLC or S-corp, your shareholders pay additional taxes on the dividends you distribute to them.

So you've got a business that's fully taxed in every way. Then when the business is sold at 40% above its asset value, the government turns-around and taxes that event as well. It's double (if not triple, really) taxation.

And the bigger problem is who have you taken money from? You've selectively taken it from someone who just proved they can run a business and transform it into something more valuable -- so they have a track record.

If we've got a raging hard-on to tax something, it should be consumption.

 

[samoth]

It's double (if not triple, really) taxation.

Ahh, gotcha. I've read the arguments and counter-arguments for this before, but never paid much attention... kinda like politics and voting, I never saw a personal need to argue something I cannot change.

I see your point, though.

 

[mrplunkey]

Ahh, gotcha. I've read the arguments and counter-arguments for this before, but never paid much attention... kinda like politics and voting, I never saw a personal need to argue something I cannot change.

I see your point, though.

I forgot the point where you die, and then they take 55% of everything that's left over after the first three rounds of taxes were collected.

... and then people wonder why there is capital flight in this country.

 

[samoth]

I forgot the point where you die, and then they take 55% of everything that's left over after the first three rounds of taxes were collected.

... and then people wonder why there is capital flight in this country.

Explain, please.

Are you referring to the estate tax? (Didn't they recently increase that or something?)