2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,579
#1,579
n_huffhines said:
You say you don't give a crap about theories and studies, just what is actually going on, but they explain what is going on. This is a self-indictment. You are basically saying you don't understand how academics relate, so you just assume they are wrong. You would have been better off not writing anything.

Try this:

Government adds $100/month in property tax.

When current contracts are up, landlord increases rent by $100/month.

Who is paying the tax in this scenario. The new renters or the landlord?
Click to expand...

Good lord. Then by your definition, the tenants have a mortgage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,582
#1,582
1972 Grad said:
By Huff's definition, the tenants pay for everything, build the country, and get exploited by greedy bosses and corporations. They are merely pawns in game of life.
Click to expand...

That's a page outta the Elizabeth Warren handbook, you didn't build that!
 
#1,584
#1,584
1972 Grad said:
By Huff's definition, the tenants pay for everything, build the country, and get exploited by greedy bosses and corporations. They are merely pawns in game of life.
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to say they share the burden?

I've never even said that they get exploited by greedy bosses and corporations, nor do I believe that (in general terms).

You guys are kings of deception. No intellectual honesty. Grow up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,585
#1,585
n_huffhines said:
How many times do I have to say they share the burden?

I've never even said that they get exploited by greedy bosses and corporations, nor do I believe that (in general terms).

You guys are kings of deception. No intellectual honesty. Grow up.
Click to expand...
They don't share anything. They certainly share no risk. Your argument is "intellectual" buffoonery that has no application or meaning in the real world. Tenants leave, the mortgagee/taxpayer is still on the hook.

"Shared burden" is idiotic because the renters have no "burden" other than to pay their rent.

Deception. That's just a desperate and sad stance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,586
#1,586
n_huffhines said:
You concluded this by my questions to which I offered no answers?

I don't think you did. I think you don't want to answer.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to answer because you just want to apply classroom studies and theories to the real world in places where that application is meaningless. In a way, all you are trying to do is justify a renters claim to a property in the event they default on their obligations to pay rent because you want to credit them with a burden of ownership of some sort thru the theory that they pay taxes. They have no burden at all wrt the property where they live. None.

To go a step further, what if the dryer breaks? Do they share the burden/cost of fixing it? Where do you draw the line?
 
#1,587
#1,587
SpaceCoastVol said:
There is nothing to answer because you just want to apply classroom studies and theories to the real world in places where that application is meaningless. In a way, all you are trying to do is justify a renters claim to a property in the event they default on their obligations to pay rent because you want to credit them with a burden of ownership of some sort thru the theory that they pay taxes. They have no burden at all wrt the property where they live. None.

To go a step further, what if the dryer breaks? Do they share the burden/cost of fixing it? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Wait, you mean to tell me that after paying rent for 15 years I still have no claim of ownership to my apartment and that I can be evicted, by force, if I decide that 15 years of payments is enough?
 
#1,588
#1,588
SpaceCoastVol said:
They don't share anything. They certainly share no risk. Your argument is "intellectual" buffoonery that has no application or meaning in the real world. Tenants leave, the mortgagee/taxpayer is still on the hook.

"Shared burden" is idiotic because the renters have no "burden" other than to pay their rent.

Deception. That's just a desperate and sad stance.
Click to expand...

Every time you say this emphasizes how little you understand. 72 and I were saying the same thing, and you didn't get it. You think it's buffoonery because you can't grasp it and you are threatened by that fact.

It's not even about academics at this point. It's about logic and reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,589
#1,589
MG1968 said:
Wait, you mean to tell me that after paying rent for 15 years I still have no claim of ownership to my apartment and that I can be evicted, by force, if I decide that 15 years of payments is enough?
Click to expand...

Who knows what he's talking about. He's brought up ownership out of nowhere.
 
#1,590
#1,590
Huff I like a lot of your posts but you cannot get your head out of the clouds here.

Do you own a home? Serious question. Every year I get a bill for property taxes that is paid monthly thorough an escrow account.

Property taxes are an expense to the homeowner If he or she rents out the property. Now in theory the rent needs to cover the mortgage, expenses, maintenance and vacancy in order to make a profit. Anyone that is a landlord can tell you it is a much tougher business than television shows make it out to be.
 
#1,592
#1,592
govols09 said:
Huff I like a lot of your posts but you cannot get your head out of the clouds here.

Do you own a home? Serious question. Every year I get a bill for property taxes that is paid monthly thorough an escrow account.

Property taxes are an expense to the homeowner If he or she rents out the property. Now in theory the rent needs to cover the mortgage, expenses, maintenance and vacancy in order to make a profit. Anyone that is a landlord can tell you it is a much tougher business than television shows make it out to be.
Click to expand...
I like some of his arguments as well, but on this one he IS in the clouds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,593
#1,593
govols09 said:
Huff I like a lot of your posts but you cannot get your head out of the clouds here.

Do you own a home? Serious question. Every year I get a bill for property taxes that is paid monthly thorough an escrow account.

Property taxes are an expense to the homeowner If he or she rents out the property. Now in theory the rent needs to cover the mortgage, expenses, maintenance and vacancy in order to make a profit. Anyone that is a landlord can tell you it is a much tougher business than television shows make it out to be.
Click to expand...

....and we are back to square one.

Tax incidence. Look it up.
 
#1,594
#1,594
If you don't understand tax incidence then you don't understand how much the government is screwing you. You guys probably think it's a great thing that your employer pays a portion of your medicare and SS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,597
#1,597
n_huffhines said:
If you don't understand tax incidence then you don't understand how much the government is screwing you. You guys probably think it's a great thing that your employer pays a portion of your medicare and SS.
Click to expand...

No I dont. You do not understand the concept of tax liability. If the homeowner does not pay the taxes, guess who is responsible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,598
#1,598
Let me illustrate the point. These numbers are not realistic, they just help to facilitate the conversation.

Say you get "paid" $15 an hour. You contribute $5 to SS and medicare. I am pretty sure you don't like that. But they sell you on it by saying, "hey! we make your employer pay $5, too! Sounds like a great deal, huh?"

It's not. Your employer does not care how much money you get. All they care about is how much they spend on you. The cost of employing you is $20/hour.

In other words, they are willing to pay you $20/hour (and essentially they are, you just don't see it, and you don't realize it).

But you take home $10. Now it's not certain that you would get the whole $20 if it weren't for those taxes, but you would definitely stand a much stronger chance of getting something in between $15 and $20 from your employer.

So if it's $18 that they would have paid you, the shared burden of the tax is you paying $8 and them paying $2, not $5 and $5, like government presents it.

You are getting duped. It doesn't matter where the tax is actually assessed, the burden is shared.

Please, for the love of God, understand this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,600
#1,600
n_huffhines said:
Let me illustrate the point. These numbers are not realistic, they just help to facilitate the conversation.

Say you get "paid" $15 an hour. You contribute $5 to SS and medicare. I am pretty sure you don't like that. But they sell you on it by saying, "hey! we make your employer pay $5, too! Sounds like a great deal, huh?"

It's not. Your employer does not care how much money you get. All they care about is how much they spend on you. The cost of employing you is $20/hour.

In other words, they are willing to pay you $20/hour (and essentially they are, you just don't see it, and you don't realize it).

But you take home $10. Now it's not certain that you would get the whole $20 if it weren't for those taxes, but you would definitely stand a much stronger chance of getting something in between $15 and $20 from your employer.

So if it's $18 that they would have paid you, the shared burden of the tax is you paying $8 and them paying $2, not $5 and $5, like government presents it.

You are getting duped. It doesn't matter where the tax is actually assessed, the burden is shared.

Please, for the love of God, understand this.
Click to expand...

i understand the concept, I just think you are letting economic theory cloud real world judgement. My guess is that you are a renter
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top