Income Inequality and Tax Policy

[Krill]

I just don't understand why a market distorting policy to increase home ownership is necessary. It feels like a pre-occupation of the Daily Mail class.

What market distorting policy are you talking about (specifically, how does it apply to the UK?)

In the US, I'd take issue with the idea that paying rent is an asset though (with a mortgage at least you are building up equity), but I don't know how large the differences in cost to the individual are between renting, and buying.

[Dauphin]

The topic was started by the mortgage interest deduction in the U.S., a similar policy was removed in the U.K. under Lawson. My discussion is therefore generic.

However there are policies that promote house price increases in the U.K., but the most noticeable distorting policy (which is not a pro home ownership policy) is stamp duty. Things get odd at 250k, 500k etc..

[The Mad Monk]

I support my home ownership, because in thirteen years my 'rent' will be reduced to payment of property tax and insurance.

[Krill]

Well, that makes sense.

[KrazyHorse]

The choice of rent v buy is far more complicated than the people in this thread are making it seem (and in fact far more complex than most people realize, including financial advisors).

[Krill]

Yeah, I can buy that quite easily. It's not just about economics though, which I think a some posters in this thread, don't understand.

Personally, I'm looking at buying a house in early 2015 if I stay in my current locality, or renting if I have to move away. I don't see much point in moving away though, because I'll be paid the same regardless of if I work in Stoke or anywhere else in the UK (other than London, but the pitiful amount I get extra wouldn't cover the increased cost of rent so **** that).

[Dauphin]

The choice of rent v buy is far more complicated than the people in this thread are making it seem (and in fact far more complex than most people realize, including financial advisors).

Were you expecting an in depth discussion?

[Dauphin]

In the US, I'd take issue with the idea that paying rent is an asset though (with a mortgage at least you are building up equity), but I don't know how large the differences in cost to the individual are between renting, and buying.

I missed that first time as you edited. Not sure if " not just about economics though, which I think a some posters in this thread, don't understand" was inclusive of me, but I wouldn't rent to build an asset. I would rent or buy based on personal circumstance. I currently own a place too.

[pchang]

There is a study linking lower unemployment in Switzerland vs. Spain with lower % of homeownership. I think they are putting the cart before the horse.

[Dr Strangelove]

Lulz. 12.4% tax increase on everything over 110k.My marginal all-in tax rate goes to 55%. And I seriously start thinking about taking a 0 stress 100k a year job...

Good for you!

[Dr Strangelove]

The reality is that taxes on high earners (as Obama's defined them) can probably only make up around 15% of the long term fiscal gap. Sad news, but the current amount of transfers to the 99% is as big as it can get.

So you and your kind are so fond of saying.

[pchang]

There about 500 billionaires in the US.
If we took 1 billion from each we would have 500 billion. Fed deficit for 2013 was about 680 billion. Not enough to cover the deficit for even 1 year.

[giblets]

There about 500 billionaires in the US.
If we took 1 billion from each we would have 500 billion. Fed deficit for 213 was about 680 billion. Not enough to cover the deficit for even 1 year.

Marvelous. So what?

[pchang]

And thus debunking Dr. Strangelove's assertion.

[giblets]

I don't think Krazyhorse's "kind" consists of billionaires... at least not yet.