R.E Taxes now fund the city

Maybe it's time for a renters tax?

http://www.walletpop.com/2011/02/17/11-outrageous-taxes/

"Maybe it's time for a renters tax?"

I believe it's called "rent".

Do you honestly think landlords don't build their taxes into the rent?

Cream cheese

Do you honestly think landlords don't build their taxes into the rent?

The pricing effects are different. The landlord will build taxes into the rent if they can, and eat it some of it in the short run if they cannot. The renter if he is taxed directly has to pay it and will attempt to build that amount into the price he's willing to rent(reduce his offered rental price). The effects are similar but will not be the same.

With chives

50% tax on diapers for babies and seniors.

get 'em coming and going.

There has got to be a tipping point in here somewhere that will trigger an exodus from the city by people fed-up with having their pockets picked by the city. Additional taxes have diminishing returns because they do begin to prompt people to a)move or b)find a loophole. The politicians never "model" that behavior when calculating the additional revenue that a particular tax will bring in. Furthermore, we all know that it is a hell of a lot easier to add taxes but how often do you see them reversed in good times? You don't, the city, state, etc. just spends more. If you follow that process out to its logical conclusion, you realize this does not end very well because taxes will continue to take a higher percentage of one's income to the point where there is eventually not enough left incentivize work.

Governments revenue is more a function of the velocity of money than it is the size of the economy. Let's say you hire me to perform a service and pay me $100. I only have $60 left to spend after that. I then hire you to do something for me and use that $60 to do it. Having only $36 left of the original $100, you hire me again using that $36 but after paying taxes on that, we now only have $21.60. In a service based economy where wealth/money is not "created", just traded, you realize that eventually the government ends up with everything, as in our example, where after only 1.5 cycles, we have only 20% of our original capital left. Of course the government "spends" money as well and we need certain services provided but there are very few things the government can do "better" or more efficient than a properly motivated private sector.

all depends how much people wanna live in the city.

> Maybe it's time for a renters tax?

We have one. It is called the biggest income tax burden of any state.

In fact, if anything, renters are subsidizing owners, in that residential taxes were kept abnormally low to encourage ownership in NYC. Bloomy fixed some of it, but consider that properties on one side of the Queens/LI border can represent MULTIPLES of taxes on the other for similar properties. And some of the incredibly low taxes relative to value on manhattan private homes or old coops.

When I switched from being a renter to an owner I was astonished at the difference in my federal tax refund. As a renter I was getting around $4800 back. As an owner that jumped to more than $14,000.

Dirty republicans love to whine and snivel about "double taxation", a term they invariably apply to single taxation. But a tax on renting would truly be a double tax, because part of their rent already goes to pay the real estate tax on the property they tax.

Moreover, renting is highly skewed towards poorer and lower-income people, so it would be a highly regressive tax as well.

But I do appreciate RS's call for balancing the budget by right-sizing tax revenues, and look forward to his specific proposals for getting some money out of the criminal classes, as measured both by high wealth and high earnings.

NYCMatt, I would hope you adjusted your allowances - getting that much of a refund is not good. You're proving an interest-free loan to Uncle Sam.

*providing*

Ooooh! Uncle Sam is getting a whole .5% on my $14,000, which actually would work out to be around $45/year.

Let 'em keep it.

"As a renter I was getting around $4800 back. As an owner that jumped to more than $14,000."

So a difference of $9.2K, that means you are paying over $30K in interest and re taxes as an owner?

and in washington heights no less. i've always said his numbers have to be way off.

Perhaps the Bureau of Internal Revenue can sort it all out for us.

i just love it when matt goes "Ooooh!"

"Eeeew!"

>When I switched from being a renter to an owner I was astonished at the difference in my federal tax refund. As a renter I was getting around $4800 back. As an owner that jumped to more than $14,000.

Interesting. How much do you earn annually?

>But I do appreciate RS's call for balancing the budget by right-sizing tax revenues, and look forward to his specific proposals for getting some money out of the criminal classes, as measured both by high wealth and high earnings.

Alan, come on, you want to lower yourself that much with stupid argument? And as far as "high wealth and high earnings" aren't you in some exclusive co-op? Didn't you say just today that you were?