Deutsche Gopher Fan
Well-known member
yeah, this has always been a thing? I'm confused.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Business, Economics, and Taxes 2: That's Why We Fight to Take the Means Back
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
ScoobyDoo
NPC
You usually take a decent tax hit when pulling the money out. They could change that for home purchase. I don't know the ramifications of that though. Likely it will make the rich richer and the poor poorer like everything else.
I'd rather they restrict home ownership to a low number of homes. You can go over but if you do you are slammed with high taxes. That would put more supply in play and bring prices down.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Its always been an option, but no one I know would recommend it unless terms are favorable or you arent getting penalized. Plus it depends how long you plan to live in your house...
And considering how bad the job market is not sure a bunch of people cashing in their retirement to buy a house (when prices arent dropping) is a good idea for anyone but the banks. In fact it will just prop up the market and put a lot of people in the position of being house poor. It is one thing to do this when jobs are abundant, the economy is crushing and there is little fear of lost income. But now? Seems like unnecessary risk.
And considering how bad the job market is not sure a bunch of people cashing in their retirement to buy a house (when prices arent dropping) is a good idea for anyone but the banks. In fact it will just prop up the market and put a lot of people in the position of being house poor. It is one thing to do this when jobs are abundant, the economy is crushing and there is little fear of lost income. But now? Seems like unnecessary risk.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
You can have one primary residence and maybe one secondary one provided it is not a source of rental income. The minute it becomes income, or you add 3+ homes, you should get taxed up the wazoo.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
This is a good idea. Also tax rental income at a higher rate. This would hurt me personally, so what would I probably do? Sell my rental property. And what would that do? Put another house on the market for sale. And what would that do? Bring the median cost of all houses down by say 25 cents.
Now do that a million times.
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Well-known member
oh, i never said it should be incentivized, just meant that it was nothing new. i knew a few people who did it, but had the money paid back within a year of taking it
MichVandal
Well-known member
Here in MI, you and I get taxed heavily on the 2nd home. Which is why so many people lost their family cabin up north....
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
I'm talking an income tax, not just the higher local property taxes that you and I get hit with on houses that we don't declare as our homestead. The rich have no problem affording property taxes because they're largely static and as of 1994's Prop A, SEV doesn't automatically uncap upon property transfer in MI if you set up your trusts correctly and your surviving heirs follow the rules (no commercial or rental use).
The families who lost their vacation properties lost them because their kids and grandkids either couldn't afford the taxes as-is, or screwed up the transfer so that SEV became uncapped and they couldn't afford the new taxes, most likely because they didn't get the legal help to do it correctly, or couldn't afford it. This is the situation that I might find myself in very soon when my grandfather passes, because they kept the cabin outside of their trust and never changed it after I became an adult and could legally inherit it (boo-hoo-hoo, I know /sarc).
There's also the fact that many Millennials and Zoomers just do not have much interest in keeping said Up North properties to begin with, even if they could afford it. Younger people want more exotic travel with different cultural experiences, and going to the cabin in northern Michigan for a few weeks every summer to hang with other pasty white people isn't adventurous enough. I do intend to keep ours, if finances allow.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
AOC nails it again.
bsky.app
Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)
AOC: This is quite a bit of market concentration. Agreed? CVS HEALTH CHAIR DAVID JOYNER: No. I'd suggest it's a model that works well for the consumer AOC: It works well for CVS. Health insurance gets a cut, pharmacy benefit manager gets one, drug manufacturer gets one, & the patient gets screwed
bsky.app
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Was at the demonstration DT Minneapolis, and it was very much a rally to extend the general strike for more days and nation wide. I am not a wealthy man, I could afford to stay home from work for about a month, maybe 2 (though if I lost my job because I made that choice I well might be screwed).
I'm ready to make that choice.
What are the chances of significant numbers of people in a significant number of other cities also being ready to do so? Because I don't think it can only be the Twin Cities or MN if it is to have the teeth it needs.
Then again, I don't think it a coincidence that we finally saw a statement (albeit horribly weak) from major MN companies just a day or two after the one day it happened here. So maybe MN could have a bit of a bite all on its own.
I'm ready to make that choice.
What are the chances of significant numbers of people in a significant number of other cities also being ready to do so? Because I don't think it can only be the Twin Cities or MN if it is to have the teeth it needs.
Then again, I don't think it a coincidence that we finally saw a statement (albeit horribly weak) from major MN companies just a day or two after the one day it happened here. So maybe MN could have a bit of a bite all on its own.
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Well-known member
for anyone dumb enough to still have Tik Tok, now might be a great time to delete it.
I've never had it, but know a lot of people who still use it and yikes. i know the t&c were updates recently and i dont see how a sane person keeps it
nevermind the fact they are openly suppressing videos who are critical of the federal gov.
the smell of leather is strong
I've never had it, but know a lot of people who still use it and yikes. i know the t&c were updates recently and i dont see how a sane person keeps it
nevermind the fact they are openly suppressing videos who are critical of the federal gov.
the smell of leather is strong
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Never did TikTok. Quit Facebook in Jan 2017, and never had Hipstagram. LinkedIn is all I have left - the Xitter of the boring, witless corporate class. It's mostly safe, though increasingly populated with GenAI slop from offshore accounts trying to gain clout (but which platform isn't?)