Things That Taxes Should Not Do

Tax the real estate religious organizations hold that are NOT specifically churches. It's a hypothetical example, but, should the Roman Catholic church hold apartment buildings in Manhattan and get a tax break on them?

It's unlikely that they do get tax break, Nosmo King. The law is that for-profit ventures of a religious outlet must either be separately incorporated or else the entire outlet loses its tax immunity. I suppose they could have wriggled through some loophole, but that isn't easy. Take a gander at 18 USCA 501 sometime -- it controls which charities etc. can be tax exempted.

But this makes the point I was addressing to WillowTree. Perhaps by some configuration of rights and duties, the RCC managed to get a tax immunity for some NYC rental property. One thing I am certain of is that many decisions on how to structure the holding were driven by a quest for tax discounts and NOT by rational landlord decision-making. The tax code's various discounts affect the conduct of taxpayers and those immune from tax in ways that are completely irrational.
 
In my opinion sin taxes are the most egregious failure of all tax as social engineering tools.

Most governments know this but prefer to label a pick pocket operation as a moral imperative.

Those who wish to sin will do so and simply pay the price, it has been ever thus since Lucifer told God to get off his back, passed good and retired to a warmer climate.

Yep, sin taxes are unConstitutional.

And yet the government also takes my money to pay for egregious things like abortion, that I actually,object to on a moral basis

PixieStix, there is no constitutional bar to sin taxes. That does not make them desirable from a policy standpoint, but they are perfectly legal.

The government takes ZERO money from you to underwrite the cost of anyone's abortion apart from those performed to save the life of the mother. Thanks to the Hyde Amendment, no federal dollars are used under CHAMPUS, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. to cover the costs of an elective abortion procedure.

Zero. Zip. Nada. Whoever told you this was true has lied to you.
 
Madeline wrote:

syrenn, renters do pay property taxes. They are passed all carrying costs of the building by the landlord, including taxes. Taxing real estate is very appealing because the government knows who the taxpayers are and can extract the payments or confiscate the property -- this tax is very easy to administer. The biggest expense of local governments is public education and many have argued that using property taxes to support schools leads to inequality in education between poor cities and rich suburbs. Others see these inequalities as no more than the fruits of the labor of those who succeeded economically.

Sorry honey but Im shrinking you.

Not exactly. In an apartment building the tax is spread out over the amount of units. The larger the building the less taxes everyone renting pays. For example if the tax is $100 and you have 10 unites the renters are paying $10 each. If there are only 2 units then each renter is paying $50. I am of the opinion that each renter pays the full amount of the tax. $100 for each unit. My guess if this was the case then a good deal of property taxes would not be enacted.

Most jurisdictions have had serious problems passing property tax levies for the past few years and that is not likely to change. If I own a rental property with 10 units and the property tax rise from $100 to $1,000 it would be irrational for me to fail to pass along this additional $900 in cost to tenants. Assuming I am trying to make a profit, rents are going up at least enough to cover that new expense....and tenants know this. Tenants are no easier to persuade to pass property tax levies than home owners are. Bear in mind too, property taxes are also levied on raw land as well as commercial property -- and very often, the owners of commercial real estate do not reside in/vote in the taxing district.

Totally flat tax rates do NOT impose pain equally. If I confiscate 14% of Bill Gates' income in taxes, his lifestyle does not change, but if I confiscate 14% of a poor senior's income, perchance that month they eat cat food. I'd support a modified flat tax, but there must be some exclusion for the income of the poor and nearly-poor.

Agreed. But it is fair. Who ever said that taxes should be based on impact to lifestyle or that they are even fair. Taxes are taxes. Everyone should pay the same.

This is a philosophical discussion. But syrenn, very few tax pundits would agree with strictly proportionate tax -- taxing every single person at the same rate -- because of the egregious injury that would do to the poor and nearly poor. When you ignore 'the impact on lifestyle" what you are saying is that the suffering taxes causes a poor person may be thousands of time what they cause a wealthy one, and most pundits believe that is unfair. Most support progressive tax rates and a few, like me, support a modified flat tax with exemptions for the income of the poor and nearly-poor.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top