Michael, I have purchased property, lived in it, and also been a landlord. I'm pretty familiar with all sides of this issue. The facts in San Francisco are that the vacancy factor is so low, and rents are so high, that unless an owner had JUST purchased the property, all of his costs, including his mortgage, his expenses, AND all of his property taxes are paid by the renter, who is also paying much higher taxes than an owner, because he does not get the GIFT of $4,000 or whatever you do, and indeed subsidizes it with his higher taxes.
All governments decide what behavior they want to encourage, and reward taxpayers in those categories. As I said last night, there are enough other incentives and rewards to owning property that being in a situation where you are paying mortgage interest is not necessarily something you need to get a gift from our government for. We could go on and on here, but since you say you believe in a national sales tax, which would by definition wipe out the gift you receive, and benefit me because I am very frugal, it seems a little silly to continue to argue about it. My entire point was that by manipulating the tax codes, a society rewards corporations, or the rich, or the middle class, or the poor. In this country, it is PERCEIVED that the poor get too many goodies, but if you look at it closely, this may not be the case. It depends on your underlying political persuasion.
You did not answer my question about clarifying your position on welfare, since you say I did not represent it fairly.
As I said a couple of days ago, this debate isn't going anywhere. You believe all your sources of information are "factual", as you said, and mine are "liberal". I would assert that it is you who is impugning sources, because when I read a url you provide I usually at least attempt to show where it is illogical or not factual. Two examples would be about the buffalo vs. the free market, and the one promoting the dairy/meat/agricultural industries, but insisting that no more land be lost to housing, which is contradictory if it is arguing for free markets, and shows its bias. In reply, you cite broad complaints about the liberal press, but do not discuss the issues at hand.
This could go on forever, and is simply divisive, in my opinion. I have already said that think tanks on any side of the debate have a special interest in interpreting data in one way or the other, liberal and conservative. That is why mainstream, moderate publications usually present a more objective view and more reliable statistics.
I also fail to see what this has to do with discussing the situation in Chile, which I have heard has very interesting ways of providing social benefits for its citizens, something about which I would like to find out more. |
