Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (35971)	7/21/2005 9:01:31 PM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Whoa, my friend. That was a nice recital of posts made TO me. Where are the posts I either made which incited those posts, or those which followed? And do you have any points to make which dispute them? It might be useful to recognize that, when Elroy has attributed certain statements and beliefs to me, he has been making them up. Perfect example of Elroy posting to Tradelite: "You claim we would all be living in apartments in the absence of heavy Federal subsidies?" No, that's not what Tradelite said. I said people would be whining about the "concentration of real estate in the hands of a few and the wealthy". I further opined that some government intervention is necessary in real estate, as evidenced by the need for building codes and zoning restrictions--otherwise the few and wealthy would determine what quality and type of housing we would have to choose from. I stand by those beliefs. Elroy is the person with the child-like mind who once published a WSJ Journal story on this thread and inserted certain quotes which were fabricated and were supposedly quotes from "Tradelite". LOL! If you believe that, can I sell you some ice in Alaska?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (35971)	7/22/2005 10:33:56 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

What is funny is that almost no one mentions that interest on a mortgage on rental property has always been 100% deductible plus it is in a place on the 1040 which gives it a higher weight (as well as the purchase price in the form of depreciation) so the government doesn't favor primary residences over rental. The mortgage interest deduction for individuals attempts to give individuals the equivalent deduction the rental owners (and ultimately their tenants) receive. I consider my rental properties to be a much bigger tax break than my mortgage interest. I've effectively received the rental income from my properties free of tax for 20 years as well as the tax free appreciation. It has always been my contention that the interest deduction has always been a boon to lending institutions because people tend to pay less attention to prices when they perceive someone else is paying part of them. Without that deduction, people would be more apt to pay off mortgages and choose houses that they could pay a large down payment on or even (gasp) buy with cash. It's not homeowners who benefit from the deduction, it is the banks and mortgage lenders. Ultimately, because profits are taxed, the government receives far more revenue with the interest deduction than it would receive without it. The government receives quite a bit of revenue indirectly from it's housing subsidy and this windfall is paid, of course, by the same individuals that it is meant to benefit!