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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Slagle who wrote (6227)	5/10/2006 12:15:26 PM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 217592

Exactly, used to be for a short time a laissez faire paradise and the now the pendulum is swinging the other way. As I said it can make theoretical sense to tax owner occupied housing (and owner occupied business property) from an income tax perspective as the owner gets implicit rent from the house - i.e. they don't have to pay rent elsewhere which is like an investment income on the house. But for a property-renting business it is just double taxation because they already pay tax on the rent they earn on the property. Taxation on vacant land is one of the drivers of urban sprawl IMO (develop the land so you can pay the taxes from the income) and no income is being earned from the land so that is a really bad idea IMO. Capital gains tax are also unfair, I think. Capital gains are not included in the GDP as income so why include them in the tax base. If a stock rises in value due to a firm reinvesting profits, those profits were already taxed. So again double taxation. Otherwise, should we tax things just because the price changed? This gets tricky of course because a lot of business income is basically buy low sell high...