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.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (2461)	11/6/2008 1:01:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3816

Raising taxes would have been very unlikely to have had much of a positive effect in terms of popping a housing bubble. To the extent that it had any chance the timing would have to be just right, and the timing of politicians with tax changes rarely is. But even with perfect timing its unlikely to have had the impact Norris thinks it would. Mortgage interest is deductible which in effect makes the subsidy for borrowing for houses higher when tax rates are higher. Also due to a change in tax law under Clinton, sales of houses that where the primary residences of their owners typically result in no capital gains tax liability. More generally the idea that higher taxes is the way to combat long term economic problems is unreasonable, in most circumstances even ridiculous.