Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers

Re:Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue St... by wehadfun on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @03:58PM (#15855897)

The main argument is that richer people buy more expensive houses and get bigger deduction then lower income people and basically lower income people are subsiding rich people mansions. BUT there is a cap which I would guess would work good enough to mitigate this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue St... by harryh on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @04:01PM (#15855921)

Also people who buy are subsidized by those who rent. We don't need a cap, the deduction shouldn't exist at all. In fact, homeowners should pay taxes on imputed rent like they do in The Netherlands, Iceland & Switzerland.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue St... by JBlue42 on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @08:35PM (#15857803)

>pay taxes on imputed rent

What does this mean? Rent that the home would go for?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue St... by harryh on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @08:41PM (#15857830)

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue St... by JBlue42 on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @08:51PM (#15857869)

Thanks.

I wonder how that would work out in LA where we already have high rents, high houses prices, and lower wages.

I don't quite know how much one can deduct off their mortgage in taxes but I would assume the imputed rent would be a similar amount in such a market?

[ Parent | on HN ]