Reply to Oliver Twist-Moco

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Oliver Twist-Moco"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The council president’s budget proposal would cause all homeowners to pay more in taxes. [b]Households with $75k in income would take a harder hit than households making $150k. [/b]The only clear winners in this are landlords, whose county tax burden would not increase at all, other than the rising assessments that are hitting everyone. [/quote]

Oh for goodness' sake.  Not everything is about landlords and developers.  She's proposing a true progressive income tax that will help almost everyone making less than $300,000.  Many of whom rent.

And landlords won't have to pass the huge elrich property tax increase on to renters. 
[/quote]

If it had been truly progressive than lower earners would get a bigger break than higher earners and we wouldn’t be shifting more tax burden onto wage earnings. The tax plan is a tax increase for most households and a regressive one at that. [/quote]

The income tax proposal is progressive. Lower earners would be taxed less than they are now.  And less than higher-earners.  We are shifting less tax burden onto wage earnings, not more.  [/quote]

Overall, anyone who owns the house they live in will pay more in taxes. That’s at any income level. The increase in a homeowner’s tax burden is HIGHER the less money they make. That’s regressive.

On a percentage basis, the effective tax rate goes up more under NFG’s proposal for cheaper houses than it would under Elrich’s proposal. That makes the property tax portion of her proposal more regressive than Elrich’s proposal.

Finally, investment properties see no tax increase at all. If you raise taxes on workers but don’t raise taxes on capital assets, that’s regressive. [/quote]

NFG has been the back-room champion of developers, even as Friedson has been the baby-faced shill.  The bread and circuses they tout for the downtrodden are, at once, less than that needed for the truly poor, inefficient in their delivery in comparison to some alternatives and of minimal/marginal benefit to most of those whom they claim to help when compared to the much larger benefit that will be accruing to the development-investment class.

Why would that last group bother to pass on tax savings to renters when the market will bear rents not reflecting that savings?[/quote]

Because the market will rise at a slower pace. You don’t seem to understand basic economics or real estate.[/quote]

Great.  This is a [i]basic[/i] economics take of [i]one aspect[/i]...and, to the degree that it might present a thought counter to the meat of the post, it presumes MoCo real estate will operate as a commodity with the elasticity of, say, soybeans.

Construct a Fourier series which would model the market's achievement of a temporary equilibrium over the time that lag might be in effect, accounting for population change and demographic dynamics, likely substitute housing trends, market entrants/exits and the like, in addition to the expected inventory changes from the enacted policies, and then run the derivatives to calculate the accumulation of the tax break value (plus or minus net expected efficiencies, of course) to the suppliers (vs. to the buyers/renters).  Or take your own modeling approach -- there are several from which you might choose.

You'd still get disproportionality, there, with that rather marginal benefit to the consumer and rather outsized benefit to the developer/landlord/supplier.  It's understood that this is how such incentives tend to work, but there doesn't seem to be anyone at the County Council who will question whether the juice is worth the squeeze (and there certainly isn't anyone willing to police the legislation to make sure that the breaks are given only when a more clearly defined societal benefit is realized as a result).  Or who seem to be capable of considering available alternate approaches to address housing issues, not to mention examining the value of that versus potential alternate uses of the common wealth -- there are needs beside housing.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics