Get to answer my own question, Boortz's website describes it as this: *
*I edited out most of the partisan ranting
Neal Boortz wrote:
Here's how it works.
Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years. For 20 years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time. Your monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month. Remember, it's a 20-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much, much less. There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest.
Enter the concept of imputed income!
Under this wonderful plan, first floated by Clinton Democrats before the voter revolution of 1994, the government would figure out how much your home would rent for every month. To do this they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any information that they can develop on current sale and rental prices up and down your street.
Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will --- determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month. That would add up to $39,000 a year. But the IRS discovers that you're only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent. Well, there's that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term home ownership. The economic benefit of your home ownership is the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying. Do the math. You're getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits!
The plan is simple. Just take that $32,400 and add it to your taxable income on your next tax return. Then you get the privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership. The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so to speak. After all ... it's only fair, right!
I don't understand why any home-owner would possbily vote for a candidate that supports this idea, or why any elected politician would propose this... now that McKinney's gone.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
broken_iris wants to figure this all out so he can be rich
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
glorified_version wrote:
broken_iris wants to figure this all out so he can be rich
Why bother? Isn't income tax voluntary anyhow?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am Posts: 5575 Location: Sydney, NSW
B wrote:
glorified_version wrote:
broken_iris wants to figure this all out so he can be rich
Why bother? Isn't income tax voluntary anyhow?
_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.
He was trying to scare people away from voting Democrat on Tuesday.
glorified_version wrote:
broken_iris wants to figure this all out so he can be rich
Well, home prices in my sub-division are up ~$200k since I bought mine. I can't afford to pay taxes on that increase and whether or not I can keep my house is an issue I would base my vote on.
It just seems like political suicide to propose something like that at a time when the greedy baby boomers are baking on their McMansions to pay for their retirement.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
