This is complete BS. Without mortgage interest deduct ability only the wealthiest 10-25% of Americans could ever afford to own a home at all and everyone else would be condemned to shelling out rent money their entire lives.
1 Like
Simple, bring back our mining, smelting, metal working and other industrial jobs.
Those are what mad the us āMiddle Classā the envy of the world.
The climate has been influx since the planet first cooled, it has never been in a steady state and nothing we can even imagine can prevent it.
1 Like
If however the govāt stats limiting maximum incomes either by statute or mandatory wages and benefits thatās exactly what happens and worse you reduce the investorās primary drive to risk their own money by investing in new or existing businesses.
1 Like
I hope you didnāt infer from my post that I would in any way advocate government meddling in incomes (at either end of the spectrum.) To be clear, I absolutely oppose such meddling ā even to the point of opposing minimum wage laws.
3 Likes
Just playing off of your ball Guv.
Cool. I get credit for an assist, right? 
1 Like
A simplification of the tax code would take care of many similar problems.
1 Like
Exactly. Flat tax for all, one single rate, no deductions, exemptions, or credits for anyone so everyone has skin in the game.
Sorry I missed this question. Just compare the cost of the transaction between renting and purchasing. Thatās a good indication of how much more efficient it is to move into a new residence. The regulatory, legal and realty infrastructure of house purchasing is huge. I donāt think the equivalent for the rental market is anywhere near that.
Specific benefitsā¦
To the renter: You mentioned flexibility. Thatās a big one. You can more easily and cheaply change jobs in other locations. Paying taxes is less cumbersome, in fact, without the mortgage tax deduction, many people might just take the standard deduction. People will be less likely to over buy and more likely take smaller places like condos.
To employers: When you move a new hire, you have lower relocation costs.
To the labor market in general: the market can work more fluidly because people can more easily move to where the jobs are.
Renting makes more sense because the landlord would likely own many properties and have a staff to manage them. Itās very inefficient for all these individuals to manage all the details of owning property.
I bet thereās a lot more, but this just off the top of my head.
I get that this us an unconventional perspective, but perhaps it has something to do with my fascination with central planning.
Most of the regulatory infrastructure for rentals is hidden over on the government side where you donāt see it unless you need it: housing inspectors, fire marshals, rent-regulation boards, city codes and ordinances and so forth. The problem is that the interests of landlords and tenants are pretty much oppositely aligned, so that the landlord will try to provide a minimum of services, and the tenant will try to extract a maximum of use. (Hence deposits, cleaning fees, etc)
And once you get to the big picture, that flexibility isnāt entirely a good thing. First, youāre just shifting the costs of major migrations to the landlords, who compensate for the risk of huge swaths of empty units by charging what the market will bear when their region is hot. Second, migratory labor (even if itās only every few years) is typically unorganized labor, which means lower wages. Third, unless youāre planning for a childfree future, there really is the matter of schools and parks and playgrounds and social networks, none of which really play well with a highly mobile population.
My recollection is that the nominal financial turnover point for renting vs owning is about 7-8 years. Although certainly some of the population is going to be moving more often than that, we donāt really want (I think) to set up a society where everyone does.
(My own experience, for what itās worth, is that the hassles of renting are different from the hassles of owning but about the same in magnitude. Meanwhile co-op/condo situations seem to have the possibility of offering some of the better of both modes, since a lot of the administration and maintenance is shared but the interests of residents and āownersā are aligned.)
I donāt like obscene profits and salaries and incomes. But if there had been a cap on them in the past, we likely would be traveling by horse and buggies.
1 Like
Iām a big fan of letting the market set wages and benefits.
Govāt mandates for maximum and minimum wages is about as anti freedom/liberty as it gets.
I try real hard not to worry about what anyone makes other than myself.
2 Likes
In the 60 years after World War II, the United States built the worldās greatest middle-class economy, then unbuilt it.
In the immediate postwar period our rapid growth favored the middle and lower classes. The poorest fifth of all households, in fact, fared best. Then, in the 1970s, amid two oil crises and runaway inflation, things ground to a halt.
In addition during those 60 years, we were in the business of rebuilding Europe and Japan. Millions were spent rebuilding, one-sided trade deals were made to favor Europe and Japan. Hell, China and Mexico were not even on the radar.
After Europe and Japan were back on their feet technology and competition from abroad started whittling away at blue collar jobs and pay. America was back in the importing business and it favored the exporters.
Also during the '70s, we cast aside Keynesian economics and adopted Reaganism. Then the financial markets took off. And so when growth returned, it favored the investment class the top 20 percent, and especially the top 5 percent and the top 1 percent more than anybody.
Once upon a time, the words, Made in Japan were considered fighting words. Now itās made in China, Taiwan, India, Mexico, etc. Americaās politicians continued making one-sided trade deals which ate away at our manufacturing.
Back in the '90s working in engineering and management, I was earning $90,000 a year plus bonus. I had better than great insurance a company car and the company matched my 401-K dollar for dollar up to 4%. Doing a very similar job today a person would be lucky to earn $ 70,000, no company car and shitty health insurance. Good luck finding a company that will match your 401-K up to 4%.
1 Like
Ah, another utopia, where everyone rents, and landlords rent out apartments/condos at fair prices. A rainbow planet where renters are wonderful people who eschew class hatred and belief that the landlord is the evil rich enemy whose property can be damaged at will, and when one loses their job, one can simply stop paying rent and utilities. Additionally, the landlords in these utopias seek no profit for their troubles, and eagerly seek out section 8 bums, er, ādifferently motivatedā individuals to bring more class diversity to a welcoming neighborhood.
Rental is not efficient; rental is merely paying the landlord to take the stresses and responsibilities (um, adult stuff) of ownership in exchange for a temporary home that accrues no value to the renter. Every area of every town in America bases the value f real estate by three factors - the Schools, the appearance of the neighborhood (mown lawns, etc.) and the percentage of renters. Outside of hotspots like SF or NYC, the higher the percentage of rentals, the lower the property values.
This is because renters do not maintain the properties they rent, and generally have the sort of dysfunctional behaviors (shitty cars parked out front, slackjawed morons on the front stoop, loud parties with other similar types, and loud music). Not all renters, but it only takes one or two to ruin a neighborhood. People who own homes typically also own their lives, they are more responsible because it is in their own best interest to be so; those who rent have no such investment or hope of return for responsible behavior.
Even if the millies all decide to be renters, then what? Would landlords be required to have rent control, and a ton of red tape to get a bad renter out? This is what you see in CA where apartments are being turned into condos and sold at a fast clip, creating a shortage of rental properties. No one in their right mind wants to be a landlord if they can just sell off the properties and cash out.
Perhaps the al rental world would be created and run by the government - ah daāprojeks! Who wouldnāt want to live in a rainbow of thumping through your walls, and broken down/broken into cars filling the streets outside. Who wouldnāt want the smell of urine and feces filling the halls outside your little cube? Sounds soā¦ efficient.
1 Like
There is no such thing as āwealth distributionā. As a premise it is flawed. The CLOSEST you come to a service that could be defined as wealth distribution or rather wealth REDISTRIBUTION is found in government handout programs, the EIC, or any of the public services that the lower 50% barely pays into.
1 Like
Itās a myth to say renting is more efficient for everyone. I make on average 10% ROI on my investment properties. For instance, look at the numbers below:
Investment of $31,000 on property X. Iām going to round the numbers because Iām lazy. . .
-Payment including taxes, principle & interest: $900
-Maintenance fund: $200
-HOA Fees $50
-Total cost per month $1150
Rent: $1500
-Cost: $1150
Net Profit $350
+Principle payments $200
Total Profit $550/month.
Now, why rent with those numbers? Canāt afford a down payment? Donāt want to be tied to a specific location? Temporary job? ā¦ most of my rentersā¦ Lazy. I have one renter that has been renting one of my homes for 8 years now. I figured it up a few days agoā¦ he owns $0.00 of that home. Over that span, Iāve turned a net profit of about $25,000 on that house. Iāve also paid down about $20,000 against the principle. In that span, I put a roof on that house and a new AC unit plus swapped out the carper with tile. The maintenance fund for that house still has about $7000 in it. If I walk away from that property tomorrow, thatās more profit.
Renting isnāt more efficient, itās actually quite costly. It does, however, gain you the peace of mind of not having to maintain it to a good degree. Some people like it. I love it. I sell a service, I take your risk for a fee but Iām going to turn a profit as well.
1 Like
Yeah, thatās just silly. You need to get into the business of others and pay attention to what theyāre making. I mean, if the guy down the road makes $20 more than you, it harms you. You know the market will see too it that youāre starving to death if you donāt have that pencil necked geek down the road fighting for you in DC. 
/sarcasm off
Pretty much my thoughts to a T. Iāve always thought as long as I agree with my employer that Iām being paid fairly, who the hell is the government to tell us different? I agree 100% with Thomas Sowell when he says the minimum wage is harmful.
What would you think about a system where the states fund the feds and sales tax funds the states? Sales tax on everything but unprepared food, medicine and used goods? The poor donāt pay much, but if they buy an iphone, they pay the same rate as I do. Then, we donāt file tax returns and have to divulge every single piece of personal information to the government that we have. Quite frankly, I like the flat tax but honestly, Iām sick and tired of lifting up my skirt and showing all of my personal information to the government under threat of jail without regard to the 4th Amendment. Maybe the flat tax would fix a lot of that, assuming they charge taxes on only earned income? Just has to be a better way than what we do currently.
Homeowner with a mortgage of $1,200.00 per month decides to rent.
Rate of rent: $1,800.00 per month. Uses the $600.00 to pay down the mortgage less any maintenance.
Free and clear in less than 30 years with 100% equity.
Yup, sounds like renting is the way to go 
1 Like
Iād like it better than what we have now but I would really, really hate to have the govāt that deep into our business monitoring literally every transaction that is made.
It would also create a massive, instant black market for cash sales and barter and the natural reaction to the lost revenues would be and end to cash period and the IRS having direct access to whatever electronic processing modes we use.
Income taxes are also the most regressive taxes of all and youād never, ever get democrats and āmoderateā republicans to go along with it for that reason.
Just too many negatives for me.