A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
I want to see the actual plan here. If this is private citizens selling their primary homes I’m against it.
If it’s for rental property of a sfh or condo, etc. I’d be fine with that.
What's being discussed by Harris/Biden is the upper tax margin for long term capital gains. If you sell a house and then buy a house, no long term capital gain there to be taxed.
But even if you just sell your house and want to go on renting for whatever reason not all of it will be taxed with that margin. Those margins apply to the amount of money that is over the cap for that margin.
For simplicity let's say there are two tax margins, 20% for capital gains below 400k and 40% above that. Then you gain 600k by selling your home. Your tax will be calculated like this:
400k * 0.2 + 200k * 0.4
So yes this might affect some house sales but depending on where that 44% margin will be applied it's only going to affect a very little percentage and likely none of the "low to middle class" house owners especially not if they sell property to immediately buy new property.
I'm all for reducing the incentive to use housing as tools for investment. Houses should not be used as people's retirement nest egg.
I actually don’t believe there’s any mechanism by which large-scale home ownership (one entity owning many homes) affects market prices, unless it’s so extreme that it’s down to one owner owning all the real estate.
From my macroeconomics classes (which were admittedly 25 years ago) I don’t remember anything about a relationship between firm size and the price of goods.
I think the thing that’s really causing housing prices to skyrocket is the constant artificial constraint on new housing construction, which causes permantly-insufficient supply, which makes prices high.
When there's a company with $1 billion dollars in cash competing with people's needing to take out 25 year mortgages at 5% interest, and the company sees it as a way to profit, the company will outbid the individual every single time and drive up market prices.
Individuals buying with the added cost of interest will never be able to compete with corporations that's have cash on hand and can make a profit by renting out the house.
The more homes a company owns, the more capital it warms to buy more homes.
You don't need one company in the country, you just need a few in a single desirable city.
Why am I curious about its real intention of it. If it is just for investment properties, I can support it. If it's for all homes sales, I couldn't support it. It would crush the middle class as they try to move up in properties.
Based on the White House’s proposal, Biden and Harris want the capital gains tax to be similar to the tax rate on wealthy Americans, leading to Americans making over $1 million being taxed up to 44.6% on capital gains.
I’m not sure I trust the source is my point. I want to see something a little more mainstream
...you posted an article from a source you don't trust to a community you moderate?
It sounded anti-liberal at first but then he learned it was reasonable. The Olympics may be over, but the mental gymnastics have just begun.
I thought it was interesting. As I said I’d like to see more on it. I get you like echo chambers but conservatives look for discussions
posts bullshit claim from bullshit source
Admits it
Mock others for questioning and demanding evidence before believing anything
Your only mistake was admitting you knew it was bullshit. Otherwise you're following the playbook pretty flawlessly
Posting and questining claims made in an article to seek further information is bad?
Instead of providing relevant information you're crying that someone is trying to seek the truth.
"Seek the truth" lmao what a load. Dude posted obvious bullshit and is getting made fun of for it. The proposal was misrepresented in the article, it takes seconds to look up the truth.
Cope.
That is the issue with lemmy. There are so many trolls that don't want to have a discussion.
I pointed out some flaws in the article, but I think it is worthy of discussion.
SFH are something I have a different set of rules on. I strongly believe those are for families.
Looks like Abraham decided he was in the wrong and deleted his comments, there's hope for lemmy yet.
I run another forum that leans more conservative but it has liberals as well. We try to have discussions on topics.
I posted the same article in both places, and the difference in responses is astounding.
I never said it was bullshit. I pointed out the flaws in the comment. Did you actually read my critique or did you just decide to spam a garbage response ?
Did you actually read my critique or did you just decide to spam a garbage response ?
Pot meet kettle
I always read what is presented.
And then claim it's nonsense and spam a garbage response. Try living up to the standards you hold others to.