UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
I dont sell I hedge.
you're hedging against the depreciation on your trailer.
I dont sell I hedge.
i would never play golf with you.
If you redefine wealth as debt then yes, good for you. No one who is wealthy has a $250k $1500/mo mortgage.
This is flat wrong; few wealthy individuals would willingly walk away from all the tax advantages of the home mortgage deduction, no matter what their net worth.
You are telling me that itemizing a tax return produces a net gain over not paying interest on a home loan for 30 years.
I said nothing of the sort. Try again.
Interest decreases over time as a % of mortgage
If itemized deduction (mortgage interest) is higher than standard deduction the you can remove the DIFFERENCE from taxable income
at the 40% tax bracket (wealthy eh?) you're paying $10000 in interest to save $4000 in taxes
Your contention that owning your home free and clear is advantageous merely betrays your ignorance of applicable tax law.
This honestly might be sig worthy. So let me get this straight you are so balls deep in Keynesian theory you think not having a 30year loan at interest is disadvantageous, to keeping said loan to term, because of the tax advantages, written in plain english, by you.
So you say: 200k mortgage at 5% might save you 2500 on your tax bill. That's great.
I say: If you pay that off, you won't save 2500 on your taxes, but you won't pay 10000 to a bank in interest.
That's a net 7500 to paying off the mortgage.
But math skills, penny "fraud" and potato, though, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
agreed
This honestly might be sig worthy. So let me get this straight you are so balls deep in Keynesian theory you think not having a 30year loan at interest is disadvantageous, to keeping said loan to term, because of the tax advantages, written in plain english, by you.
So you say: 200k mortgage at 5% might save you 2500 on your tax bill. That's great.
I say: If you pay that off, you won't save 2500 on your taxes, but you won't pay 10000 to a bank in interest.
That's a net 7500 to paying off the mortgage.
But math skills, penny "fraud" and potato, though, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
it's not just that time has passed. if you think that's what drives up property values, then you are mentally retarded.
Methinks he's proven that all by himself.
Missing the point on purpose as usual. Pennies aren't a better long term investment than a home, I have a home and its paid off. Tty asked what the vaul teller orders for me, then buck goes full tater on this dumb shit.
Tty and buck says buck is wealthy. I say no wealthy person is dumb enough to be in debt in their personal residence, being wealthy enough to pay it off and all.
Tty jumps in with with the tax deduction to prove potato.
I call him on this simple math and now yall are comparing appreciation and depreciation. Like trolls.
Great, lets take out car loans for an equal amount. You have a 68 Camaro that's tits and I have a new f150. We both borrowed 50k and we both have the savings to pay the loan in full. (thats how stupid this is btw)Mine depreciates and the Camaro appreciates. We still owe the same money. I paid mine off in 6 months, saving all that interest. Tty says the interest is tax deductible to the extent of "few wealthy individuals would walk away" from this tax advantage....the advantage is obviously smaller than the interest savings if paid off.
But no, this does not matter because of appreciation goal post that moved right?
Your roi only happens when you sell. And has fuck all to do with how you justify being wealthy and not being able to pay off your basic shit. We are not talking about the vacay property in telluride here. Then making a lame excuse such as it saves more money over the life of a loan to keep it to term and take a deduction from it.
My dogs house is paid for too, and he's laughing at you both.
Basic survival requires those making under a certain amount spend 100% of their income. If we implemented the kind of taxation system you just suggested based on sales, poor people would pay a higher percentage of their income towards taxes than rich people
Try not to get sidetracked, can you tell me why you believe this is a good idea?
I heard you had to take out a loan just to afford ramen noodles.. is it true?
Because poor people spend 100% of their money, rich people spend a much smaller percentage of their money, so if you only have a tax on spending, poor people would be taxed on 100% of their income while rich people would only be taxed on the percentage of their income that they spent, which is why it would be regressive
The 2016 electoral map is collapsing around Donald Trump
By Chris Cillizza October 14 at 10:18 AM
![]()
View attachment 3804746
you should be done. Who was it that brought up home vs dot home vehicle trailer auto thing? Oh fuck potato. Who said interest and property tax deduction on 250k mortgage (usa median) would lure the wealthy so hard as to retain that debt to term for all the benefits of tax deductions that are less than interest and prolly not even above standard deduction? You realize appreciation happens to my paid off home as well or potato whatever. So ya take a ginko biloba or something.If you think your house and your car are equal investments in terms of borrowing money for, you're gonna lose a battle of words with said potato.
I'm done. You keep your financial wizardry, I've seen enough.
Interest decreases over time as a % of mortgage
If itemized deduction (mortgage interest) is higher than standard deduction the you can remove the DIFFERENCE from taxable income
at the 40% tax bracket (wealthy eh?) you're paying $10000 in interest to save $4000 in taxes
I though you might be challenging but you're no daisy at all.
So refinance.
I am against a regressive taxation system that takes more from people as they make more money.