Comments on: McMansion Busting - Democrats Propose Removing Tax Benefits For Homes Larger Than 3,000 Square Feet

By: MARK

MARK — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:09:16 +0000

This is a bunch of B.S.. Depending where you live a 3000 Sq. Ft house isn’t one for the rich. In Wisconsin middle income families own these sizes houses. You don’t sound like a Capitalist, you sound like a socialist. More liberal class war fare at work. Just take away the hard working middle class Americans reasons for a better life. People that think like this make me sick to my stomach.

By: Green Links for Thursday 30 August : Real Central VA

Green Links for Thursday 30 August : Real Central VA — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:24:10 +0000

[…] McMansion tax - I’m shocked this hasn’t been proposed by somebody in the Charlottesville area. […]

By: Noreel

Noreel — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:00:19 +0000

Its so strange to non Americans the size of what Americans call home.
In Singapore regardless of wealth (whether you got $1 or own a Hard Drive Factory) you are basically limited to a apartment because of the lack of space.
But no one complains its just the way it is.
But here in the States we have basically limitless land in much of the country so we can have anyone who is part of the middle-middle class or the upper-middle class can own basically a mansion.

By: Stewart Vardaman

Stewart Vardaman — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:18:49 +0000

Tinker, tinker, tinker. Then when you’re done tinkering, let’s move on to tweaking. Today it’s 3,000sf, tomorrow it may be 2.967.45sf.

Does it ever occur to you that these endless changes and adding complexity to the tax code may be worse than the current villain-of-the-day?

I’d take any stable tax code over this constant change. My mom raised six kids in a +3k-sf house. In Mississippi. She’ll gladly take 300k for it today. It’s no McMansion (built early 70’s), but if you move it to some areas around SanFran, it’s a million-dollar home.

3k home size limits are nuts. Manhattan 500sf units are worth more than large-sized Olive Branch MS houses.

Get a grip, peeps. Not all of us live in your overheated and sprawling ‘hood. I have no taste for your local conditions dictating my world.

By: Ugly American

Ugly American — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:43:51 +0000

A much better idea would be executions for government fraud and bribery convictions like China has started doing.

The government already gets too much money. The problem is it all goes to their friends instead of the citizens.

By: fc

fc — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:35:31 +0000

They’re not really taxing you more, they’re just not taxing you less. The tax break is intended on lowering barriers. A key word in that last sentence was “break”. If you want to buy a 2900 sqft home the government’s going to give you a “break”. If you want to buy a 3000 sqft home, you’ll have to pay up what it’s worth, with no break.

If you went for deregulation, then no homes would get the break, over or under 3k. This would prevent people who are buying homes into the hundreds of square feet from buying homes at all.

Lesson here:
1) Limits are arbitrary, and silly things happen when you get close to them.
2) Unlike in sports, giving one player a point is not the same thing as taking away from the other player. People who think so misunderstand the interplay of fairness, greed, and capitalism.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:25:06 +0000

I imagine that changing the rules of the game after people purchase their house is going to lead to a lot more than 1% foreclosures. If people buy a house at the limit of their ability to pay based on the assumed tax discount, than eliminating that discount will be a tremendous burden.

Of course they could just sell, or try to sell, but how many of you would like to have to move out of your house based on a government change?

Maybe the effect of this won’t be that high given the phase out of deductions and AMT, depends on the correlation with high income. In some parts of the country, a 3000 sq ft house may not be that expensive.

By: James Gasch

James Gasch — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:20:47 +0000

Legislators will simply be outwitted by clever homeowners. They’ll partition their McMansions into duplexes and “rent” to their grown children, mothers-in-law, renters, or a home-based business.
It’s either all or none.

By: Support this story on Stirrdup

Support this story on Stirrdup — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:08:22 +0000

McMansion Busting - Democrats Propose Removing Tax Benefits For Homes Larger Than 3,000 Square Feet | The Arizona Housing Bubble | Watching The Arizona Real Estate, Credit, Lending, And Mortgage Crisis From A Consumer’s Point Of View

This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot.

By: Democrats Propose Removing Tax Benefits For Homes Larger Than 3,000 Square Feet - Folsom Forum

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:59:51 +0000

[…] Removing Tax Benefits For Homes Larger Than 3,000 Square Feet Interesting approach, but unlikely. Democrats Propose Removing Tax Benefits For Homes Larger Than 3,000 Square Feet McMansion Busting - Democrats Propose Removing Tax Benefits For Homes Larger Than 3,000 Square […]