Why should people be allowed to own 2 houses?

In my area property taxes are well below market value, I have seen the opposite though in our neighboring state. If you own two or more properties all but your primary residence is taxed twice the rate. I think property taxes are BS and should be removed, after all it is my property and taxes have already been paid when I bought it.

 

Good for you. A half million dollar house and 10% down is not even close to being typical.

So who cares....

- - - Updated - - -

Oh well. Vote with your feet then

 

In fact the real problem is that wages for the middle class have declined relative to inflation in house prices and rentals. It is more the ability to buy a house that has been made more difficult over the years. I would say its the greedy 1%ers and the high income end that is the bigger problem. There needs to ve a fairer spread of wealth not a limit on buying any number of houses.

People are becoming relative poorer since Reagan started the reduction in taxes on the so called rich. The so called rich have always been able to afford bigger and more houses. We need to unwind some or all the tax cuts for the rich going back to the Reagan era. Then the Middle Class might be able to get a fair crack of the whip.

 

This posters is 22 and in college. There is hope for us yet.

 

How many homes does Putin have? Vladimir Putin’s filthy rich lifestyle: 4 yachts, 58 aircraft, 20 homes and a $75,000 toilet...what are the Russians going to do to him? And what perks do you get being a troll for someone so rich?

 

What you need is to time travel and get your butt back to the old evil empire - BACK IN THE USSR.

 

Another confederate republican in favor of 1%ers buying the White House.

 

Apparently there are a finite number of houses and if you buy more than one, some pour soul is left homeless. This is how communist think anyway

 

I once had four houses, the one I lived in and three rentals. I used my first home to secure a loan on my first rental which was a dump and spent all my free time making it habitable. Then years later I used it to get the money to buy the next dump and so on with the next. Over the years I worked on these houses remodeling and upgrading as I could and finally sold them all to finance my very comfortable retirement. Only a complete loser communist would find fault in my life's decisions and achievements.

 

Where are all the Section 8 people going to live if we can only own 1 house?

 

Your question is

Why should people be allowed to own 2 houses?

If you get your way, then your next question would be

Why should people be allowed to own 1 house?

Mission creep right into communism.

 

Oh yeah the clintons and the Obamas are all poor right?

 

LOL Niederlander, Obama is bragging about the unemployment numbers and here you are admitting its a sham.

 

^^^ LOL nra37922. I couldn't have said it better.

Some people's kids (OP)!

 

Me and my brothers all work to pay for my house but my cuz was "given a house" free and clear because as my grandparents said, pooor Ricky. What did Ricky do? First, my aunt who had cancer had to pay his bills, then after she died, he trashed the house and now it's boarded up.

 

Agreed! Wealthy people should have a harder time in order to set an example so that the rest of us will just give up and have an easier time.

Poe's Law enacted by the way.

 

When I was in school I listened in class, studied a lot and got very good grades, I guess I should have taken a lower grade so the person who didn't show up half the time, didn't study, partied all the time, didn't do well on tests can get a better grade.

OP, your thread is rediculous.

 

You know- there is so much BS being thrown on the table that is would be amazing if 1% of us could see the real issues.

Assuming the government taxed the rich at twice what they do now, ask yourself what would happen to that money. Would they cut you a check if you were lower income? Buy you a house? Or spend it on some multi-billion dollar defense toy?

What do the rich do with the money they make? They don't leave it around as cash doing nothing. Most of those assets are invested in business expansion or ways to continue growth- in other words, they put it to work. That creates jobs, productivity, better products, more taxable entities and better quality of life. Yes, they do also buy toys- but that is by far insignificant compared to the re-investments. Government control- or government out of control- is not so much the solution as it is the problem.

When you drag down the leaders with excessive tax and controls, you may narrow the income gap between the classes, but that doesn't really raise the lower class at all. When we promote the idea that the poor are poor because the rich are rich- we lie to everybody, and we help no one; especially the poor. The total of all we have as a nation is the sum of our productivity. You can redistribute the productivity of leaders, but there the total will not increase as a result, however the incentive will decrease and ultimately the productivity will follow suit. At the same time, it conditions people to the belief that "fair" means distributing success and wealth like it was a fixed commodity with common ownership, rather than something to be worked for and built. We increasingly hear that repeated as justification for the redistribution of money.

Money, wealth, success- are EARNED values, not community property. They are available to anyone who will put together the skills and drive to obtain them. This is not to say that is easy; if it were, we would all be rich. But that is not for lack of opportunity- it for lack of perception of opportunity, for lack of ambition, lack of perseverance, and more than anything else- lack of the ability to see past the BS that tells people that all their problems are somebody else's fault.

It's not like we were all treated the same- the rich already pay the vast majority of the federal tax, while those who pay no tax at all are subsidized by the fact that they get the same extent of value from the federal budget that the rich do, but pay nothing. We subsidize and pay many of our citizens for sitting on the bench, while others try to win the game- and the fact we do that convinces them that it is right and fair. Americans are generous- have no problem helping those who genuinely can't do for themselves. We object to helping those who won't.

 

Well said. Post of the month.

 

I have $250,000 to spend on a house.
Why should I have to spend that $250k on one house when I could spend $125k on two?

 

Life isn't a party. But feel free to share your suggestion with the person who has two children.



​

 

Since there are homeless and always will be to some degree for various reasons...does that mean that no one can have a home be it a rental or purchased?

Since there are people with no shoes...does that mean I can only have one pair?

Ridiculous thread.

 

Why should people be able to have two dollars, when there are people that don't have one?

 

You don't.



​

 

Your question should be, "why are people so greedy"?