2 ms·
So what you are saying is that you shouldn't buy your second home, rather have your wife or child buy it? And instead of buying that private airplane, lease it
by ars 8y ago
So what you are saying is that you shouldn't buy your second home, rather have your wife or child buy it?
And instead of buying that private airplane, lease it for 20 years from Boeing?
That's kind of the point of the article: There are ways to structure purchases to avoid this kind of thing.
- mbostleman 8y agoGiven a sales tax there is no "you" to the government. It doesn't matter who buys the house - sales tax is charged. Regarding leasing, I'm sure that provisions could be made for that sort of thing. Presumably the goal would be to be revenue neutral with the current system.
- ars 8y ago> It doesn't matter who buys the house - sales tax is charged. He specifically differentiated first from second homes, so it does matter who buys it. > Regarding leasing, I'm sure that provisions could be made for that sort of thing. It can get complicated fast, what if you share the plane? Presumably you only pay your portion. What if the plane is idle most of the time? Presumably Boeing won't pay the tax just for making a plane. What if I build a home instead of buy it? What if I buy a $20,000 home and upgrade it? This stuff gets really complicated very fast, what seems "oh it's simple, do abc", suddenly isn't.
- mbostleman 8y agoI don't think there's any over optimism built in to this. Any attempt to tax an almost $20 trillion market is going to be complex. I find it hard to imagine that it would be any more complex than the current scheme. And on that point, that's all it really needs to be: not worse. The real benefits are in other areas.
- mbostleman 8y agoAlso, it should be noted that all but 5 states already have sales tax. So the infrastructure and processes to collect are already in place. And the questions that you ask about what should or shouldn't be taxed already have a history of debate and consideration.