3 ms·
Good points, thank you! I didn't mean to say that it's inherently bad - I am actually puzzled that here companies (who want to make money) can save at least som
by archi42 6y ago
Good points, thank you! I didn't mean to say that it's inherently bad - I am actually puzzled that here companies (who want to make money) can save at least some taxes on buying a house as an investment, while a private person has no such option. This doesn't seem like a fair market to me, as a company can ALWAYS out-compete a private buyer (assuming both having the same cash reserves).
The flip side might be true, but I think it's not as easy. I have a meeting now, so I can't go into detail (and not think about the details; ergo you might still be 100% right!). But if private buyers - those who would rent - can more easily compete with companies on buying, companies need to make renting more attractive. But maybe that effect is negligible.
- chii 6y agoit's the same situation where a company gets to pay tax on profits, but a human have to pay tax on revenue (their income). I want to see this equalized - either allow humans to pay tax on profits only (i.e., they can deduct all expenses of their living), or tax a company's revenue like how a human is taxed.
- KptMarchewa 6y agoThat makes no sense. Current tax systems assumes that only people are taxed at the end - taxes such as VAT are in practice paid only by end consumer. Company taxes disincentivizes "taking profits" out of the company by not taxing expenses - wages, investments, costs of doing business. And they should properly exclude personal tax dodges, such as creating fake company to buy house and live in it.
- iso1631 6y agoI'm not sure if it is/would be a good or bad policy, but I can see benefits and issues on both sides