Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Tax reform (another screwing, without vaseline)
Message-ID: <943@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 16:22:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.943
Posted: Wed Jun 12 16:22:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 02:44:25 EDT
References: <2699@harpo.UUCP> <940@hou2h.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 22

> If you can't afford a small house then you must be renting.
> If you are renting, someone must own the house that you are renting in.
> It is possible that the person that owns your house is holding the house
>   as a second (or third or fiftieth) house.
> If he can't take the interest deduction (Say $2400/Yr.) then he will
>   be placed in a position of loss of income.
> RESULT: He raises your rent by $200/Mo. and you get screwed even more.

    Wrong, I think.  If he owns the house as rental property, he should
be able to deduct the interest as a legitimate business expense, as long
as he (or she) doesn't live there.
    Also, since second homes will cost people more, some people will sell
their second homes, lowering real estate values somewhat, which should,
in turn, lower rents.
    So if you were planning on being screwed by this part of the new tax
package, you're going to have to find somewhere else to bend over.  (Unless
you own a summer home or two, in which case you're rich enough that the
50% -> 35% change will probably help you enough to make up for that, too.)
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan