Charges and taxes: are rents taxed twice?

[Christophe]

I asked myself the following question yesterday: pkoi would not a tenant have the right to tax the rents that he pays to his owner?

Indeed:

a) a rent is a fixed charge, compulsory and quite heavy for a household: the household does not have this money therefore ...

b) it is not money that is used to consume and therefore to keep industry and the economy going. It does not create wealth in the GDP sense (except rent paid to real estate management agencies, but rare).

b) this sum is taxed twice: on salary income (?) by the tenant and on property income by the owner!

For a) and b) this is also the case when you have a mortgage and the owner is a bank and the rent is a credit.

[Remundo]

Ah? And why not tax the owner's loan repayment annuities?

And also its EDF + Telecom subscription?

If Christophe, rent creates wealth: construction of new housing and guarantee of good maintenance of the housing built.

Of course, if these gentlemen the owners and tenants play the game

At the moment, it's the era of the "pile I win, face of the loses", and everyone is screwed in the end (owners + tenant)

[crispus]

Your thinking is fair but not "financially correct".

Taxation is geared towards promoting the construction of housing, following the well-worn adage "When the building goes, everything goes" ...

In France with the Robien law, defiscalisators of all stripes have largely surfed this niche market ... to peddle hutches
Badly built, badly located, unspeakable housing ... and suddenly unsaleable! See the report "the Robiens of wrath" ...

By definition, the tenant lives in already built accommodation, which therefore no longer creates jobs ...

I recently read that in Switzerland, being the owner of his main residence is considered an advantage in kind: we add to the owner's income the equivalent rent he saves. Taxation works the other way.
Consequence: many wealthy Swiss prefer to rent their accommodation!

The perverse effect of your suggestion would be the risk of increasing rents, wealthy tenants seeing it as a way of tax exemption. Not to mention illegal agreements such as overbilling + cash back ...

The real problem is that with the recent housing bubble, rents have skyrocketed completely unwarrantedly. Accommodation has become a real luxury. See the scandal of the "working poor" ...

Now the bubble is bursting, revealing that too much has been built: lessors will have to reduce their claims if they want to keep their tenants. The rental price begins its downward slope. But unfortunately given the economic crisis and the reduction in average income that will follow (unemployment), the tenants will not really benefit from it ...

[Christophe]

Ah? And why not tax the owner's loan repayment annuities?

Toutafé is that I meant saying:

For a) and b) this is also the case when you have a mortgage and the owner is a bank and the rent is a credit.

And also its EDF + Telecom subscription?

Well no because:

a) is not as vital as having a roof ... and especially not as heavy as a load (with some exceptions)
b) EdF and Telecom are companies which have responsibilities and employees ... rarely the case of "private owners" ....
c) ... for the owners (natural person) the rent is often a real RENTE!

If Christophe, rent creates wealth: construction of new housing and guarantee of good maintenance of the housing built.

When we see the state of certain housing in the big cities, Paris in 1st, let me doubt it ...

At the moment, it's the era of the "pile I win, face of the loses", and everyone is screwed in the end (owners + tenant)

What are you particularly thinking about? The law rob (e) nothing? Reference to Robbery = theft / scam in angalis?

[Remundo]

Hi Christopher,

You can't tax rents or loans from my point of view. These are housing costs, as noble as those for food or heating.

We risk having to tax everything on this logic, and right now, Sarko (er, sorry, France) is on the straw

c) ... for the owners (natural person) the rent is often a real RENTE!

It is too partial a vision: the annuity is generally used to supplement the retirement income, to make a small trip per year, then when the health falters, to pay the medical expenses, and when there is a little left, to give to small children.

When we see the state of certain housing in the big cities, Paris in 1st, let me doubt it ...

This is what happens when you don't play the game. In the same genre, a certain number of tenants do not pay their rent; better still, degrade housing ...

At the moment, it's the era of the "pile I win, face of the loses", and everyone is screwed in the end (owners + tenant)

What are you particularly thinking about? The law rob (e) nothing? Reference to Robbery = theft / scam in angalis?

The Robien law starts from a good feeling, but it has unbalanced the real estate market by the conjunction of two factors:
1. the middle classes, crushed with taxes, let themselves be tempted (at the time, the stone still had a beautiful image of responsible and safe investment),
2. the call for speculative and tax-free funds that the financiers / real estate agencies have exploited outrageously, in defiance of the realities of the real estate market: the juicy commissions on Robien products have encouraged financiers and all intermediaries (agency, construction company) to build and collect rather than reflect and perpetuate.

I think that currently and fairly generally, taking responsibility is far behind taking immediate benefit.

Bias contracts (vulgarly the scam) have become the rule in all the "jurisdiction" which governs the least of our actions (the judicialization of modern societies is only a pale reflection of this. It is short-termism. irresponsible who seems to satisfy everyone until the clash ...

We have examples every day: energy, stock market, real estate, scams on everyday consumer products ...

[C moa]

Completely agree with Remundo

b) this sum is taxed twice: on salary income (?) by the tenant and on property income by the owner!

Remember to complete that owners in their own name (ie rental income is an integral part of their income) are taxed only on the "profit" part of the operation.
They deduct from this income the interest on loans, the taxes already paid for the rented accommodation such as the property tax (this is normal, you might say), any management and consultancy costs, the work (which they have to do by a company).

In addition, if they have a deficit (major works for example), they can deduct them and carry them over to the following years.

In conclusion, we cannot really say that everything that is perceived by the owner is taxed (and this is quite normal).

[Remundo]

Good evening ... It will even be necessary to impose them 3 or 4 times, and not sure that it is enough.
source: http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/2008/12 ... ciale-.php

Towards a record deficit
for Social Security

Jerome Bouin (lefigaro.fr)
22/12/2008 | Updated: 09:13

The Minister of Budget, Eric Woerth, here in the background behind Roselyne Bachelot, had mentioned a deficit of around 80 billion euros for 2009.
The hole in the general regime could reach between 15 and 20 billion euros in 2009, according to La Tribune. Consequence: the public accounts should show a deficit close to 100 billion euros.

"The accounts of France will plunge". This is what the economic daily La Tribune announced on Monday. While Budget Minister Eric Woerth explained to MEPs last week that the recovery plan for the French economy would bring the budget deficit to 79,3 billion euros in 2009, or 3,9% of GDP, La Tribune, for its part, mentions a deficit close to 100 billion euros. Main explanation for this figure: the soaring deficit in the general social security system. Estimated at 10,5 billion euros, it should reach 15 to 20 billion euros due in particular to "the very marked slowdown in the progression of the wage bill". Crisis requires, contributions based on wages may evolve very little next year. The Tribune is based on a note from the Central Agency for Social Security Organizations (Acoss), "the bank of the Safely", which envisages an increase in the wage bill of 1,8% in the first quarter of 2009, while the government plans at the same time an increase of 2,75% over the whole year. La Tribune recalls that in 1993, the recession was marked by a stagnation in the wage bill. A scenario that could recur, tells the newspaper a specialist in social accounts, and which could result in a shortfall of 5 billion euros for the Social Security in 2009.

Another element that risks plummeting the Social Security deficit: the abandonment of the increase in old-age contributions. Such an increase would bring 1,8 billion euros to the general scheme. La Tribune also anticipates less growth in capital income, "mainly the CSG". Not to mention that the 2008 deficit alone should also be impacted by the crisis.


"5 points of GDP" in 2009

With a social security deficit of around 15 to 20 billion euros, all public accounts should be affected. The daily also anticipates an increase in the deficit of local authorities or a moderation of tax revenues. La Tribune therefore mentions a deficit of around 100 billion euros in 2009. As a reminder, it was to reach 57,6 billion according to state forecasts dating from November, then 80 billion according to figures. given last week by Eric Woerth. A figure that takes into account the impact of the economic recovery plan.

In total, the SALE French audience [annual deficit : note from Remundo], which includes the accounts of the State, Social Security and local authorities, could reach five points of gross domestic product in 2009, compared to 3,9 initially planned. A figure which coincides with that quoted last week by the rapporteur of the budget in the Senate, the UMP Philippe Marini. Concerning the deficit of the accounts, the socialist Didier Migaud explained for his part: "we are going to tangent the 100 billion". He may well be right.

Bankruptcy is not far away. get ready for a slow devaluation of the euro and for those who can, invest 'in the hard' (everything that is not stock market / banking ... and not in France

[crispus]

Bankruptcy is not far away. get ready for a slow devaluation of the euro and for those who can, invest 'in the hard' (everything that is not stock market / banking ... and not in France

Devaluation of the euro ... compared to what?
The financial crisis affects all currencies, since they are fiduciary, that is to say based only on the confidence of their users. See the plunge of the dollar, on which a lot of monetary units are aligned ...

On the contrary, routed states will probably ask to join the euro to protect themselves from bankruptcy. Its medium-term stability is less compromised than the American currency.

Finally, a lasting crisis can cause armed conflict, and if so which country can boast of being safe? Even Switzerland falters, it discovers that money cannot be eaten and that it is exposed like Iceland to the melting of its capital ...

Amha it is more useful to invest in relationships, one of the few values ​​listed in the bush!

[Remundo]

Hi Crispus,

Leave the $ where it is. This is, moreover, the crying example of what I am saying: the USA is over-indebted to finance "their military formalities" in Iraq and Afghanistan: suddenly their currency has depreciated and the euro has become "strong" (see that it is relatively to a currency knowingly weakened by colossal debts

Devalue against your baguette. It's concrete enough to understand, I think.

The over-indebtedness of the states is always absorbed by devaluations, more or less brutal.

With the euro, it does not happen abruptly because 25 countries regulate (big inertia because big market with compensation effects), but when the 25 are in debt, no compensation and there is no secret ... It's a way to pay off debt without making any withdrawal from personal accounts.

Anyway, the same people who say the "debt of State"also say" the state it's usThe problem is that generally, in order not to panic anyone, we do not put these two obvious facts end to end in the same sentence.

Just that 100 Euros becomes equivalent to 60, but that there is still 100 Euros on the account.

[crispus]

I do not believe that the baguette can suddenly increase in the months to come. We have already experienced significant inflation in recent years, subtly masked by the changeover to the euro.

Now if the baker wants to continue selling his products, he will have to adapt to the income of his fellow citizens, who will fall overall due to lack of work. Right now the bread maker market is booming

We are rather entering a deflationary spiral: the supply of products has become much more abundant than the demand, suddenly the price of things drops and buyers prefer to postpone their purchases: why buy on credit today what you can get cheaper and cash tomorrow?

I even think that INSEE will stop "bogus" its indices, as it did to hide the galloping inflation of recent years. On the contrary, by rapidly publishing downward indices it will give the government marbles to level down social benefits (eg: APL), pensions and even ... civil servants' salaries!

Yes, in 2009 "everything becomes possible"

Of course deflation is not tenable: once this purge of excesses has passed and speculators have been ruined, household confidence will recover and revive the economy: buyers will buy today for fear that tomorrow will be more expensive: back to inflation. But restoring trust takes time!

The current problem is no longer really economic but rather geopolitical: risk of famines, civil wars and wars between states for access to natural resources (water, ...). And here the important thing is above all to be able to survive.