Quote:
Originally Posted by Advogado
Here is a very interesting article that partially answers some of your questions: Billionaire Morse
It sets forth some very interesting information, of which I was not previously aware, e.g.: At least $955 million of Morse’s fortune comes directly
from money paid to him from the issuance of tax-free municipal
bonds — including the bonds ruled taxable by the IRS, according
to data compiled by Bloomberg from an analysis of 38 bond-offering statements since 1992. Wow, our tax dollars (or, more precisely, tax subsidies or loopholes) at work. It makes you think that Congress ought to be taking a close look at who, if anybody, should be able to issue tax-free bonds. Maybe there is something to be said for eliminating them altogether, an idea that is currently being kicked around in Congress. |
The concept of tax free bonds goes way beyond this and probably amounts to many billions or trillions of dollars around the country. Sure, the net recipient of these dollars are the developers who build the public swimming pools, airports, parks, etc. However, the
PRIMARY beneficiaries of the
tax free nature of these bonds is the general public who pay them off - whether it be in the form of property taxes in most municipalities or, in our case, the amenity fees. So, if Congress wants to eliminate the tax advantage of these bonds, it will be the general public (who they are supposed to represent) that would be hurt the most. Yes, the developers will also be hurt to a limited extent because some worthwhile projects won't be done because the cost to pay for them will go up as a result of the higher cost of debt ... but it is the public that will have to do without that park or airport or bridge.