Should The state of New-york give tax incentive for house and building owner to make their house more beautuf
Many middle class American go to live in France,Ireland or Italy when they have job opportunity there even when the salary is lower than in the united states.Although many Americans describe themselves as patriotic,no one would refuse an opportunity to go live in France or Glasgow,England. Europe attract more tourist than America because its beautiful.Why can't America put more money on making cities and regions more nicer.Car inspection are mandatory by many insurance company and refuse to make it can make your monthly payment higher.Why united states can't make law that make New-yorker improve their house by pouting flowers,painting it with a matching color that make the neighborhood beautiful.People who improve their house facade would get taxt reduction.Why America should stay ugly until American worker live the country in retirement and make loose more tax payer.A quarter of million retired American worker are already living in the Philippines and Thailand,bangkok.
Renting & Real Estate - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Im not quite sure if those numbers are right or not but yes America is America. A lot of people have dreams to travel the world and move and see life around the little box in such a large world. I don't really think it's just America, as there's the good the bad and the ugly anywhere you go.
2 :
If I understand you correctly (and I'm dizzy from trying to follow your rant, here) you are suggesting that New York State should offer tax rebates to private individuals for making cosmetic improvements to their homes, in order to make them more attractive to international tourists (I think?). The problem with this is that it flies in the face of the idea of home ownership in the US. Who gets to decide what colors match, or what type of flowers should be in the pots? On the other hand, many local municipalities DO offer incentives for home improvement, including (but not limited to) energy and resource efficient improvements, exterior maintenance and beautification, re-establishment and beautification of historic or urban neighborhoods, etc. The difference is that these are not compulsory (except for historic districts and HOA covenanted properties), and do not infringe on an individuals right of expression. In addition, homes in many areas of Europe are not actually owned by the occupant. "Owners" rent the property from the state, or the royal family, etc. for long periods ( I know of one case where a family had lived in the same home for seven generations, having been granted a deed of residence for 250 years. The money had changed hands in the late 1700's, and the current occupants paid no rent. They had the ability to sell the right to reside in the property for the remainder of the 250 years, but did not have true ownership of the property.
