Obama Announces Huge Tax Increases Are Only Solution

[8537]

becuase new home construction is a bsais for economic prosperity...why do you think it is used as a primary economic indicator?

Home construction is the root of an infiniate amount of industries.

Well, labor in general is a basis for economic prosperity - but we tax it as income.
Consumer expenditures drive growth, but we don't get to write off expenses related to shopping.
Buying durable goods and cars drives growth but we don't get a tax credit for those.

And incentivizing more home construction when we have a serious over-supply of housing seems a little perverse. Nevermind the perverse nature of the credit.

the whole idea is to incentisize something one may not otherwise do.
We do not need to give people an incentive to buy basic items like food, clothing, cars, etc.
And when we did in regard to cars, we had the CARS program...

I understand what you're saying, but why should the income tax be used to incentivize people to buy homes? We're just driving up the price of homes with a regressive tax credit.

People don't eat enough fresh vegetables. That's true, right? So why don't we allow people to deduct expenses related to buying fresh vegetables? It would have the added bonus of supporting farmers and decreasing future health care costs. <<that's a rhetorical suggestion, obviously )

 

[Jarhead]

Well, labor in general is a basis for economic prosperity - but we tax it as income.
Consumer expenditures drive growth, but we don't get to write off expenses related to shopping.
Buying durable goods and cars drives growth but we don't get a tax credit for those.

And incentivizing more home construction when we have a serious over-supply of housing seems a little perverse. Nevermind the perverse nature of the credit.

the whole idea is to incentisize something one may not otherwise do.
We do not need to give people an incentive to buy basic items like food, clothing, cars, etc.
And when we did in regard to cars, we had the CARS program...

I understand what you're saying, but why should the income tax be used to incentivize people to buy homes? We're just driving up the price of homes with a regressive tax credit.

People don't eat enough fresh vegetables. That's true, right? So why don't we allow people to deduct expenses related to buying fresh vegetables? It would have the added bonus of supporting farmers and decreasing future health care costs. <<that's a rhetorical suggestion, obviously )

As I originally said....becuase it is a primary root of our economy.

So, in a nutshell...it is the root of our economy and there are alternatives so it helps to incentivize it.

Like I said earlier...in an effort to help the auto industry, we had the CARS program.

The tax dedcution for the intereste, in my eyes, absolutely makes sense. It prompted me to buy my first home when I realized that the cost to own after the deduction was about the same as the cost to rent....

 

[8537]

the whole idea is to incentisize something one may not otherwise do.
We do not need to give people an incentive to buy basic items like food, clothing, cars, etc.
And when we did in regard to cars, we had the CARS program...

I understand what you're saying, but why should the income tax be used to incentivize people to buy homes? We're just driving up the price of homes with a regressive tax credit.

People don't eat enough fresh vegetables. That's true, right? So why don't we allow people to deduct expenses related to buying fresh vegetables? It would have the added bonus of supporting farmers and decreasing future health care costs. <<that's a rhetorical suggestion, obviously )

As I originally said....becuase it is a primary root of our economy.

So is food. Should we get a tax credit for buying certain kinds of food?

The tax dedcution for the intereste, in my eyes, absolutely makes sense. It prompted me to buy my first home when I realized that the cost to own after the deduction was about the same as the cost to rent....

But this is where we disagree - a tax credit prompted you to buy a home? Do we really need such misaligned incentives in our income tax policy? I would submit that we don't - and that by having such incentives we distort the market for other goods and services you could have bought instead (but refrained from buying because the tax incentive prompted you to buy a home.)

 

[Big Fitz]

People don't eat enough fresh vegetables.

Ahhh the rub. Define "Enough" and by who's standard? And who has the authority to say what IS "Enough"?

 

[Jarhead]

I understand what you're saying, but why should the income tax be used to incentivize people to buy homes? We're just driving up the price of homes with a regressive tax credit.

People don't eat enough fresh vegetables. That's true, right? So why don't we allow people to deduct expenses related to buying fresh vegetables? It would have the added bonus of supporting farmers and decreasing future health care costs. <<that's a rhetorical suggestion, obviously )

As I originally said....becuase it is a primary root of our economy.

So is food. Should we get a tax credit for buying certain kinds of food?

The tax dedcution for the intereste, in my eyes, absolutely makes sense. It prompted me to buy my first home when I realized that the cost to own after the deduction was about the same as the cost to rent....

But this is where we disagree - a tax credit prompted you to buy a home? Do we really need such misaligned incentives in our income tax policy? I would submit that we don't - and that by having such incentives we distort the market for other goods and services you could have bought instead (but refrained from buying because the tax incentive prompted you to buy a home.)

I was paying 800 a month rent....We got our notice of rent increase to 850...so we sat down and figured out what we can afford to buy where our nmortgage payments were 850 a month or less....the answer was "very little"....until my friend who was an accountant told me that the interest is deductable...and we sat dopwn and did the math....and found we could afford a home in the 150K range....

So we bought a home.

And the difference between your examples of food products and homes...

Food products may be a basis of our economy, but all of the alternatives are equal....so purchasing..say tomoatos does no more for our economy if it were incentivized to buy over the nmormal purchase of apples.

Renting does little for our economy....home construction does massive amounts for our economy.

I personally see it as something that works and is available to everyone.....the reason it is not available to those with second homes? Becuase very few can ever afford a second home and THAT would be a special interest group.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First, show that they do.

I'll be especially interested in you showing that the tax cuts are ever 'funded' at all - the rest will be sauce for the goose.

Why would tax cuts ever have to be "funded?" That's like saying government is entitled to a certain sized piece of your hide. How do you "fund" taking less of my money?

You're spouting the terminology of Stalinism.

No... that would be the person I responded to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol.....you MUST be kidding me.

It is an INCENTIVE for EVERYONE to consider buying a home.

It is not for one set of individuals....it is there for all to capitalize on and work towards.

You seem to feel it is for an excluysive group...I guess you are right...it is for the group of people that set out to ahceive something and work hard AND SAVE so they can acheive it.

I know it's an incentive. What's the rationale for that incentive?

I thought everyone considering buying a home is what caused the housing bubble.

PS, The mortgage deduction is only available to people who can itemize, right?

1) The rationale is the fact that home construction is a basis for hundreds of other industries.

2) Considering buying a home is not what caused the bubble. Those who werent fianncially ready to buy a home but did anyway is what caused the bubble....along with those that thought that refinancing was a sound way to put cash in their pocket.

3) Everyone has the right to itemize...so it is available to everyone.

Any incentive that increases demand for homes contributed to the housing bubble.

So the food stamp program can be justified for its value to the domestic food industry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Having to pay taxes is based on the assumption that if your elected representatives are going to vote for government spending, then they also have the obligation and the right to raise the revenue to pay for it.

With no surprise whatsoever, you have that bass-ackwards.
Your representatives have an obligation and responsibility to not spend more than the revenue on hand.

 

[mudwhistle]

All the rabble who AREN'T going to get taxed are the ones making the most noise.

CLASSIC!!


lol

I'm one of those evil people who has a household income of 250K. Even though more than 25% of the so called income went back into my business for a new septic system, roof, parking lot and extensive heating and plumbing upgrades. But I can only write off a small portion of those expenses.

I paid 36,000 in federal taxes

Please tell me what loopholes I get that the 47% of people who pay no income tax or actually get back more than they paid don't get.

Seems to me they not me are getting the better deal. I can't even contribute to an IRA for a tax break anymore and I get whacked by the alternative minimum tax.

You were FORCED to become a business-owner, right???



Maybe you're just not-that-good-at-it?



What? You're ENTITLED to success??


​

Apparently not anymore.

We are entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but not in this country anymore.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Setting aside whether it should be or shouldn't be...
...what's the rationale behind the mortgage deduction?

To promote home ownership. Duh.

What principle justifies giving that tax break to one set of individuals and in the process shifting the overall tax burden elsewhere?

"Shifting the overall tax burden"?
False premise.
Lessening my burden doesn't increase yours.

 

[Jarhead]

I know it's an incentive. What's the rationale for that incentive?

I thought everyone considering buying a home is what caused the housing bubble.

PS, The mortgage deduction is only available to people who can itemize, right?

1) The rationale is the fact that home construction is a basis for hundreds of other industries.

2) Considering buying a home is not what caused the bubble. Those who werent fianncially ready to buy a home but did anyway is what caused the bubble....along with those that thought that refinancing was a sound way to put cash in their pocket.

3) Everyone has the right to itemize...so it is available to everyone.

Any incentive that increases demand for homes contributed to the housing bubble.

So the food stamp program can be justified for its value to the domestic food industry.

Sure it contributed to the housing bubble...but that is a stretch. The program was not designed with the assumption that those that can not afford the mortgage would get the mortgage anyway. If only those that can afford a mortgage, got a mortgage, there wouldnt have been an issue.

The gpovernment laid out an insentive plan...one that was designed to allow those that work hard and save to be able to afford the cost of carrying a home at or near the same amount they were using to pay rent.

Further government incentives prompted those to buy homes that ultimately cost infinitely MORE to carry than renting. THOSE incentives were the problem.

As for foodsatmps....there are many justifications for the food stamp program...the LEAST being that it helps the economy. IT FEEDS THOSE THAT CANNOT FEED THEMSELVES. It would take a warped mind to try to find other justifications.

Sorry...not fair on my part.......I saw the point you were making.....

I have absolutely no issue with the food stamp program. If my neighbors that needed them, didnt get them, I would be buying food for them anyway.

 

[8537]

As I originally said....becuase it is a primary root of our economy.

So is food. Should we get a tax credit for buying certain kinds of food?

The tax dedcution for the intereste, in my eyes, absolutely makes sense. It prompted me to buy my first home when I realized that the cost to own after the deduction was about the same as the cost to rent....

But this is where we disagree - a tax credit prompted you to buy a home? Do we really need such misaligned incentives in our income tax policy? I would submit that we don't - and that by having such incentives we distort the market for other goods and services you could have bought instead (but refrained from buying because the tax incentive prompted you to buy a home.)

I was paying 800 a month rent....We got our notice of rent increase to 850...so we sat down and figured out what we can afford to buy where our nmortgage payments were 850 a month or less....the answer was "very little"....until my friend who was an accountant told me that the interest is deductable...and we sat dopwn and did the math....and found we could afford a home in the 150K range....

So we bought a home.

And the difference between your examples of food products and homes...

Food products may be a basis of our economy, but all of the alternatives are equal....so purchasing..say tomoatos does no more for our economy if it were incentivized to buy over the nmormal purchase of apples.

Renting does little for our economy....home construction does massive amounts for our economy.

I personally see it as something that works and is available to everyone.....the reason it is not available to those with second homes? Becuase very few can ever afford a second home and THAT would be a special interest group.

It's not "Available to everyone" - it's worth nothing to someone still under the standard deduction, all the way up to 35% of your interest payments to someone making more than the top marginal rate line (by definition, regressive). It's only available at all if you are above the standard deduction (another concept I find completely silly, but that's a different issue)

As for rental vs. ownership - I don't think that matters. The total size of the housing stock, and demand for that stock, is what matters. Whether one rents or buys a new place to live, the new place was built.

 

[Jarhead]

So is food. Should we get a tax credit for buying certain kinds of food?



But this is where we disagree - a tax credit prompted you to buy a home? Do we really need such misaligned incentives in our income tax policy? I would submit that we don't - and that by having such incentives we distort the market for other goods and services you could have bought instead (but refrained from buying because the tax incentive prompted you to buy a home.)

I was paying 800 a month rent....We got our notice of rent increase to 850...so we sat down and figured out what we can afford to buy where our nmortgage payments were 850 a month or less....the answer was "very little"....until my friend who was an accountant told me that the interest is deductable...and we sat dopwn and did the math....and found we could afford a home in the 150K range....

So we bought a home.

And the difference between your examples of food products and homes...

Food products may be a basis of our economy, but all of the alternatives are equal....so purchasing..say tomoatos does no more for our economy if it were incentivized to buy over the nmormal purchase of apples.

Renting does little for our economy....home construction does massive amounts for our economy.

I personally see it as something that works and is available to everyone.....the reason it is not available to those with second homes? Becuase very few can ever afford a second home and THAT would be a special interest group.

It's not "Available to everyone" - it's worth nothing to someone still under the standard deduction, all the way up to 35% of your interest payments to someone making more than the top marginal rate line (by definition, regressive). It's only available at all if you are above the standard deduction (another concept I find completely silly, but that's a different issue)

As for rental vs. ownership - I don't think that matters. The total size of the housing stock, and demand for that stock, is what matters. Whether one rents or buys a new place to live, the new place was built.

It is a matter of working towards it....the opporunity is available to everyone....it is a matter of acheiving it via working hard and progressing in your career (income)....

I dont necessarily agree with the housing stock and demand part of it...well...I agree with it from a basic fact standpoint....but here in the US, ownership of land is part of the American Dream...and that in itself gives us reqason to ask our government to have an incentive to allow all of us to ultimately find a way to purchase a home with the cost being not much more than if we were to rent.

 

[8537]

I was paying 800 a month rent....We got our notice of rent increase to 850...so we sat down and figured out what we can afford to buy where our nmortgage payments were 850 a month or less....the answer was "very little"....until my friend who was an accountant told me that the interest is deductable...and we sat dopwn and did the math....and found we could afford a home in the 150K range....

So we bought a home.

And the difference between your examples of food products and homes...

Food products may be a basis of our economy, but all of the alternatives are equal....so purchasing..say tomoatos does no more for our economy if it were incentivized to buy over the nmormal purchase of apples.

Renting does little for our economy....home construction does massive amounts for our economy.

I personally see it as something that works and is available to everyone.....the reason it is not available to those with second homes? Becuase very few can ever afford a second home and THAT would be a special interest group.

It's not "Available to everyone" - it's worth nothing to someone still under the standard deduction, all the way up to 35% of your interest payments to someone making more than the top marginal rate line (by definition, regressive). It's only available at all if you are above the standard deduction (another concept I find completely silly, but that's a different issue)

As for rental vs. ownership - I don't think that matters. The total size of the housing stock, and demand for that stock, is what matters. Whether one rents or buys a new place to live, the new place was built.

It is a matter of working towards it....the opporunity is available to everyone....it is a matter of acheiving it via working hard and progressing in your career (income)....

I dont necessarily agree with the housing stock and demand part of it...well...I agree with it from a basic fact standpoint....but here in the US, ownership of land is part of the American Dream...and that in itself gives us reqason to ask our government to have an incentive to allow all of us to ultimately find a way to purchase a home with the cost being not much more than if we were to rent.

I understand the American Dream aspect of it - but honestly, i also think we need to rethink that stance. The FHA and the government-sponsored creation of the 30yr mortgage also helped sell the dream, but I'm not sure we can look at those as positive outcomes in the long run. In fact, they've proven to seriously misalign incentives.

But anyway, I enjoy the discussion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I was paying 800 a month rent....We got our notice of rent increase to 850...so we sat down and figured out what we can afford to buy where our nmortgage payments were 850 a month or less....the answer was "very little"....until my friend who was an accountant told me that the interest is deductable...and we sat dopwn and did the math....and found we could afford a home in the 150K range....

So we bought a home.

And the difference between your examples of food products and homes...

Food products may be a basis of our economy, but all of the alternatives are equal....so purchasing..say tomoatos does no more for our economy if it were incentivized to buy over the nmormal purchase of apples.

Renting does little for our economy....home construction does massive amounts for our economy.

I personally see it as something that works and is available to everyone.....the reason it is not available to those with second homes? Becuase very few can ever afford a second home and THAT would be a special interest group.

It's not "Available to everyone" - it's worth nothing to someone still under the standard deduction, all the way up to 35% of your interest payments to someone making more than the top marginal rate line (by definition, regressive). It's only available at all if you are above the standard deduction (another concept I find completely silly, but that's a different issue)

As for rental vs. ownership - I don't think that matters. The total size of the housing stock, and demand for that stock, is what matters. Whether one rents or buys a new place to live, the new place was built.

It is a matter of working towards it....the opporunity is available to everyone....it is a matter of acheiving it via working hard and progressing in your career (income)....

I dont necessarily agree with the housing stock and demand part of it...well...I agree with it from a basic fact standpoint....but here in the US, ownership of land is part of the American Dream...and that in itself gives us reqason to ask our government to have an incentive to allow all of us to ultimately find a way to purchase a home with the cost being not much more than if we were to rent.

the American Dream means private property.....but BO has a much different "American Dream"....marxism is against private property....hence the move to wipe out any incentives to buy it...got to have that suffering underclass ya know...

 

[AmericanFirst]

All the rabble who AREN'T going to get taxed are the ones making the most noise.

CLASSIC!!


lol

Idiot.

 

[AmericanFirst]

This is all just more Community Organizer Class Warfare shit. Obviously the usual suspects will fall for it. The Taxpayers paid their Taxes as required by Law. The Government then spent us $15 Trillion into Debt. How can anyone blame the Taxpayers for that? Punishing Taxpayers for Government corruption & incompetence just isn't the answer. We should punish the Government instead. Lets force them to balance the Budget. This raising Taxes on the Rich stuff is just being used to divide the people. A nice distraction from who's really to blame. It's just so sad so many continue to fall for this Class Warfare shit.

Obama is doing what piven said, to callapse the economy by spending. Obamaturd does not care if he ruins the economy.

 

[Jarhead]

It's not "Available to everyone" - it's worth nothing to someone still under the standard deduction, all the way up to 35% of your interest payments to someone making more than the top marginal rate line (by definition, regressive). It's only available at all if you are above the standard deduction (another concept I find completely silly, but that's a different issue)

As for rental vs. ownership - I don't think that matters. The total size of the housing stock, and demand for that stock, is what matters. Whether one rents or buys a new place to live, the new place was built.

It is a matter of working towards it....the opporunity is available to everyone....it is a matter of acheiving it via working hard and progressing in your career (income)....

I dont necessarily agree with the housing stock and demand part of it...well...I agree with it from a basic fact standpoint....but here in the US, ownership of land is part of the American Dream...and that in itself gives us reqason to ask our government to have an incentive to allow all of us to ultimately find a way to purchase a home with the cost being not much more than if we were to rent.

I understand the American Dream aspect of it - but honestly, i also think we need to rethink that stance. The FHA and the government-sponsored creation of the 30yr mortgage also helped sell the dream, but I'm not sure we can look at those as positive outcomes in the long run. In fact, they've proven to seriously misalign incentives.

But anyway, I enjoy the discussion.

I believe the 30 year mortgage is sound as is the tax incentive as it allows one to bu as opposed to rent with a vcery little difference in cost at the end of the year.

However, programs to offer grants and such to meet the down payment? Programs to allow one to be approved for a mortgage without an income check...forcing underwiters to make an educated decision based on the honor system?

Foolish and we now have paid the price.

As I see it....work hard, save hard and when you can afford the down payment, apply for a 30 year fixed and if the underwriter approves of your job stability and income...good for you.

 

[mudwhistle]

You're going a bit far. Owning a home is an achievement only to those that wish to own a home.

Fair enough.

And on the same note, many government programs are there for only those that choose to use them....some prefer not to, but pay for it with their taxes anyway.

Just as some choose to not want to own a home and lose out on the deduction if they did.

General question then, not necessarily at you specifically:

Why are so many conservatives then so enamored with tax simplication, the flat tax, the national sales tax,

all of which presumably get rid of the mortgage deduction for the homeowning special interest?

That's a pretty big special interest group. One that every homeowner belongs to.

 

[mudwhistle]

I know it's an incentive. What's the rationale for that incentive?

I thought everyone considering buying a home is what caused the housing bubble.

PS, The mortgage deduction is only available to people who can itemize, right?

1) The rationale is the fact that home construction is a basis for hundreds of other industries.

2) Considering buying a home is not what caused the bubble. Those who werent fianncially ready to buy a home but did anyway is what caused the bubble....along with those that thought that refinancing was a sound way to put cash in their pocket.

3) Everyone has the right to itemize...so it is available to everyone.

Any incentive that increases demand for homes contributed to the housing bubble.

So the food stamp program can be justified for its value to the domestic food industry.

Now you're just acting stupid.