Obama Announces Huge Tax Increases Are Only Solution

[Spoonman]

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.

now? only now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Tell Jarhead, it was his 'logic'.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Tell Jarhead, it was his 'logic'.

My logic was just that...logic....based on undeniable facts.
I believe he was referring to your spin of things as "acting stupid".

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yes it does. All else being equal, if 100 billion in tax credits are given to one special interest,

1. the special interest's share of the tax burden falls.

2. the loss of revenue from the tax credit has to made up somewhere, therefore some tax has to be higher.
The mortgage deduction costs the Treasury about 100 billion a year in lost revenue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now you're just acting stupid.

Tell Jarhead, it was his 'logic'.

My logic was just that...logic....based on undeniable facts.
I believe he was referring to your spin of things as "acting stupid".

You justified the mortgage deduction on the grounds it boosts the economy. So does the food stamp program, therefore, if you are logical,

you must consider the food stamp program justifiable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about we eliminate the mortgage deduction and convert the attendant tax break into an across the board reduction in tax rates?

Simplification and an elimination of a giveaway to a special interest.

 

[Jarhead]

Tell Jarhead, it was his 'logic'.

My logic was just that...logic....based on undeniable facts.
I believe he was referring to your spin of things as "acting stupid".

You justified the mortgage deduction on the grounds it boosts the economy. So does the food stamp program, therefore, if you are logical,

you must consider the food stamp program justifiable.

You obviously neglected to read where I responded to that question when it was first asked. I gave you a very sincere answer.

Or you read it and it wasnt what you wanted to see, so you ignored it.

Whatever....I try with you...but for you it is all about criticizing those that do not think as you do....and I just dont have the patience for that kind of debating.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Did you buy a new home?

 

[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.

Did you buy a new home?

No...but living in that home for 5 years allowed me to build up the equity in the home and ultimately, I bought a new home...it is progression.....

I started off living on the streets for a short period...then moved into the local Y...then a small basement studio apartment...then a one bedroom...then a large one bedroom with a terrace...then my first home and then a brand new home.

All over a period of 14 years.

Yep...I am your typical rags to "riches" story...

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Yes it does. All else being equal, if 100 billion in tax credits are given to one special interest,

1. the special interest's share of the tax burden falls.

2. the loss of revenue from the tax credit has to made up somewhere, therefore some tax has to be higher.
The mortgage deduction costs the Treasury about 100 billion a year in lost revenue.

This assumes that the only source of revenue is thru income tax. Doesn't the federal government tax in other areas?

A loss in revenue can be made up elsewhere. Consumption tends to go up when taxpayers have more to spend.

Problem is Obama doesn't like not controlling that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Did you buy a new home?

No...but living in that home for 5 years allowed me to build up the equity in the home and ultimately, I bought a new home...it is progression.....

I started off living on the streets for a short period...then moved into the local Y...then a small basement studio apartment...then a one bedroom...then a large one bedroom with a terrace...then my first home and then a brand new home.

All over a period of 14 years.

Yep...I am your typical rags to "riches" story...

Well, see, you buying a home did NOT promote new home construction, it merely transferred your shelter spending from a home renter to a home seller.

Why does that deserve a tax credit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Isn't Ryan also proposing getting rid of the mortgage deduction?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

The interest deduction on a mortgage is no reason to buy a house. In fact it can be said that the deduction itself merely keeps sheep in debt and the moneylenders in business. When the federal government is in the business of money lending and mortgage guarantees, the largess of such a deduction comes under suspicion does it not?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Setting aside whether it should be or shouldn't be...

...what' the rationale behind the mortgage deduction? What principle justifies giving that tax break to one set of individuals and in the process shifting the overall tax burden elsewhere?

You mean like allowing 47% of people to pay no federal income tax while shifting the burden to the other 53% who do?

So your answer is, I don't know. OK

My answer was meant to establish the meaninglessness of the question.

If you have not realized that our tax code is nothing but a capricious codification of political favor and ham handed attempts at social engineering then you have not been paying attention very well have you?

 

[boedicca]

The interest deduction helped contribute to the housing bubble in the long run.

Get rid of all deductions, credits, and loopholes, and replace them with a flat tax of 15% on all sources of income. Period. (And get rid of SS, Medicare and all excise taxes).

 

[bugs]

Once again Obama has shown his plan all along. Raise taxes.

He wants to remove home interest payments as a deduction.

Trust me, this will include everyone, not just those who make over $200k.

Also, he says he wants to remove charitable contributions as well.

Folks, this isn't all he plans to do. He's just telling us the part he thinks we want to hear.

I guess you can drop all the rhetoric over how he's cut taxes now. It was all smoke and mirrors anyway.

Also the Fed needs to keep Printing $$$$ and Devalueing the $hit out of it!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean like allowing 47% of people to pay no federal income tax while shifting the burden to the other 53% who do?

So your answer is, I don't know. OK

My answer was meant to establish the meaninglessness of the question.

If you have not realized that our tax code is nothing but a capricious codification of political favor and ham handed attempts at social engineering then you have not been paying attention very well have you?

Why didn't you just say, there is no rationale, in the first place, if that was your answer?

 

[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.

Yes it does. All else being equal, if 100 billion in tax credits are given to one special interest,

1. the special interest's share of the tax burden falls.

2. the loss of revenue from the tax credit has to made up somewhere, therefore some tax has to be higher.The mortgage deduction costs the Treasury about 100 billion a year in lost revenue.

And here is where your argument fails.
That I pay $100 less in no ways means you have to pay $100 more.

 

[Big Fitz]

David Stockman disagrees with you.

David Stockman is a RINO moron.

Why would anyone care what he says?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......EXPERIENCE???????

(....The bane of Teabaggers, natiowide!!)​

AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You now want to count experience? Shall we start with your little boygod president?

 

[Big Fitz]

The Heritage Foundation is even admitting the tax increases WILL raise revenues.

lol, that's heresy on the Right, isn't it?

Most of the truly wealthy have already admitted that taxes will need to be raised. The tax cuts went too far. The issue is to use tax increases in combination with real cuts in spending, and not to just continue increasing spending. At the same time, we know Medicare is going to have to change, no matter what Obama wants. With the aging population and continually rising healthcare costs, it is growing out of control. Raising the age at which Medicare benefits can be received is the only way to curb and control costs while leaving the program intact.

If Republicans really want to get something done, they better get off of this idea that there will be no tax increases, because only using cuts to balance the budtget will end up causing even bigger problems in the long run.

The GOP vision of Medicare reform is that of your 85 year old invalid grandmother fighting with a for-profit insurance company day after day trying to get her bills paid.

Hmmm... isn't it strange? Government run healthcare denies benefits and reimbursements at about double the rate of for profit health insurance.

Seems that the liberal version is to make sure EVERYONE fights harder for help.