The Debt Clock is Overheating. . . .

[g5000]

A tax deduction does not have to be made up anywhere else if the government simply does not expect the money in the first place.

This is some wild illogic!

If the government has to factor in the decreased revenues from all their subsidies, that means it has to raise tax rates to make up for those subsidies!

Why can you not comprehend this simple mathematical fact?

"We need $500, but we are only going to get $400 because we are giving kickbacks to people who are behaving the way we want them to behave. Therefore, we are going to have to raise tax rates to get that number up to $500."

Simple as that.

 

[g5000]

Read that article by the conservative economist, Foxfyre.

"It will be harder to reduce tax rates if the deduction is declared off limits."

Others are having to pay higher taxes because of the mortgage interest deduction. This is a simple fact.

You are being carried on other people's backs. Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay higher tax rates to pay for it.

Even worse, you are gaining nothing by it. Your house is more expensive because of it.

There is nothing conservative about it. At all.

 

[Foxfyre]

A tax deduction does not have to be made up anywhere else if the government simply does not expect the money in the first place.

This is some wild illogic!

If the government has to factor in the decreased revenues from all their subsidies, that means it has to raise tax rates to make up for those losses!

Why can you not comprehend this simple mathematical fact?

Why? Why does the government have to make up decreased revenues when it spends far more money than it has to spend in the first place?

What is so imperative to you statists/leftists/progressives/political class/liberals that makes the idea of LESS government, more efficient government, more effective government, less costly government so horrendous to you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that a prosperous, vital, energetic, thriving public sector economy produces far more revenues for government than raising taxes or eliminating tax deductions can ever do? That the more government does to diminish private sector activity, the less revenues are produced?

Why can't you see that the mortgage interest/tax deduction already most likely more than offsets any reduction in treasury revenues by creating a stronger, more stable, more prosperous America with a better quality of life through higher home ownership?

Why is a concept of people having the right to keep as much of what they earn as possible such a foreign concept to you?

Why is cutting government spending never seen as an option to you?

And why can't you see that your attitudes are what have produced a $17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions every single day?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A tax deduction does not have to be made up anywhere else if the government simply does not expect the money in the first place.

This is some wild illogic!

If the government has to factor in the decreased revenues from all their subsidies, that means it has to raise tax rates to make up for those subsidies!

Why can you not comprehend this simple mathematical fact?

"We need $500, but we are only going to get $400 because we are giving kickbacks to people who are behaving the way we want them to behave. Therefore, we are going to have to raise tax rates to get that number up to $500."

Simple as that.

If you were such a math wiz, g5, you would be able to tell that our $17 trillion debt is an enormous problem. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Simple math, g5. You make the number go down. Subtract. It isn't that hard to do. Unless you prefer shouldering future generations with this debt, in that case, it wouldn't be your math skills that would require introspection.

 

[g5000]

A tax deduction does not have to be made up anywhere else if the government simply does not expect the money in the first place.

This is some wild illogic!

If the government has to factor in the decreased revenues from all their subsidies, that means it has to raise tax rates to make up for those losses!

Why can you not comprehend this simple mathematical fact?

Why? Why does the government have to make up decreased revenues when it spends far more money than it has to spend in the first place?

What is so imperative to you statists/leftists/progressives/political class/liberals that makes the idea of LESS government, more efficient government, more effective government, less costly government so horrendous to you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that a prosperous, vital, energetic, thriving public sector economy produces far more revenues for government than raising taxes or eliminting deductions can ever do? That the more government does to diminish private sector activity, the less revenues are produced?

Why is cutting spending never seen as an option to you?

And why can't you see that your attitudes are what have produced a $17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions every single day?

Look at you, shrieking I am a liberal because I am opposed to unconservative tax expenditures.

I have said time and again that faux conservatives will scream like a welfare queen if you threaten the mortage interest deduction. Thanks for proving me right.

I posted two solutions. The first was to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70 and index them to 9 percent of the population. That is most assuredly NOT a liberal plan.

And that plan would greatly reduce federal spending. So nice try.


Then, ban all tax expenditures and you can reduce EVERYONE's tax rates. It is hilarious you scream that is a liberal plan. Tax expenditures are $1.2 trillion of federal spending, hon. They really are. Your mortgage interest deduction is adding to the federal debt every day. I have proven this.

Eliminating them is actually a TEA PARTY plan. Surprise! You are to the LEFT of me. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is some wild illogic!

If the government has to factor in the decreased revenues from all their subsidies, that means it has to raise tax rates to make up for those losses!

Why can you not comprehend this simple mathematical fact?

Why? Why does the government have to make up decreased revenues when it spends far more money than it has to spend in the first place?

What is so imperative to you statists/leftists/progressives/political class/liberals that makes the idea of LESS government, more efficient government, more effective government, less costly government so horrendous to you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that a prosperous, vital, energetic, thriving public sector economy produces far more revenues for government than raising taxes or eliminting deductions can ever do? That the more government does to diminish private sector activity, the less revenues are produced?

Why is cutting spending never seen as an option to you?

And why can't you see that your attitudes are what have produced a $17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions every single day?

Look at you, shrieking I am a liberal because I am opposed to unconservative tax expenditures.

I have said time and again that faux conservatives will scream like a welfare queen if you threaten the mortage interest deduction. Thanks for proving me right.

I posted two solutions. The first was to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70 and index them to 9 percent of the population. That is most assuredly NOT a liberal plan.

And that plan would greatly reduce federal spending. So nice try.


Then, ban all tax expenditures and you can reduce EVERYONE's tax rates. It is hilarious you scream that is a liberal plan.

That is actually a TEA PARTY plan. Surprise! You are to the left of ME. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

I'm smelling a meltdown.

 

[Newby]

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

We are living longer, we should be working longer. I am sorry that kind of common sense eludes you. Or are you lazy?

The point, since it apparently went over your head, is that people pay thousands into SS and never collect a damn dime out of it. So raising the age to receive 'benefits', i.e. your own damn money back, only makes that happen even more often, more people being ripped off by the government than ever before. Fine, if you want to raise the age that you can receive SS, then if a person dies before being able to collect, then their heir get the amount extended to them when that person would have turned 70. Why not get rid of it altogether and just raise the income tax, at least that would be more honest.

You never answered my earlier question regarding elimination of what you call 'subsidies', mortage interest write off and the like. If you eliminate all of them, are you then suggesting that the overall tax rate be decreased to what people actually paid once the write offs are gone, or are you just saying everyone takes a huge hit on their income tax? If it's the second, what do you think that would do to the economy and middle class? Can most people afford to lose thousands a year of their pay with the swipe of a pen?

 

[g5000]

From The Blaze, which I am pretty sure is not a liberal bastion: Simple, Low, Fair, and Honest: a Tea Party Tax Code | TheBlaze.com

By eliminating every single deduction, credit, penalty, and loophole, we can erase the tax code’s inherent unfairness, which only benefits the Buffetts, Pelosis, and Romneys. Not only will this raise revenues, it will ensnare the tax cheats, expanding the nation’s taxable base. Next, you lower the rates considerably, doing away with brackets, until we have a single flat tax rate. In one popular flat tax proposal, a family of four would have the first $33,800 of its income tax free; any amount above this would be taxed at 17 percent – for everyone. No deductions, no loopholes.

With a nod to Vox for being the one who turned me on to this article.

 

[Newby]

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

Aside from the common sense that we are living longer and therefore we should be working longer, there is another common sense aspect to raising the retirement age.

If you start work at 18, retire at 65, and die at the average life expectancy of 78, then you are working 47 years to pay for 13 years of retirement.

Raise the retirement age to 70, and now you are working 52 years to pay for 8 years of retirement.

That means you would not need as much payroll tax withheld from your pay.

Presto! Your paycheck just got bigger! Good for the economy, too.

Yeah right, they're going to give you that tax money back!! Thanks for the laugh..

And that's why you don't rely on SS or the government to fund your retirement and dictate to you when you can retire. Live within your means, don't go into debt, save, invest, and save some more post tax, and then tell them they can shove their 'retirement age' up their ass.

 

[g5000]

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

We are living longer, we should be working longer. I am sorry that kind of common sense eludes you. Or are you lazy?

The point, since it apparently went over your head, is that people pay thousands into SS and never collect a damn dime out of it. So raising the age to receive 'benefits', i.e. your own damn money back, only makes that happen even more often, more people being ripped off by the government than ever before. Fine, if you want to raise the age that you can receive SS, then if a person dies before being able to collect, then their heir get the amount extended to them when that person would have turned 70. Why not get rid of it altogether and just raise the income tax, at least that would be more honest.

We need to move back toward the way Social Security was orginally designed to operate. It was not intended for everyone to collect it. It was for those who lived past the mean and were too feeble to support themselves.

So if you think not living long enough to draw on Social Security for a third of your life is some kind of ripoff, take it up with FDR.

You never answered my earlier question regarding elimination of what you call 'subsidies', mortage interest write off and the like. If you eliminate all of them, are you then suggesting that the overall tax rate be decreased to what people actually paid once the write offs are gone, or are you just saying everyone takes a huge hit on their income tax? If it's the second, what do you think that would do to the economy and middle class? Can most people afford to lose thousands a year of their pay with the swipe of a pen?

Not everyone would take a huge hit on their income tax. Just the ones receiving all those subsidies.

But yes, I have stated many times in this topic, even boldfaced it a couple times, that we could reduce EVERYONE's tax rates if we eliminated all tax expenditures.

So instead of being taxed at 33% because of all this crap, everyone in the same income group would be taxed at 25%.

Two people earning identical incomes would be paying identical income taxes. It does not get more fair than that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

Aside from the common sense that we are living longer and therefore we should be working longer, there is another common sense aspect to raising the retirement age.

If you start work at 18, retire at 65, and die at the average life expectancy of 78, then you are working 47 years to pay for 13 years of retirement.

Raise the retirement age to 70, and now you are working 52 years to pay for 8 years of retirement.

That means you would not need as much payroll tax withheld from your pay.

Presto! Your paycheck just got bigger! Good for the economy, too.

This is flawed. I was never taught to strive for handouts. I was taught to earn them; not to sit there expecting them simply because I live long enough to see them. I would rather I have the things I built and strove for sitting there for me, instead of some handout the government promised me. I would rather make my own way to retirement, instead of being led by the hand to it by my government. There is more self satisfaction in "assembly required" rather than "no assembly required."

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

Aside from the common sense that we are living longer and therefore we should be working longer, there is another common sense aspect to raising the retirement age.

If you start work at 18, retire at 65, and die at the average life expectancy of 78, then you are working 47 years to pay for 13 years of retirement.

Raise the retirement age to 70, and now you are working 52 years to pay for 8 years of retirement.

That means you would not need as much payroll tax withheld from your pay.

Presto! Your paycheck just got bigger! Good for the economy, too.

Yeah right, they're going to give you that tax money back!! Thanks for the laugh..

And that's why you don't rely on SS or the government to fund your retirement and dictate to you when you can retire. Live within your means, don't go into debt, save, invest, and save some more post tax, and then tell them they can shove their 'retirement age' up their ass.

Most especially when the statists scream bloody murder if somebody who actually earns an income gets a tax break even as they scream bloody murder if we suggest that the roughly 50% who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes be required to have some skin in the game so they can't vote to punish the rest of us without punishing themselves. And I blame George W. Bush a LOT for putting us in that situation.

And Obama has double downed on it with Obamacare that hurts the large majority of us and by threatening to punish the most successful in the nation.

A great deal of that $17 billion dollar debt is purely because government refuses to reduce itself or rein in itself while it has increasingly attempted to punish the most successful and increasingly reward the less successful or the abject failures.

 

[Newby]

A mortgage interest deduction is not a subsidy. It is an incentive that encourages home ownership by making homes more affordable.

It most certainly is a subsidy. And you left out the word "government" when you called it an "incentive". It is a government incentive. It is government meddling in the housing market. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You actually believe the housing market would suffer without your government crutch! That is NOT
a conservative principle. Not even close.

And it does not make homes more afforable. I told you it increases the prices of houses. A conservative knows this.

A subsidy takes from one tax payer and gives it to another. I know that our liberal friends really can't comprehend how those two things are different, but conservatives can.

Those subsidies have to be made up for. If the government is giving you cash back for buying a house, that is a subsidy no different than getting cash back for buying health insurance.

That cash back has to be made up for by someone else in the form of higher tax rates.

You are using rationale identical to that of a welfare queen, claiming you NEED that government incentive, and claiming it is good for the economy for the government to give you money.


If you have a road in front of your house that costs $500 to maintain, and you live next door to a neighbor who earns the same income you do, you both would be paying $250 apiece for the road. But for every dollar you get in mortgage subsidy, that is a dollar higher in tax your neighbor has to pay to make up the difference to pay for that road.

Or else your subsidy has to be borrowed from China.

You are being carried on other people's backs, and running the country deeper into debt.

I still say it is something in the water that liberals drink.

A tax deduction does not have to be made up anywhere else if the government simply does not expect the money in the first place.

A competent budget process looks at the money that is expected to come in, allocates the money to to those things government HAS to do first, and if there is anything left over, can allocate money to things that are nice to do.

A subsidy is something government will pay out of the treasury and should be budgeted. A tax deduction is not budgeted.

To say that money the government does not expect to get in the first place has to be replaced by something is just nuts.

It's like saying that if you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Exactly... You're simply getting to keep your own money, it wasn't the government's money to begin with. I also don't understand, since he advocated eliminating the brackets and a flat rate for everyone why it makes a difference if I pay a 15% overall tax on my income after taking deductions, or if I just have a flat 15% rate to pay? The only difference is 'fairness', one person may pay at a lower rate than another based on what deductions they might qualify for. But as you said, it's not taking money out of anyone else's pocket, it's simply keeping money in the pockets of those who earned it. It's not like person A's taxes are magically increased because person B took their deductions, that's not how it works.

 

[Newby]

A tax deduction does not have to be made up anywhere else if the government simply does not expect the money in the first place.

This is some wild illogic!

If the government has to factor in the decreased revenues from all their subsidies, that means it has to raise tax rates to make up for those subsidies!

Why can you not comprehend this simple mathematical fact?

"We need $500, but we are only going to get $400 because we are giving kickbacks to people who are behaving the way we want them to behave. Therefore, we are going to have to raise tax rates to get that number up to $500."

Simple as that.

But who says the hypothetical raised rate isn't placed onto the same people taking the deductions or 'subsidies' as you like to label them? It's not like it's specifically being raised on only people that don't take the deductions, which is what you've implied. In the end, we all get screwed.

 

[g5000]

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

Aside from the common sense that we are living longer and therefore we should be working longer, there is another common sense aspect to raising the retirement age.

If you start work at 18, retire at 65, and die at the average life expectancy of 78, then you are working 47 years to pay for 13 years of retirement.

Raise the retirement age to 70, and now you are working 52 years to pay for 8 years of retirement.

That means you would not need as much payroll tax withheld from your pay.

Presto! Your paycheck just got bigger! Good for the economy, too.

Yeah right, they're going to give you that tax money back!! Thanks for the laugh..

Did you not have your payroll taxes lowered by Obama for two years?

Yes, you did.

Of course the Right would make sure your payroll taxes would be lowered if you work five years longer and retire five years less.

And that's why you don't rely on SS or the government to fund your retirement and dictate to you when you can retire. Live within your means, don't go into debt, save, invest, and save some more post tax, and then tell them they can shove their 'retirement age' up their ass.

Precisely what I am doing. I'll be fine. But there are many who won't be, and who were not, and that is exactly why SS was enacted.

 

[g5000]

Exactly... You're simply getting to keep your own money,

Which then means someone else has to pay more to make up the difference.

This is basic math, folks.

 

[g5000]

A tax deduction does not have to be made up anywhere else if the government simply does not expect the money in the first place.

This is some wild illogic!

If the government has to factor in the decreased revenues from all their subsidies, that means it has to raise tax rates to make up for those subsidies!

Why can you not comprehend this simple mathematical fact?

"We need $500, but we are only going to get $400 because we are giving kickbacks to people who are behaving the way we want them to behave. Therefore, we are going to have to raise tax rates to get that number up to $500."

Simple as that.

But who says the hypothetical raised rate isn't placed onto the same people taking the deductions or 'subsidies' as you like to label them? It's not like it's specifically being raised on only people that don't take the deductions, which is what you've implied. In the end, we all get screwed.

Yes, tax rates across the board have to be raised to offset the $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures. Correct.

Which is why if you eliminate them, tax rates across the board can be lowered.

Basic math, folks!

Your deductions are forcing tax rates up and more borrowing!

 

[Newby]

This is some wild illogic!

If the government has to factor in the decreased revenues from all their subsidies, that means it has to raise tax rates to make up for those losses!

Why can you not comprehend this simple mathematical fact?

Why? Why does the government have to make up decreased revenues when it spends far more money than it has to spend in the first place?

What is so imperative to you statists/leftists/progressives/political class/liberals that makes the idea of LESS government, more efficient government, more effective government, less costly government so horrendous to you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that a prosperous, vital, energetic, thriving public sector economy produces far more revenues for government than raising taxes or eliminting deductions can ever do? That the more government does to diminish private sector activity, the less revenues are produced?

Why is cutting spending never seen as an option to you?

And why can't you see that your attitudes are what have produced a $17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions every single day?

Look at you, shrieking I am a liberal because I am opposed to unconservative tax expenditures.

I have said time and again that faux conservatives will scream like a welfare queen if you threaten the mortage interest deduction. Thanks for proving me right.

I posted two solutions. The first was to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70 and index them to 9 percent of the population. That is most assuredly NOT a liberal plan.

And that plan would greatly reduce federal spending. So nice try.


Then, ban all tax expenditures and you can reduce EVERYONE's tax rates. It is hilarious you scream that is a liberal plan. Tax expenditures are $1.2 trillion of federal spending, hon. They really are. Your mortgage interest deduction is adding to the federal debt every day. I have proven this.

Eliminating them is actually a TEA PARTY plan. Surprise! You are to the LEFT of me. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

If it does, it's a drop of water in the ocean of debt. Why don't you just go buy some property already and claim the deduction, I've never seen anyone harp over one little thing like this in every thread on the board. You somehow think this is some kind of a big 'gotchya' to conservatives when it's completely irrelevent to the debt discussion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Exactly... You're simply getting to keep your own money,

Which then means someone else has to pay more to make up the difference.

This is basic math, folks.

Basic math. You know nothing of it. Basic math is that you don't live beyond your means. You don't take on more debt than you're worth. It's 'common sense' as you so aptly describe it.

 

[g5000]

Why? Why does the government have to make up decreased revenues when it spends far more money than it has to spend in the first place?

What is so imperative to you statists/leftists/progressives/political class/liberals that makes the idea of LESS government, more efficient government, more effective government, less costly government so horrendous to you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that a prosperous, vital, energetic, thriving public sector economy produces far more revenues for government than raising taxes or eliminting deductions can ever do? That the more government does to diminish private sector activity, the less revenues are produced?

Why is cutting spending never seen as an option to you?

And why can't you see that your attitudes are what have produced a $17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions every single day?

Look at you, shrieking I am a liberal because I am opposed to unconservative tax expenditures.

I have said time and again that faux conservatives will scream like a welfare queen if you threaten the mortage interest deduction. Thanks for proving me right.

I posted two solutions. The first was to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70 and index them to 9 percent of the population. That is most assuredly NOT a liberal plan.

And that plan would greatly reduce federal spending. So nice try.


Then, ban all tax expenditures and you can reduce EVERYONE's tax rates. It is hilarious you scream that is a liberal plan. Tax expenditures are $1.2 trillion of federal spending, hon. They really are. Your mortgage interest deduction is adding to the federal debt every day. I have proven this.

Eliminating them is actually a TEA PARTY plan. Surprise! You are to the LEFT of me. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

If it does, it's a drop of water in the ocean of debt. Why don't you just go buy some property already and claim the deduction, I've never seen anyone harp over one little thing like this in every thread on the board. You somehow think this is some kind of a big 'gotchya' to conservatives when it's completely irrelevent to the debt discussion.

Mortgage deduction is the second biggest cost.