Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That would be an extremely distorted definition of free markets, I'm afraid.
The mortgage interest deduction is government intervention in the housing market in every sense of the meaning, and it drives the cost of houses up. It also forces others to pay higher income taxes to pay for it.
The employer sponsored health insurance tax free benefit is government intervention in the healthcare market in every sense of the meaning, and it drives the cost of healthcare up. It also forces others to pay higher income taxes to pay for it.
These should be driving any right-minded Libertarian as insane as they get over the Federal Reserve.
the mortgage interest deduction is in the tax code to incentivize home ownership, why do you think home ownership is a bad thing? Would you prefer a system where everyone rents from the government?
Marty, Redfish, and I all have the right, as do all citizens, to chime in.
Their far right reactionary response to my GOP mainstream comments is "Nazi" "socialist" "liberal" and so forth.
We the People, son, have every right through our legislatures to create tax brackets.
So, yes, we can do that.
And I am quite sure I have paid more in taxes in my life than the two of you have earned in income.
Closing off the tax loop holes would "hurt" me as much as any other capitalist.
Those folks that have done well in the environment of this wonderful country do have a social obligation to help bring others up.
I don't care whether you agree, you two, because I have the votes and you don't.
I asked you which specific loopholes you would close. Did you respond? maybe I missed it.
I would close all of them. Every last one of the annual $1.2 trillion worth.
The reward would be lower tax brackets for everyone. And no more borrowing from China.
Government spending is ridiculous, but just by raising Social Security and Medicare eligibility to 70, and banning tax expenditures, our government would be rolling in cash without cutting a cent of other spending.
Ame®icano;8171837 said:The mortgage interest deduction is government intervention in the housing market in every sense of the meaning, and it drives the cost of houses up. It also forces others to pay higher income taxes to pay for it.
The employer sponsored health insurance tax free benefit is government intervention in the healthcare market in every sense of the meaning, and it drives the cost of healthcare up. It also forces others to pay higher income taxes to pay for it.
These should be driving any right-minded Libertarian as insane as they get over the Federal Reserve.
the mortgage interest deduction is in the tax code to incentivize home ownership, why do you think home ownership is a bad thing? Would you prefer a system where everyone rents from the government?
Why to give incentives for anything? If you can't afford the house, don't buy it.
Why should government spend my tax dollars on incentive for, let's say "high efficiency furnace"? People should know if they run old furnace they would spend more on heat. If that's not incentive good enough, what it is?
Government should stay out of all of it.
if you are saying a flat tax with everyone paying the same rate and having it apply to all earned income, then I am with you. I would even exempt anyone making under 25K from paying any federal income tax.
I do not agree in making people work until 70. let them retire at 62 or whatever age beyond that they choose. Open up those jobs to young people.
I am simply amazed someone claiming to be Libertarian goes along with the tax expenditure scheme which is an astronomical government intervention in free markets.
That would be an extremely distorted definition of free markets, I'm afraid.
The mortgage interest deduction is government intervention in the housing market in every sense of the meaning, and it drives the cost of houses up. It also forces others to pay higher income taxes to pay for it.
The employer sponsored health insurance tax free benefit is government intervention in the healthcare market in every sense of the meaning, and it drives the cost of healthcare up. It also forces others to pay higher income taxes to pay for it.
These should be driving any right-minded Libertarian as insane as they get over the Federal Reserve.
Spread the loan over fifty years.without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes
if you are saying a flat tax with everyone paying the same rate and having it apply to all earned income, then I am with you. I would even exempt anyone making under 25K from paying any federal income tax.
A flat tax is not inherently immune to tax expenditures. You would not be solving anything if you did not ban tax expenditures.
I do not agree in making people work until 70. let them retire at 62 or whatever age beyond that they choose. Open up those jobs to young people.
It isn't 60+ year olds who are the problem. It is a lack of job growth.
We are living decades longer than our ancestors. It is blazingly obvious we should be working longer.
who would own property under your system? the rich or the government? without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes, it would be easier to rent and let someone else worry about maintenance, insurance, etc. Personally, I don't see that as a good scenario
Spread the loan over fifty years.without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes
who would own property under your system? the rich or the government? without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes, it would be easier to rent and let someone else worry about maintenance, insurance, etc. Personally, I don't see that as a good scenario
This is the same kind of rationalization hippies use for their government tit, and it is totally false.
In countries which eliminated mortage interest deductions, there was no change in home ownership rates.
Also, the deduction is extremely regressive. The wealthier you are, the bigger your deduction which the rest of us have to pay for. This is a tax break for the rich.
While the rising percentage of Americans owning a home has paralleled the broadening of the income tax, there is surprisingly little hard evidence that the mortgage interest deduction has encouraged home ownership. The Harvard economists Edward L. Glaeser and Jesse M. Shapiro have found that it has only a trivial impact.
A major reason is that the deduction has long been capitalized into the prices of homes. That is, home prices are higher than they would be without the deduction. Thus to the extent that the deduction encourages home ownership, it is exactly offset by the extent to which high prices discourage home ownership.
Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post
For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.
The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.
Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.
What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.
Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?
Ame®icano;8171837 said:the mortgage interest deduction is in the tax code to incentivize home ownership, why do you think home ownership is a bad thing? Would you prefer a system where everyone rents from the government?
Why to give incentives for anything? If you can't afford the house, don't buy it.
Why should government spend my tax dollars on incentive for, let's say "high efficiency furnace"? People should know if they run old furnace they would spend more on heat. If that's not incentive good enough, what it is?
Government should stay out of all of it.
who would own property under your system? the rich or the government? without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes, it would be easier to rent and let someone else worry about maintenance, insurance, etc. Personally, I don't see that as a good scenario
if you are saying a flat tax with everyone paying the same rate and having it apply to all earned income, then I am with you. I would even exempt anyone making under 25K from paying any federal income tax.
A flat tax is not inherently immune to tax expenditures. You would not be solving anything if you did not ban tax expenditures.
I do not agree in making people work until 70. let them retire at 62 or whatever age beyond that they choose. Open up those jobs to young people.
It isn't 60+ year olds who are the problem. It is a lack of job growth.
We are living decades longer than our ancestors. It is blazingly obvious we should be working longer.
we agree that govt expenditures should be cut drastically
you want jobs for young people? let the old people retire.
Ame®icano;8171837 said:the mortgage interest deduction is in the tax code to incentivize home ownership, why do you think home ownership is a bad thing? Would you prefer a system where everyone rents from the government?
Why to give incentives for anything? If you can't afford the house, don't buy it.
Why should government spend my tax dollars on incentive for, let's say "high efficiency furnace"? People should know if they run old furnace they would spend more on heat. If that's not incentive good enough, what it is?
Government should stay out of all of it.
who would own property under your system? the rich or the government? without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes, it would be easier to rent and let someone else worry about maintenance, insurance, etc. Personally, I don't see that as a good scenario
A flat tax is not inherently immune to tax expenditures. You would not be solving anything if you did not ban tax expenditures.
It isn't 60+ year olds who are the problem. It is a lack of job growth.
We are living decades longer than our ancestors. It is blazingly obvious we should be working longer.
we agree that govt expenditures should be cut drastically
you want jobs for young people? let the old people retire.
Retired old people draw from the national treasury. Pay in longer, draw out less.
Get all this damned government intervention out of the markets and the economy will improve. The debt alone is killing jobs.
who would own property under your system? the rich or the government? without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes, it would be easier to rent and let someone else worry about maintenance, insurance, etc. Personally, I don't see that as a good scenario
This is the same kind of rationalization hippies use for their government tit, and it is totally false.
In countries which eliminated mortage interest deductions, there was no change in home ownership rates.
Also, the deduction is extremely regressive. The wealthier you are, the bigger your deduction which the rest of us have to pay for. This is a tax break for the rich.
we agree that govt expenditures should be cut drastically
you want jobs for young people? let the old people retire.
Retired old people draw from the national treasury. Pay in longer, draw out less.
Get all this damned government intervention out of the markets and the economy will improve. The debt alone is killing jobs.
Does anyone know if G5000 is a schizophrenic? 80% of the time he rants against capitalism like an unhinged communist. The other 20% of the time, he flawlessly supports free markets like a bright, rational, educated American.
I'm simply baffled by this guy....
Spread the loan over fifty years.without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes
how much interest would accrue on a 50 year mortgate for 200K at 4%? Thats really a dumb idea, but I am sure the banks would like it.
Social Security proposals are wrongheaded - The Washington Post
For someone earning $1 million, the tax increase would be $58,700.
The options are keeping Social Security solvent or allowing those making $1 million a year to keep 5.87% of their pre-tax earnings.
Seems like a small enough increase for the long term benefit of the nation to a fiscal conservative like myself. And yes, I will personally pay more in taxes if this passes. But having a stable future for this nation means more to me than this paltry amount. If anything it is cheap at the price.
What is even more attractive is that it is a flat tax, something that fiscal conservatives have been advocating for ever since the Reagan era.
Besides the kneejerk opposition to any tax increase what are the legitimate objections to a reasonable and effective solution of this modest nature?
