Can someone making $1 million a year afford a 5.87% tax increase?

[Redfish]

By contrast, completely eliminating the mortgage interest and property tax deduction—a drastic change that probably would only happen if accompanied by a new tax preference for housing—would cause housing prices to fall by an average of 11.8 percent in the 23 cities studied. Estimated price declines would range from 10.3 percent in Seattle to 13.8 percent in Milwaukee.

TPC Finds Little Price Shock for Reforming the Mortgage Interest Deduction | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget


How many times have conservatives argued that government interference in markets drives up the cost of living?

Well?

There you go.

Ban all tax expenditures. It is government interference on an astronomical scale.

WTF do you mean by that?

 

[Ame®icano]

The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.

Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.

They don't pay their fair share? They pay what the law requires them. If the people don't determine what the fair share to pay is, who does? And it's still far more than we are required to pay.

Let's make it simple. Everyone pays exactly 9% of their income. Not a penny more. That's fair to everyone. Well actually it's a little on the high side for everyone, but everyone would be treated equally.

Negative ghost rider. To treat everyone equally, everyone would pay the same amount of taxes. For example, when you buy a gallon of milk it's five bucks. When I buy a gallon of milk it's five bucks. Same price for both of us. Not 2dollars for you and 10for me because I make 5times more than you. When you and I buy a government service we should pay the same flat amount. For example, if I want to send my kid to public school that should be a flat amount. Drive on a road, flat amount. Pay for my senator in DC, flat amount. Pay for a particular amount of SS insurance, flat amount.

I am for flat tax, no tax breaks, deductions, incentives.

I wouldn't reject your view (it looks like consumer tax) if there are no other taxes imposed.

 

[Ame®icano]

At the hearing, Camp hosted several critics of the deduction, including Eric Toder of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and Phillip Swagel, who was a Treasury Department official for President George W. Bush. Toder said the deduction doesn’t increase homeownership rates and instead encourages buyers to borrow more or buy bigger homes.

Isn't that a goal? Borrow more, so Fannie and Freddie can repackage more and sell as triple A securities? And when thing crashes, they can vote on stimulus to fix the situation...

All starts with government and ends with government. Free market.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The lege decides this, guys, and guess what.

 

[Redfish]

The lege decides this, guys, and guess what.

yes, the tax code has been put in place by congress. Congress has been dominated by democrats for most of the last 75 years------guess what, the tax code that you libs hate so much was put in place by the people that you put in DC.

 

[g5000]

The lege decides this, guys, and guess what.

yes, the tax code has been put in place by congress. Congress has been dominated by democrats for most of the last 75 years------guess what, the tax code that you libs hate so much was put in place by the people that you put in DC.

The tax code has a change added at an average of one per day for over a decade now, and if you are stupid enough to believe it is only Democrats doing that, then you are even dumber than I thought.

 

[g5000]

http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov...Most-Serious-Problems-Tax-Code-Complexity.pdf

According to a tally compiled by a leading publisher of tax information, there have been approximately 4,680 changes to the tax code since 2001, an average of more than one a day.

There is a widespread belief that the influence of “special interests” is the biggest roadblock to comprehensive tax reform. There is no doubt that many provisions in the tax code benefit narrow groups of taxpayers. But the largest special interests are us — the vast majority of U.S. taxpayers. Virtually all of us benefit from tax breaks that are technically defined as “tax expenditures” — special reductions in tax revenue attributable to an exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or a credit, preferential tax rate, or deferral of tax.

For FY 2013, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that total individual income tax expenditures will come to $1.09 trillion, and the Treasury Department has estimated the total as $1.02 trillion.

 

[Redfish]

The lege decides this, guys, and guess what.

yes, the tax code has been put in place by congress. Congress has been dominated by democrats for most of the last 75 years------guess what, the tax code that you libs hate so much was put in place by the people that you put in DC.

The tax code has a change added at an average of one per day for over a decade now, and if you are stupid enough to believe it is only Democrats doing that, then you are even dumber than I thought.

did I say that, dingleberry?

I said that dems have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years, and that is true.

 

[g5000]

yes, the tax code has been put in place by congress. Congress has been dominated by democrats for most of the last 75 years------guess what, the tax code that you libs hate so much was put in place by the people that you put in DC.

The tax code has a change added at an average of one per day for over a decade now, and if you are stupid enough to believe it is only Democrats doing that, then you are even dumber than I thought.

did I say that, dingleberry?

I said that dems have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years, and that is true.

You were clearly trying to put all the blame on the Democrats.

 

[Redfish]

The tax code has a change added at an average of one per day for over a decade now, and if you are stupid enough to believe it is only Democrats doing that, then you are even dumber than I thought.

did I say that, dingleberry?

I said that dems have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years, and that is true.

You were clearly trying to put all the blame on the Democrats.

Nope, not ALL of it, just MOST of it. and history says I am right.

 

[g5000]

did I say that, dingleberry?

I said that dems have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years, and that is true.

You were clearly trying to put all the blame on the Democrats.

Nope, not ALL of it, just MOST of it. and history says I am right.

Ask your Republican/conservative elected representatives what they are doing to have all tax expenditures, including the mortgage interest deduction, banned from the tax code.

Be sure and specifically mention the mortgage interest deduction. It's the second biggest individual one.

Then we'll see about "most".

 

[Redfish]

You were clearly trying to put all the blame on the Democrats.

Nope, not ALL of it, just MOST of it. and history says I am right.

Ask your Republican/conservative elected representatives what they are doing to have all tax expenditures, including the mortgage interest deduction, banned from the tax code.

Be sure and specifically mention the mortgage interest deduction. It's the third biggest one.

Then we'll see about "most".

what do you mean by 'tax expenditures'. are you talking about deductions for taxes paid? mortgage interest is not a tax

 

[g5000]

While we are on the subject, ask your elected representatives about raising the retirement age to 70.

As much as Boehner disappoints me, at least he has the guts to say we need to raise it. But other Republicans who say so are far and few between.

The last time the GOP managed to raise the retirement age (by two measly years), they made sure it would not go into effect until they were all dead and gone. Literally.

So don't talk to me about "most".

 

[Redfish]

While we are on the subject, ask your elected representatives about raising the retirement age to 70.

As much as Boehner disappoints me, at least he has the guts to say we need to raise it. But other Republicans who say so are far and few between.

The last time the GOP managed to raise the retirement age (by two measly years), they made sure it would not go into effect until they were all dead and gone. Literally.

So don't talk to me about "most".

first of all, I don't think the retirement age should be raised. we need jobs for young people, let the old people get out of their way.

While you are at it please list the dem sponsored bills that will do what you want done to the tax code.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you're going with social contract theory and hyperbole. Problem: When did you or I sign this alleged social contract? Never. So trying to enforce a contract I never signed is simply another act of aggression, just as you are advocating aggression against people who make a lot of money.

Accepting the benefits that you derive on a daily basis is an implicit acceptance of this social contract.

The fact that I am forced to adhere to the so-called social contract on the basis of the threat of violence against me if I do not does not constitute implicit acceptance.

Hyperbole or paranoia?

 

[g5000]

While we are on the subject, ask your elected representatives about raising the retirement age to 70.

As much as Boehner disappoints me, at least he has the guts to say we need to raise it. But other Republicans who say so are far and few between.

The last time the GOP managed to raise the retirement age (by two measly years), they made sure it would not go into effect until they were all dead and gone. Literally.

So don't talk to me about "most".

first of all, I don't think the retirement age should be raised. we need jobs for young people, let the old people get out of their way.

While you are at it please list the dem sponsored bills that will do what you want done to the tax code.

I have never claimed the Democrats want to eliminate tax expenditures. I am saying both parties are guilty.

You keep trying to paint the GOP as some sort of never-can-do-wrong and never-hypocritical party.

It's bullshit. We have an American Politiburo.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Can you imagine what the average citizen would have in their SS account if the Bush proposal to privatize 10% of SS contributions for investment into the market would amount too?

The Dow hit 16,000 today and anyone that would have been dollar cost averaging into the market for the last 5 years would have made a lot of money.

I know, because I did that with my own money.

Imagine someone retiring in November 2008 and their entire SS "portfolio" decimated by the market collapse!

Why would a 66 year old have their entire portfolio in stocks?

80% of people don't understand how the markets work and lose money even when using so called "safe" investments.

 

[g5000]

A great deal of the incentive for the American Politboro to keep those tax expenditures alive and well is to keep the campaign cash flowing in which ensures their 90 percent-plus re-election rate.

Ban tax expenditures, and a large part of the incentive to give these assholes cash goes away. The electoral field will suddenly become more level.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Can you imagine what the average citizen would have in their SS account if the Bush proposal to privatize 10% of SS contributions for investment into the market would amount too?

The Dow hit 16,000 today and anyone that would have been dollar cost averaging into the market for the last 5 years would have made a lot of money.

I know, because I did that with my own money.

Imagine someone retiring in November 2008 and their entire SS "portfolio" decimated by the market collapse!

It would have made very little difference since SS is paid out monthly. 90% of the 'portfolio' was not in the market and the remaining 10% invested would have grown over the last 5 years.

Who says that they are going to live another 5 years?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Marginally. You are still making an erroneous assumption about insurance premiums. SS is income replacement insurance. You won't be charged the same flat rate to replace an income of $50k and $500k in the private sector.

The maximum payout of SS is $36,850 a year and that is if you payed in the max for the required number of years and retired at age 70.

Non sequitur response. Your were making allegations about insurance premiums.