The Debt Clock is Overheating. . . .

[g5000]

All tax expenditures add up to $1.2 trillion.

Calling that a drop in the bucket is hilarious.

 

[Newby]

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.

So, in the end you're still evening it all out, it's the same revenue to the government once the subsides are eliminated and the flat tax implemented, therefore having absolutely no impact on debt whatsoever. That certainly kills your enitire argument about them adding to the debt, doesn't it? All that does is make taxation 'fair' in your eyes, which is all you really seem to care about.

 

[Newby]

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.

Why is it always 'someone else' that has to pay? What if I pay more because of it and I break even? Your assumptions don't add up, nor can they be proven.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All tax expenditures add up to $1.2 trillion.

Calling that a drop in the bucket is hilarious.

You should have heard the liberals going into a literal apoplectic over losing $24 billion during the government shutdown. Me thinks your priorities as well as theirs are seriously out of sync.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All tax expenditures add up to $1.2 trillion.

Calling that a drop in the bucket is hilarious.

To add, $1.2 trillion is indeed a drop in the bucket. We owe $17 trillion. You could tax every millionaire and billionaire in the United States at a 100% rate, AND YOU STILL WOULDN'T PAY OFF THE DEBT.

 

[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 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!

This makes no sense, G... Simple math, as you keep saying, is obviously escaping you.

Let's say you eliminate that 1.2 trillion in tax expenditures, and now the government has 1.2 trillion more dollars coming in. Are you then suggesting that all 1.2 trillion dollars gets sent back to the tax payer by having every person's rate lowered? If so, then the government is no further ahead, they are breaking even, does nothing for the debt. If you're saying that all 1.2 trillion is kept by the government to go to debt, you're destroying the middle class who can't afford that tax bill. So, which is it?

 

[Newby]

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.

You still aren't getting it!! If you take away my mortgage deduction, but lower my rate so that I end up paying the same effective rate that I would have had with the mortgage deduction anyway, it's a wash!!! So the deduction is not a 'cost' in any way if you're just going to turn around and give that money back to the tax payer in the form of lower rates.

 

[Foxfyre]

G5000 expresses the popular statist and libertarian points of view re the mortgage tax deduction, but he grossly overstates the impact to the U.S. treasury:

WASHINGTON — In the contentious debate over whether to reduce or eliminate the home-mortgage interest tax deduction — or leave it alone — one fact has been virtually unchallenged: The popular write-off used by millions of American owners costs the government massive amounts of revenue, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion a year.

This adds to the federal deficit and debt, and has ranked the deduction high on the hit list of most tax reformers' agendas, including the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles deficit commission's plan. President Obama called for limiting it throughout his first term in office and ran on a platform to pare down its costs in his reelection campaign. The compromise congressional tax package that ended the "fiscal cliff" crisis Jan. 2 also contained a limitation on the mortgage write-off, targeted at high-income taxpayers.

But hold on. How much does allowing owners to deduct the interest they pay on their home loans really cost the government? Congress' technical experts on the subject have come up with new estimates that should figure into congressional deliberations expected later this year on overhauling the federal tax code. Their findings: The mortgage write-off costs tens of billions of dollars less than the government previously believed.

One day after the Internal Revenue Service released its latest instructions for homeowners on claiming the mortgage-interest write-off for the upcoming tax season, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation published revised estimates indicating that because of changes in the economy and tax legislation, the cost of the deduction for fiscal 2013 will be $69.7 billion. . . . .

Estimated cost of mortgage interest write-off is revised down - Los Angeles Times

In a conventional static revenue estimate that holds the size of the economy fixed, the Tax Foundation's simulation model estimates that abolishing the federal income tax deduction for mortgage interest would have raised federal revenue by $101 billion in 2012. The Treasury estimate is $82 billion, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate is $69 billion. (The reason for this difference is that our model draws on 2008 IRS data, so it is likely that mortgage interest rates and deductions are probably higher in our base data set than they are at present.)

When the unrealistic static assumption is relaxed, the Tax Foundation model predicts that ending the deduction would cause some economic harm. Losing the deduction would push some people into higher tax brackets, and the people affected would respond to the higher marginal tax rates by working and investing less. In addition, the higher cost of home ownership would somewhat reduce the value of the owner-occupied housing stock, either through lower home prices or the building of smaller housing units over time.[4] These incentive and price effects would make GDP lower by about $254 billion at 2012 income levels. Because of the negative economic feedback, the estimate of the dynamic revenue gain would be roughly one-third the amount of the static estimate, about $39 billion. (See Chart 1.)
Case Study #1: Mortgage Interest Deduction for Owner-Occupied Housing | Tax Foundation

In the interest of government promoting the general welfare:

What are the benefits of home ownership?

This is a great market for homebuyers. The combination of tax credits, down payment assistance, low interest rates and home values make this a great time to purchase a home. Owning a home may even be less expensive than renting! But, there are even more benefits to owning a home than just price.

For the Family
• Provides a stable living situation
• Creates a solid economic foundation
• Develops personal responsibility
• Breaks dependence on landlords
• Provides a safe, stable environment where children can thrive
• Mortgage payment will remain steady, whereas rent may increase
• Is a source of confidence and pride

For the Community
• Provides increased stability within the neighborhood
• Promotes a safe environment where families interact with and look out for one another
• Fosters neighborhood pride and affiliation
• Develops opportunities for community advancement through the support of local banks, businesses and payment of city taxes

For Society
• Energy-efficient homes not only reduce utility bills, they also are earth-friendly
• One safe, stable neighborhood will positively influence the bordering neighborhood and that one will affect the next
• As homeowners take pride in caring for their home and community, we can’t help but step closer to a safer, healthier world
ICCF - Affordable Housing, Strong Families, Vibrant Communities

And consider these benefits that, when they do not exist, can be extremely costly to society:

.By Selma Hepp, Ph.D.

Dr. Hepp is manager of Public Policy & Homeownership Studies, regularly monitors and writes columns on the latest academic research in housing and urban economics, foreclosures, international housing markets, and demographic trends. Selma also reports on federal and state metropolitan planning policy impacts.​

In addition to tangible financial benefits, research has shown that homeownership brings substantial social benefits for families, communities, and the country as a whole. Because of these societal benefits, policy makers have promoted homeownership through a number of channels. Homeownership has been an essential element of the American Dream for decades and continues to be so even today. Some of the documented social benefits include:
◾Increased charitable activity
◾Civic participation in both local community and national issues (including voting)
◾Greater awareness of the political process
◾Higher incidence of membership in voluntary organizations and church attendance
◾Greater social capital generated
◾Greater attachment to the neighborhood and neighbors
◾Lower teen pregnancy by children’s living in owned homes
◾Higher student test scores by children’s living in owned homes
◾Higher rate of high school graduation thereby higher earnings
◾Children more likely to participate in organized activities and have less television screen time
◾Homeowners take on a greater responsibility such as home maintenance and acquiring the financial skills to handle mortgage payments and those skills transfer to their children
◾Lower teenage delinquencies
◾General increase in positive outlook to life
◾Homeowners reported higher life satisfaction, higher self-esteem, happiness, and higher perceived control over their lives
◾Better health outcomes, better physical and psychological health
◾Tremendous wealth gains for homeowners under normal housing market conditions (outside of the terrible bubble/bust housing years)
◾Homeowners not only experience a significant increase in housing satisfaction, but also obtain a higher satisfaction even in the same home in which they resided as renters
◾Family financial situation and housing tenure during childhood and adulthood, impacted one’s self-rated health (in particular, the socioeconomic disadvantaged indicated by not being able to save any money or not owning or purchasing a home are less likely to self-rate their health as excellent or very good).
◾Less likely to become crime victims
◾Homeowners better maintain their homes, and high quality structures also raise mental health -renter-occupied housing appreciates less than owner-occupied housing
◾Housing prices are higher in high-ownership neighborhoods
◾Maintenance behavior of individual homeowners is influenced by those of their neighbors
Social Benefits of Homeownership and Stable Housing

Now there are good argument out there to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction in return for lowering tax rates across the board or other reforms that would stimulate economic activity, restore individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunites, and help restore some integrity to the government. But thinking eliminating that deduction would substantially increase treasury revenues simply does not stack up against the big picture. And any policy that discourages home ownership will almost certainly cost us mega billions more in social costs than any amount involved with the home mortgage deduction.

And it wouldn't even put a scratch, much less a dent, in that $17 trillion dollar debt that is slowly but surely sinking us.

 

[g5000]

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.

So, in the end you're still evening it all out, it's the same revenue to the government once the subsides are eliminated and the flat tax implemented, therefore having absolutely no impact on debt whatsoever. That certainly kills your enitire argument about them adding to the debt, doesn't it? All that does is make taxation 'fair' in your eyes, which is all you really seem to care about.

If you run up a debt, you have to pay for it sooner or later. Your tax expenditures have been costing $1.2 trillion a year.

Eliminating them, without reducing tax rates, would therefore produce $1.2 trillion in extra revenues.

Raising the retirement age to 70 would eliminate the current deficit, most likely.

So now you have a $1.2 trillion surplus. Presto.

How do you want to spend it? You can lower tax rates AND start paying down the debt.

Again, simple math, folks.

We ran up the debt to $16 trillion with this kind of subsidy bullshit. It's a $16 trillion shit sandwich, and everyone has to take a bite.

 

[g5000]

Now there are good argument out there to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction in return for lowering tax rates across the board or other reforms that would stimulate economic activity, restore individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunites, and help restore some integrity to the government. But thinking eliminating that deduction would substantially increase treasury revenues simply does not stack up against the big picture. And any policy that discourages home ownership will almost certainly cost us mega billions more in social costs than any amount involved with the home mortgage deduction.

And it wouldn't even put a scratch, much less a dent, in that $17 trillion dollar debt that is slowly but surely sinking us.

The lowest estimate is $69 billion. EVERY YEAR. You think that is chump change? We have people here whining about ObamaPhones which don't even top a billion dollars.

And that is but one of the $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures out there.

You also are ignoring that the housing subsidy INCREASE THE COST OF HOUSES.

It also has NO EFFECT on the percentage of home ownership. So wax on about all the great benefits of home ownership all you like, the subsidy has NO EFFECT except to make houses MORE EXPENSIVE.

Look at yourself. You are actually arguing government engineering of the market is a GOOD thing! You are trying to prove government involvement in your decisions is good for everyone! You are working as hard as a welfare queen to justify your government milk!

 

[g5000]

You still aren't getting it!! If you take away my mortgage deduction, but lower my rate so that I end up paying the same effective rate that I would have had with the mortgage deduction anyway, it's a wash!!! So the deduction is not a 'cost' in any way if you're just going to turn around and give that money back to the tax payer in the form of lower rates.

You still don't get it. Your mortage deduction is causing someone else to have higher taxes. Your subsidy is paid for by their higher tax rates.

Eliminating your mortgage deduction and lowering your rate might be a wash for you, but it is a GAIN for the people who have been carrying you on their backs. They will have lower tax rates, too. They will get to keep more of their income.

You have tunnel vision and are not thinking about the other people who are carrying you, which is typical of welfare queens. Gimme, gimme, gimme!

 

[Foxfyre]

Now there are good argument out there to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction in return for lowering tax rates across the board or other reforms that would stimulate economic activity, restore individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunites, and help restore some integrity to the government. But thinking eliminating that deduction would substantially increase treasury revenues simply does not stack up against the big picture. And any policy that discourages home ownership will almost certainly cost us mega billions more in social costs than any amount involved with the home mortgage deduction.

And it wouldn't even put a scratch, much less a dent, in that $17 trillion dollar debt that is slowly but surely sinking us.

The lowest estimate is $69 billion. EVERY YEAR. You think that is chump change? We have people here whining about ObamaPhones which don't even top a billion dollars.

And that is but one of the $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures out there.

You also are ignoring that the housing subsidy INCREASE THE COST OF HOUSES.

It also has NO EFFECT on the percentage of home ownership. So wax on about all the great benefits of home ownership all you like, the subsidy has NO EFFECT except to make houses MORE EXPENSIVE.

But just look at you, working as hard as a welfare queen to justify your government milk!

It is chump change compared to the trillion plus you claimed it cost in an earlier post. If you were so ill informed about that, how do we conclude that you know anything about it at all?

I will have to ask you for credible proof--and no I won't accept a leftwing wacko hate blog as proof--that the home mortgage deduction has no effect on home ownership or the affordability of housing.

And show me how my taking a mortgage interest deduction causes you to pay higher taxes. Most especially if my home ownership provides all the benefits to society that I just posted and you continue to ignore. Take your time. I'll wait.

I've made my argument that the benefits sufficiently offset the reduction in taxes to reasonably believe the deduction is revenue neutral. At any rate, it is for damn sure that the home mortgage deduction is not responsible for that $17+ and counting national debt.

It is government spending money they don't have, don't have any justification to believe they will ever receive, and doing so for things that government does not need to do and thngs it shouldn't be doing that created that national debt.

And I have yet to find a liberal/statist/progressive/leftwinger/leftist/political class type who will even acknowledge that, much less discuss it.

 

[g5000]

Bob earns $50k a year.

Joe earns $50k a year.

When the federal budget is evenly divided up, Bob and Joe's share of government spending is $6000. So Bob and Joe should each be paying $3000. That works out to a 6 percent tax on their income.

But Bob is getting a subsidy from the government. He gets to deduct $1000 from his share of the tax burden. His tax bill is $2000.

That subsidy does not magically reduce the budget. That $6000 still needs to come from somewhere.

To balance the budget, Joe will now have to pay $4000 instead of $3000. But $4000 is not 6 percent of Joe's income.

To make this happen, the government has to increase Bob and Joe's tax rates so that after Bob's subsidy is factored out, Bob is paying about $2000 while Joe pays $4000.

Tax rates have to be increased to around 8 percent to make this happen.

Joe pitches a royal hissy fit at having his taxes increased by 33 percent, as he damn well should.

So Congress decides to raise the tax rate to 7 percent instead, and borrow the rest from China.

This is the effect your tax expenditures are having on our country.

If we eliminate the subsidy Bob is getting, we can lower the tax rate to 6 percent. That means Joe gets instant tax relief. The guy you haven't given a flying fuck about as long as you got your government subsidy. Joe has been carrying Bob.

And by eliminating Bob's subsidy, we don't have to borrow money from China any more. Not only that, Joe and Bob pay identical taxes since they earn identical incomes.

Joe is no longer carrying Bob on his back.

 

[g5000]

Now there are good argument out there to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction in return for lowering tax rates across the board or other reforms that would stimulate economic activity, restore individual liberties, choices, options, and opportunites, and help restore some integrity to the government. But thinking eliminating that deduction would substantially increase treasury revenues simply does not stack up against the big picture. And any policy that discourages home ownership will almost certainly cost us mega billions more in social costs than any amount involved with the home mortgage deduction.

And it wouldn't even put a scratch, much less a dent, in that $17 trillion dollar debt that is slowly but surely sinking us.

The lowest estimate is $69 billion. EVERY YEAR. You think that is chump change? We have people here whining about ObamaPhones which don't even top a billion dollars.

And that is but one of the $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures out there.

You also are ignoring that the housing subsidy INCREASE THE COST OF HOUSES.

It also has NO EFFECT on the percentage of home ownership. So wax on about all the great benefits of home ownership all you like, the subsidy has NO EFFECT except to make houses MORE EXPENSIVE.

But just look at you, working as hard as a welfare queen to justify your government milk!

It is chump change compared to the trillion plus you claimed it cost in an earlier post. If you were so ill informed about that, how do we conclude that you know anything about it at all?

I said ALL tax expenditures add up to $1.2 trillion. Not the mortgage subsidy.

I will have to ask you for credible proof--and no I won't accept a leftwing wacko hate blog as proof--that the home mortgage deduction has no effect on home ownership or the affordability of housing.

Already provided! I linked and quoted a right wing conservative economist.

 

[g5000]

Here it is again:

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

Nope. No. Wrong. Incorrect.


The Sacrosanct Mortgage Interest Deduction

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.

The author of that piece "held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. "

 

[g5000]

I have peppered this topic with links to hardcore right wing web sites, conservative economists, and even FreedomWorks, without using a single left wing site.

That's because elimination of tax expenditures is not a left wing cause. It is a right wing cause.

Wake up! Stop being such a brainwashed government financial dependent! Stop riding on other people's backs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here it is again:

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

Nope. No. Wrong. Incorrect.


The Sacrosanct Mortgage Interest Deduction

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.

The author of that piece "held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. "

And that is one man's opinion. I have already conceded that this is the libertarian point of view and many do believe, given the relatively small number of folks who actually benefit from the deduction, it would be better to eliminate it and reduce the overall tax rates. I would be good with that too IF they actually did it that way. Most wanted to eliminate the deduction, however, like yourself, want it eliminated because they think it costs the government money. And I think I have provided plenty of arguments to offset that.

And are you on the left willing for the 'rich' to have their tax rates lowered again?

Here's another man's opinion who is actually looking at most of the pros and cons:

The mortgage interest deduction has been a hot-button issue in the headlines lately. The California Association of Realtors conducted a survey of home buyers and found that 79% said the mortgage interest deduction was “extremely important” in their decision to buy a home. Yet, conversely, per the IRS, only a quarter of the tax filers claim the deduction.
Understanding the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction - Times-Standard Online

This suggests evidence that the home mortgage deduction does encourage home ownership. You can find a study or opinion to prove just about anything.

The mortgage deduction is bad if it encourages people to buy more house than they can afford; however, sound lending practices can easily address that. It was not the mortgage deduction but throwing those sound lending practices out the window that created the housing bubble and crash.

The mortgage deduction is good for people like my husband and myself of quite modest means but who bought a modest home and could easily afford it because of the deduction. The deduction plus our charitable contributions plus the business expenses of our business (operated out of the same home) allowed us to make a living and throw some work to other folks that we would not have been able to do without those tax deductions. (And those other folks would likely have been forced to take real government subsidies had they not had the opportunity to earn an income.)

But the argument is pretty well moot so far as the National Debt is concerned. If we eliminate the home mortgage deduction in return for lowered tax rates for all, unless evidence shows up that more people would not then buy homes, I would go for it. But that wouldn't be a direct infusion of cash into the public treasury would it. Whether it would have positive or negative social impact on quality of life, well we would just have to try it to find out. We KNOW that homeownership does produce a more stable and prosperous society and a much better quality of life for most.

At any rate, whichever side you come down on re the home mortgage deduction, it is not a solution to the $17 trillion dollar debt.

So what of government expenditures are you willing to give up to eliminate that debt?

 

[Newby]

You still aren't getting it!! If you take away my mortgage deduction, but lower my rate so that I end up paying the same effective rate that I would have had with the mortgage deduction anyway, it's a wash!!! So the deduction is not a 'cost' in any way if you're just going to turn around and give that money back to the tax payer in the form of lower rates.

You still don't get it. Your mortage deduction is causing someone else to have higher taxes. Your subsidy is paid for by their higher tax rates.

Eliminating your mortgage deduction and lowering your rate might be a wash for you, but it is a GAIN for the people who have been carrying you on their backs. They will have lower tax rates, too. They will get to keep more of their income.

You have tunnel vision and are not thinking about the other people who are carrying you, which is typical of welfare queens. Gimme, gimme, gimme!

Bullshit! If I'm paying the same effective rate with or without the mortgage deduction, then no one is 'carrying me on their back'. If I pay $20,000 in federal income taxes with the mortgage interest deduction, or I pay $20,000 in federal income taxes without it, but at a lower tax rate, I'm still paying $20,000 either way.

The only way your little scheme works is if you remove the mortgage deduction without any lowering of the tax rate and everyone's taxes go up. Period. How are the taxes of the people who are supposedly carrying me on their back going down when this happens? You're saying you're going to specifically lower the rate of people who don't own a home then? So you eliminate the mortgage deduction and take that 69 billion, or whatever it is and give that tax break to people who don't own homes? If so, then by your definition, I'm now carrying them on my back. Why just the mortgage deduction? What's so special about that? I'm sure there are people who don't get a mortgage deduction that get other deductions that I don't, so am I then carrying them on my back? Your argument is full of holes when all you harp on and on about is the mortgage deduction. The only 'gimme gimme gimme' here is by the federal government and people like you who advocate and defend their theft of my hard earned money to redistribute to make life more 'fair' for others who haven't worked as hard.

Yeah, I'm a 'welfare queen' who has worked full time all of my life including thru college, commutes over two hours a day to make a living for my family, pays tens of thousands every year in taxes, all because I can deduct a couple thousand in mortgage interest to maybe lower my tax bill by a couple hundred bucks? Screw you.

 

[Newby]

Bob earns $50k a year.

Joe earns $50k a year.

When the federal budget is evenly divided up, Bob and Joe's share of government spending is $6000. So Bob and Joe should each be paying $3000. That works out to a 6 percent tax on their income.

But Bob is getting a subsidy from the government. He gets to deduct $1000 from his share of the tax burden. His tax bill is $2000.

That subsidy does not magically reduce the budget. That $6000 still needs to come from somewhere.

To balance the budget, Joe will now have to pay $4000 instead of $3000. But $4000 is not 6 percent of Joe's income.

To make this happen, the government has to increase Bob and Joe's tax rates so that after Bob's subsidy is factored out, Bob is paying about $2000 while Joe pays $4000.

Tax rates have to be increased to around 8 percent to make this happen.

Joe pitches a royal hissy fit at having his taxes increased by 33 percent, as he damn well should.

So Congress decides to raise the tax rate to 7 percent instead, and borrow the rest from China.

This is the effect your tax expenditures are having on our country.

If we eliminate the subsidy Bob is getting, we can lower the tax rate to 6 percent. That means Joe gets instant tax relief. The guy you haven't given a flying fuck about as long as you got your government subsidy. Joe has been carrying Bob.

And by eliminating Bob's subsidy, we don't have to borrow money from China any more. Not only that, Joe and Bob pay identical taxes since they earn identical incomes.

Joe is no longer carrying Bob on his back.

A true conservative would say that you cut the federal government's budget in that case. Both men worked hard to earn their money, and it shouldn't be taken from them for frivolous use and to resdistribute to others who haven't worked at all. Whenever you talk as seriously about cutting the size of government and all the welfare they hand out to pander for votes, then maybe you can talk about removing so called 'subsidies'. Even with the 'subsidies' we're paying way too much for the overbloated pig we call government.

 

[Foxfyre]

You still aren't getting it!! If you take away my mortgage deduction, but lower my rate so that I end up paying the same effective rate that I would have had with the mortgage deduction anyway, it's a wash!!! So the deduction is not a 'cost' in any way if you're just going to turn around and give that money back to the tax payer in the form of lower rates.

You still don't get it. Your mortage deduction is causing someone else to have higher taxes. Your subsidy is paid for by their higher tax rates.

Eliminating your mortgage deduction and lowering your rate might be a wash for you, but it is a GAIN for the people who have been carrying you on their backs. They will have lower tax rates, too. They will get to keep more of their income.

You have tunnel vision and are not thinking about the other people who are carrying you, which is typical of welfare queens. Gimme, gimme, gimme!

Bullshit! If I'm paying the same effective rate with or without the mortgage deduction, then no one is 'carrying me on their back'. If I pay $20,000 in federal income taxes with the mortgage interest deduction, or I pay $20,000 in federal income taxes without it, but at a lower tax rate, I'm still paying $20,000 either way.

The only way your little scheme works is if you remove the mortgage deduction without any lowering of the tax rate and everyone's taxes go up. Period. How are the taxes of the people who are supposedly carrying me on their back going down when this happens? You're saying you're going to specifically lower the rate of people who don't own a home then? So you eliminate the mortgage deduction and take that 69 billion, or whatever it is and give that tax break to people who don't own homes? If so, then by your definition, I'm now carrying them on my back. Why just the mortgage deduction? What's so special about that? I'm sure there are people who don't get a mortgage deduction that get other deductions that I don't, so am I then carrying them on my back? Your argument is full of holes when all you harp on and on about is the mortgage deduction. The only 'gimme gimme gimme' here is by the federal government and people like you who advocate and defend their theft of my hard earned money to redistribute to make life more 'fair' for others who haven't worked as hard.

Yeah, I'm a 'welfare queen' who has worked full time all of my life including thru college, commutes over two hours a day to make a living for my family, pays tens of thousands every year in taxes, all because I can deduct a couple thousand in mortgage interest to maybe lower my tax bill by a couple hundred bucks? Screw you.

What she said!!!