What Is Wrong With America ?

[Uncensored2008]

It's not "homeowners" who get a tax break with the mortgage interest deduction.

And yet, less cash is taken from my pocket....

It's people who maintain housing debt.

IE, the middle class who buy homes with a mortgage.

People who save their money and pay cash for a home don't get the break.

With the average house costing $400K - this means only the top 1%

The law is a coercive incentive to push people into taking out home loans they might not otherwise.

Bullshit.

No one ever bought a home because the allure that 4% of interest paid on a home could be deducted from taxable income. What an utterly stupid claim.

That benefits banks who offer the loans and home sellers. Whether you consider that a 'subsidy' or just a nice perk for the banks and builders doesn't really matter.

A completely different subject. This is where I get irritated with you DB, you are an ideologue and tend to make Libertarians look like nutjobs.

I oppose income taxation on principle. IF there must be income taxation, I would advocate for a flat tax with zero deductions. BUT this does nothing to change my point. That some Communist whackjob site posts this as "a tax break for the rich" is a demonstration of just how deranged the left are.

Look, this retard dcraelin is just another drooling KOS kiddie spewing Marxist rhetoric. Further, he lacks the intellect and eduction to even grasp that it IS Marxist rhetoric. Smacking him down is a public service.

What matters, to me at least, is that manipulating our economic decisions like that isn't why we gave government the power to tax us. And I don't think we should let them get away with using it in that way.

Again, that isn't the subject at hand. Argue for the repeal of the 16th and I'm right there with you. Call for a flat tax with zero deductions and I agree - BUT that isn't the subject here.

 

[dblack]

It's not "homeowners" who get a tax break with the mortgage interest deduction.

And yet, less cash is taken from my pocket....

Well, that gets right to the core of it. In my view, you're being bought off with special favors from the state. While I'd never disparage anyone personally for playing the "I got mine" game, I can't advocate for it as policy, especially when it perpetuates government that I consider ultimately corrosive to freedom.

It's people who maintain housing debt.

IE, the middle class who buy homes with a mortgage.

With the average house costing $400K - this means only the top 1%

Bullshit.

No one ever bought a home because the allure that 4% of interest paid on a home could be deducted from taxable income. What an utterly stupid claim.

That's not the claim. The point is, the deduction is for loan interest, and encourages people to hold more debt than they would otherwise. That means they'll be willing to purchase with less of a down payment (less real ownership), buy more expensive houses and pay more interest to banks than they would without the law. That's the point of the law in the first place. That's why it's targeted at loan interest rather than ownership costs.

That benefits banks who offer the loans and home sellers. Whether you consider that a 'subsidy' or just a nice perk for the banks and builders doesn't really matter.

A completely different subject. This is where I get irritated with you DB, you are an ideologue and tend to make Libertarians look like nutjobs.

I oppose income taxation on principle. IF there must be income taxation, I would advocate for a flat tax with zero deductions. BUT this does nothing to change my point. That some Communist whackjob site posts this as "a tax break for the rich" is a demonstration of just how deranged the left are.

Look, this retard dcraelin is just another drooling KOS kiddie spewing Marxist rhetoric. Further, he lacks the intellect and eduction to even grasp that it IS Marxist rhetoric. Smacking him down is a public service.

I'm here to talk ideas that transcend partisan bickering. I see no point in "smacking him down" if he's right in what he's saying. Indeed, if I can find common ground with liberals who see the downsides of state economic intervention, I call it a win. Maybe they'll think twice about voting for yet another corporatist tool simply because he's a 'D'.

What matters, to me at least, is that manipulating our economic decisions like that isn't why we gave government the power to tax us. And I don't think we should let them get away with using it in that way.

Again, that isn't the subject at hand. Argue for the repeal of the 16th and I'm right there with you. Call for a flat tax with zero deductions and I agree - BUT that isn't the subject here.

How do you suppose we get to a flat tax with zero deductions when you keep defending the deductions that benefit you, and only complain about those that benefit others? You have to give up your own sacred cows before we can expect to make real progress.

This is the same sort of argument I've been running into with First Amendment religious freedoms. People think freedom is enhanced, at least partially, when government grants exemptions and perks to special interest groups, but it's not. That practice diminishes freedom, even for those receiving the perks. It undermines equal rights and equal protection and sets the state up as the 'decider' in who wins and loses in society. It's the antithesis if libertarian ideals.

 

[RKMBrown]

Taxation under the constitution is not theft. One of the reasons the founders wanted to change from the Articles of Confederation to the constitutional form of government is because they weren't getting enough taxes from the states to even pay the nations debts.

What does that have to do with the fact that taking things by force is theft?

Not necessarily. If someone picks your wallet out of your pocket and runs down the street with it. You run after him, tackle him, and take back your wallet. When you are then "taking" your wallet, out of his pocket, "by force", are you stealing from him ? With taxation, many would say super rich employers have stolen from their workers by underpaying them. Taxation is taking their wallets back.

How is someone paying you an agreed upon salary picking your wallet? How dumb does one have to be to agree to work for less than he's worth, then cry about it by voting to tax his employer to punish the employer for paying him his agreed upon salary?

What's next, what other stupid decisions of yours do you want the government to fix for your sorry ass?

 

[Contumacious]

What does that have to do with the fact that taking things by force is theft?

Not necessarily. If someone picks your wallet out of your pocket and runs down the street with it. You run after him, tackle him, and take back your wallet. When you are then "taking" your wallet, out of his pocket, "by force", are you stealing from him ? With taxation, many would say super rich employers have stolen from their workers by underpaying them. Taxation is taking their wallets back.

How is someone paying you an agreed upon salary picking your wallet? How dumb does one have to be to agree to work for less than he's worth, then cry about it by voting to tax his employer to punish the employer for paying him his agreed upon salary?

What's next, what other stupid decisions of yours do you want the government to fix for your sorry ass?

He be jiving.


He be too lazy to hit a lick at a snake.

.

 

[Avatar4321]

How could lynching a negro be wrong when 3/4 of the Klansmen in attendance support it?

Pretty fucking easily, actually....

Right and wrong are not determined by popular vote.

Be nice if more people realize that.

Be nice if more people realized there's a reason why 3/4 of the American people (not some lynch mob) support tax raises on the rich. Because it is the correct thing to do.
Nice try though.

How is it correct to take more of your neighbors money simply because he makes more? Or simply because 3/4 of people agree too.

And why aren't you willing to explain how the military is not a coercive branch of government?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, that gets right to the core of it. In my view, you're being bought off with special favors from the state. While I'd never disparage anyone personally for playing the "I got mine" game, I can't advocate for it as policy, especially when it perpetuates government that I consider ultimately corrosive to freedom.

Not a very effective buy-off, considering I already stated that I support repeal of the income taxe...

That's not the claim. The point is, the deduction is for loan interest, and encourages people to hold more debt than they would otherwise.

Again, utter nonsense.

In general terms, you may reduce your taxable income by the interest you pay, I would say 4% as an average. The effect on taxes paid is negligible. In most cases, the Standard Deduction is still greater than itemizing with a mortgage deduction.

That means they'll be willing to purchase with less of a down payment (less real ownership), buy more expensive houses and pay more interest to banks than they would without the law. That's the point of the law in the first place. That's why it's targeted at loan interest rather than ownership costs.

It is intended to promote home ownership among the lower echelons of society. Whether it achieves the goal is questionable. I can only speak for myself, but when I bought my first home, the mortgage deduction never even entered the equation. Building equity, freezing monthly expenditures, yes; a minute tax break? Not so much.

I'm here to talk ideas that transcend partisan bickering. I see no point in "smacking him down" if he's right in what he's saying. Indeed, if I can find common ground with liberals who see the downsides of state economic intervention, I call it a win. Maybe they'll think twice about voting for yet another corporatist tool simply because he's a 'D'.

There is nothing "right" about the mindless class warfare he engaged in. Mortgage deductions are NOT a "tax break for the rich" as the Marxist website he linked claimed. His position is stupidity, an appeal to the envy and ignorance of people. An attempt to instill hostility based on demagoguery.

And there is no "common ground." The left is openly hostile to Constitutional governance and civil rights. I have nothing common with those goals and actively oppose them.

I mean, I see no point in saying "gee, I don't like your killing fields, but they are neat and clean, so I won't criticize them." The left seeks to complete the transformation from a nominally free nation to rigid, authoritarian socialist enclave. I oppose everything they stand for.

What matters, to me at least, is that manipulating our economic decisions like that isn't why we gave government the power to tax us. And I don't think we should let them get away with using it in that way.

Again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

How do you suppose we get to a flat tax with zero deductions when you keep defending the deductions that benefit you, and only complain about those that benefit others? You have to give up your own sacred cows before we can expect to make real progress.

This is the same sort of argument I've been running into with First Amendment religious freedoms. People think freedom is enhanced, at least partially, when government grants exemptions and perks to special interest groups, but it's not. That practice diminishes freedom, even for those receiving the perks. It undermines equal rights and equal protection and sets the state up as the 'decider' in who wins and loses in society. It's the antithesis if libertarian ideals.

It's like someone declaring "I think death is unfair, we should live forever," and then complaining that accepting cancer treatments is betrayal of the ideal that death should not exist. I find it irrational.

I oppose the income tax, but the reality is that it exists. Failing to take a legal deduction is simply stupid.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah. They're all sadists, who just want to annoy everyone. Pheeeeeeww!! Syria is waiting.

Enjoy the trip.

Not hardly. I'm not the one complaining about taxation or other US annoyances.

No. You're just the one demanding that your neighbors be burdened with taxes to provide you with what you wont provide for yourself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. You're just the one demanding that your neighbors be burdened with taxes to provide you with what you wont provide for yourself.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Avatar4321 again

I'll catch you when I can...

 

[dcraelin]

Be nice if more people realize that.

Be nice if more people realized there's a reason why 3/4 of the American people (not some lynch mob) support tax raises on the rich. Because it is the correct thing to do.
Nice try though.

How is it correct to take more of your neighbors money simply because he makes more? Or simply because 3/4 of people agree too.
And why aren't you willing to explain how the military is not a coercive branch of government?

people will always dispute what is ultimately right and what is wrong, but to function as a society we have to come up with a practical way to decide on some issues. As Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the rest"

 

[dblack]

Well, that gets right to the core of it. In my view, you're being bought off with special favors from the state. While I'd never disparage anyone personally for playing the "I got mine" game, I can't advocate for it as policy, especially when it perpetuates government that I consider ultimately corrosive to freedom.

Not a very effective buy-off, considering I already stated that I support repeal of the income taxe...

You said you support a flat tax and zero deductions, but you're arguing against it by defending deductions that benefit you. This mentality is why it's so hard to fight for fair tax laws. Everyone thinks their getting a special deal and doesn't want to give it up.

I oppose everything they stand for.

Mindless opposition gets us nowhere. The libertarian cause won't make appreciable headway with only Republicans joining the fight. Because, frankly, most of them don't get it. Despite the rhetoric when they're not in power, most Republicans favor a large, intrusive state as much as Democrats, they just have a different list of circumstances where want intervention, and a different idea of who should get special favors from government.

How do you suppose we get to a flat tax with zero deductions when you keep defending the deductions that benefit you, and only complain about those that benefit others? You have to give up your own sacred cows before we can expect to make real progress.

This is the same sort of argument I've been running into with First Amendment religious freedoms. People think freedom is enhanced, at least partially, when government grants exemptions and perks to special interest groups, but it's not. That practice diminishes freedom, even for those receiving the perks. It undermines equal rights and equal protection and sets the state up as the 'decider' in who wins and loses in society. It's the antithesis if libertarian ideals.

It's like someone declaring "I think death is unfair, we should live forever," and then complaining that accepting cancer treatments is betrayal of the ideal that death should not exist. I find it irrational.

Your analogy is flawed. It's more like saying you're opposed to Mafia protection rackets, but then refusing to vote for leaders who vow to fight them - because you have a sweet deal with the local boss.

I oppose the income tax, but the reality is that it exists. Failing to take a legal deduction is simply stupid.

I actually totally agree with this statement. I'm not saying it's wrong to take the deductions - I certainly take every deduction I can scrape up. But it's wrong to pollute our tax code with manipulative incentives in the first place, and if you're not fighting to abolish them, if you're not speaking out against them, if you're in fact arguing to defend certain special carve-outs simply out of self interest, then you're part of the problem rather than the solution.

 

[Avatar4321]

Be nice if more people realized there's a reason why 3/4 of the American people (not some lynch mob) support tax raises on the rich. Because it is the correct thing to do.
Nice try though.

How is it correct to take more of your neighbors money simply because he makes more? Or simply because 3/4 of people agree too.
And why aren't you willing to explain how the military is not a coercive branch of government?

people will always dispute what is ultimately right and what is wrong, but to function as a society we have to come up with a practical way to decide on some issues. As Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the rest"

People may dispute what's right and what's wrong. But that doesn't change what's right and what's wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nothing is wrong with America!


The problem is with some of you Americans

 

[Ringel05]

What Is Wrong With America ?

Americans....... Hey, it was brief.
(Not to be confused with Hanes, Fruit of the Loom or legal papers.)

 

[Ringel05]

Nothing is wrong with America!


The problem is with some of you Americans

Yeah, all those damn conservatives who won't give us a free hand!!!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

The problem is with all those selfish homo-sapiens!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nothing is wrong with America!


The problem is with some of you Americans

Yeah, all those damn conservatives who won't give us a free hand!!!!!

especially when they want their hands up our asses


go back to the Coffee Clatch, you're not funny here

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The problem is with all those selfish homo-sapiens!

with their homo-agenda

 

[protectionist]

What does that have to do with the fact that taking things by force is theft?

Not necessarily. If someone picks your wallet out of your pocket and runs down the street with it. You run after him, tackle him, and take back your wallet. When you are then "taking" your wallet, out of his pocket, "by force", are you stealing from him ? With taxation, many would say super rich employers have stolen from their workers by underpaying them. Taxation is taking their wallets back.

How is someone paying you an agreed upon salary picking your wallet? How dumb does one have to be to agree to work for less than he's worth, then cry about it by voting to tax his employer to punish the employer for paying him his agreed upon salary?

What's next, what other stupid decisions of yours do you want the government to fix for your sorry ass?

HA HA HA! Oh, "agreed upon", right ? But not quite as bad as someone holding a gun to your head and "asking" you to "agree" with him.
Workers in America, rarely have much choice when it comes to wages. You either work for the rip-off wage they pay, or you go unemployed. Some agreement. Yeah right. Any more brilliant comments you want to contribute ? Pheeeeww! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

 

[Ringel05]

Nothing is wrong with America!


The problem is with some of you Americans

Yeah, all those damn conservatives who won't give us a free hand!!!!!

especially when they want their hands up our asses


go back to the Coffee Clatch, you're not funny here

All hail the one party system!!!!! Talk about hands up our asses......
Now who's being funny?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perfect example of why no one need bother answering your posts. From this point on, you will be expected to be hauling away your own garbage. Policing your own criminals. Putting out fires to your home and those whom you care about. Purifying your own reservoir water. Filling in your own potholes. Singlehandly going to war to defend your community (from Japs, Nazis, Jihadists, whomever). Picking up your own roadkill animals. Inspecting all your own food, coming from the farms and ranches. Etc, etc X 1,000.

Aren't you the guy that proved we have to tax the middle class?

Huh ? Don't know where you got that from. I'm for taxing THE RICH, and I've been saying it all along. Then along come all the snake oil salesmen who think they can snow everyone into thinking taxing the rich is really taxing the middle class. Nice try boys.

Yes, you are for taxing the rich, AKA everyone who has more money that you.