Clinton Apologises
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
-
>>My preference would be to change the tax code entirely, not tinker with rates here and then and pretend that's the type of solution we need, and I'm getting a little tired of the administration acting as if the difference between hope and darkest night is whether we keep all of Bush's tax cuts minus the ones on the wealthy and keeping them all. It's not.>>
You in favor of a Flat Tax with no deductions model, Heck?
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
No. Not at all.
People make the mistake of thinking the complex part of the tax code are the different tax rates, and if we go to a flat tax that makes everything more simple, when actually the simplest part of the tax code are the different rates. The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs - that's the complex part. That's what fills up all of those pages in the tax code.
This part fits on to a page or two:
10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%,
35%.
Heck, I am talking about removing "The myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs".
Do it on a post card: You pay x.
I'll even make it a bit progressive: if you make x you pay y%; if you make 1.25x you pay z% and so on.
PS And you get to lay off many people working for the IRS and, more importantly - perhaps - is lowering demand for tax attorneys.
-
It's going to end up being bigger than Rick Perry's index card, but that's okay. Lots of those deductions are very popular. They're going to be extremely hard to get rid of.
Like, most economists hate the home mortgage tax deduction, but it puts a lot of money in a lot of voters pockets. Who is going to step forward and say, "Let's get rid of that!" Anyone?
Paul Ryan doesn't mention a single loophole he'd close for a reason.
-
It's going to end up being bigger than Rick Perry's index card, but that's okay. Lots of those deductions are very popular. They're going to be extremely hard to get rid of.
Like, most economists hate the home mortgage tax deduction, but it puts a lot of money in a lot of voters pockets. Who is going to step forward and say, "Let's get rid of that!" Anyone?
Paul Ryan doesn't mention a single loophole he'd close for a reason.
It's going to end up being bigger than Rick Perry's index card, but that's okay. Lots of those deductions are very popular. They're going to be extremely hard to get rid of.
Like, most economists hate the home mortgage tax deduction, but it puts a lot of money in a lot of voters pockets. Who is going to step forward and say, "Let's get rid of that!" Anyone?
Paul Ryan doesn't mention a single loophole he'd close for a reason.
I'm not talking about Paul Ryan, Heck. I'm talking about you.
"......the myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs" Paul Ryan didn't say that - you did.
I offer a flat tax alternative that would -to a great extend - remove the myriad and you talk about Paul Ryan.
So you really like "......the myriad of deductions and penalties and loopholes and write-offs" - just not those that impact what Steve likes to refer to as 'the great unwashed'.
-
Oh, no. I'm just saying that what I would want to do as king of fantasyland doesn't really matter. We live in a political reality. I don't expect to see many changes in the tax code for precisely the reason I noted before - because once you create a lot of beneficiaries through the tax code people fight to have those benefits maintained.
But in fantasyland, I'd go for an income tax that is a simple set of progressive rates with no (or few) deductions beyond charitable, and more narrowly define what is and what isn't charity.
The flat tax doesn't eliminate any loopholes. It just eliminates rates.
-
Actually I like the mortgage deduction sense it promotes home ownership.
That's at least kind of a forced savings program.
You would eliminate that one if it were up to you, Heck?
WSS
-
Yeah, i'd phase it out over time so it doesn't wallop homeowners. I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership. But it's also very popular with voters (I think it's north of 60% approval) and I'd be surprised if anyone took it on.
It was eliminated in Bowles-Simpson and replaced with a credit, if i'm not mistaken. That would be a preferable alternative that might go down easier for the voters.
As I always say, fuck if I know, man. It's a great big fucking mess.
-
I think vet bills should be tax deductable. And a flat tax is fair. Higher rate for over a million bucks... I don't care all that much.
but ALL medical bills should be tax deductable.
What if I have vet bills for my chickens later this year, dammit?
-
Yeah, i'd phase it out over time so it doesn't wallop homeowners. I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership. But it's also very popular with voters (I think it's north of 60% approval) and I'd be surprised if anyone took it on.
It was eliminated in Bowles-Simpson and replaced with a credit, if i'm not mistaken. That would be a preferable alternative that might go down easier for the voters.
As I always say, fuck if I know, man. It's a great big fucking mess.
Yeah, i'd phase it out over time so it doesn't wallop homeowners. I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership.
As I always say, fuck if I know, man. It's a great big fucking mess.
Agreed on point number two.
But I remember when I bought my first home, shit hole that it was.
I remember kicking myself in the ass for every previous month I handed over a wad of cash to the land lord. There is a certain independence and confidence that comes from being able to say sure it's a dump, but it's mine as opposed to going to a land baron once a month with your hat in your hand. With nothing to show for it.
That may be a core philosophical difference between us.
If we eliminate a great amount of homeowners and plunge more and more into renting it would seem logical that most property would be owned by fewer and fewer. Would you take that extra revenue and put it into subsidized housing?
IOW lots more people dependent upon the government just for a place to live? Is that the goal or merely a by product?
WSS
-
Why can't you deduct vet bills for farm animals?
I'd bet that's done all the time.
WSS
-
Yeah, i'd phase it out over time so it doesn't wallop homeowners. I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership.
As I always say, fuck if I know, man. It's a great big fucking mess.
Agreed on point number two.
But I remember when I bought my first home, shit hole that it was.
I remember kicking myself in the ass for every previous month I handed over a wad of cash to the land lord. There is a certain independence and confidence that comes from being able to say sure it's a dump, but it's mine as opposed to going to a land baron once a month with your hat in your hand. With nothing to show for it.
That may be a core philosophical difference between us.
If we eliminate a great amount of homeowners and plunge more and more into renting it would seem logical that most property would be owned by fewer and fewer. Would you take that extra revenue and put it into subsidized housing?
IOW lots more people dependent upon the government just for a place to live? Is that the goal or merely a by product?
WSS
Agreed on point number two.
But I remember when I bought my first home, shit hole that it was.
I remember kicking myself in the ass for every previous month I handed over a wad of cash to the land lord. There is a certain independence and confidence that comes from being able to say sure it's a dump, but it's mine as opposed to going to a land baron once a month with your hat in your hand. With nothing to show for it.
That may be a core philosophical difference between us.
If we eliminate a great amount of homeowners and plunge more and more into renting it would seem logical that most property would be owned by fewer and fewer. Would you take that extra revenue and put it into subsidized housing?
IOW lots more people dependent upon the government just for a place to live? Is that the goal or merely a by product?
WSS
But for some people it makes more sense for them to rent rather than stretching themselves to buy. While I might agree with you that owning might feel better for some, it also becomes an albatross for others, especially those that bought too much house and fall on hard times. They often have "nothing to show for it" either even though they own. Removing the tax preference would remove the distortions and encourage people to make decisions based on what's best for them rather than pushing them towards ownership. The deduction also pushes home prices up and encourages people to take on large amounts of debt. This isn't a good idea. It's also why a credit like in Simpson-Bowles (again, haven't checked this, but I remember it being in there) is a better idea. If you want to help people own homes, give them a credit for buying a home. Don't subsidize the debt you take on when you buy a home.
As for the extra revenue, I don't think I'd plunge into anything but the general fund.
It's funny. We're looking to buy right now and going through this. When you do all the work with the loan officer you have a certain idea of what you can afford. And then you figure in the tax preference, which goes a long way in an expensive market like LA, you suddenly realize you can afford a more expensive house than you thought because of the tax preference. Is this a good idea, to make me and everyone like me afford more home than we normally could? I don't think so. It's a distortion that encourages Americans to take on more debt.
....Though, like you, I hate pissing away rent every month.
-
>>I'm not sure there's a good reason to encourage home ownership>>
Interesting comment, Heck. Haven't thought this through but this is my initial take.
Qualitatively, I believe home ownership fosters pride in property with an associated 'halo effect' across aspects that have positive outcomes. Of course, we all know of the Fred Sanford-type house around the corner so this, definitely, is a generalization.
On the more tangible front, however, I know from personal experience that purchasing a home drives many purchases that would't occur with renting. Not only many washing machines, dryers, but also snow shovels, furniture, , etc. etc.
Ideally the above would drive the supply chain for many US manufacturing companies. Unfortunately, we all know that many - if not the vast majority -of items purchased come from overseas.
So, on balance, I believe home ownership is 'good' on both qualitative and quantitative measures. I also know that home ownership doesn't make a lot of sense for people who do own homes. Given the myriad of variables, renting makes absolute for many people - people who would be better off without a mortgage and that mythical - or at least, less significant - appreciation.
Back to work...............
-
That's sort of interesting. I've never heard that case made - that encouraging home ownership spurs the purchase of consumer goods for the home. Maybe that's true, though the owner of a rental home also buys a lot of that stuff, and the renter also buys some of that stuff, so it's probably not a big boost if there is one at all. (I.e. I didn't buy a washer and dryer or fridge or TV for the house I rent, but I did buy lawn equipment and furniture. In the end, all of those purchases were all made by someone.) Also, it'd have to bring in more than the cost of the deduction, which is somewhere between $80-$100 billion a year. I think it's highly unlikely that the amount of increased economic activity/purchases spurred by home ownership - that would not have been made without the deduction, mind you - would be in excess of $80-$100 billion a year.
After all, there are some studies that show that the mortgage interest deduction doesn't really encourage home ownership at all, but just makes it easier for those who were going to buy homes anyway to buy homes, or to buy more home than they otherwise would have.
-
>>....Though, like you, I hate pissing away rent every month.>>
You could always pith it away on a house with depreciating value - like the place I have in Fort Myers. Although I've refianced and combined mortgages, it's safe to assume I'm 40% of purchase value under water.
The old rules don't always work any more.
But you know all this.
-
>>After all, there are some studies that show that the mortgage interest deduction doesn't really encourage home ownership at all, but just makes it easier for those who were going to buy homes anyway to buy homes, or to buy more home than they otherwise would have.>>
I have mixed emotions about mortgage deduction. Kind of like low interest student loans. Maybe both 'encourage' more expensive purchases.
This is a real can of worms.
I also see a phase out of the mortgage deduction over time. Kind of the story of that mouse in a pot of water on top of the stove. Slowing you turn, step by step.
At one time, interest on car loans, credit cards, etc. were deductible. While not of the same scale of a home purchase, these were taken away and I don't recall much noise. Maybe I was young and it wasn't relevant to me so I didnt pay attention.
By the way, there are tons of tax cheats using Home Equity Loans to pay for expenses other than home improvement. I believe the law actually stipulates these loans be used for only that purpose.
Maybe we'd be surprised if that 'loophole' was closed.
-
I don't think that's true. Home equity loans are just loans that use the equity in your home as collateral. I don't think there are any restrictions on what you do with the money you borrow.
-
It might depend on the bank...
but I know a he loan can be used to pay off a car and medical bills.
we did it. @@
-
I believe the greater reason to own a home, is to be able to own it = GGG, as in, do the garden as you want,
yard landscaping, home improvements/re-designed interiors...
the benefit is, once it's paid off, assuming you bought a home you planned on staying in forever... we did....
once it's paid off? Priceless.
Pay it off early, we did bigtime, and the benefits are more dramatic financially.
But not everybody is a given to benefit from home ownership just to own.
It's more complicated than that.
-
I don't think that's true. Home equity loans are just loans that use the equity in your home as collateral. I don't think there are any restrictions on what you do with the money you borrow.
I don't think that's true. Home equity loans are just loans that use the equity in your home as collateral. I don't think there are any restrictions on what you do with the money you borrow.
yes that's true. You can use it for anything you want. They just called some of them home improvement loans.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login