Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/28/2008 5:44:41 PM PDT by shoedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: shoedog
Why should home owners (of which I am one) get relief for their mortgage payment, but renters get no relief?

Renters do get relief, just not directly. Landlord's get to depreciate their buildings, thereby lowering their taxes, which makes it so they can give renters a lower rent.

2 posted on 09/28/2008 5:50:03 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shoedog

Agreed.


3 posted on 09/28/2008 5:52:54 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shoedog

the fair tax would get rid of all income tax deductions...


4 posted on 09/28/2008 5:53:00 PM PDT by stefanbatory (Palin/Cleese '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shoedog

5 posted on 09/28/2008 5:54:10 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shoedog

YES YES YES

I have a small house but it is one I can afford to pay off.

Now on the other hand there is a black guy I know who has one kid and one wife, he has a 5 bedroom house three car garage and drives a Lincoln navigator

I have a 3 bedroom 3 kids and no garage as I had to make that a room

He got his house with hand outs and special programmes plus his interest rate was cheaper

WHY

because he is black

Now MLK said that we should be colour blind so why are blacks getting all these handouts and affirmative action

Back on topic
why should I have a small house for the 5 of us and a couple have a double sized house what they can’t afford and now my tax money pays for the likes of them who can’t afford their big house or are too lazy

my crime was that I was responsible , they were not

Here in st johns county,
I kid you not a woman with a bunch of kids lived in a doss hole.
this programme came in and built her a massive house, full of the best newest stuff etc

few months later she moaned that she wanted others to pay the tax on it as she couldn’t afford too

guess what she never worked and when the county would not give her a tax break she cried racism

YES END IT ALL
sorry for the rant but this does my head in knowing that there are folks like me who are responsible and there are others out there who are not and yet they get bailed


7 posted on 09/28/2008 5:58:28 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick Ma sham marriage - -end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shoedog
I think the first thing to say is that it's not their money. Their giving us a "tax break" on mortgages is NOT a subsidy. It's letting us keep what is ours, what we earned.

Second, the myth is that what we're talking about here is an "income" tax. It used to be that all or nearly all debt interest was considered an expense and therefore deductible before computing tax (just as interest on savings was (and still is) "income" and therefore taxable.)

So MY problem is not with the alleged "break" I get for my interest expense, but that I don't get it on all debt interest. I limit my borrowing, and that's not the best use of my money, or it wouldn't be if all debt interest were deductible. When the feds decide to discourage borrowing by not allowing a deduction for a real expense, THAT's when they engage in social engineering.

Your suggestion that they end the deduction of mortgage interest from income before computing tax just shows how the government has gotten into your head. (No offense.) The reality is that when they do not allow for interest deductions they are taxing, in one area, gross income rather than net. A fellow could conceivably break even after spending his personal deduction (which is already a ludicrous fiction) and paying debt interest and the Feds would still say he had taxable income for the year.

There is a similar conceptual problem with taxing corporate income for publicly held dividend paying corporations. The dividend is paid out of the corporate income net of taxes, and then is taxable again as income to the person to whom the dividend is paid. So not only are the feds taxing our gross when they refuse to allow the deduction of all interest payments, but they tax some of our income twice!

And taxing dividends makes investment less rewarding and thus punishes some kinds of thrift and prudence, while raising the cost of goods and services to the consumer. The populism of politicians who rail at corporations confuses the voter who doesn't realize that he is going to end up paying those taxes one way or another, and who doesn't understand that those taxes cut into his retirement fund.

The fundamental problem is that "income" is so nebulous a term, once the lawyers and accountants get done with it, that a graduated income tax is fundamentally incapable of being just. Those rich enough to be able to afford fancy accountants will often find ways to shelter real world income from the legal definition of income, while efforts to prevent that kind of thing, like the AMT, end up nailing, for example, prudent parents of large families who, if they make enough to feed each other and the 8 children, will not be able to take the deduction for those children because they fall into the AMT class of earners.

But, please, do a gut check. It's YOUR money, not the Feds', and when they let you keep some, it's not a subsidy. You earned that money, while the wool payments they kept on trying to make me accept, came from the duty on imported wool, and therefore from the people who bought goods made with imported wool . I did NOT earn it. THAT was a subsidy.

But wait! There's MORE!

The reason I took the wool subsidy was that I had a friend in the USDA and, you see, the bureaucrats NEED us to take their handouts or they run the risk of losing their jobs! So this woman, the wife of the guy I bought my hay from, really pleaded with me to take the subsidy.

Anybody else see anything wrong with this? It made me sick. I wasn't that big a farmer and I gave the money to my Church. I was ashamed of it.

13 posted on 09/28/2008 6:13:55 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: shoedog
In a word, "Yes".

Subsidies to any industry are an artificial stimulus that distorts the market place.

18 posted on 09/29/2008 3:28:59 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson