Posted on 02/14/2011 2:49:47 PM PST by fightinJAG
Earlier today, the White House released a budget proposal that included trimming the mortgage interest deduction for taxpayers in the top income tax brackets.
This is the first step in eliminating what many economists view as an expensive and inefficient housing subsidy.
Unfortunately, many of the critics of the mortgage interest deduction focus on its immediate costs. If it were eliminated, it might bring in more than $2 trillion of new revenue for the government or—as I proposed this morning—allow up to $2 trillion of new tax cuts for the American people.
Actually, I think getting rid of the housing subsidy could be an even better deal than that—providing it is done by expanding the deduction into a general tax cut instead of closing the “loophole” and raising taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Excellent point on double taxation!
The little "left as possible" democrat is a first-time home buyer, and received, quote, unquote, $8,000 from Obama.
Hahaha!! Pretty please?????
No amount of taxation will “save the economy” when Obastard proposes budges that are nearly 100% more than the estimated revenue and when government handouts comprise WAY over half the budget.
Are you seriously suggesting that Canada has a better tax model than the US?
>>Are you seriously suggesting that Canada has a better tax model than the US?<<
Actually, I was being tongue in cheek. I forgot the sarcasm tag.
That said, I really hate tax deductions. It is how the government controls people.
[ The little “left as possible” democrat is a first-time home buyer, and received, quote, unquote, $8,000 from Obama. ]
Ask the little fool, “Just how much of the GDP does the government need?” and “What is the limit as a percentage of the GDP should the government be allowed to take?”
I bet they will stare at you like a deer about to be ran over by an 18 wheeler.
Now that's a proposal that actually would save the economy!
Buying votes wouldn't work so well if everyone had to pay the price of their vote. Then there would be a chance the politicians would get spending under control.
At the same time, wealthy people would invest it far more efficiently than the government could, thereby creating more jobs and more wealthy people.
lol, sorry, it’s often hard to see sarcasm in words only.
Elimination of the housing mortgage deduction would be the straw that finally sent the U.S. plunging into a full blown depression, as it would shatter the fragile market for housing by making housing purchases that much more unaffordable, thereby triggering a new death spiral of foreclosed and repossessed housing as even more folks are forced out of, or are forced to walk away from, homes that are now even more underwater relative to their mortgages.
I agree but when you plan your financial life around the deductions and then they pull the rug from under you, well you're often screwed.
The government is once again taking the wrong approach. Remember Comprehensive Immigrtion Reform, they were going to secure the border and grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens (mostly net users of tax dollars) instead of securing the border (first).
Now they want more taxes instead of cutting spending. The idiots and commies are in charge of the govt on both sides of the aisle. What happened to the GOP promise to cut spending? Short after election memory loss.
1. Secure the boder
2. Take away all benefits to illegals
3. Cut spending
4. Cut perks and salaries for Congress and their staffs.
5. No pensions for Congressmen, it should be an honor to represent the people not a job.
"Eliminate a tax break" is government-speak for "raise taxes." Tax increases do not increase government revenue on anywhere near a one-to-one ratio, nor are revenues so raised returned to the taxpayer by a government already running in default. They are, on the contrary, relegated to servicing the existing debt and to new spending.
"Tax breaks" are not a gift from the government, nor are they subsidies, they are merely the government declining to take as much money as its adherents have decided for one reason or another that they are entitled to.
If they want to eliminate this deduction, fine, let them "pay for it" by reducing property taxes by a commensurate amount. That minimizes the damage to taxpayer and to market. It will not be done that way because the real object in all this is for neither of those; rather it is for the government to get its hands on a fresh bundle of cash, taken from an already strapped public. Which will be returned...sometime...later...they promise.
>>I agree but when you plan your financial life around the deductions and then they pull the rug from under you, well you’re often screwed.<<
Yep. And there is the rub. The only way to get rid of such things is to phase them out - over several decades. Or you can do what we seem to be doing - just screw it up so bad that everything comes crashing down and then, after the war, whoever is left can hit the reset button.
The intellectually challenged elites in Versailles on the Potomac have no sense of hearing, no morals, no scruples and no intention of heeding the message of the November elections.
They will do nothing to cut spending or heed our message - until Versailles becomes Cairo. Cutting $100 billion out of a $4 Trillion budget is meaningless; whole departments and their budgets must be cut.
I made it extra hard that time because my follow up comments seem to support the original sarcastic one.
Are we going to eliminate the deduction for business losses, gambling, etc.?
How is ending a tax credit a new tax cut? How does giving 2 trillion dollars more to the gov't "save the economy"?
Win The Future?
I don’t have any un-taxed money to buy anything the government has already taxed me to buy in the first place. I say we give Hawaii and California to the Chinese and go Egypt on Washington and just start over...
[ That said, I really hate tax deductions. It is how the government controls people. ]
My bother who is farmer and is a “Rosevelt Democrat” whines and complains about anyone wanting to cut the Farm Subsidies. So I brought up the point that how well would he would be off if his federal farm program money was cut in half, as well as how much he has to pay in federal income tax.
You could see him crunching numbers in his head and then he frowned and told me I was right, and that he would be better off if they cut his taxes and his farm program by 50% as he pays more in federal taxes than what he gets from Uncle Slam.
They take and give to control people folks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.