Key Tax Breaks at Risk as Panel Looks at Cuts

[Goobieman]

and so, i posted a civil traffic court schedule and you deny that traffic court is civil. you're pretty damend funny.......and completely wrong.

Really.
Expalin this:

Criminal Traffic Violations
If the offense on your citation/ticket is listed as a criminal violation, you must appear at the Justice Court listed on your ticket at the date and time specified....

Justice Courts - Criminal Traffic Violations
If you have to pleae guilty ot innocent - like for a speeding ticket, it is a CRIMINAL issue.
As such, the fines imposed are CRIMINAL, and then only after a trial.

So, I will ask, and you will avoid, again:
What about the people that have cost the state nothing?
On what basis can you fine them?

 

[liblady]

Really.
Expalin this:


Justice Courts - Criminal Traffic Violations
If you have to pleae guilty ot innocent - like for a speeding ticket, it is a CRIMINAL issue.
As such, the fines imposed are CRIMINAL, and then only after a trial.

So, I will ask, and you will avoid, again:
What about the people that have cost the state nothing?
On what basis can you fine them?

not so....you can get a ticket, pay a fine and never go to court. admit it.

 

[liblady]

You were finished before you started... and failed half way through.

WTF does the way the health care law itself works, have to do with taxes that will be assessed because of it?

You also conveniently ignore the fact that the health care law is not the ONLY source of new taxes under this administration. You ignored...

SCHIP*
Public*Law*111‐3*
Tobacco tax increase and expanded enforcement authority* (new tax, affects people making less than $250K)

“Stimulus”*
Public Law 111‐5
Repeal guidance allowing certain taxpayers to claim losses of an acquired corporation

UI Benefits, NOL
Relief & Homebuyer Credit
Public Law 111‐92
Federal Unemployment surtaxes extended through June 2011 *
Delay of rules to reduce the double taxation of worldwide American employers until 2018 (worldwide interest allocation)*

HIRE Act
Public Law 111‐147
Delay of rules to reduce the double taxation of worldwide American employers until 2021 (worldwide interest allocation)*

the point of how heatlhcare works is to show YOU that the excise tax most likely won't affect people making under 250k.

paying a tax on cigarettes is optional, you don't have to buy them, and you don't have to tan. and the rest of what you posted has to do with corporations, not individuals. talk about fail.

 

[Whovian]

You were finished before you started... and failed half way through.

WTF does the way the health care law itself works, have to do with taxes that will be assessed because of it?

You also conveniently ignore the fact that the health care law is not the ONLY source of new taxes under this administration. You ignored...

SCHIP*
Public*Law*111‐3*
Tobacco tax increase and expanded enforcement authority* (new tax, affects people making less than $250K)

“Stimulus”*
Public Law 111‐5
Repeal guidance allowing certain taxpayers to claim losses of an acquired corporation

UI Benefits, NOL
Relief & Homebuyer Credit
Public Law 111‐92
Federal Unemployment surtaxes extended through June 2011 *
Delay of rules to reduce the double taxation of worldwide American employers until 2018 (worldwide interest allocation)*

HIRE Act
Public Law 111‐147
Delay of rules to reduce the double taxation of worldwide American employers until 2021 (worldwide interest allocation)*

paying a tax on cigarettes is optional, you don't have to buy them, and you don't have to tan. and the rest of what you posted has to do with corporations, not individuals. talk about fail.

I thought you were done with me?

Paying the tax is NOT optional. If you smoke, you MUST pay the tax. If you tan, you MUST pay the tax.

Individuals cannot own corproations in your country? interseting concept.

 

[liblady]

I thought you were done with me?

Paying the tax is NOT optional. If you smoke, you MUST pay the tax. If you tan, you MUST pay the tax.

Individuals cannot own corproations in your country? interseting concept.

um...you don't have to smoke. whatever happened to personal responsibility? and of course individuals can own corporations, but the corporation pays taxes, not the individual. another fail.

 

[Whovian]

the point of how heatlhcare works is to show YOU that the excise tax most likely won't affect people making under 250k.

How the healthcare system itself works has ZERO to do with which taxes it creates will affect who.

 

[Whovian]

um...you don't have to smoke. whatever happened to personal responsibility? and of course individuals can own corporations, but the corporation pays taxes, not the individual. another fail.

Boy, there is just no end to the koolaide dringking here, huh.

The end result is that under Obama, taxes havebeen raised. He promised they would not be. He did not qualify it, stating that 'if you don't tan, don't smoke', etc.

HE

LIED.

 

[Harshaw]

um...you don't have to smoke. whatever happened to personal responsibility? and of course individuals can own corporations, but the corporation pays taxes, not the individual. another fail.

Depends on the type of corporation.

 

[Kandahar]

At stake, in addition to the mortgage-interest deductions, are child tax credits and the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars. Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at a lower level, according to people familiar with the matter

I hope they get rid (or at least reduce) the mortgage interest deductions. They distort the market by favoring homeowners over renters, when there is no logical economic reason for the government to incentivize one over the other. As long as people have a roof over their head, I don't see why the government should care whether they own or rent. This kind of **** is partially responsible for the rampant housing speculation that caused the last recession.

As for child tax credits...I don't really have a problem with them. I'd rather that we open up to more immigration instead of encouraging people to spawn, but one way or another, we do need to add to our population lest we fall into the demographic trap that Europe and East Asia are struggling with.

I completely agree that health insurance should remain tax deductible.

 

[Goobieman]

not so....you can get a ticket, pay a fine and never go to court. admit it.

Ever pay a speeding ticket? When you send it in you sign a line that says, in some way shape of form, that you are pleading guilty and waiving your right to trial. Its a -criminal- process and your are assessed a -criminal- fine.

Now, back to the question you keep dodging:
What about the people that have cost the state nothing?
On what basis can you fine them?

 

[Goobieman]

I hope they get rid (or at least reduce) the mortgage interest deductions. They distort the market by favoring homeowners over renters, when there is no logical economic reason for the government to incentivize one over the other.

Not so. Those who own property as opposed to rent, have a greater incentive to act for the betterment of their socirty, as they have a monetary stake in the performance of that socirty.
When you own your house you care more about what happens to your neighborhood.

 

[Kandahar]

Not so. Those who own property as opposed to rent, have a greater incentive to act for the betterment of their socirty, as they have a monetary stake in the performance of that socirty.
When you own your house you care more about what happens to your neighborhood.

Why should the federal government care how much you care about your neighborhood? That should be a local matter at most. At the federal level, neither renters nor owners have significantly more mobility than the other (e.g. it's about equally difficult for everyone to emigrate elsewhere), so it isn't true that homeowners have more incentive to improve their society at the national level.

 

[Whovian]

Why should the federal government care how much you care about your neighborhood? .

The current administration supports wealth redistribution, so my neighbor gets money I earned, and you can ask that question?

 

[pbrauer]

The current administration supports wealth redistribution, so my neighbor gets money I earned, and you can ask that question?

So have all previous administrations.

 

[Goobieman]

Why should the federal government care how much you care about your neighborhood?

It promotes the general welfare. Well=kept, clean safe neighborhoods are better for society than run-down, dirty and unsafe neighborhoods.
Promoting investment in private property - specifially, home ownership - is a means to that end.

 

[Whovian]

So have all previous administrations.

You really believe that, don't you. Sad.

 

[Kandahar]

The current administration supports wealth redistribution, so my neighbor gets money I earned, and you can ask that question?

Random partisan hackery, completely irrelevant to the topic of mortgage interest deductions. Yawn.

 

[Kandahar]

It promotes the general welfare. Well=kept, clean safe neighborhoods are better for society than run-down, dirty and unsafe neighborhoods.
Promoting investment in private property - specifially, home ownership - is a means to that end.

I didn't realize you were such a fan of an expansive interpretation of the general welfare clause...

While I can certainly see your point on the local level, the feds have no stake in this fight. The areas where urban decay is a problem can encourage ownership on their own if they agree that it will help solve that problem.

From a federal standpoint, I'd argue that if anything, home ownership is WORSE for the general welfare becauses it discourages career mobility and encourages housing bubbles. But I'd be happy if the feds were merely agnostic between owning and renting.

 

[Goobieman]

I didn't realize you were such a fan of an expansive interpretation of the general welfare clause...

To promote the general welfare is one of the basic purposes of the Federal government, as noted in the Preamble.
This does exactly that - and it doesn'y have anything to do with the "General welfare clause" - nor does it create an expense of any sort..

While I can certainly see your point on the local level, the feds have no stake in this fight.

"...promote the general welfare..."

The areas where urban decay is a problem can encourage ownership on their own if they agree that it will help solve that problem

Yes, they can. This in no way precludes the federal government from doing so as well.
Given the dispartiy between federal and local income tax rates, the effect that local governments can have to this end is severly limited, however.

From a federal standpoint, I'd argue that if anything, home ownership is WORSE for the general welfare becauses it discourages career mobility and encourages housing bubbles

Career mobility isnt -necessarily- a good thing, and 'housng bubble' is just the most recent boogeyman. The "housing bubble' wasnt created because of the mortgage interst deduction, bu tby low mortgage rates.

 

[MaggieD]

While I can certainly see your point on the local level, the feds have no stake in this fight. The areas where urban decay is a problem can encourage ownership on their own if they agree that it will help solve that problem.

From a federal standpoint, I'd argue that if anything, home ownership is WORSE for the general welfare becauses it discourages career mobility and encourages housing bubbles. But I'd be happy if the feds were merely agnostic between owning and renting.

The Feds have no stake in the fight of home mortgage interest deductions? The Feds are the very jakes who caused the housing bubble by both Clinton's and W's insistence that owning a home was almost akin to an inalienable right.

At any rate, it ain't happenin'. Talk about a quadruple whammy to the housing market. Our economy wouldn't recover for decades.

 

[Harshaw]

TClinton's and W's insistence that owning a home was almost akin to an inalienable right.

Yes, very much so, though it's hardly just them. I hear quite a few people refer to what was once the American DREAM as though it's an entitlement.

 

[pbrauer]

The Feds have no stake in the fight of home mortgage interest deductions? The Feds are the very jakes who caused the housing bubble by both Clinton's and W's insistence that owning a home was almost akin to an inalienable right.

Wrong, this was not the cause of the housing bubble or the recession. Aggressive preditory lending by greedy lenders and financed by Wall Street was.

 

[Kandahar]

To promote the general welfare is one of the basic purposes of the Federal government, as noted in the Preamble.
This does exactly that - and it doesn'y have anything to do with the "General welfare clause"

Fair enough. Just don't let me ever catch you ranting that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to tax for the purpose of social engineering, or anything similar.

- nor does it create an expense of any sort..

I know you'll say that tax deductions aren't expenses, but that's really just a matter of semantics since you could just as easily look at it from the perspective of renters being burdened by an ADDITIONAL tax to which homeowners are not subjected. Whether you call it an expense or not, the net effect of the deduction is an economic transfer of wealth from renters to owners.

"...promote the general welfare..."

And I would argue that it does not do that from the federal standpoint. From the local community standpoint, sure, in some cases maybe encouraging homeownership is a good idea. But I fail to see any benefit to the national welfare if more people are glued to specific buildings.

Yes, they can. This in no way precludes the federal government from doing so as well.
Given the dispartiy between federal and local income tax rates, the effect that local governments can have to this end is severly limited, however.

There is no reason they have to be disparate. Local governments are free to make their tax code friendly toward homeowners and odious toward renters, if they feel it's in their best interest.

Career mobility isnt -necessarily- a good thing,

Not necessarily for individuals...but from a macroeconomic perspective it definitely is. It allows employers to have a wider talent pool from whom to pick their employees, and it allows workers to have a wider range of career options from whom to pick their employer.

and 'housng bubble' is just the most recent boogeyman. The "housing bubble' wasnt created because of the mortgage interst deduction, bu tby low mortgage rates.

The low mortgage rates were made 10-35% lower by the mortgage interest deduction.

 

[MaggieD]

Wrong, this was not the cause of the housing bubble or the recession. Aggressive preditory lending by greedy lenders and financed by Wall Street was.

Not quite, PBrauer. Oh, there's enough blame to go around, but the beginnings, at the very heart of the bubble, was our government's strong-arming lenders into "finding a way" that everybody could buy a home. That started with Bill Clinton and George Bush carried on.

 

[Kandahar]

Wrong, this was not the cause of the housing bubble or the recession. Aggressive preditory lending by greedy lenders and financed by Wall Street was.

Both were key causes. However, subsidizing mortgage interest rates (which is effectively what the mortgage interest tax deduction does) encourages people who have no business owning a home to own a home. It turns good renters into bad homeowners. After all, why not take out a big mortgage you can't afford, if you aren't paying 10-35% of the cost anyway.