• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Panel Eyes killing Mortgage Tax Breaks

Amused

Elite Member
Sometimes I REALLY wonder WTF he and his cronies are thinking...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8643889337142.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLTopStories

Key Tax Breaks at Risk as Panel Looks at Cuts
By DAMIAN PALETTA

Bloomberg News

Sacrosanct tax breaks, including deductions on mortgage interest, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on policies to pare back with the aim of balancing the budget by 2015.

The tax benefits are hugely popular with the public but they have drawn the panel's focus, in part because the White House has said these and other breaks cost the government about $1 trillion a year.

Sacrosanct tax breaks, including mortgage-interest deductions, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on ways to balance the budget by 2015. Alan Murray and David Weidner discuss. Also, Jennifer Levitz discusses a leading national tea-party group that is laying plans to maintain pressure on new members of Congress after the Nov. 2 vote.
.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.

The officials are also looking at potential cuts to defense spending and a freeze on domestic discretionary spending. It is unclear if the 18-member panel will be able to reach an agreement on any of the items by a Dec. 1 deadline.

Even if they do reach an agreement, any curbs on current tax breaks would likely face tough sledding in Congress. The banking and real-estate lobbies have fiercely rebuffed efforts to rescind the mortgage-interest deduction in the past.

Still, officials have found there aren't any easy ways to balance the budget, and they are expected to steer clear of more polarizing issues like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a broad rewrite of the tax code in their short-term recommendations. The panel could still make long-term recommendations to change these issues, but they would be less concrete.

"My concern is that the talk of tax expenditures is couched as 'tax reform,' but it's not tax reform," said Alison Fraser, director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's simply a revenue-raising exercise."

Committee officials plan to try to broker a deal in November, after the midterm elections. They have until Dec. 1 to win the support of 14 of the commission's 18 members to endorse a final report. It is possible that the panel's Democrats and Republicans would issue separate reports if they can't agree, people familiar with the process said.

President Barack Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in February, amid concern from lawmakers and economists that the growing budget deficit could damage the country's long-term fiscal condition. The bipartisan panel, made up mostly of lawmakers but also business and labor leaders, has met for months, at times more constructively than many expected.

"There's a lot of potential for agreement on the committee," said panel member Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

If the commission reaches a consensus, House or Senate leaders could agree to bring some of the changes up for a vote, perhaps early next year, although there is no deadline.

To balance the budget by 2015, excluding interest payments on debt, means officials would need to find roughly $240 billion in annual savings, according to commission documents. Panel officials also hope to issue recommendations that would "meaningfully improve" the country's long-term fiscal situation.

Even though officials are focusing on issues where they believe they can get broad agreement, they will likely face stiff resistance from certain lawmakers and interest groups. Some Republicans are expected to label any caps on tax breaks as a backdoor way of raising taxes. Several lawmakers' offices declined to comment on specific proposals as negotiations aren't yet under way.

Committee officials have also focused on the $700 billion in annual defense spending, which accounts for more than half of domestic discretionary spending. Critics say the government could cut some of the $400 billion spent on outside contractors. But many conservative groups have said cutting military spending would be a mistake, citing national security risks.

Changes to Medicaid and Medicare are unlikely to be recommended despite their looming presence in the U.S. budget. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if laws don't change, federal spending on health care alone will grow from 5% of gross domestic product in 2010 to 10% in 2035.

Commission officials looked closely at making short-term changes to Social Security, but talks shifted in recent weeks toward incorporating those ideas into a longer-term plan. This is in part because any changes would probably have to be phased in over years, delaying the budgetary impact for at least a decade.

"My sense from talking to members of the commission is that's where they are focusing [on the long-term recommendation], Social Security reform," said Martin Feldstein, an economics professor at Harvard University who served as a senior official in the Reagan administration.

It remains unclear whether the panel will reach a consensus with negotiations taking place right after the midterm elections, when Washington tends to buzz with political jostling. The imminent debate over whether to extend all or part of the Bush-era tax cuts could also complicate its efforts. The panel isn't expected to weigh in on this issue.

The White House said this month that the budget deficit for the last fiscal year was $1.3 trillion, the second highest in 60 years. The government's revenue was roughly $2.16 trillion in the year ended Sept. 30, compared with $3.46 trillion in outlays.

The White House hasn't signed off on any of the potential proposals as it's waiting for the panel to complete its work.

Mr. Obama "expects that the fiscal commission will continue the process of discussing and analyzing a wide range of ideas and it is premature to describe any specific idea as a conclusion of a commission that has not even voted yet," White House spokesman Amy Brundage said.

The commission "is the last best hope right now for getting some substantive movement on the issue of the deficit, the debt, and the financial disaster we're facing," Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), a member of the commission, said in a recent interview.
 
Highly unlikely that they touch the mortgage deduction. Unless the Democrats want to lose even more seats in congress.

The big focus should be on reducing spending and THEN looking at how to raise tax revenue. I think Americans would be okay with pay more in taxes if they knew it was going to reduce the deficit and not to pay for more pork or government programs.
 
Yes, anything this bi-partisan commission says that's unpopular should put the blame on Obama and Democrats.

The right - against the Democrats for not cutting the deficit enough, and against the Democrats for cutting the deficit more.
 
I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

lolHope

While we're on the subject of funny quotes:

Originally said by Nancy Pelosi
After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

lllloooolllllllHope
 
Last edited:
Yes, anything this bi-partisan commission says that's unpopular should put the blame on Obama and Democrats.

The right - against the Democrats for not cutting the deficit enough, and against the Democrats for cutting the deficit more.
It is not the deficit that has the right so pissed off, it is the spending.

Obama is spending $500 billion more per year than Bush, THAT is the problem.
 
...
You can't cut enough to balance the budget,

I can say with absolute certainty that they could very easily cut enough that we would return to more reasonable levels of deficit, and in the long term, balance the budget.

and you can't "raise" taxes enough to cover it.

And they don't have to, at least not now.

And hey... I'm not the one that said this administration isn't going to raise my taxes or add trillions to the debt and then do the exact opposite. Maybe you should take it up with them.
 
It is not the deficit that has the right so pissed off, it is the spending.

Obama is spending $500 billion more per year than Bush, THAT is the problem.

No, it's not. Most of the right would hate Obama no matter what he did, just as they hated Clinton (they'll say better things now, but had the 'government wants to kill you' bumper stickers at the time, including on Republican Congressperson's cars). The problem is that the economy has such huge problems caused by the policies of the rich, supported by nearly all Republicans and too many Democrats, that force Obama to spend a lot to prop up the economy from more crashing, for a while.

These are the same people who want to do more of the problem causing policies, and want Obama out of their way (the little he's in their way), who these Republicans support.

Everyone IMO wants to cut spending apart from the short term financial crisis, the issue is who will take the cuts - the people, or other interests the right serves.

But saying Democrats - the party that eliminated the Reagan/Bush deficit - are the ones who want irresponsible spending is a more politically effective, simple, straw man.

Pay for enough propaganda with that sort of thing, and you fool a lot of people.
 
The mortgage interest deduction needs to go. That is one tax increase that I would give Obama a BIG thumbs up for. The timing is bad right now with so many mortgages underwater, but if they put a phase-out on the books over the next ten years I would be strongly in favor of it.

As for health insurance and benefits, that's a relic of FDR that needs to go too. Specifically the asymmetric tax treatment of employer provided coverage versus employee purchased coverage. It would be fiscally and politically easier to simply make all premiums deductible (possibly up to a limit) rather than taxing employer provided coverage, but in the end it's the same either way. I would like to see all other employer provided benefits made taxable too (except for retirement plans which get other tax treatment already). The concept of "benefits" is too paternalistic for my tastes. As an employee your benefit is your pay; spend it as you will.
 
I hope he does, no need for government to subsidize buying over renting. But I don't think it's going to fly politically.
 
If the US is EVER going to balance a national budget then reign in on spending and tax cuts that go into savings anyway.

Mortage interest deduction is something that doesn't benefit the economy at all and keeps money out of the system all together, it's not a good deal, not by anyones measures.
 
If you're buying a house because you get to deduct the interest off your taxable income, then you're doing it wrong.
 
If the US is EVER going to balance a national budget then reign in on spending and tax cuts that go into savings anyway.

Mortage interest deduction is something that doesn't benefit the economy at all and keeps money out of the system all together, it's not a good deal, not by anyones measures.
????
The tax deduction on mortgages helps average working class people buy their first house. When you're getting a house and thinking about having kids, that tax cut REALLY helps.


Here in Canada our mortages are all paid with after-tax dollars. It kinda sucks.
 
Highly unlikely that they touch the mortgage deduction. Unless the Democrats want to lose even more seats in congress.

They'll do it after the elections in the lame duck session when the populace can't do anything about it.


Whatever happened to not raising taxes for those making <$250,000?
 
It's humorous how the ones who like to equate Obama/Democrats with Socialism are criticizing this. It's both the Fiscally responsible thing to do and is eliminating a Subsidy Program that's far closer to Socialism than the Free Market.
 
I hope he does, no need for government to subsidize buying over renting. But I don't think it's going to fly politically.
There is one decent partial solution that actually has a hope of working. The real problem with the deduction as it stands is that it encourages over-borrowing, because the interest is what gets deducted. This is not so much a subsidy for buying a house as it is a subsidy for financing a house - and worse yet, keeping it financed.

If the mortgage interest deduction were replaced with a mortgage principal repayment deduction tuned to give a similar deduction amount, it would correct one of the perverse incentives that the current deduction creates, while making it a lot easier to sell to the voters. Granted, it would maintain a totally unnecessary subsidy, but its overall effect would be slightly better.
 
It's humorous how the ones who like to equate Obama/Democrats with Socialism are criticizing this. It's both the Fiscally responsible thing to do and is eliminating a Subsidy Program that's far closer to Socialism than the Free Market.

There's a difference between a tax deduction and a handout. Tax deduction means you keep your own money - free market.

In general, tax deductions are put on things that are deemed good for society. Education is good, so education is tax free. Medical and dental procedures are sometimes tax free as well. Home ownership a good thing, so that's tax free. Saving for retirement is a good thing, so RRSPs and 401ks are tax free.
 
I bought a house that was reasonably priced for my income. The mortgage interest tax deduction benefited me for exactly one year. After that, the standard deduction was a better deal. I say let it crash. Of course it is still political suicide to kill it.

For a married couple to benefit from the mortgage interest tax deduction (reach the point where it is a better deal than the standard deduction) for even the first year of the mortgage given current interest rates they would have to have a mortgage of at least $230,000 (5&#37;, 30 fixed rate). The median house price is currently at $178k, so one would have to be well into the upper half of house buyers to benefit from this deduction.
 
ironwing, what is the "standard" deduction?
It is a deduction you can apply to your gross adjusted income prior to calculating your income tax due. It is used in lieu of itemizing specific deductions. Last year it was $11400 for a married couple.
 
It would be funny to watch these bozos remove the mortgage deduction, then watch as they scramble to spend all the additional tax revenue and more on another program designed to prop up the "surprise" downturn in the real estate market.
 
It would be funny to watch these bozos remove the mortgage deduction, then watch as they scramble to spend all the additional tax revenue and more on another program designed to prop up the "surprise" downturn in the real estate market.
So you agree that the deduction is distorting the realty market?
 
I bought a house that was reasonably priced for my income. The mortgage interest tax deduction benefited me for exactly one year. After that, the standard deduction was a better deal. I say let it crash. Of course it is still political suicide to kill it.

For a married couple to benefit from the mortgage interest tax deduction (reach the point where it is a better deal than the standard deduction) for even the first year of the mortgage given current interest rates they would have to have a mortgage of at least $230,000 (5&#37;, 30 fixed rate). The median house price is currently at $178k, so one would have to be well into the upper half of house buyers to benefit from this deduction.

So pretty much anyone not living in bumfuck nowhere California is going to benefit from it?(in regards to Californians)
 
Back
Top