• 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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JohnOfSheffield said:
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.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, keeping money out of the hands of the government is a absolutely fantastic for the economy.
 
MooseNSquirrel said:
Renters subsidize house buyers here, plain and simple.
Click to expand...



Rent is not a subsidy. It is considered Income and therefore subject to Taxation. If you are collecting rents and not paying taxes on what you collect, then you are breaking the law and the IRS can/will get you if/when they figure it out.
 
IronWing said:
Two points:
1) Money from non-SS taxes is not being diverted to Social Security.
2) The 'lock box" model would never, ever earn interest. No one pays interest on money under the mattress. If you want to earn interest on SS funds then you have to loan them out to somebody. Congress chose to loan it to the treasury. They could choose to loan it to the private sector instead. There are arguments for/against doing this. The funds might earn better returns but at higher risks. The potential for public/private corruption would dwarf what we see now.
Click to expand...

Government "loaning" itself money is a joke. I applaud Reagan for the attempt, but the reality is merely government continuing to spend the money it promises to save, with the addition of IOUs.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, lower taxes don't cost the government budget a cent. It's magic, and why we don't have any more deficit with the Bush tax cuts than without them.
Click to expand...

They don't cost the govt. a cent, spending costs the govt. a few cents though..
 
The mortgage tax deduction isn't even that big of a deal in savings as most people make it out to be. Everyone is always shouting about the big tax savings of owning a home, blah, blah, blah...but everyone seems to forget you have to subtract the savings from the standard deduction off first since you give that up. That coupled with the fact our interest rates are low as hell while the houses are priced high (the opposite of the boomer first house purchase period) means the savings for your average family in a basic house don't amount to piddly shit.

That said, this is not going to happen. Its politically expensive to remove this, especially since the housing market is in the toilet. What lie will realtors have to come up with if they can't talk up those huge tax savings to sell houses?
 
MooseNSquirrel said:
Except for this one little problem, renting doesn't generate any tax breaks, which makes it a subsidy for people with more money.

Now if everyone got to deduct a portion of their housing expenses, that would be different.

Renters subsidize house buyers here, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
In California, renters get a tax deduction below a certain income level.
 
ShawnD1 said:
?????
RENTING IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN BUYING.

That's the whole point of being a land lord. They don't buy a house then rent it out for less than the cost of the mortage. Land lords might be scum bags, but they're not retarded.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Renting will always be cheaper than buying in the short term. Renters might be scum bags, but they're not retarded.
 
xj0hnx said:
Here's a little hint for your sick and twisted liberal mind ...the money I work for, is mine, not the governments. I know you loony leftist obey your big government masters, and feel beholden to them, but it really is our money.
Click to expand...

You're part of why there is a Deficit. AKA, you're part of the Problem. Taxes need to go up if the Deficit is to be eliminated.

Those really interested in solving the issue, but are also wanting minimum Tax should be putting their efforts towards ensuring that Tax Hikes and/or Deduction eliminations are temporary. Fix the Deficit, then Cut Taxes/Reintroduce Deductions with the Surplus. It's as simple as that and it works. Short term Pain, long term Gain.

Along with all that, Cuts in Government Spending are also necessary. You can't just do one though, it is simply Politically unfeasible.
 
Article said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes - much better stick our heads in the sand and pretend looming issues don't exist - once again leaving them for the younger generations to deal with.

sandorski said:
Taxes need to go up if the Deficit is to be eliminated.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is that a large number of people see absolutely no fiscal responsibility by the government. We want to know where our money is going before they take more of it.
 
sandorski said:
You're part of why there is a Deficit. AKA, you're part of the Problem. Taxes need to go up if the Deficit is to be eliminated.

Those really interested in solving the issue, but are also wanting minimum Tax should be putting their efforts towards ensuring that Tax Hikes and/or Deduction eliminations are temporary. Fix the Deficit, then Cut Taxes/Reintroduce Deductions with the Surplus. It's as simple as that and it works. Short term Pain, long term Gain.

Along with all that, Cuts in Government Spending are also necessary. You can't just do one though, it is simply Politically unfeasible.
Click to expand...

There's the problem, I am not interested in solving the governments spending issues. I am not interested in the welfare, or warfare states, or supporting other people. I work to support my family, not to help cover an irresponsible, unaccountable government that can't/won't control it's spending, or stop fucking people with their political games.
 
IronWing said:
That depends on to what extent the market is being distorted by the existence of the tax break. If housing prices are higher in an amount equal to the benefit derived from the tax break then it is a wash. If prices are higher than the break even point due to people overstating the benefit of the deduction then buyers get hurt and sellers benefit. If folks discount the benefit then sellers get hurt and buyers benefit. IMHO, based on the hype the deduction gets, I suspect it serves to inflate prices beyond the break even point and buyer hurt/sellers benefit. If this is true then abolishing the deduction should lead to a drop in price that more than makes up for the loss of the deduction, benefiting buyers over sellers.
Click to expand...

WOW! I didn't think anyone would get the idea that tax breaks inflate prices. Can you see how it also relates to the rising cost of health insurance?
 
xj0hnx said:
There's the problem, I am not interested in solving the governments spending issues. I am not interested in the welfare, or warfare states, or supporting other people. I work to support my family, not to help cover an irresponsible, unaccountable government that can't/won't control it's spending, or stop fucking people with their political games.
Click to expand...

Sorry, your interest is moot. You are responsible for those same issues. Whether you like it or not. So if you are really interested in keeping as much Money as possible, it's in your interest to make sure it is done correctly. So far you seem more interested in just perpetuating the problem.
 
sandorski said:
Strawman. Figure it out.
Click to expand...

Ummmm...... no it's not. A strawman argument is refuting an argument without actually refuting it. I wrote 2 sentences. The first is a statement in PJ that the Dems won't do this b/c they will lose Congressional seats. The reality is that tax policy like this can be changed after the November elections when the voters can't do anything about it. That's not a strawman argument, it addresses his statement directly.

The second sentence I wrote was a rhetorical question highlighting the fact that Obama made a campaign pledge to not raise taxes on those who are not "the wealthy", a group he defined as making less than $200,000 or $250,000 per year (depending on which quote you take). Eliminating the mortgage deduction would seriously affect those who are not "wealthy" by his definition and would effectuate an increase in taxes, a direct violation of his promise. It was a rhetorical question b/c we already know the answer: politicians will say whatever they need to say to get elected and then fuck everyone over when the shit hits the fan.

That sentence was not a strawman argument since I didn't even attempt to address the economic validity of the mortgage deduction. A strawman argument requires an obfuscation of the argument through an apparent addressing of the argument through subversive means. I just pointed out that Obama is a politician (read: liar) regardless of the original argument.

Here's a pointer: next time you try to throw out internet jingoism (like "strawman") why don't you understand what the hell you're talking about first.
 
sactoking said:
Ummmm...... no it's not. A strawman argument is refuting an argument without actually refuting it. I wrote 2 sentences. The first is a statement in PJ that the Dems won't do this b/c they will lose Congressional seats. The reality is that tax policy like this can be changed after the November elections when the voters can't do anything about it. That's not a strawman argument, it addresses his statement directly.

The second sentence I wrote was a rhetorical question highlighting the fact that Obama made a campaign pledge to not raise taxes on those who are not "the wealthy", a group he defined as making less than $200,000 or $250,000 per year (depending on which quote you take). Eliminating the mortgage deduction would seriously affect those who are not "wealthy" by his definition and would effectuate an increase in taxes, a direct violation of his promise. It was a rhetorical question b/c we already know the answer: politicians will say whatever they need to say to get elected and then fuck everyone over when the shit hits the fan.

That sentence was not a strawman argument since I didn't even attempt to address the economic validity of the mortgage deduction. A strawman argument requires an obfuscation of the argument through an apparent addressing of the argument through subversive means. I just pointed out that Obama is a politician (read: liar) regardless of the original argument.

Here's a pointer: next time you try to throw out internet jingoism (like "strawman") why don't you understand what the hell you're talking about first.
Click to expand...

It was a Strawman(go find a definition, yours is incorrect). Obama only promised to not raise Income Taxes on those making <$250k.

I was incorrect. My understanding was that he was only speaking of Income Taxes and that turned out to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
sandorski said:
Slick? He did what he said he'd do. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Fail.

"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."
- President Obama
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top