Out Of Their Anti Tax Minds

[Fern]

When you are talking about deductions created specifically to spur an activity it is essentially spending.

Take the private jet issue. It allows accelerated depreciation. There is no real difference between allowing accelerated depreciation and having the gov't cut a check to equal the amount, except that accelerated depreciation is more cost-effective for the gov't.

Excuse me, but that's completely wrong.

Under the tax code (tax law) a deduction must be "ordinary and necessary" before a deduction can be taked (section 162).

So use of a corporate jet is a legitimate business deduction (assuming the IRS allows it under section 162).

Accelerated depreciation, in most cases, betters reflects 'real world' depreciation that any other method such as straight-line. Everyone knows when you drive a new car off the dealer's lot it losses a bunch of it's value, same for almost any other asset - like a jet. So, there's absolutely nothing wrong with accelerated depreciation, nor is it any type of goverment subsidy or give-away. It's a valid deduction in arriving at net income.

If tax for company/individual would be X, any decrease in that tax that is related to efforts to encourage an action is spending. The key thing to remember here is that it is a decrease designed to create a specific action, be it buying a home, or buying a jet, or building "green" appliances. There is no fundamental difference between the gov't enacting a tax break versus cutting a check in these cases.

To view it otherwise is dishonest and only serves to distort the discussion, as well as make it easy to hide spending in the guise of "tax cuts."

Again - No.

The vast majority of deductions, and in this case the jet, are allowed under section 162 - ordinanry and necessary business deductions.

But yes, there are exceptions in the tax code, and the "green" appliance credit is an example of that. There are not many, but that is one and is similar to the government just cutting a check (the fed credits your tax bill).

There is a good deal of confusion here. We, like most other countries, tax NET income. What business's must expend (payroll, advertising, depreciation on eqiup etc) in order to create that net income are NOT some gov benefit because those necessary expenses are deducted.

Otherwise, you're getting real close to appearing like one of those who believe all money really belongs to the government and and deductions are nice way for us to keep some of that government's money (even though we EARNED it).

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

 

[spidey07]

<snip>

Straight up lulz right there. Debt ceiling cat will report shenanigans by all as they happen.

And what happened to "no more closed door negotiations" in this most transparent administration in history?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The problem Fern with "health care reform" is that it isn't. It's better termed "paying for healthcare" reform, because the key elements and problems in health care aren't being addressed. That's what should have happened because there's a crap of problems coming down the pike that are being avoided. A couple years ago I was at geriatrics seminar and one of the topics was how to handle the more obvious problems such as Alzheimer's and the answer was that no one has a clue how to address the issues. That hasn't changed.

The timely allocation of resources as well as facilitating the coordination of the various health care disciplines would be a worthy goal and be reform. How many specialists are going to be needed in 15 years? Where will they need to be? How much can we afford? What is "too much" and what's not enough? How will this be accomplished? There's a whole lot more, but we got what we have. We wasted a rare moment.

 

[Jhhnn]

Straight up lulz right there. Debt ceiling cat will report shenanigans by all as they happen.

And what happened to "no more closed door negotiations" in this most transparent administration in history?

It seems obvious that Repub demands are so ridiculous that they won't negotiate out in the open... if they're actually negotiating at all.

 

[spidey07]

It seems obvious that Repub demands are so ridiculous that they won't negotiate out in the open... if they're actually negotiating at all.

Where was the meeting held? Who holds power over that room?

Fuck Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

The so-called "Republican plan" back in 1993 didn't have Republican support even then.

A few Repubs put it together in competition with Hillary's plan, but it never had Repub support despite what the Left continually asserts. To continually claim otherwise, and then feign surprise the Repubs refuse to support it now is flat-out disengenuious.

Fern

Just because it might not have successfully gained passage doesn't mean that it didn't have significant Republican support. It was cosponsored by approximately half the Republican caucus, including the minority leader. To continually claim that it didn't have Republican support is flat out disingenuous. So please, stop trying to pull this crap.

Clearly when you compare two quite similar bills, one sponsored by half the caucus with the support of leadership, and the other universally derided as fascist/evil/satanic/black, any person who is looking at the issue honestly can see the extreme radicalization of the Republican party.

Funny thing is that a post on fivethirtyeight today directly addresses how and why the Republican party has become so radical over the last decade. They have by and large lost the support of independents, and so rely almost exclusively on conservative voters. This is in marked contrast to the past where they would frequently split the independent vote with Democrats.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/why-the-g-o-p-cannot-compromise/

 

[Shallok]

Excuse me, but that's completely wrong.

Under the tax code (tax law) a deduction must be "ordinary and necessary" before a deduction can be taked (section 162).

So use of a corporate jet is a legitimate business deduction (assuming the IRS allows it under section 162).

Try not to go off on a tangent. I did not say that a deduction for corporate jets was illegitimate. This is not at all about whether or not a business should take a deduction. Businesses would still be able to take a deduction. Talking about whether or not it is valid is just a deflection.

Accelerated depreciation, in most cases, betters reflects 'real world' depreciation that any other method such as straight-line. Everyone knows when you drive a new car off the dealer's lot it losses a bunch of it's value, same for almost any other asset - like a jet. So, there's absolutely nothing wrong with accelerated depreciation, nor is it any type of goverment subsidy or give-away. It's a valid deduction in arriving at net income.

Accelerated depreciation is a subsidy. When and why was the accelerated depreciation first put into existence? Why was it extended? What is the base deduction--the deduction allowed prior to the change(s) made?

Accelerated depreciation was not allowed because it better reflects the real world. Originally part of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, it was extended by the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and further extended by Obama's stimulus.

Depreciation is a valid deduction, accelerated depreciation is a valid deduction, but lets not pretend that accelerated depreciation of corporate jets isn't a type of gov't subsidy.

Again - No.

The vast majority of deductions, and in this case the jet, are allowed under section 162 - ordinanry and necessary business deductions.

But yes, there are exceptions in the tax code, and the "green" appliance credit is an example of that. There are not many, but that is one and is similar to the government just cutting a check (the fed credits your tax bill).

As I stated above, its not about the deduction being allowed by the IRS. It is simply indisputable that accelerated depreciation was put into place in order to stimulate the economy. You can not legitimately argue this. There is no real difference between allowing accelerated depreciation and having the gov't cut a check for the difference. The way the gov't decreases its funds should not be the focus--the decreasing funds should be the focus.

Do you, or anyone, really want the gov't to switch all (or as much as possible) spending to tax breaks? Wouldn't it still be spending?

Northrup recently got a hefty contract with the CDC. If the gov't offered to just reduce the taxes owed by Northrup in an amount equal to what they would be paid would you still consider it spending? Would be easy enough to have congress put it into the IRS's code.

Otherwise, you're getting real close to appearing like one of those who believe all money really belongs to the government and and deductions are nice way for us to keep some of that government's money (even though we EARNED it).

Fern

All money? No, not all money. But once the tax rate for a year is set, that money belongs to the gov't. Don't like it? Ask your reps to change it or move. That is the cost of living in the US. Any decrease in that amount is a nice way for you to get some of that gov't money. You know all this Fern.

 

[Jhhnn]

Where was the meeting held? Who holds power over that room?

Fuck Obama.

Like that matters. Rave some more.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Where was the meeting held? Who holds power over that room?

Fuck Obama.

Hes the President, F-you!

 

[Craig234]

Nope. Flat-out wrong.

Social Security taxes go for SS (Medicare included). It's that simple.

Excess SS funds are invested in T-bonds. Those funds obtained from the bonds are available general purpose. But that is mighty damn different from what you're claiming.



Let me help you out here. You don't seem familiar with payroll taxes.

Payroll taxes consist of following:

(1) Federal and state income tax withholding. Has nothing to do with this discussion.

(2) SS. As I've explained above they are used SOLEY for the SS program (retirement, disability, medicare etc)

So, the federal government doesn't borrow hundreds of billions a year from Social Security off the budget books for general spending?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

The so-called "Republican plan" back in 1993 didn't have Republican support even then.

A few Repubs put it together in competition with Hillary's plan, but it never had Repub support despite what the Left continually asserts. To continually claim otherwise, and then feign surprise the Repubs refuse to support it now is flat-out disengenuious.

Fern

I think your version of history is getting fuzzy.

Todays Obama care is yesterday's Repub Care.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

 

[Craig234]

See bolded part etc.

Utter nonsense. A complete revision of history:



http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83153-hoyer-public-option-is-likely-dead

Seriously Craig234?

Jeebus, you have no shame.

Fern

Some positions changed over time and with different votes, but over 50 Senators indicated support for a public option.

Here's a list of 51:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/20...port-a-public-option-whats-stopping-them-now/

Stop with the idiotic, false attacks that only make you look bad.

 

[woolfe9999]

Just because it might not have successfully gained passage doesn't mean that it didn't have significant Republican support. It was cosponsored by approximately half the Republican caucus, including the minority leader. To continually claim that it didn't have Republican support is flat out disingenuous. So please, stop trying to pull this crap.

Clearly when you compare two quite similar bills, one sponsored by half the caucus with the support of leadership, and the other universally derided as fascist/evil/satanic/black, any person who is looking at the issue honestly can see the extreme radicalization of the Republican party.

Funny thing is that a post on fivethirtyeight today directly addresses how and why the Republican party has become so radical over the last decade. They have by and large lost the support of independents, and so rely almost exclusively on conservative voters. This is in marked contrast to the past where they would frequently split the independent vote with Democrats.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/why-the-g-o-p-cannot-compromise/

I have a slightly different take on this. I think Fern is half-right. I recall an interview with Chuck Grassley back when Obamacare was being debated where he was being taken to task for supporting a healthcare plan with an individual mandate back when Hilcare was being debated. He was asked, essentially, why did you support a mandate then but now you're arguing it is unconstitutional? His response - chagrined I might add- was basically, "well, you have to remember, we were trying to oppose the Clinton plan."

It's important to note that the GOP has only twice proposed anything like healthcare reform (post Nixon). The first was after Clinton advanced a healthcare reform plan, and the second was after Obama advanced his. Republicans obviously wanted both plans shot down, if for no other reason than to politically harm the dem in the Whitehouse. However, they first had a problem: polls showed that most Americans wanted some form of healthcare reform, and the dems were all primed to tar them with the "party of no" rhetoric. So they had to have a healthcarre plan to offer in the alternative. However, it need not be a sensible plan or even one they actually wanted to implement. It just needed to look like a healthcare plan, and be far enough away from the dem plan that no middle ground could ever be found. Hence why their plan this time around was further to the right, because Obamacare was further to the right than Hilcare. If they had stayed with their previous plan, it would have been too close to Obamacare.

So what Grassley essentially was saying was, no, I never believed in that plan. I'm a liar, but never call me a hypocrit. So I think Fern is correct to the extent that this was never a plan that really had support in the GOP. It was, instead, a political ruse.

 

[Craig234]

What a bunch of horse crap.

I've already demonstrated you lie when you say the Dems had majority support for the public option.

No, you didn't. Say the word lie falsely again, in another lie of yours, Fern.

And you want to blame this crappy HC on the Repubs?

It's not that complicated, you should be able to get it. They're responsible for their votes.

No public option? Yeah, I can agree that the Repubs... didn't support it. Why the hell would they? That's a lib's wet dream, why would the Repubs support it?

The question was, do the Republicans have any responsibility for a stronger bill with a public healthcare option not being passed? Glad you caught up the topic.

And you public option types have never once explained what you're plan is for wiping out the HC insurance industry. Who reimburses all the shareholders for their billion $ losses? Who makes up for loss of value in peoples' retirement plans for that worthless stock? What happens to the thousands of people now out of work? Etc.

Fern

That's a reasonable question. What was done to protect buggy whip and carriage companies from the move to automobiles?

We should not continue a useless parasitical industry draining billions from our economy simply to protect their investment.

Investing has risks (at least, it is supposed to). If you have a *reasonable* plan for the issue, put it up. The worst case that the industry is liquidated - I'm ok with that if needed.

I've got *some* sympathy for these bastards, and will listen to some easing of the impact.

 

[fskimospy]

I have a slightly different take on this. I think Fern is half-right. I recall an interview with Chuck Grassley back when Obamacare was being debated where he was being taken to task for supporting a healthcare plan with an individual mandate back when Hilcare was being debated. He was asked, essentially, why did you support a mandate then but now you're arguing it is unconstitutional? His response - chagrined I might add- was basically, "well, you have to remember, we were trying to oppose the Clinton plan."

It's important to note that the GOP has only twice proposed anything like healthcare reform (post Nixon). The first was after Clinton advanced a healthcare reform plan, and the second was after Obama advanced his. Republicans obviously wanted both plans shot down, if for no other reason than to politically harm the dem in the Whitehouse. However, they first had a problem: polls showed that most Americans wanted some form of healthcare reform, and the dems were all primed to tar them with the "party of no" rhetoric. So they had to have a healthcarre plan to offer in the alternative. However, it need not be a sensible plan or even one they actually wanted to implement. It just needed to look like a healthcare plan, and be far enough away from the dem plan that no middle ground could ever be found. Hence why their plan this time around was further to the right, because Obamacare was further to the right than Hilcare. If they had stayed with their previous plan, it would have been too close to Obamacare.

So what Grassley essentially was saying was, no, I never believed in that plan. I'm a liar, but never call me a hypocrit. So I think Fern is correct to the extent that this was never a plan that really had support in the GOP. It was, instead, a political ruse.

Well that could be true for Grassley, but Dole is on the record saying he would have supported the Obama health care plan, and he was the leadership then. While I'm sure there's a heavy dose of politics both in their promotion back then and their opposition now, I don't really see why believing Grassley's self serving explanation now is any more plausible than believing his self serving position then.

If you look at the Republican position on health care in light of their position on...well... basically everything else, it's gone far... far to the right in the last few decades. I thought that Nate Silver's explanation made perfect sense as to why that is.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well that could be true for Grassley, but Dole is on the record saying he would have supported the Obama health care plan, and he was the leadership then. While I'm sure there's a heavy dose of politics both in their promotion back then and their opposition now, I don't really see why believing Grassley's self serving explanation now is any more plausible than believing his self serving position then.

If you look at the Republican position on health care in light of their position on...well... basically everything else, it's gone far... far to the right in the last few decades. I thought that Nate Silver's explanation made perfect sense as to why that is.

Hah, I hardly call Grassley's explanation "self-serving." Perhaps HE thought it was. I thought it was a bald admission of dishonesty on the part of an elected official. Anyway, there is clearly a pattern in how the GOP has handled the issue of healthcare. The debate over Obamacare was deja vu all over again, the only difference being this time the dems had barely enough votes to push through a heavily neutured piece of legislation.

 

[ProfJohn]

Some positions changed over time and with different votes, but over 50 Senators indicated support for a public option.

Here's a list of 51:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/20...port-a-public-option-whats-stopping-them-now/

Stop with the idiotic, false attacks that only make you look bad.

That list is awfully weak and it includes one Senator who is dead...

And it still doesn't mater. You guys couldn't convince 9 of your own party members to support the public option. Blame them for the failure to pass the bill. The voted for the thing in the long run anyway.

 

[Craig234]

That list is awfully weak and it includes one Senator who is dead...

And it still doesn't mater. You guys couldn't convince 9 of your own party members to support the public option. Blame them for the failure to pass the bill. The voted for the thing in the long run anyway.

Your post is awfully weak, and by this count, 9 Democrats and 40 Republicans are responsible for voting against the public option. That's over 80% of the blame for Republicans.

 

[werepossum]

Your post is awfully weak, and by this count, 9 Democrats and 40 Republicans are responsible for voting against the public option. That's over 80% of the blame for Republicans.

Hah, you misspelled "credit". How embarrassing.

 

[HendrixFan]

Hah, you misspelled "credit". How embarrassing.

Nice.

The healthcare bill is a prime example of Obama's inability to lead. If he can't get his own party to fall in line, how can we expect him to make any headway in getting Republicans to buy into his policies?

I said after his election in '08 that I thought he was an empty suit with no experience leading and it looks like that was spot on, sadly.

I mean, passing a neutered bill to appease Republicans, even though the Republicans didn't vote for the neutered version? That is simply embarrassing. Once it was clear there was no Republican support with it neutered, Obama should have vetoed it and sent the proper one through. Again, he couldn't lean on his own party to do that so...

 

[fskimospy]

Nice.

The healthcare bill is a prime example of Obama's inability to lead. If he can't get his own party to fall in line, how can we expect him to make any headway in getting Republicans to buy into his policies?

I said after his election in '08 that I thought he was an empty suit with no experience leading and it looks like that was spot on, sadly.

I mean, passing a neutered bill to appease Republicans, even though the Republicans didn't vote for the neutered version? That is simply embarrassing. Once it was clear there was no Republican support with it neutered, Obama should have vetoed it and sent the proper one through. Again, he couldn't lean on his own party to do that so...

That is a really bizarre way of looking at how the health care bill was passed, and it doesn't seem to have any bearing on reality. The health care bill was neutered because of Democrats, not Republicans. (except insofar as Republican fear mongering and disinformation might have affected the debate)

Obama vetoing his own signature legislation that couldn't have made it through the Senate again in order to get a 'proper' version has to be one of the more ridiculous ideas I've heard. He accomplished what no Democrat was able to accomplish in a century of trying, a law to ensure near universal health care.

 

[werepossum]

That is a really bizarre way of looking at how the health care bill was passed, and it doesn't seem to have any bearing on reality. The health care bill was neutered because of Democrats, not Republicans. (except insofar as Republican fear mongering and disinformation might have affected the debate)

Obama vetoing his own signature legislation that couldn't have made it through the Senate again in order to get a 'proper' version has to be one of the more ridiculous ideas I've heard. He accomplished what no Democrat was able to accomplish in a century of trying, a law to ensure near universal health care.

This is largely true. The only thing holding back Obama from passing full-on socialized medicine (with Hillarycare criminal penalties for daring to use your own money to provide for your own health care) is that Democrat politicians' highest priority, just like Republican politicians' highest priority, is ensuring their own re-election, and preferably advancement. Passing such a bill would have ensured Republican control of Congress in 2010, probably with a filibuster- and veto-proof Senate majority, and a Republican in the White House in 2012. Good little socialists should be proud of Obama, he got the very most he could have gotten without ensuring that Republicans swept in and dismantled it all.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think the debate over Obamacare is a waste.

Soon as a Republican is in the White house the bill is toast. Unless the Democrats can filibuster its repeal in the senate.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the debate over Obamacare is a waste.

Soon as a Republican is in the White house the bill is toast. Unless the Democrats can filibuster its repeal in the senate.

Which of course they will. The bill isn't going anywhere, and once 2014 hits and everyone is insured, no one will ever want to give that up to go back to the bad old days.

The debate on the health care bill is a waste but mostly because it's too late, the right already lost.