Tax Reform Thread

[The Ocho 970]

Compelling argument.No, I think they're lower than they were. Depressed means lower, but with a negative connotation. Many people confused irrational consumption of housing with investing. When the bubble burst, rather than admit their speculation failed, they blame the market for setting prices lower than they "should" be. Why objectively do you think housing prices are too low?

Well you are talking about two different things here.1.) People buy home's because they can write off the mortgage on their taxes. It's a benefit for them. You remove that, you remove a MAJOR incentive to home ownership. Not to mention property taxes, PMI, certain other costs associated with purchasing a home. I'll give you an example, my mortgage is give or take 3K a month. I could rent an equivalent home for less, probably 2200/mo +/-. Besides the pride of home ownership, and the ability to pay it off and in the future not have a home payment, why would I pay an additional 10K per year to own? Plus all the maintenance that goes into the home? I could save 20K a year by renting, but by getting the tax deduction, it probably saves me 10-12K a year in taxes which is incentive enough to own vs. rent. If you remove the interest tax deduction you remove a large incentive to buy, which would further depress home prices.2.) As for the current prices of homes. I feel that they over corrected. In some areas, prices are back to what they were in the 1980's. A 25-30 year regression of price is not the norm. The only time we have seen anything similar was in 1991 during the S&L crisis and that was short lived and prices were back up within a a couple years. I do not think the 20% increases we were seeing year over year were real or sustainable, but seeing 50-80% declines over the past 4-5 years is also not the norm. It's also not that their aren't willing buyers to purchase properties. It's that process has become insanely difficult. Even if you are qualified to buy a home, you have to deal with either a bureaucracy or a bank, neither of them which are actually set up to be home sellers. Banks are not willing to loan except to the most qualified of borrowers. The pendulum swung hard the opposite direction. Banks currently don't have incentive to loan a bunch of money at 3.5 - 4.25%. They can buy treasuries at 3% +/- and have no risk.

[Balloon guy 158]

yes because when you are in debt, the last thing you want to do is raise more money to pay off that debt. We cut taxes in 2001 and started spending more and, voila, massive debt. Logic is available to anyone willing look.

Bush's tax cuts were a response to a recession that began before he took office. As a result of those cuts, the recession was lessened and the economy began to improve.9-11 was another external incident that greatly hurt the economy, no party gets the blame for this one and raising taxes would not have changed the impact of that attack.By 2003 though, all downward trends were stopped, and the income from taxes increased for the next 4 years. So cutting taxes did not cause the debt to rise. Cutting taxes caused the debt to rise less.Increasing spending did cause the debt to rise, spending less would have caused the debt to rise less.President Obama understands this, which is why he chose to continue the tax rates even though he had a super majority and could have followed through with his campaign promise to end the Bush tax cuts.

"You don't raise taxes in a recession"And if that 'logic' doesn't fit the fantasy land you live in, you can also use the following silly math facts:Tax cuts by Bush result in "1.3 trillion" over 10 years in lost revenue...Deficit spending during that same time was $2.5 trillion total.Under Obama it has been $5.9 trillionSo in the best case liberal scenario where Bush's tax cut were not allowed because the government has a right to confiscate as much money from its citizens as it wants, the federal deficit would have still risen $7.2 TrillionAnd math teaches us that $1.3T is more than $8.4T only in liberal fantasy land.

[CaneBrain 95]

so you admit that without tax cuts, the debt would be lower by 1.3 trillion even when spinning the numbers as favorably as you can to conservative interests. thanks.

[Balloon guy 158]

so you admit that without tax cuts, the debt would be lower by 1.3 trillion even when spinning the numbers as favorably as you can to conservative interests. thanks.

Yes, we could have 'saved' $130 billion a year by not helping the national economy during a recession.And you accept that cutting spending could have saved us a minimum of $8.4 trillion during the same time frame.Thank you!

[CaneBrain 95]

Yes, we could have 'saved' $130 billion a year by not helping the national economy during a recession.And you accept that cutting spending could have saved us a minimum of $8.4 trillion during the same time frame.Thank you!

ah yes, those tax cuts helped the economy but the spending programs didn't. Right. Of course. And why weren't the tax cuts lifted when the recession "ended" (aka---Bush and Co. looked the other way while a bunch of fake mortgages gave people a bunch of fake money that inevitably led to complete economic collapse)?

[akoff 0]

yes because when you are in debt, the last thing you want to do is raise more money to pay off that debt. We cut taxes in 2001 and started spending more and, voila, massive debt. Logic is available to anyone willing look.

i can agree with "and started spending more" i thought Bush was dumb for the spending...and he looks like a tight wad compared to BHO, Harry, Nancy and rest...it amazes me that you think you can raise "revenues" and fix the debt problem...it is like pissing on a forrest fire. you will only hurt the economy and still have a spending problem....we are 14 trillion or something to that in debt...nice logic

[Balloon guy 158]

ah yes, those tax cuts helped the economy but the spending programs didn't. Right. Of course. And why weren't the tax cuts lifted when the recession "ended" (aka---Bush and Co. looked the other way while a bunch of fake mortgages gave people a bunch of fake money that inevitably led to complete economic collapse)?

President Kennedy agrees with me and is calling your ideas silly:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

Now I know you want to mock a democrat president who dies for this country, but I for one will not let you bad mouth the greatest democrat president in the last 75 years....

[Balloon guy 158]

(aka---Bush and Co. looked the other way while a bunch of fake mortgages gave people a bunch of fake money that inevitably led to complete economic collapse)?

And lol that you think the office of the President's job is to monitor private mortgage practices.Although congress did have a big hand by forcing banks to deny basic economic principles, mostly democrats too.

[akoff 0]

President Kennedy agrees with me and is calling your ideas silly:Now I know you want to mock a democrat president who dies for this country, but I for one will not let you bad mouth the greatest democrat president in the last 75 years....

like being the tallest midget in the circus!! JFK best democrat in last 75 years...that is awesome.

[Balloon guy 158]

like being the tallest midget in the circus!! JFK best democrat in last 75 years...that is awesome.

I know...and they are stuck trying to figure out how to deny it...even though he was killed....

[akoff 0]

And lol that you think the office of the President's job is to monitor private mortgage practices.Although congress did have a big hand by forcing banks to deny basic economic principles, mostly democrats too.

i thought the program was started during the Carter admin (single term pres) and strengthend during Billary years when he had time between interns.

[Balloon guy 158]

i thought the program was started during the Carter admin (single term pres) and strengthend during Billary years when he had time between interns.

Those silly facts can not change the power of "Bush did it" which is a foundational truth of all things democrat.

[CaneBrain 95]

You guys make a great couple.

[BaseJester 1]

Well you are talking about two different things here.1.) People buy home's because they can write off the mortgage on their taxes. It's a benefit for them. You remove that, you remove a MAJOR incentive to home ownership.

So what? There is no compelling interest of the United States in people buying expensive houses.

Not to mention property taxes, PMI, certain other costs associated with purchasing a home. I'll give you an example, my mortgage is give or take 3K a month. I could rent an equivalent home for less, probably 2200/mo +/-. Besides the pride of home ownership, and the ability to pay it off and in the future not have a home payment, why would I pay an additional 10K per year to own? Plus all the maintenance that goes into the home? I could save 20K a year by renting, but by getting the tax deduction, it probably saves me 10-12K a year in taxes which is incentive enough to own vs. rent. If you remove the interest tax deduction you remove a large incentive to buy, which would further depress home prices.

I don't believe you're really paying the ~$25k in interest that this implies.The whole paragraph is a logical train wreck. Is a house worth $3k a month of your money or not? Your desire for your home equity to increase isn't a national interest. If the price goes lower, then home ownership becomes less of a hardship for new buyers. You think that's good, right? All those hardships of home buyers that you enumerated are bad, right?

2.) As for the current prices of homes. I feel that they over corrected.

Great, buy another house.

[Roll the Bones 74]

This is why the issue of doing away with charitable deductions is becoming cause-celebre with the 'compassionate left' It tracks back to their hatred of religion. If that 35% were Enviromental/Animal welfare, they'd defend it as their most sacred cow. I mean, could it possibly be any more ****ing absurd to say "Doing away with the 1/1 tax incentives for charitable giving won't hurt charitable giving"?What elaborate academic theories and tortured logic were drawn upon to arrive at that turd of a 'theory' ?

No, athiests just want to do away with religous tax breaks except for their charitable works.

[The Ocho 970]

So what? There is no compelling interest of the United States in people buying expensive houses.

I never said that. But for many people buying a home and utilizing the deduction allows them to afford to buy a home.

I don't believe you're really paying the ~$25k in interest that this implies.

Um, Ok. You don't have to believe it, I guess. Not sure what basis you would have for making such a statement.

The whole paragraph is a logical train wreck. Is a house worth $3k a month of your money or not? Your desire for your home equity to increase isn't a national interest. If the price goes lower, then home ownership becomes less of a hardship for new buyers. You think that's good, right? All those hardships of home buyers that you enumerated are bad, right?

No, I don't. I don't think everyone should own a home. Falling home values is bad for everyone. So you are trying to say that people across the country are rooting for homes to go lower so they can buy one? The hardships of homeowner has to do with the types of loans they got.

Great, buy another house.

I did.

[DJ Vu 176]

Um, Ok. You don't have to believe it, I guess. Not sure what basis you would have for making such a statement.

Because you're a liar, Liar McLiarson.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ocho, the proof they have brought against you is pretty conclusive from the left's perspective....They think you are lying, and now that they have the proof, they can conclude that you are in fact lying by the reality of their feelings from before.Just put down your keyboard and grab your gun and join us for our War On Women!!!!!

[hblask 1]

yes because when you are in debt, the last thing you want to do is raise more money to pay off that debt.

When the people who are in debt are the same people you are raising the money from, I'm sure you can see the problem. Shifting money between pockets doesn't fix a debt problem.

[hblask 1]

so you admit that without tax cuts, the debt would be lower by 1.3 trillion even when spinning the numbers as favorably as you can to conservative interests. thanks.

Tax rates have virtually no effect on revenue. This is a historical fact that does not go away due to repeated class warfare.

[Balloon guy 158]

No, athiests just want to do away with religous tax breaks except for their charitable works.

It's all charitable....

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Tax rates have virtually no effect on revenue. This is a historical fact that does not go away due to repeated class warfare.

Sure they do.The Bush tax cuts lowered both the absolute amount of taxes that are collected and the percentage of GDP. The tax rates in the US are currently at historic lows and the revenue is also at historic lows for modern times.There isn't a 1-1 effect however for a variety of reasons just like if you cut $1 in government spending especially during a recession you don't reduce your deficit by $1 but in fact it's less as Europe is finding out right now.If you say that increasing taxes across the board by 1% won't increase the amount collected by 1% but will be something less than that I will agree with you but especially when tax rates are low they will increase revenue.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

It's all charitable....

If I pay money to build a social club that I attend that isn't charity.Paying to build a church is no different.

[CaneBrain 95]

Sure they do.The Bush tax cuts lowered both the absolute amount of taxes that are collected and the percentage of GDP. The tax rates in the US are currently at historic lows and the revenue is also at historic lows for modern times.There isn't a 1-1 effect however for a variety of reasons just like if you cut $1 in government spending especially during a recession you don't reduce your deficit by $1 but in fact it's less as Europe is finding out right now.If you say that increasing taxes across the board by 1% won't increase the amount collected by 1% but will be something less than that I will agree with you but especially when tax rates are low they will increase revenue.

Pretty much this.Lol at BG calling base jester a liberal. Guess he has never read anything the guy has posted.

[hblask 1]

Sure they do.The Bush tax cuts lowered both the absolute amount of taxes that are collected and the percentage of GDP. The tax rates in the US are currently at historic lows and the revenue is also at historic lows for modern times.There isn't a 1-1 effect however for a variety of reasons just like if you cut $1 in government spending especially during a recession you don't reduce your deficit by $1 but in fact it's less as Europe is finding out right now.If you say that increasing taxes across the board by 1% won't increase the amount collected by 1% but will be something less than that I will agree with you but especially when tax rates are low they will increase revenue.

That's why I said "virtually". Any attempt to close the budget holes by playing with tax rates will have about as much effect as pissing into the Pacific. The amount additional collected is almost zero, and even the theoretical-nobody-changes-their-behavior version doesn't collect enough taxes to even show up as a blip on the graph.