- This topic has 195 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM #721840August 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM #720640
all
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.
And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]
captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]
That hurts 🙂
The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.
August 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM #720730Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.
And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]
captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]
That hurts 🙂
The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.
August 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM #721331Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.
And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]
captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]
That hurts 🙂
The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.
August 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM #721487Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.
And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]
captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]
That hurts 🙂
The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.
August 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM #721850Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.
And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]
captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]
That hurts 🙂
The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.
August 17, 2011 at 9:35 PM #720645CardiffBaseball
Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
I agree that we, as Americans, should be willing to pay the costs of maintaining our nation’s health, safety, and stability. However, the Congress best get busy eliminating tax shelters and loopholes for wealthy corporations and individuals, of which there are an obscene abundance. And, no, I’m not referring to people making $250K/year as “wealthy”, for any reactionaries in the peanut gallery….
I’m perfectly willing to pay taxes on my entire income when corporations and the rich begin to do the same. Hell, at this point, I’d be happy if companies like Exxon and GE would pay corporate income tax on SOME of their profits.[/quote]
True but can we also at least raise taxes on the poor? Dammit what Jesus doesn’t realize is that it’s the Meek who are the problem.
My sister has never really made much scratch, I used to do her taxes for her. I swear with EIC and everything else she was actually taking monies out of the system. Of course I don’t begrudge her that money, but that has to be a massive strain on the budget.
August 17, 2011 at 9:35 PM #720735Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
I agree that we, as Americans, should be willing to pay the costs of maintaining our nation’s health, safety, and stability. However, the Congress best get busy eliminating tax shelters and loopholes for wealthy corporations and individuals, of which there are an obscene abundance. And, no, I’m not referring to people making $250K/year as “wealthy”, for any reactionaries in the peanut gallery….
I’m perfectly willing to pay taxes on my entire income when corporations and the rich begin to do the same. Hell, at this point, I’d be happy if companies like Exxon and GE would pay corporate income tax on SOME of their profits.[/quote]
True but can we also at least raise taxes on the poor? Dammit what Jesus doesn’t realize is that it’s the Meek who are the problem.
My sister has never really made much scratch, I used to do her taxes for her. I swear with EIC and everything else she was actually taking monies out of the system. Of course I don’t begrudge her that money, but that has to be a massive strain on the budget.
August 17, 2011 at 9:35 PM #721336Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
I agree that we, as Americans, should be willing to pay the costs of maintaining our nation’s health, safety, and stability. However, the Congress best get busy eliminating tax shelters and loopholes for wealthy corporations and individuals, of which there are an obscene abundance. And, no, I’m not referring to people making $250K/year as “wealthy”, for any reactionaries in the peanut gallery….
I’m perfectly willing to pay taxes on my entire income when corporations and the rich begin to do the same. Hell, at this point, I’d be happy if companies like Exxon and GE would pay corporate income tax on SOME of their profits.[/quote]
True but can we also at least raise taxes on the poor? Dammit what Jesus doesn’t realize is that it’s the Meek who are the problem.
My sister has never really made much scratch, I used to do her taxes for her. I swear with EIC and everything else she was actually taking monies out of the system. Of course I don’t begrudge her that money, but that has to be a massive strain on the budget.
August 17, 2011 at 9:35 PM #721492Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
I agree that we, as Americans, should be willing to pay the costs of maintaining our nation’s health, safety, and stability. However, the Congress best get busy eliminating tax shelters and loopholes for wealthy corporations and individuals, of which there are an obscene abundance. And, no, I’m not referring to people making $250K/year as “wealthy”, for any reactionaries in the peanut gallery….
I’m perfectly willing to pay taxes on my entire income when corporations and the rich begin to do the same. Hell, at this point, I’d be happy if companies like Exxon and GE would pay corporate income tax on SOME of their profits.[/quote]
True but can we also at least raise taxes on the poor? Dammit what Jesus doesn’t realize is that it’s the Meek who are the problem.
My sister has never really made much scratch, I used to do her taxes for her. I swear with EIC and everything else she was actually taking monies out of the system. Of course I don’t begrudge her that money, but that has to be a massive strain on the budget.
August 17, 2011 at 9:35 PM #721855Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
I agree that we, as Americans, should be willing to pay the costs of maintaining our nation’s health, safety, and stability. However, the Congress best get busy eliminating tax shelters and loopholes for wealthy corporations and individuals, of which there are an obscene abundance. And, no, I’m not referring to people making $250K/year as “wealthy”, for any reactionaries in the peanut gallery….
I’m perfectly willing to pay taxes on my entire income when corporations and the rich begin to do the same. Hell, at this point, I’d be happy if companies like Exxon and GE would pay corporate income tax on SOME of their profits.[/quote]
True but can we also at least raise taxes on the poor? Dammit what Jesus doesn’t realize is that it’s the Meek who are the problem.
My sister has never really made much scratch, I used to do her taxes for her. I swear with EIC and everything else she was actually taking monies out of the system. Of course I don’t begrudge her that money, but that has to be a massive strain on the budget.
August 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM #720655SK in CV
Participant[quote=captcha]
That hurts 🙂The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.[/quote]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?
August 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM #720745Participant[quote=captcha]
That hurts 🙂The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.[/quote]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?
August 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM #721346Participant[quote=captcha]
That hurts 🙂The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.[/quote]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?
August 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM #721502Participant[quote=captcha]
That hurts 🙂The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.[/quote]
1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)
2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.