[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
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.)
[/quote]

It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.

Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.

[quote=SK in CV]
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?[/quote]

No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.

Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.

[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
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.)
[/quote]

It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.

Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.

[quote=SK in CV]
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?[/quote]

No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.

Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.

[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
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.)
[/quote]

It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.

Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.

[quote=SK in CV]
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?[/quote]

No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.

Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.

[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
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.)
[/quote]

It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.

Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.

[quote=SK in CV]
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?[/quote]

No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.

Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.

[all]

[quote=SK in CV]
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.)
[/quote]

It is a subsidy if we agree that any money not confiscated by the government is a subsidy to those who got to keep it.

Interest was never taxed until 1986. I was not here in 1986 when some of the interest was made taxable, but I believe you when you say that politicians framed the tax increase as an issue of fairness. That’s my only point – taxing something that has been going on since the invention of natural exchange and was never ever taxed might be ‘good’ policy and required, but it should not be presented as stopping a giveaway.

[quote=SK in CV]
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?[/quote]

No. My argument is that the interest deduction is not an expenditure, that’s all.

Incidentally, you picked items that I have no problems with – I don’t think any of the listed should be reduced. But that can’t be inferred from my premises.

[all]

[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.

[all]

[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.

[all]

[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.

[all]

[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.

[all]

[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.

[all]

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).

[all]

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).

[all]

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).

[all]

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).

[all]

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).

[Author]

Posts