Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction And E.I.T.C From Tax

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

There's a societal benefit to kids and education. Without those, this nation would be dead in a few years time.

You are obviously, SERIOUSLY mistaken. When this argument is used against homosexuality, it is laughed and and scoffed as BS. Ergo, it cannot be used in the context you attempted to here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You are obviously, SERIOUSLY mistaken. When this argument is used against homosexuality, it is laughed and and scoffed as BS. Ergo, it cannot be used in the context you attempted to here.

Having fun comparing apples and oranges, yes? In case you haven't noticed yet, they're different.

You could argue that there's a societal benefit for a lot of things. Doesn't mean taxpayers should foot the bill for them.

We could just dismantle the nation altogether and declare that forthwith each person will take care of all things for himself. Period. Somalia essentially works like that. It's quite the paradise. Go and check it out.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Having fun comparing apples and oranges, yes? In case you haven't noticed yet, they're different.

We could just dismantle the nation altogether and declare that forthwith each person will take care of all things for himself. Period. Somalia essentially works like that. It's quite the paradise. Go and check it out.

This would be a Libertarian Utopia!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This would be a Libertarian Utopia!

That's where all this nonsense of not funding schools leads to. Even the most desolate places tend to have public schools. Developed countries would not have debates on whether or not education is a public good. They know and understand that it is. Without it, there would be no developed economy. It's really simple. But apparently not simple enough for some.

[Karee 4,191]

We could just dismantle the nation altogether and declare that forthwith each person will take care of all things for himself. Period. Somalia essentially works like that. It's quite the paradise. Go and check it out.

It's very telling that you assume that society would fail to function if there were less govt. intervention in our lives. I'd argue that it does more harm than good. The fact that the govt. is running a 17+ trillion dollar debt speaks volumes about their competence. But hey, you seem to be cool with that. As to your Somalia statement, try to make a valid argument, rather than trying to score a point for your lapdog John R. Also, you shamelessly stole that Somalia line from a former member here. Try to be original next time.

The majority of things should be handled at the state and local level.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's very telling that you assume that society would fail to function if there were less govt. intervention in our lives. I'd argue that it does more harm than good. The fact that the govt. is running a 17+ trillion dollar debt speaks volumes about their competence. But hey, you seem to be cool with that. As to your Somalia statement, try to make a valid argument, rather than trying to score a point for your lapdog John R. Also, you shamelessly stole that Somalia line from a former member here. Try to be original next time.

The majority of things should be handled at the state and local level.

It's not about government intervention - it's about public goods. It's about the very building blocks of a functioning, modern society. Education as a public good are part of that very foundation.

[Karee 4,191]

It's not about government intervention - it's about public goods. It's about the very building blocks of a functioning, modern society. Education as a public good are part of that very foundation.

The vast majority of education funding comes from the state and local level. Which IMO means that the decisions regarding education should come from the state and local level as well.

What are you talking about "public goods?"

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Liberals have such a limited understanding. They rail against big business, monopolies and the rich getting rich off the little man

Yet we have a deduction that gives the Avg Joe a little break, so he can keep a little bit of his own money, as opposed to living in rental property that is owned many times by big companies and rich people, who get even richer off his rent. Of course those that own rental property know you get to deduct all your expenses, deprecation etc.

What a one dimensional limited thought process that thinks encouraging property to be owned by the individual instead of all the housing to be concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful is a bad thing. A lot of people taking the mortgage interest deduction could not afford a modest home otherwise.

Great lets do more to encourage a system in which the rich and poweful own all the hosuing and people live their whole life and never build equity in anything

Liberals are so cute when they understand 1/10 of an issue

They seem to have no problem with taking my money and providing free housing but have a problem with me keeping some of my own money to provide housing for my self. Can't make this ####### up

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The vast majority of education funding comes from the state and local level. Which IMO means that the decisions regarding education should come from the state and local level as well.

What are you talking about "public goods?"

That is the case. Florida education is run out of Tallahassee and by local school boards. It's not the federal government that runs our schools down here.

Public goods are the things that are publicly funded - be that from the federal, state or local level.

[unsmiley 111]

Liberals have such a limited understanding. They rail against big business, monopolies and the rich getting rich off the little man

Yet we have a deduction that gives the Avg Joe a little break, so he can keep a little bit of his own money, as opposed to living in rental property that is owned many times by big companies and rich people, who get even richer off his rent. Of course those that own rental property know you get to deduct all your expenses, deprecation etc.

What a one dimensional limited thought process that thinks encouraging property to be owned by the individual instead of all the housing to be concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful is a bad thing. A lot of people taking the mortgage interest deduction could not afford a modest home otherwise.

Great lets do more to encourage a system in which the rich and poweful own all the hosuing and people live their whole life and never build equity in anything

Liberals are so cute when they understand 1/10 of an issue

They seem to have no problem with taking my money and providing free housing but have a problem with me keeping some of my own money to provide housing for my self. Can't make this ####### up

I am afraid this is one of the few times you are wrong here, my friend. And I will have to answer point by point. Just because the government screws us most of the time, and often showers money on the undeserving, doesn't make it right when an unfair deduction puts more money in your pocket. I know it is tempting to think so, but two wrongs do not make a right. It is all wasteful and should all be stopped.

This has nothing to do with the "little guy" against the rich and powerful. Most of your mortgage deduction is funded by other little guys, like me, and it is not right. It is a wealth transfer from renters and other non-owners to homeowners. It was designed to buy votes and kiss up to the powerful real estate industry.

And we never should be encouraging home ownership for those who cannot afford it - witness the meltdown of 2008 which almost destroyed the economy and was caused by just such misguided beliefs.

Finally, this ain't no liberal vs. conservative argument, as far as I am concerned. While not pointing at anyone in particular, I always find it amazing how otherwise sensible people lose their cool and objectivity when the subject of dropping the mortgage deduction comes up.

[unsmiley 111]

If you want a porsche, you don't buy a Toyota. If you want deduction, you don't rent.

Why should you get the same benefit that a home owner dpes, without any of the risk? Do you also think you should get to deduct mileage on your vehicle even though you don't own your own business?

You're missing my point. Neither should get that "benefit." It is unfair and discriminatory.

And that risk is your choice. No one is putting a gun to your head to purchase a house. But you taking a risk as a private person, with a piece of private property. That is your "problem", and you should not require others to subsidize that risk.

Actually, this is why the only true fair tax code would be a flat tax, with ZERO deductions (including the sacred cow of mortgage deductions).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'd be for a tax code with no deductions whatsoever. None. Just an exemption that across the board ensures that nobody pays a dime of tax on that first part of the income which is determined to be the existential minimum. If that is $20K a year - or maybe varying amounts based on where one resides - then so be it. First $20K are tax free. Next $30K you owe 5%, next $50K you owe 10%, next $100K you owe 15% and then you need to play that out to where it is revenue neutral to today's tax code. That's it. No shenanigans, no loopholes, no deductions. Income is income whether earned or passive makes no difference. I think you could cap the top tax rate at about 25% and would pull in what you pull in today. Done. I'm in.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You're missing my point. Neither should get that "benefit." It is unfair and discriminatory.

And that risk is your choice. No one is putting a gun to your head to purchase a house. But you taking a risk as a private person, with a piece of private property. That is your "problem", and you should not require others to subsidize that risk.

Actually, this is why the only true fair tax code would be a flat tax, with ZERO deductions (including the sacred cow of mortgage deductions).

I am ok with a flat tax.

However you have to have business deductions. If i own a rental property and collect 12,000 dollars in rent but spend 14,000 I can't pay tax on the 12 and stay a landlord

Edited November 18, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I'd be for a tax code with no deductions whatsoever. None. Just an exemption that across the board ensures that nobody pays a dime of tax on that first part of the income which is determined to be the existential minimum. If that is $20K a year - or maybe varying amounts based on where one resides - then so be it. First $20K are tax free. Next $30K you owe 5%, next $50K you owe 10%, next $100K you owe 15% and then you need to play that out to where it is revenue neutral to today's tax code. That's it. No shenanigans, no loopholes, no deductions. Income is income whether earned or passive makes no difference. I think you could cap the top tax rate at about 25% and would pull in what you pull in today. Done. I'm in.

Ok the right, left and the Me the middle all agree on a flat tax. why can't we get it done.

We all agree about 90% on immigration, why cant we get it done

[unsmiley 111]

There's a societal benefit to kids and education. Without those, this nation would be dead in a few years time.

There is a societal benefit to education, no doubt about that, but so much of current school funding is wasted on union or other priorities that have nothing to do with education of students. Until that discrepancy is tackled (good luck with that), I would oppose blanket statements regarding fairness of education taxation.

At the very least, I think those that have more kids should at least pay proportionately more in school taxes. And I do not think we should be paying people to have kids (ie: deductions for children). Again, taxpayers should not be subsidizing these private decisions, and we should encourage people to live (and plan families) within their means.