• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Kill the Farm Bill

BSD, his point has an inherent problem in that other countries who phased it in didn't start doing so during a time of high unemployment and housing price deflation.

If we were at 5% unemployment and growing home prices, his point would have more merit. At this point in time it will do much more harm than good.

All I know is that I'm going to get PAID come tax time and the only thing that changed was, well the two things that have changed: (1) marital status; and (2) I started paying my own mortgage, not some other dude's mortgage. What in the world that has to do with my taxable income I do not know.

If anything, I should be able to deduct the interest on my vehicle. It would help get Detroit up and running again and I absolutely need a vehicle for work. Whether I own or rent doesn't help me make money at work. My truck at least gets me to the office.
 
BSD, that doesn't change the problems that would be caused due to the economic realities of today.
 
BSD, his point has an inherent problem in that other countries who phased it in didn't start doing so during a time of high unemployment and housing price deflation.

If we were at 5% unemployment and growing home prices, his point would have more merit. At this point in time it will do much more harm than good.

there are two problems with this post.

The first is that it is factually incorrect. Home prices appear to have bottomed and are on their way back up, albeit slowly. http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/24/real_estate/home-values/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

The second is that it represents (for about the fifth time on this thread) a tunnel vision viewpoint very common in American discourse. According to this viewpoint, there is always going to be a good time to fix a bad policy, but that time is never now. It's kind of like the old saying that the best day to start a diet is tomorrow. Politicians, and Americans in general, will often agree that something is not working, but "now" is never a good time to fix it because someone in the electorate will be hurt.

The home interest deduction is categorically a bad policy. It is regressive (helps the wealthy much more than the poor or middle class). It distorts market decisions. It is expensive and out country can't afford these giveaways. It helped create a bubble that then popped and caused huge economic dislocation. It helps create suburban sprawl that localities have to then maintain with rapidly diminishing funds, with all the environmental costs that follow.

If the only counterargument to that is "we can't take money out of the pockets of the people who rely on the deduction", then my response is simple: craft a phase out and build it into a comprehensive tax reform package that lowers the base rates, so that the impact on the middle class is minimized or eliminated. Does anyone object to that premise?
 
It's not factually incorrect. Housing may be going up but still 31.4% of all homeowners are underwater on the home values (http://www.zillow.com/blog/research...wners-owe-1-2-trillion-more-than-homes-worth/).

With this many people owing more than their home is worth this would be the worst time imaginable to put more people in the same situation.

Your point about prices going up marginally does not fix this problem. Thus it will harm even more.
 
i wonder how many of those underwater homeowners actually take advantage of the home interest deduction. Maybe a lot of them, maybe a few. Until you know the answer to that question, you can't draw the conclusion that removing the deduction will hurt a lot of people. In any case, the point you are making is not responsive to my last post.
 
Just because you are underwater doesn't mean you aren't getting the deduction. One has nothing to do with the other.
 
The second is that it represents (for about the fifth time on this thread) a tunnel vision viewpoint very common in American discourse. According to this viewpoint, there is always going to be a good time to fix a bad policy, but that time is never now. It's kind of like the old saying that the best day to start a diet is tomorrow. Politicians, and Americans in general, will often agree that something is not working, but "now" is never a good time to fix it because someone in the electorate will be hurt.

This is one of the best posts I've seen on this board in some time.
 
It is time to quit coming up with excuses to say why now is a bad time to implement good policy changes. I think that phasing out the home mortgage deduction as part of a comprehensive tax reform bill sounds reasonable as long as a ton more deductions and loop holes are being closed.
 
Last edited:
there are two problems with this post.

The first is that it is factually incorrect. Home prices appear to have bottomed and are on their way back up, albeit slowly. http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/24/real_estate/home-values/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

The second is that it represents (for about the fifth time on this thread) a tunnel vision viewpoint very common in American discourse. According to this viewpoint, there is always going to be a good time to fix a bad policy, but that time is never now. It's kind of like the old saying that the best day to start a diet is tomorrow. Politicians, and Americans in general, will often agree that something is not working, but "now" is never a good time to fix it because someone in the electorate will be hurt.

The home interest deduction is categorically a bad policy. It is regressive (helps the wealthy much more than the poor or middle class). It distorts market decisions. It is expensive and out country can't afford these giveaways. It helped create a bubble that then popped and caused huge economic dislocation. It helps create suburban sprawl that localities have to then maintain with rapidly diminishing funds, with all the environmental costs that follow.

If the only counterargument to that is "we can't take money out of the pockets of the people who rely on the deduction", then my response is simple: craft a phase out and build it into a comprehensive tax reform package that lowers the base rates, so that the impact on the middle class is minimized or eliminated. Does anyone object to that premise?

This is the worst recession since the 1930s, the worst housing market in modern history. You're right. Sometimes it's just kicking the can down the road. But other times it's not, and this is one of those times. You literally could not ask for a worse time to get rid of the deduction. If it's going to be part of comprehensive tax reform that doesn't result in a net increase of the tax burden on taxpayers, then fine. Otherwise, it has to wait. The other stuff in your post I completely agree with. It's a counterproductive policy that was a contributing factor to the housing bubble, and it costs us over $100 billion each year.
 
It is time to quit coming up with excuses to say why now is a bad time to implement good policy changes. I think that phasing out the home mortgage deduction as part of a comprehensive tax reform bill sounds reasonable as long as a ton more deductions and loop holes are being closed.

The irony is thick in this post and it's my only real criticism with 923 on this thread. The corollary to his tunnel vision point above is that we can't enact one reform unless it is part of a larger package, typically a way to placate people who would be disaffected by the one reform. Misery loves company and we can't have homeowners hurt by a tax reform while others aren't. This need to do big things makes it difficult to do anything.
 
PH so you think we don't have multiple deductions and loopholes that need to be addressed? I can think of a few more and they would piss off people from both the right and the left. Having a comprehensive tax reform makes a ton more sense than going after one issue at a time in trying to fix the system and yes you take something from everyone and give someting to everyone and maybe a compremise solution can be achieved butI guess you see compromise as a problem. You should run for office.
 
The irony is thick in this post and it's my only real criticism with 923 on this thread. The corollary to his tunnel vision point above is that we can't enact one reform unless it is part of a larger package, typically a way to placate people who would be disaffected by the one reform. Misery loves company and we can't have homeowners hurt by a tax reform while others aren't. This need to do big things makes it difficult to do anything.

I agree with you. Unfortunately we have built a system where the Congress is completely captured by special interests and slavish loyalty to the far left and far right, which makes fixing anything harder.

Even if that wasn't the case, though, what you are describing is in some ways a basic feature of representative government. Representatives elected by people who own homes (and supported with Realtor PACs) are not going to vote against their constituents' interest unless they get something in return, so that they can go back to their constituents and say "I know you lost your deduction, but look at this other shiny thing!" That's just democracy in action.
 
Of course we have multiple deductions and loopholes that need to be addressed. Of course I have to brush my teeth, take a dump, and take a shower in the morning. Do I do them all at the same time? No, because if doing them all at one time was a condition of getting any of them done, I'd probably get none of them done.

Why should we wait for mindless debate and consternation over getting multiple things done when we can go ahead and getting started? Your strategy is the best way to get nothing done at all. Instead of seeking a catch all compromise, why not start with what people agree needs to be done then take on more contentious matters?
 
Just to really stir the pot. I think we should do away with all deductions and exclusions. I could possibly be talked into keeping the charitable dedution as I do think the charities I support benefit society at large. I think all income, yes all income should be subject to the taxpayers rate based on their total income. I think we shoud do away with all tax credits, this includes child care and education. All income should be subject to FICA no maximum. We should keep exemptions to help with lower income families.

Having said all that I think we should severly restrain government spending too.
 
Last edited:
Of course we have multiple deductions and loopholes that need to be addressed. Of course I have to brush my teeth, take a dump, and take a shower in the morning. Do I do them all at the same time? No, because if doing them all at one time was a condition of getting any of them done, I'd probably get none of them done.

Why should we wait for mindless debate and consternation over getting multiple things done when we can go ahead and getting started? Your strategy is the best way to get nothing done at all. Instead of seeking a catch all compromise, why not start with what people agree needs to be done then take on more contentious matters?



Please tell me this item that everyone agrees on. I do not think it exist.
 
Of course we have multiple deductions and loopholes that need to be addressed. Of course I have to brush my teeth, take a dump, and take a shower in the morning. Do I do them all at the same time? No, because if doing them all at one time was a condition of getting any of them done, I'd probably get none of them done.

Why should we wait for mindless debate and consternation over getting multiple things done when we can go ahead and getting started? Your strategy is the best way to get nothing done at all. Instead of seeking a catch all compromise, why not start with what people agree needs to be done then take on more contentious matters?



Can't mult task? It must really slow you down in the mornings. You really need to learn to think outside the box. Add a toilet inside the shower with a separate sewage drain. It also serves as a great seat when you just want to sit in the shower and steam. You may want to consider a wooden toilet seat cover and a thin wooden front on the tank just for comfort when steaming.
 
Last edited:
afew points:

Myth #1: The mortgage deduction is just for rich people – The mortgage interest deduction helps mostly middle- and lower-income families.
65% of families who use it earn less than $100,000 per year.
91% earn less than $200,000 per year (that’s where most economists draw the line between rich and middle-class).
Only 9% earn more than $200,000 per year.
________________________________________________

"And this has been a relatively stable historical trend, with between 21 and 26 percent of taxpayers claiming the MID each year since 1991." - remember this 21-26% of taxpayers includes every tax return not just families
 
Please tell me this item that everyone agrees on. I do not think it exist.

You don't need "everybody" to put something to a vote and approve it in the Senate and House.

But if you want an issue with a lot of agreement, there's is extending the Bush tax cuts for the bottom 98%. Both parties say they agree, but nothing will get done due to arguing about the top 2%.
 
Back
Top