Posted on 11/02/2005 5:57:15 AM PST by austinite
I challenge you to go back through every message I've ever posted here on FreeRepublic over the last five years and find a single case in which I've ever advocated "punishing success" and "rewarding failure."
I have to admit that I find it very funny to see all of these examples right here on this site of so-called "conservative" people who are willing to put their principles aside simply because they benefit from something that they would consider an outrage under any other circumstances.
"There is absolutely no reason why the U.S. taxpayer should be subsidizing homeowners and the real estate industry."
This statement alone shows that you believe that all money rightly belongs to the government and any money that the government does not, by threat of violence, remove from a taxpayer's pocket is a "subsidy."
PS - Did you know homeowners are taxpayers? Did you know they pay boo-coo property taxes, which are the primary source of funds for the socialist public education system?
You seem pretty ignorant, so I just wanted to make sure.
Simply put, it appears that for anyone with a tax rate much greater than 15%, then this proposal will work as a tax increase:
Simple example: 200K net income after taking a reduction of 40,000 for mortgage interest paid (gross 240,000).
assume 30% tax on 200K
tax on current system: 60,000 in taxes
Now, instead of deducting the 40K you go with this new system:
240,000 x 30% = $72K less 6K "tax credit" = $66,000 in taxes owed.
This crap is nothing more than income distribution once again, and the middle class gets screwed. Moreover, how is this going to affect mortgage interest on business offices, second vacation homes?
Unless this is phased in gradually, you are looking at a Depression. The only people who would be for it are the:
the extremely wealthy who are not dependent upon the real estate market or housing industry for their continued success, or who don't really care if their real estate holdings take a 5 to 10 year hit, and who can also weather a strong recession/mild depression; and,
the lower class who are renters and are too stupid to understand how this plan could really screw up the economy along with their chance for gainful employment (I guess they hope to one day see housing prices fall so they can get that starter home for under 100K along with that longed for above ground pool, pink flamingos in the front yard, and enough outdoor electrical outlets to power 50,000 christmas lights so as to beat out Verne's display next door).
One more thing. I'm all for tax changes that will either reduce the general tax taken and/or bring about a more simple efficient system.
But this can't be done on a drastic scale such that it punishes the vast majority of WORKING americans who have played by the rules, saved their money, made down payments, put in sweat equity to improve existing properties, taken entreprenurial chances based upon the existing tax structure, and have generally honored their obligations under their social contract with this government and their fellow citizens.
People who advocate doing away with the mortgage interest rate deduction are, in all likelihood, class envy idiots who don't realize how this can end up screwing them due to a recessionary economy. Even those who live in a house which they have paid off and don't owe a mortgage will suffer due to the falling value of their home.
Whatever simplification is done to the tax code has to be done such that homeowners who relied, in good faith, upon this deduction, don't get the shaft.
Baloney.
The example I cited earlier on this thread illustrates my point perfectly. If the tax code permitted me to deduct my monthly payments and insurance costs on a Ford car, but didn't extend this deduction to you because you own a Chevrolet, I am quite sure that you would rightly describe this as a "subsidy" for owners of Ford vehicles.
All tax breaks are not equal, despite the vehement objections of people here on this thread who derive a substantial benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. The fact that the government should allow people to keep as much of their money as possible does not make it right when it extends tax breaks to specific types of people at the expense of others.
By your logic, any tax break would be a good one because it does, after all, allow someone to "keep more of their own money." If that's the case, then I'd suggest that you would be perfectly comfortable to income tax breaks for African-Americans, for left-handed people, for gasoline costs for lime-green Toyotas, etc.
Did you know homeowners are taxpayers? Did you know they pay boo-coo property taxes, which are the primary source of funds for the socialist public education system? You seem pretty ignorant, so I just wanted to make sure.
You seem pretty ignorant, too. So I'll let you in on a little secret -- people who rent their homes are also taxpayers, and are also a source of funds for the socialist public school system, etc. If I own a home and rent it to a tenant, you can be damn sure that I'm including the property taxes in the tenant's rent. If my taxes are $4,500 per year on the home, then the rent I charge will include consideration for $375 per month in property taxes. If my property taxes go up to $6,000 per year, then the rent I charge is going to go up by $125 per month to account for the higher taxes.
So basically this is what it comes down to . . . You live in a house and pay $6,000 in property taxes directly, so you get an income tax deduction. My tenant lives in an identical house and pays $6,000 in property taxes indirectly through his rent, so he gets no deduction. How ridiculous is that -- you get a $6,000 deduction just because your municipality sent you a tax bill?
Actually, I do believe that.
The fact that you don't means that you are a statist who believes that the government knows better than the individuals who earned it how to spend their money.
I agree with you 100%. Let's be fair, though -- the current mortgage interest deduction is nothing more than an "income distribution" measure itself, isn't it?
Unless this is phased in gradually, you are looking at a Depression.
That's right. I wouldn't expect the tax code to undergo such a dramatic change without being done over an extended period of time.
Bullsh!t. My lack of support for targeted tax policies is simply a reflection of the fact that the term "equal protection under the law" actually means something.
I'm all for a flat tax or a national sales tax. I don't see one, do you? Until that time, since all we have are "targeted" taxes, all we can hope for are "targeted" tax breaks.
Quit taxing interest income and I would be all for abolishing the mortgage interest deduction. Until then, I'm fighting for every deduction I can get.
PS - Take your "Bullsh!t" and shove it where the sun don't shine.
If you don't like it, then don't dish it out yourself (i.e., "You seem pretty ignorant, so I just wanted to make sure.")
Mine was an accurate observation. Yours was a profanity that served to prove my original assertion.
The information I posted in #105 clearly refuted your "accurate observation" in #102, so I don't know what you're getting at.
Just put my money where my mouth is...bought my third home about a month ago.
I echo your sentiments...."buy, buy, buy"!
(But remember "location, location, location".
Do you know how many old people are driven out of their homes by ever-rising property taxes? People living in apartments don't pay nearly as much property taxes, and they are the ones who have most of the kids in the schools.
I agree with you 100% on this, but taxation of income and taxation of property are completely separate issues.
I have long advocated the elimination of property assessments in the calculation of property taxes. Property taxes should be based on something tangible that bears some relevance to a property owner's "burden" on public infrastructure -- like linear feet of roadway frontage (for street maintenance costs), land area (for drainage), etc. There is no reason why a person who owns a small house on a small piece of land that is worth $500,000 for some reason (say, a beautiful mountain view) should be paying higher property taxes than a person who lives in a large house on a large piece of land that happens to be worth $400,000.
I'd also support any move to eliminate public schools entirely, or at least impose taxes on people based on the number of kids they have in the public school system (again, completely separating the notion of property ownership from the costs of public infrastructure).
Okay, you win, you can talk longer than me.
You have yourself a great day. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.