Posted on 03/24/2011 6:24:09 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
RICHMOND, Va. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Thursday said Congress is unlikely to take away the popular mortgage interest tax break.
Speaking to a crowd of real estate professionals in his hometown, Cantor said the tax would be considered as part of the larger tax reform discussion.
But he suggested a change is probably not in the cards.
“Honestly, there’s not a lot of support for getting rid of the mortgage deduction on Capitol Hill,” Cantor said to loud applause from the audience.
Cantor was speaking to nearly 200 members of the Richmond Association of REALTORs. It was his second speech this week on economic issues.
“Before we start thinking about some other scheme that the government can do to help us, let’s get government to stop harming us,” Cantor said in response to a question from the audience about ways to increase purchases of distressed housing.
Much of Cantor’s address repeated his remarks earlier this week at Stanford University, where he called for the government to allow companies to repatriate income back to the U.S. at a reduced tax rate to stimulate the economy and discussed the need to cut regulations.
He also discussed the need to improve the housing market and suggested any GOP-led reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be done in a way that would not damage the real estate industry. The two government entities back more than 90 percent of the nation’s mortgages.
“Our goal is to create an environment for the private sector to engage in lending again, where the federal government has filled a void in the market through Fannie and Freddie and FHA,” Cantor said.
“We will work to eliminate the systemic risk that GSEs pose to our nation, but are committed to doing it in a way that does not jeopardize the prospects for a rebound in the real estate industry,” he continued. “We need smart regulations for mortgage applications that mitigate risk but do not close the doors to homeownership to responsible borrowers.”
Well, first of all, let me blunt - I don't give a rip about you, your kids, or your future grandkids. Certainly not enough to think that any of you have some sort of a claim on my money. Shoot, with the sort of commie attitude you have, why don't you just advocate that the government come in, repossess everything I own for the good of the state so it can be sold to help pay off the national debt, and force me to work for the government and give 100% of my wages to the state? That way, you and your kids and your future grandkids can have it easier.
At least you'd be more honest and consistent that way.
In my world, everyone should pay the same...and my kids should not have provide you a SUBSIDY for YOUR MORTGAGE, just because you have chosen to take a large debt.
See, that's just it - you're NOT providing a subsidy to me for my mortgage. You don't even have anything to do with it.
Here's how it works:
1) Throughout the year, I have a certain amount of money take out of each paycheck - against my will - by the government.
2) Come the beginning of the next year, I do my taxes, itemise my deductions (which include more than just mortgage interest, which is why it makes a LOT of sense for me to itemise), and arrive at a figure for a taxable income.
3) The money that I get back in the form of a refund check is the result of the overage that I paid in - involuntarily - to the government and which I am now due back.
Notice that at no point in any of these three steps were you mentioned. There's a very good and simple reason for this - it's not your money, never was your money, and never will be your money. You have zero interest in the matter, since your money was not confiscated from my paychecks, and therefore it is not your money that is being returned to me.
You, your kids, and your future grandkids have absolutely none, diddly, nada, zilch concern in the matter. My paychecks don't belong to you, despite your apparent believe to the contrary.
I find it sad, and a bit unsettling since this is supposed to be a conservative website, that you think that it's a "subsidy" if I don't pay a higher amount into the federal treasury. I find it unsettling that you seem to think that other peoples' money belongs to you, and that they're "wrong" for utilising opportunities to get their own money returned to them.
Indeed, you are the one talking about the "standard deduction." Do you think the standard deduction is also a "subsidy," and if not, then why not? After all, if "most people" take the standard deduction because it is to their advantage to do so (i.e. they can lower their taxable income more by that means than by itemising), then they're cheating you, your poor kids, and your poor little as-yet-non-existent grandkids even more than they would be if they had itemised their mortgage deductions.
Man, you just keep confirming my assertions.
Yeah, but ironically, if they did, then by your definition, they'd be helping me to steal from you, your kids, and your grandkids, ya lousy commie.
Another intriguing possibility would be to leave the deduction in place for the remaining life of all existing mortgages -- while at the same time also applying that rule to any mortgages that are currently in place on foreclosed homes. This would make those homes very appealing to prospective buyers (knowing they can take advantage of a tax break that may not be available if they buy a regular home), wouldn't it?
LOL.
“Man, you just keep confirming my assertions.”
Thanks, I’m glad we’re on the same page.
Nice non-answer.
But please, since you broached the subject, tell us how itemising a mortgage deduction is a “subsidy” that somehow comes out of your pocket, but someone taking the standard deduction when it reduces their taxable income more somehow is not.
I believe the money I earn belongs to me.
You and I aren’t even in the same book.
Who cares what they call it, as long as everybody who has flushed their money down that toilet their whole life gets at least some of it back after they retire. I know that any foul piece of sh|+ who talks about "means testing" needs to get him or herself flushed down the toilet in the first re-election he faces, and I will do everything in my power to help that happen.
Other than that, they can change the name of the program to whatever they want.
“Yeah, but ironically, if they did, then by your definition, they’d be helping me to steal from you, your kids, and your grandkids, ya lousy commie. “
I’ve been called a commie for being against selling our highways to foreign companies for monopoly-protected tolling, so that name doesn’t phase me a bit. I’ve also been called a Nazi many times...you get used to it here.
As to what you’re doing...it’s the same as me. I also itemize, with a nice big mortgage deduction, along with a large property tax deduction (here in Texas), and even a large SALES TAX deduction (too bad...you have a state income tax instead).
We all do what we can to minimize what the government takes from us...and we should. But that DOES NOT make the policy RIGHT...and having the government encourage people to GO INTO DEBT is simply WRONG. That is most of the reason we had the mortgage meltdown, and that is why millions of people overpaid for their homes. There is a DIFFERENCE between opposing a policy as STUPID, but still playing by the rules.
The entire IRS code is a scam designed to support career politicians. It is far past time to implement another system --- one that is truly fair and does not punish achievers while rewarding slackers, schemers and politically connected looters.
The IRS code is so convoluted that even the IRS does not understand it. It is capricious. It assumes that the government has a claim on any amount of income they choose to sieze from you, but then graciously allows us to retain some of that income via 'deductions' which we are supposed to be grateful for.
They can reward who they want to keep more, and to punish those they choose to by taking more. And it never actually touches really serious wealth -- see six generations of the Kennedy clan, none of whom have ever earned an honest dollar, still living like royality on income earned a hundred years ago. And the Kennedy's are far from the only ones.
“I believe the money I earn belongs to me.”
So do mafia dons, which is why we went after them for tax evasion. There are still parts of Idaho that you can probably hide in...but I don’t mind helping out this country for things like national defense and border security (to the extent that we have it).
I don’t think a gradual removal would help. The market would instantly factor it in, in some net present value sense.
It’s funny though, we keep arguing about putting the burden on our kids. Even on the standard deduction, you get an exemption on your kids (unless you live in a high price area and your spouse works, in which case you probably get zero). If you believe in the subsidy argument, then that also is a subsidy (no offense to the kids). Childless people still pay a school tax (probably one of the worst inequities). Its all a mess and picking on this one deduction is sort of like being shot with 100 bullets and deciding that if you just got rid of this one, it would be better.
The real argument for BobL is not that he is subsidizing someone else’s debt, its more a sense that everyone feels they are paying a larger share of the ever expanding government pie. If you are a high income person, you feel you are subsidizing people in lower brackets. If you are childless, you are subsidizing the eduction of others. The underlying problem is the government is taking too damn much money from all of us. And anybody’s attempt to improve their situation by buying a house, investing in 401(k)s, 529s or anything else should not be causing bitterness towards that person. It takes our focus off the real problem in DC.
“I know that any foul piece of sh|+ who talks about “means testing” needs to get him or herself flushed down the toilet in the first re-election he faces, and I will do everything in my power to help that happen.”
I PROMISE you that you will get YOUR MONEY. It will literally (and soon) BANKRUPT this country, but you will get YOUR MONEY - no one has the political will to tell you it is simply NOT THERE. So stop worrying about it. Ok??
The money will be WORTHLESS, but you will get YOUR MONEY. So get some sleep.
Come on, everyone can see through your obfuscations.
You’re just making yourself look foolish.
Or one could just provide an above-the-line housing expense deduction, capped at the median housing expense in per ZIP code (local jurisdiction would be an alternative to ZIP code) to level the playing field between renters and buyers.
This would make those homes very appealing to prospective buyers (knowing they can take advantage of a tax break that may not be available if they buy a regular home), wouldn't it?
Prospective buyers would not be able to take advantage of the tax break since they would have to take out a new mortgage loan with non-deductible interest in order to buy the house.
That's the case if you don't have massive disparity in assessments in a small geographic area. But a lot of places aren't like that.
See, that's the other assumption that you've been making that I would call into question, well, actually TWO assumptions:
1) The mortgage deduction from itemising is hardly something that "encourages millions of people to go into debt." Seriously. If you itemise, then you know very well that the money gotten back in a refund through that is less than the interest paid in each year. I certainly didn't take out a mortgage to buy a home on the basis that I'd "get to itemise my taxes." I did so because it was a sound investment strategy in the long-term - something that is still true, despite the current housing crisis. There is no reason to think that the housing market will still have the same problems it has now five, ten, or twenty years down the road.
2) The mortgage meltdown did not happen because of the simple fact that people choose to go into debt (i.e. take out a mortgage) to buy homes. The meltdown occurred because of the fact that the government pressured lenders to make extremely unwise loans to millions of extremely questionable buyers - people who under normal circumstances would not have even been considered by a bank for a loan.
That - not the mortgage interest deduction - is why we're in the mess we're in. The government was forcing banks to give half-million dollar loans to guys whose listed occupation was "mariachi singer" (seriously) and whose only proof of occupation was a picture of them in sombreros holding maracas.
Nevertheless, that is a situation that is completely different from a young couple who are financially stable, have decent jobs, have budgeted for taking on a mortgage, and then do so. When banks only lent to people like that, the system worked well. When banks were forced to make loans to people we all knew couldn't pay them back, that's when it started to break. Your mistake seems to me to be that you are lumping all mortgagees together, without differentiating between the responsible (who, to this day, have very low foreclosure and default rates) and the irresponsible (who are driving the problem).
I'm going to bed, so I will respond to any further comments tomorrow.
Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have to spy on ourselves?
That's because it's an income tax, not a wealth tax.
Too many folks have been brainwashed into thinking that the Federals tax the wealthy (those who already have wealth) when in fact the Federals tax those who are trying to become wealthy by generating income, particularly non-investment income such as wages and self-employment income.
In other words, the bastards with money are using the Federal (and to some extent, the various States') tax codes not only as a means of keeping people from accumulating wealth but also manipulating their behaviors (through the carrot-and-stick system of deductions and credits).
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.