IF Obama REPEALED Just ONE Special-Interest TAX BREAK, It Would PAY For HEALTHCARE. Guess WHICH One.

[Segami]

Thats a tough quiz question to come up with an answer. I wonder which one it could be. :sarcasm:




Crooks & Liars:


" So I've been following the Tea Party objections to the health care reform efforts. They're worried about the deficit, they just want to be left alone without government interference, and they're especially angry at the government singling out some privileged groups for special subsidies. They're proud, self-sufficient patriots and they don't want handouts.

Kids, have I got a proposal for you.

I've discovered a regressive tax break that favors the wealthy and has no good rationalization for its continued use. (According to historians, it was an accident, anyway.) And oddly enough, it costs us about $100 billion annually, or $1 trillion over ten years - exactly the estimated cost of healthcare reform. Really, there's no other word for it but "pork."

It's the mortgage interest deduction.

No, it doesn't seem like a huge deal. (A lot of the people eligible for it don't even bother, because you have to itemize your tax return.) But man, it sure adds up:



But cumulatively, the deduction is a big deal. This year , it is expected to cost the Treasury $76 billion. And the rewards are greatly skewed in favor of the moderately to the conspicuously rich. On a million-dollar mortgage (the people with those really need help, right?), the tax benefit is worth approximately $21,000 a year. And according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a little over half of the benefit is taken by just 12 percent of taxpayers, or those with incomes of $100,000 or more.


So clearly, this hits the sweet spot. Why insult people who are already doing well in the free market with this unnecessary and expensive handout?

And what better time to cut it, anyway? While housing prices are already dropping through the floor, this is when phasing out this deduction will have the least negative impact on housing prices. It will lower housing costs down to pre-speculation levels, and that means your paycheck will go farther. And it's something policy wonks on both sides can agree on."


<http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/repealing-just-one-special-interest-t>

[Matariki]

1. Are you kidding me? That tax cut probably helps the middle class more than the wealthy

and "A lot of the people eligible for it don't even bother, because you have to itemize your tax return"???

That's crazy talk. Almost everyone with a mortgage 'bothers'.

(edited to remove that obnoxious 'eyes' smilie. sorry.)

[RB TexLa]

3. That doesn't matter, the rich benefit. And anyone who makes a living building homes for the rich,

I mean how can they live with themselves contributing to such evil. :sarcasm:

[Luminous Animal]

12. It disproportionatley benefits the wealthy. Thus, it is regressive.

Doesn't anyone read anymore?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

[CreekDog]

16. you could means-test the deduction

primarily doesn't mean exclusively.

and in high cost areas like the Bay Area, it is often the difference between having affordable housing and not having it.

[ctaylors6]

81. it is means-tested, in effect, with itemized deduction phaseout for high income levels

[imdjh]

24. I thought regressive meant the more successful u r the more u r punished. nt

[Matariki]

27. No, it's the other way around

For instance tax on food - a person who has low income might pay 25% of their income on food, while a wealthier person may only pay 1% of their income on food. The person with the lower income is paying a taxes on a larger *portion* of their income. That's a regressive tax.

Make sense?

[Matariki]

30. I'd like to see data on that other than Roger Lowenstein's word

He's also the author of some 'fine' articles about how immigrants are hurting the economy and how trying to curb the high cost of healthcare is the real problem with reform. He's also the director of a major investment firm which I'm sure means that he has the interests of the middle class at the top of his priorities (that's sarcasm if you can't recognize it).

[hfojvt]

48. here's the tax stats page

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html#_grp2

Here's what I get

142,978,806 returns filed in 2007
40,776,656 taking the mortgage interest deduction - about 28.5%

of those taking the mortgage interest deduction 14,685,003 (36%) had income under $50,000
and 27,304,272 (67%) had income under $100,000

of all filers 93,290,430 had income under $50,000
and 124,985,310 had income under $100,000

thus only 15.7% of filers with incomes under $50,000 took a mortgage interest deduction
and only 21.85% of filers with incomes under $100,000 took that deduction

now there were 13,472,384 filers with incomes over $100,000 taking the deduction out of 17,993,500 filers with that income range. 74.87% of filers with incomes over $100,000 took the mortgage interest deduction.

The total value of the deductions was $491,432,301,000
274,821,080,000 of that went to people with incomes under $100,000 (55.9%)
216,611,220,000 of that went to people with incomes over $100,000 and (44.1%)
352,650,650,000 of that went to people with incomes over $50,000 (71.76%)

It should be noted that
1. all incomes are AGI and so actual income is higher than that
2. a deduction saves more taxes for higher income filers since they are taxed at higher marginal rates
3. some of the deduction savings for higher income filers are recaptured by the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax

[Thothmes]

53. Dump the deduction and you can be a big majority

of the 40,776,656 voters that lost the mortgage deduction would vote for the other party. Talk about a big tax increase, that would be a political firestorm.

[vadawg]

54. yup, i seem to remember promises about not paying more taxes if you make less than 250,000

if you get rid of the mortgage deductions a lot of people will be unhappy, as someone else pointed out you calculate the deductions into your budget when buying your home so to suddenly have it pulled would cause hardship for a lot of people.

[FBaggins]

65. Ouch... good point.

I forgot about that.

[TxRider]

68. That went away with increased cig taxes, and will even more with cap n trade..

[CreekDog]

91. I calculated the deduction into my budget when I bought --or I wouldn't have been able to afford it

There are lots of people like me.

And buying in my case was a defensive move to stay in the Bay Area. At a time when I was making less than 50k, rents were $1500-$2000 for apartments and rising, sometimes $200 in a single year or multiple times. So I bought and had a $1500/mortgage payment + plus prop taxes + hoa fees. The deduction gave me almost $600/month and that was what allowed me to pay my bills and have a place to live (I had no luck finding rentals back then).

[FBaggins]

56. That's not really an accurate description.

A simple truth is that governments use tax policy to encourage/discourage behavior. Want people to smoke less? Put a "sin" tax on cigarettes. Is it unfair because it's "regressive"? Want to encourage charitable giving? Give people a deduction for their charitable contributions. Etc.

The problem with your designation that it's "regressive" is that it fails to take into account the context of the rest of the tax code. If you have a progressive income tax (and we do), then almost ANY deduction that you create to incent certain behavior is going to appear regressive. Let people deduct a $100 contribution to a national political party and the poorest will get no tax break (already paying no income tax), the middle class will save between $10 and $28, and the richest will save between $33 and $35. It's hard to call that truly "regressive" because it just maps to the progressive rate structure.

If the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes (or whatever the stat is today), but receive 10% of any particular tax incentive program, it's hard to target it for elimination on the basis of regressivity.

The only way to get rid of the supposedly regressive nature of most tax breaks is to dump the progressive nature of the income tax brackets in the first place. Hardly seems to make sense.

Said a different way. If a tax cut reduces a rich guy's income tax by 5% but cuts my tax burden in half... is it truly regressive?

[vadawg]

4. i dont think i know anyone who dosent take this deduction, not sure where the OP gets this info

and id be pissed if they took it away, as im sure the rest of the property owning part of society...

[Luminous Animal]

9. Follow the link, then get back to me...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

[Raineyb]

22. I know lots of people who don't take this deduction

They're called renters.

[Matariki]

28. yes, and there will be A LOT more of them if this deduction is recinded

and LANDLORDS will still get to take it as a business expense. Would you like that?

[Luminous Animal]

29. Not necessarily. Canada & England don't have this deduction

and their home ownership rates are similar to the U.S.

[Matariki]

34. Not a fair comparison. You'd have to take the whole tax structure into consideration.

They have UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE and subsidize University education, for one thing. And much higher taxes on the wealthiest tax brackets.

[Luminous Animal]

39. Uh, that's the point. Rescind the mortgage deduction get universal healthcare.

[jbnow]

58. It depends on if itemizing, including this, adds up to higher

than standard deduction. Sometimes it does not. People of moderate incomes tend to buy less expensive homes if they buy at all.
The standard deduction is $5,700 for single filer, $11,400 for married couple and $8,350 for head of household.

When Obama was campaigning he talked about some kind of tax credit for mortgage interest for those who don't itemize so they didn't miss out on the same break others got

[Luminous Animal]

8. The meat of the article is within the link...

It is a deduction that benefits primarily the well-to-do. There is a good argument to make that the deduction should be available on a progressive basis, but currently, it is not.

Board rules prohibit more than what I can quote below, and I recommend reading the rest of the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
"Economists don't agree on much, but they do agree on this: the interest deduction doesn't do a thing for homeownership rates. If you eliminated the deduction tomorrow, America would have the same number of homeowners, the same social networks, the same number of gardens.

<snip>

More than 70 percent of tax filers don't get any benefit from the deduction at all. O.K., many of them are renters. But even among homeowners, only about half claim the deduction. And for the 37 million individuals and couples who do, the rewards, at least on average, are surprisingly modest — just under $2,000 per return. (Figure it like this: the median home, as computed by the Bureau of the Census in 2003, is valued at $140,000. If you finance 80 percent of it with a 6 percent mortgage, your interest bill is $6,720 a year. A taxpayer in the 25 percent bracket would save one quarter, or $1,680.)

But cumulatively, the deduction is a big deal. This year, it is expected to cost the Treasury $76 billion. And the rewards are greatly skewed in favor of the moderately to the conspicuously rich. On a million-dollar mortgage (the people with those really need help, right?), the tax benefit is worth approximately $21,000 a year. And according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a little over half of the benefit is taken by just 12 percent of taxpayers, or those with incomes of $100,000 or more.

This is a social policy? It's hard to imagine that Congress would intentionally legislate such a rich-get-richer handout, but the origins of the deduction are so obscure that the myth about it persists. David Lereah, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors, explained the history of the deduction by observing matter-of-factly: "Homeownership is something this country desires. If you read the tax codes over the last 100 years, you'll see the favoring of the housing sector and all the reasons Congress was giving for it." Congress has indeed done plenty of things over the years to support homeownership, but the deduction wasn't one of them. That mole in the Treasury Department who invented the deduction so I could buy a house — he never existed. In fact, as Steven Bourassa, of the University of Louisville, and William Grigsby, at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in "Housing Policy Debate," a Fannie Mae publication, the mortgage deduction "was largely accidental.""

[imdjh]

14. Dredging the channel and building marinas benefits the rich too- but it also works for us schlubs.

[aquart]

37. Sadly, I suspect you aren't kidding.

[Matariki]

25. You realize of course that landlords would still be able to take the deduction

as a legitimate business expense.

But homeowners would lose it.

I read the article. I think it's conservative twaddle.

[rd_kent]

50. Well, I disagree

I must be one of those 12%, not sure how accurate that is, but I RELY on my mortgage deduction. I need it. It is part of my financial plan. To make light of a $2000 tax savings for those of us that make under $100,000 a year is dumb.

[Luminous Animal]

51. I'd suggest an incremental approach

First, repeal the deduction for second homes, then a means test which would result in diminishing returns for those who can afford a mortgage no matter the burden. I don't doubt that you need that tax deduction (though, if it hadn't been available, you would have bought a cheaper house). Follow that with a repeal of the home equity loan interest deduction.

[CreekDog]

90. edited to add obnoxious eyes smilies

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Matariki]

92. LOL

I think ;-)

[Rex]

103. Probably?

You don't sound very sure.

[katanalori]

2. I guessed wrong.

Thought for SURE it would be the tax-exempt churches. You know, the ones who stick their noses and their $$$ into political causes and elections.
Silly me.

[sandnsea]

6. I wonder - wouldn't it be Christian for them to pay the tax

in order to pay for health care for all? Or whatever religion, I target Christians because they've got the biggest mouths in this country.

[SammyWinstonJack]

87. +1

:thumbsup:

[pnwmom]

5. House prices are already "dropping through the floor" so the solution

is to make them drop even more.

Yeah, right.

:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

7. Yeah, because we don't have enough foreclosures already

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

[RB TexLa]

10. As long as it "gits da rich" that doesn't matter. It's like someone who stomps over homeless people

so they can spit on someone wear fur bdfore they get in their car.

[imdjh]

15. lol good one

[Luminous Animal]

41. Subsidizing the rich for something that they can already afford

is like stomping on homeless people? Giving them a tax break on their homes AND THEIR SECOND HOMES is like stomping on homeless people?

[Thothmes]

52. Now dropping the interest deduction on the second home

is an idea that I could support.

[FBaggins]

57. That's the idea.

People often don't put two and two together.

If the tax system creates an incentive for a particular behavior (in this case home ownership), then that behavior will be more likely. Get rid of that incentive and it will become less common. In this case that means fewer people who own homes at just the time that home sales are hamstringing the rest of the economy.

Not smart.


More importantly... it won't achieve what it sets out to accomplish. Here's what is most likely:

1) The deduction goes away
2) Some percentage of people who would otherwise keep their home will now sell it and elect to rent
3) This increases the supply of homes for sale and decreases the demand as more potential buyers decide to rent.
4) Home prices decline farther (causing additional economic impact that likely costs us more than the tax increase gains us)
5) Demand for rental properties increases since more people now wish to rent - which drives rents upward and makes investment properties more attractive (to those who can afford to buy one)
6) Who buys these now-cheaper homes? People with plenty of extra money... who now become landlords on the homes that used to belong to the folks who no longer own their own homes because home ownership is now marginally more expensive.

Fact to consider
Mortgages on rental properties are business expenses and will always remain tax deductible!

Back to your regularly scheduled program

7) The rich continue to get the tax deduction while now owning the properties of the middle class (at bargain basement prices) and rent them out (at higher prices) to the people who used to own them.

[imdjh]

11. Maybe on new loans but not existing ones. It's not fair to change the rules like that.

People calculate their mortgage affordability with the interest deduction in mind. It's not fair to take it away once a person has given a mortgage with that expectation.

[Luminous Animal]

23. There is an argument to be made

that eliminating it could be grandfathered in based on income.
By the way, credit card debt used to be deductable, too. The world did not come crashing down when Reagan repealed that goodie.

[imdjh]

26. You want to drive people who matter away from the party- fuck with the mortgage interest deduction.

It's really that simple.

[vadawg]

32. bingo you got it, im interested in the people for getting rid of the deduction

if they are willing to also give say an extra $2000 in taxes somewhere or do they just think that homeowners should give more. It always amazes me how people are always for more taxes on other people or on practices they dont indulge in. I can guarentee if this happened you would see huge losses at the polls for anyone who supported it..

[Luminous Animal]

42. Right because the majority of democrats make over 100,000 year.

Ooops! No they don't. In fact, nearly all Democrats do not make $100,000 a year. And nearly all Republicans.

[vadawg]

44. lol so you are willing to sacrifice any family who makes more than $100,000 and owns a home

i love the nearly all thing, have you got cold figures for the numbers of people this would effect, and is it more than enough to swing elections. $100,000 is not a lot and dosent make you rich in this day and age..

[Luminous Animal]

47. Household income over $100,000 is about 16% of the population.

That's household.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

I'm not willing to sacrifice any family. First I would repeal the mortgage deductions on second homes and the top 10th with a phase in to the top 20th.

[Matariki]

33. Hmm. I'd say the last few years the financial world has indeed come crashing down.

In fact, now that you mention it, maybe if credit card interest was still deductible Congress would have been more motivated to keep that interest at a reasonable rate.

If Reagan repealed it, you KNOW it was benefiting working people. This was the man that began taxing unemployment benefits and waitresses tips for god's sake.

[laughingliberal]

40. I believe it was Bush I who repealed that deduction and it was a hit for the middle class

It also laid the groundwork for the lifting of restrictions on interest rates on credit cars.

[Luminous Animal]

43. My point was, it didn't stop people from using credit cards.

And lifting credit card rates and disallowing deductions on credit card rates are two entirely different issues.

[imdjh]

73. No, your point is to tax some imaginary class of people who are a bottomless pit and vote GOP.

You simply can't have it both ways. You can't claim that Obama ruled the Phd class and then claim that that same class is Republican and/or the root of all evil.

You're not paying attention either. Look at the Tea Parties. Do those people look like high earning taxpayers to you? They don't to me. They look like 3 br tract homes and retirement mobiles to me. They look like guys who own 18ft skiffs, not 80ft cigarette racers. But they are out there opposing taxes that they probably won't pay. Why? Because it offends them both in principle and because they think of themselves as the people who pay the taxes which run the nation and keep the poor in government cheese.

Moreover, you are going to have to fight with the other "tax the evil rich" crowd for this money. They have dibs on it for massive public solar projects.

[hfojvt]

49. my own modest suggestion

was to increase the standard deduction along with eliminating the loopholes on schedule A. Lower and middle income filers would benefit from that, and the ones losing the itemized deductions would make up for it with the new higher standard deduction and it would save tons of paper work. It would be tax simplification.

[CreekDog]

13. Without it, my modest 2 bedroom condo would be $400 more per month

and I already pay $1900/month just for the mortgage.

I could swing that increase now, but when I bought I could not.

And the only reason I bought was because rents were going up faster than my income and I was being priced out of the Bay Area where I've lived nearly all of my life.

At least getting a fixed rate mortgage kept the lid on my monthly house payment and the deduction helped me afford to do that.

[imdjh]

17. You rich bastard! Pay up! nt

[PassingFair]

66. That 400/month could pay for your healthcare premium.

I'd take the hit on my taxes if it
would pay for National Health...

[CreekDog]

69. so you are suggesting everyone like me in the Bay Area get a $400/month tax increase

during the middle of a recession.

you think that in my case, paying $2400/month for housing here (which is $2000/month after taxes) should become $2800/month?

[PassingFair]

70. How much of your paycheck is given over to health insurance?

And perhaps you'd make more money from your
employer, if he didn't have to supplement
your health care premiums.

And yes, $400.00 per month sounds reasonable
for health care, especially when you consider
that most houses contain more than one person.

[CreekDog]

74. i don't have a house, i have 900 sq foot condo

like i said, i could swing 400 more per month provided i keep making more than 100k/year.

you seem to think that's a reasonable outlay, i mean increasing my housing cost by $400/month.

which means that anyone who wants my modest space, would pay at least $400/month more than now and need to bring home about 100k to be able to afford it.

are you really sure?

is this the best way to raise money?

[PassingFair]

75. But you'd get HEALTH CARE for that $400......

You move the onus off of your employer.

You get a bigger paycheck.

Insurance companies don't make outrageous profits.

It is an excellent way to raise money.

[CreekDog]

76. i don't need healthcare for $400/month more and if i did ( different job)

i couldn't afford to live here.

you aren't getting what i'm saying.

if you take away this deduction, you will make it even more expensive to live here than it is already.

how many 100k jobs are out there?

and how workable a solution is it for folks to need to bring home 100k in order to live in essentially an apartment for $2800/month?

[PassingFair]

77. How much are you currently paying for health care?

If you make 100,000 and can't or
don't pay for health care, then
maybe relocation is your best bet.

[CreekDog]

79. so i should move away from my hometown, my family and friends

my job, everything i have so i can pay for your recommended tax increase?

:wtf:

your idea not sounding so hot to me.

i'm not in a wealthy area, just an expensive area.

i pay about $150/month for healthcare (pre tax money)

[PassingFair]

82. Cheer up, your housing values may fall enough to make it a wash!

Does your employer pay towards your health care as well?

If there was more money in your paycheck each week
it could just about balance out.

[CreekDog]

83. falling home values are primarily why i can't relocate at all right now

i mean, what are you recommending here?

i'm a member of this community and i can't see why i should go anywhere else because of a tax issue.

also, if the deduction is eliminated i immediately pay $400/month more in taxes, however, i will not immediately (or possibly ever) see any of that $400/month added to my paycheck --in fact, my employer could decide to cut my pay $400/month just for the heck of it --it would still be a good salary, but i could not afford to keep this roof over my head.

[PassingFair]

84. All of our lives are or are about to be impacted by falling house prices and...

an inadequate health care delivery system.

This proposal seems like something worth looking
into.

Perhaps some allowances for single people need
to be factored into the tax equation.

[tinrobot]

18. It helps the middle class too much, but perhaps they can cap it.

Allow people to deduct that part of the mortgage below a half million or so...

[CreekDog]

20. How can you help the middle class "too much"?

what the hell? :wtf:

:eyes:

[JerseygirlCT]

63. I read that to mean, "too much to do away with it"

not that it's bad to help the middle class.

[tinrobot]

93. Helps the middle class too much to eliminate it.

Sorry for my poor phrasing.

[msongs]

19. benefits "well to do" - as in middle class ppl with a job lololol nt

[Matariki]

21. Frankly, I highly suspect the forces behind repealing this.

Doing a search on 'mortgage interest tax credit' has a lot of conservative looking articles supporting the idea that the mortgage interest tax deduction is somehow bad.

The point of this tax credit is to encourage home ownership, which theoretically creates stronger communities and a strong middle class.

It just seems like the tax burden in this country continues to move further from corporations and more onto labor. There was a time when capital was taxed and labor wasn't. You seem to be in favor of increasing taxes on individuals by removing one of the few large deductions available to individuals. Why not argue in favor of repealing some of the many tax reductions and breaks given to corporations since the Reagan administration?

[Lagomorph]

31. Some real fuzzy logic...

in that article...

[Merlot]

35. In So Cal, a million dollar mortgage (pre-bubble) would get you a three bed

2 bath, ranch style in a nice neighborhood. Hardly a mansion.

Those houses are now selling for about 20% less.

[Patchuli]

36. FAIL, MASSIVE FAIL

We couldn't afford to live here if that was taken away. And we are not living rich by any stretch of the imagination. What's up with this 'Let's Kick the Middle Class Around Some More?' Is it not enough our house values fell and our 401Ks look like Alpine Lace? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!!!!!

[Matariki]

38. Yep, it'll go great with that MANDATED payment to some insurance company.

It's a FAIL Cocktail.

[Patchuli]

95. Might be

Pitchfork and torch time if'n they keep this shit up!:mad:

[Froward69]

45. so I would no longer

get the deduction, of the interest I pay, on the mortgage, I had to take out for my fathers long term care?

It would have been nice to have spent a penny of that mortgage money on my self... Vegas, Bahamas hell Australia or China for 6 months.

Then not getting that deduction would be fair had I traveled the world on that borrowed cash.

The tax deduction makes our current fucked up Health care system bearable to me. and the reason I am fighting for it.
Besides Fairer would be letting bushes tax breaks expire. that would cover the cost of health care too.

And the housing market sells to first time buyers on that.


naaah UNREC!

[hfojvt]

46. well this writer is sorta catching up to me

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/25

[Lagomorph]

55. So we would get....

...a doubling of energy prices, mandatory health insurance payments, the loss of mortgage interest deductions with a reduction in home values...

This would lead to price increases of everything, to cover energy and insurance costs, while at the same time stripping the public of buying power.

States would lose as much tax revenue as the Feds would gain, at the least.

[jgraz]

59. And, most importantly, let's do this before we...

... cut the defense budget
... end our two trillion-dollar wars
... go after the financial kingpins for their criminally-obtained wealth
... repeal the Bush tax cuts
... restore pre-Reagan tax brackets
... end corporate subsidies
... implement a punitive tax on carbon and other emissions

and especially before we...

IMPLEMENT SINGLE-PAYER WHICH PAYS FOR ITSELF IN COST SAVINGS.


Once again: dumbest. idea. ever. This will be a reich-wing talking point by next weekend's bobblehead shows.

[SammyWinstonJack]

88. +1

:applause:

[stray cat]

60. Homeowners should pay for your health care?

[sendero]

61. With the gov'mint desparately...

.. trying to re-inflate the housing bubble, this idea doesn't even have feet, much less legs.

[JerseygirlCT]

62. Those same people (whether they can take the deduction or not)

will just squeal about too much taxation.

Personally, if it meant real health care reform and universal coverage... sign me up.

[uberblonde]

64. Sounds satirical.

As in, if you teabaggers really want an end to government handouts, here's a good place to start - with your tax deduction!

[Statistical]

67. Worst idea ever.

[LWolf]

71. That's the wrong way to fund health care.

The middle class benefits more from that tax break than the wealthy do.

The right way to fund health care is to take the profit out of the equation. Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.

If you want to adjust tax breaks, remove the deductions for dependents past 2 children. That's the best "carbon tax" I can think of. Increase the amount of the deduction for people who have zero dependents under 18. Allow senior citizens to be dependents on their children's returns.

[CreekDog]

89. No, that tax deduction for children is to help children ultimately and it shouldn't just help 2

and I don't want them only helping 2 kids in a family.

we give you a break for each child you are raising, knowing that it costs much more than that to raise them properly.

[LWolf]

96. Obviously.

I know why it's there. :eyes:

I'd just like to see a tax structure that would discourage rampant over-reproduction.

Yet I don't want to legislate reproductive responsibility by passing a law to limit the number of people children have.

Since the OP is about repealing deductions, I offered up a deduction that would help the U.S. evolve towards environmental responsibility.

[CreekDog]

97. most effective way to reduce population growth is to increase standard of living

nothing is more democratic and more effective than that.

i guarantee that the tax consequences of having a kid play any role before the child is born.

so by having tax consequences for having an additional kid, it's really just going to come out of the resources available for the kid.

[LWolf]

99. That's certainly one way.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with my response to the OP, which was not about the best way to reduce population growth, but the best tax deduction to change.

[CreekDog]

100. But I was responding to you and your post, not the OP

:hi:

[LWolf]

101. It's hard to have a really substantive discussion

when it's not in context. Population management would make several great threads all on its own. ;)

[NJGeek]

72. FAIL - riots in the streets

leave my mortgage deduction alone. i live in one of the most expensive areas in the country and without this no one could afford a home.

[mod mom]

78. Here's a LOT MORE $ to go after $2.3 TRILLION MISSING IN DEFENSE UNDER RUMSFELD:

September 10th Rumsfeld acknowledged 2.3 Trillion missing from Defense Dept:

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 29, 2002
The War On Waste
Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion

(CBS) On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending."

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

-snip

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

[MiniMe]

80. Homeowners are not special interests. The foreclosure list isn't big enough now?

Let's make homes even more unaffordable. Really bad idea.

[closeupready]

85. I knew that.

Gold star for me.

[Doremus]

86. Yeah, let's take aim at the only tax deduction most middle class folks can take.

NOT.

[TxRider]

94. Go tell my sister, a teacher, it has no use...

As she scrambles for every last penny to put her 2 kids through college on teacher's pay.

With a husband who works for the state parks dept, who our repub governors haven't seen fit to give raises to for over a decade.

They may differ with you.

Or my parents, retired and paying on their home in their old age on a fixed income.

Or my other sister, with a kid just graduated and heading off to college..


I could afford it myself, at least for now, though it would double my health care expense it wouldn't change my lifestyle.

[dionysus]

98. you win the "how to drive the most voters away from your party" award.

:woohoo:

[Indenturedebtor]

102. YES! What this economy needs is to make housing more expensive!

:sarcasm: