(05-13-2017 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 12:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would say expanding entitlements and the national debt would be liberal actions.

But my biggest complaint with him was foreign policy. Some of his missteps will haunt this country for decades. I bet Israel is breathing easier now, and Hamas not so much.

As we have seen in the past, expanding the national debt is a bipartisan problem.

Expanding entitlements is not so much. so what was the change in the national debt during the Obama Administration? Obamacare alone will continue to be a dead weight. And the only solution the left comes up with is more taxes.

BTW, I also am for the legalization of marijauna. But, as I said, a pretty low priority for me.

I didn't mention entitlements - so why bring it up? I was speaking about how both parties seem to ignore the national debt and annual deficit/surplus while in office. I was not arguing about how well Obama managed it in his 8 years.

But while debt went up under Obama, but it did so under Bush as well. The deficit was being curtailed and reduced each year during the final few years in office, which is what needs to happen to move towards a surplus and actually cut into the debt.

At some point reduced spending AND an increase in tax revenue (most easily through an increase in taxes/reduction of loopholes) will be what actually takes on our debt problem.

(05-13-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 12:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would say expanding entitlements and the national debt would be liberal actions.

But my biggest complaint with him was foreign policy. Some of his missteps will haunt this country for decades. I bet Israel is breathing easier now, and Hamas not so much.

As we have seen in the past, expanding the national debt is a bipartisan problem.

Expanding entitlements is not so much. so what was the change in the national debt during the Obama Administration? Obamacare alone will continue to be a dead weight. And the only solution the left comes up with is more taxes.

BTW, I also am for the legalization of marijauna. But, as I said, a pretty low priority for me.

I didn't mention entitlements - so why bring it up? I was speaking about how both parties seem to ignore the national debt and annual deficit/surplus while in office. I was not arguing about how well Obama managed it in his 8 years.

But while debt went up under Obama, but it did so under Bush as well. The deficit was being curtailed and reduced each year during the final few years in office, which is what needs to happen to move towards a surplus and actually cut into the debt.

At some point reduced spending AND an increase in tax revenue (most easily through an increase in taxes/reduction of loopholes) will be what actually takes on our debt problem.

You mentioned healthcare, i mentioned Obamacare. I see that healthcare is now an entitlement when it was not so nine years ago. it will continue to be a massive additive to federal spending for ever. Already it is a major component of our national debt, and is only partially paid for by decreases in military capability.

I agree with reduced spending, but with entitlements, including healthcare, making up such a large portion of the budget, we are really hamstrung in any effort to reduce spending. It will get worse once we get to single payer, and that is where we are going. That train left the station when Obamacare was passed.

I can agree we need an increase in tax revenue, but disagree that it is best done through increases in taxes. I think the plan Owl69 has proposed is much better. Personally, I have been, for a long time now, in favor of a national consumption tax in place of the income tax. Just raising taxes is counterproductive in the long run.

Loopholes? what loopholes? By loopholes, do you mean deductions passed by Congress? I consider a loophole a result other than what Congress intended, as if they passed that law meaning it to cover the whole country but in the writing of it accidentally left out Nevada, all islands, and anybody with the last name "Smith". But all those deductions on the Schedule A were not accidents - they were intended, and so not "loopholes".

You can repeal and not replace deductions if so you like. But most of them are there for a reason. For example, the "loophole" for charitable deductions helps Rice raise more money, and the Red Cross, and Kars for Kids, et al. it would raise taxable income, and thus taxes, but at the expense of charities.

Or the "loophole" for medical expenses - it seems to help people like me with high medical costs. But OK, eliminate it and I (and many otyhers) will just pay a bit more to subsidize free medical coverage for others. Good. Not liberal at all.

How about the "loophole" for home mortgages? Only rich people can afford houses, so this is a tax break for the rich, right? So let's eliminate it - those greedy billionaires don't need the help. But it also helps first time owners afford a house, when they are still young. Nice place for their children to grow up, eh? It also helps provide support for the US building industry - lots of plumber, carpenters, and other contractors, who incidentally pay taxes on their income? Even if they made the money building a house for a billionaire? Maybe the losses in income (thus income tax) for them will offset the gain in tax revenue from disallowing this "loophole".

Hint: stop calling deductions loopholes and you will develop a clearer picture of our tax system.

(05-13-2017 01:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, with regards to drugs, you must have been very on board with how Obama handled that situation, no? Basically, while marijuana stayed criminalizes federally, he and his administration did not try to enforce that policy in states that voted to decriminalize, legalize, etc marijuana use.

Not at all. I am never in favor of a system of law dependent on or having a linchpin foundation based upon a policy of prosecutorial discretion. If a law doesn't make sense for a sovereign entity, the solution is to repeal the law across the sovereign, not a policy of selective enforcement or non-enforcement based upon somewhat haphazard guidelines, or guidelines that can be changed at a whim.

Think about it --- someone who grows pot in the extreme southeast corner of Baca county, Colorado, say, within 25 feet of the state lines of Kansas and/or Oklahoma would not be subject to Federal restrictions, while the person 25 feet south in Cimarron County Oklahoma or the person or the person 25 feet east in Morton County Kansas would each be subject to the full force of Federal law. That is the definition of an ad-hoc system of justice as applied to the United States as a whole (i.e. relative to the effect of force of Federal law). And calls into issue the fairness of that law as applied across the United States as whole.

Independently, the guideline can be altered at a whim. Thus people that embarked on that economic course stand a huge danger under the law with that 'guideline' at risk. And not only 'at risk', but 'at risk at the discretion or whim of an individual'. Considering that person is now someone whom you regard as (at the very least) unstable, do you really think having that person set or reset an ill-defined and unfair guideline at their sole discretion as prudent? Thus, I regard a guideline like that as actually more dangerous than helpful in most respects, even though it advances an outcome that I might have no issue with, or even support.

Again, while my stance on marijuana legalization is most probably characterized as liberal (I have no issues of its legalization at any of the state levels or at the Federal level), my stance on the process of normalization runs afoul of today's liberals or progressives as it pertains to the sanctity of process. And my friend, true justice is only ever achieved through sanctity of the process (i.e. rule of law).

But because I value the process to get to a desired outcome over the value of a desired outcome, that by definition takes me well outside what some would regard as "progressive values".

And aside from the issues relating to process and/or sheer fairness, the idea of any system based upon prosecutorial discretion of that magnitude makes an absolute mockery of the concept of sufficient notice, at the very least.

Im a bit confused - so you don't like the idea of a federal law decriminalizing pot, but you don't like the practice of the Feds not going after people in states that have some form of decriminalized pot.

Is there another option for how to deal with this issue that I am missing?

This is a true separation of powers issue, and an issue as to the importance of the process to change law as a function of the basic concepts inherent in the rule of law -- Federal law should apply equally across all portions of the United States. That is the sole purpose of having a Federal law.

I would support the repeal of the Federal drug laws that make pot illegal. The change that is needed is the repeal of the law applying that law to the United States as a whole. Selective enforcement to achieve a "good result" is crutch that is not healthy to the process of the rule of law.

If the Federal government believes that the application of Federal law should be limited by a state law, then there is fundamentally no reason to have a Federal law on the books.

Selective enforcement of federal law based upon the existence of a corresponding state law *requires* a massive policy of prosecutorial discretion -- which is completely antithetical to the concept of both the rule of law *and* the application of the doctrine of sufficient notice as it is completely discretionary.

So the selective non-enforcement of the Federal drug laws actually runs contrary to the rule of law. If you believe in that erosion of the rule law to support a 'good outcome', so be it. I think that erosion of the rule of law is inherently a bad thing at that scale, regardless of how 'feel good' the outcome is.

The proper solution to achieve the "good result" is the repeal of the Federal drug laws dealing with marijuana, not a selective intentional ignorance of the federal law based upon state law.

-------------------------------

Do you think that it would be proper for the Federal government to apply Federal gun sale restrictions to all states, except to those who deem all gun sales legal?

Or, do you think it would be proper for the Federal government to apply capital gains taxes to all citizens, except those to whom the state does not apply capital gains taxes?

That system of of law is ludicrous in those examples for a Federal 'policy' that selectively exempts application of the law to residents of states that legalize it under state law. And those policies would all fundamentally rely upon a Federal policy of prosecutorial discretion, which when used at that macro-scale pretty much wipes out the concept of rule of law.

As an example to those stated above, while I am for the liberalization of Federal law to gun sale restrictions and the lessening of obligations for Federal capital gains tax, the policies stated above are so dangerous to the effective rule of law that I would not be for them *except* where the underlying Federal law was repealed, not selectively enforced.

(05-13-2017 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I think a perfect example of the deductions I was talking about, is the much talked about yacht deduction. This allows someone to deduct a ton of expenses of owning a yacht if >50% of the travel they use it for, is for business. I imagine it would not be too hard for someone who is wealthy enough to own a yacht to invite business clients on the boat and call that a business trip. They do that for >50% of your trips on the yacht and they get to deduct a heck of a lot of the expenses.

(05-13-2017 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 12:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As we have seen in the past, expanding the national debt is a bipartisan problem.

Expanding entitlements is not so much. so what was the change in the national debt during the Obama Administration? Obamacare alone will continue to be a dead weight. And the only solution the left comes up with is more taxes.

BTW, I also am for the legalization of marijauna. But, as I said, a pretty low priority for me.

I didn't mention entitlements - so why bring it up? I was speaking about how both parties seem to ignore the national debt and annual deficit/surplus while in office. I was not arguing about how well Obama managed it in his 8 years.

But while debt went up under Obama, but it did so under Bush as well. The deficit was being curtailed and reduced each year during the final few years in office, which is what needs to happen to move towards a surplus and actually cut into the debt.

At some point reduced spending AND an increase in tax revenue (most easily through an increase in taxes/reduction of loopholes) will be what actually takes on our debt problem.

You mentioned healthcare, i mentioned Obamacare. I see that healthcare is now an entitlement when it was not so nine years ago. it will continue to be a massive additive to federal spending for ever. Already it is a major component of our national debt, and is only partially paid for by decreases in military capability.

I agree with reduced spending, but with entitlements, including healthcare, making up such a large portion of the budget, we are really hamstrung in any effort to reduce spending. It will get worse once we get to single payer, and that is where we are going. That train left the station when Obamacare was passed.

I can agree we need an increase in tax revenue, but disagree that it is best done through increases in taxes. I think the plan Owl69 has proposed is much better. Personally, I have been, for a long time now, in favor of a national consumption tax in place of the income tax. Just raising taxes is counterproductive in the long run.

Loopholes? what loopholes? By loopholes, do you mean deductions passed by Congress? I consider a loophole a result other than what Congress intended, as if they passed that law meaning it to cover the whole country but in the writing of it accidentally left out Nevada, all islands, and anybody with the last name "Smith". But all those deductions on the Schedule A were not accidents - they were intended, and so not "loopholes".

You can repeal and not replace deductions if so you like. But most of them are there for a reason. For example, the "loophole" for charitable deductions helps Rice raise more money, and the Red Cross, and Kars for Kids, et al. it would raise taxable income, and thus taxes, but at the expense of charities.

Or the "loophole" for medical expenses - it seems to help people like me with high medical costs. But OK, eliminate it and I (and many otyhers) will just pay a bit more to subsidize free medical coverage for others. Good. Not liberal at all.

How about the "loophole" for home mortgages? Only rich people can afford houses, so this is a tax break for the rich, right? So let's eliminate it - those greedy billionaires don't need the help. But it also helps first time owners afford a house, when they are still young. Nice place for their children to grow up, eh? It also helps provide support for the US building industry - lots of plumber, carpenters, and other contractors, who incidentally pay taxes on their income? Even if they made the money building a house for a billionaire? Maybe the losses in income (thus income tax) for them will offset the gain in tax revenue from disallowing this "loophole".

Hint: stop calling deductions loopholes and you will develop a clearer picture of our tax system.

OO, you really took a single, fairly innocuous statement (I've never thought the phrase tax loophole was a partisan phrase) and stretched it past its limit, especially since you seemed to pick and choose tax loopholes (sorry, deductions, I'll use a word that doesn't trigger you) willy nilly. I mean, I didn't suggest removing ALL deductions, just some.

I thought the reforming of the tax code and reduction of deductions was a pretty bipartisan idea. Both parties like the idea of a more streamlined income tax process - I know I've seen Dems and Reps talk about that.

But of the specific deductions you mentioned, the only one that I think makes sense to address is the home mortgage deduction. Someone can currently deduct the interest for up to two homes, and I see no real value in being able to do that. One home makes sense, as the reduction in tax burden in that regard does help promote home ownership, which is a great way for people to build wealth, but allowing that for two homes doesn't add value, IMO. In a similar vein, someone can deduct the property taxes they pay on all properties they own, which again, I think would be better if it was just kept to the primary residence.

But I think a perfect example of the deductions I was talking about, is the much talked about yacht deduction. This allows someone to deduct a ton of expenses of owning a yacht if >50% of the travel they use it for, is for business. I imagine it would not be too hard for someone who is wealthy enough to own a yacht to invite business clients on the boat and call that a business trip. They do that for >50% of your trips on the yacht and they get to deduct a heck of a lot of the expenses. And what is that deduction trying to encourage (well, loophole really)? It seems to really just encourage people who own yachts to have some fun with clients on a boat.

The other deductions you talked about medical, charitable giving, I think those are two good deductions to keep.

(05-13-2017 05:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Expanding entitlements is not so much. so what was the change in the national debt during the Obama Administration? Obamacare alone will continue to be a dead weight. And the only solution the left comes up with is more taxes.

BTW, I also am for the legalization of marijauna. But, as I said, a pretty low priority for me.

I didn't mention entitlements - so why bring it up? I was speaking about how both parties seem to ignore the national debt and annual deficit/surplus while in office. I was not arguing about how well Obama managed it in his 8 years.

But while debt went up under Obama, but it did so under Bush as well. The deficit was being curtailed and reduced each year during the final few years in office, which is what needs to happen to move towards a surplus and actually cut into the debt.

At some point reduced spending AND an increase in tax revenue (most easily through an increase in taxes/reduction of loopholes) will be what actually takes on our debt problem.

You mentioned healthcare, i mentioned Obamacare. I see that healthcare is now an entitlement when it was not so nine years ago. it will continue to be a massive additive to federal spending for ever. Already it is a major component of our national debt, and is only partially paid for by decreases in military capability.

I agree with reduced spending, but with entitlements, including healthcare, making up such a large portion of the budget, we are really hamstrung in any effort to reduce spending. It will get worse once we get to single payer, and that is where we are going. That train left the station when Obamacare was passed.

I can agree we need an increase in tax revenue, but disagree that it is best done through increases in taxes. I think the plan Owl69 has proposed is much better. Personally, I have been, for a long time now, in favor of a national consumption tax in place of the income tax. Just raising taxes is counterproductive in the long run.

Loopholes? what loopholes? By loopholes, do you mean deductions passed by Congress? I consider a loophole a result other than what Congress intended, as if they passed that law meaning it to cover the whole country but in the writing of it accidentally left out Nevada, all islands, and anybody with the last name "Smith". But all those deductions on the Schedule A were not accidents - they were intended, and so not "loopholes".

You can repeal and not replace deductions if so you like. But most of them are there for a reason. For example, the "loophole" for charitable deductions helps Rice raise more money, and the Red Cross, and Kars for Kids, et al. it would raise taxable income, and thus taxes, but at the expense of charities.

Or the "loophole" for medical expenses - it seems to help people like me with high medical costs. But OK, eliminate it and I (and many otyhers) will just pay a bit more to subsidize free medical coverage for others. Good. Not liberal at all.

How about the "loophole" for home mortgages? Only rich people can afford houses, so this is a tax break for the rich, right? So let's eliminate it - those greedy billionaires don't need the help. But it also helps first time owners afford a house, when they are still young. Nice place for their children to grow up, eh? It also helps provide support for the US building industry - lots of plumber, carpenters, and other contractors, who incidentally pay taxes on their income? Even if they made the money building a house for a billionaire? Maybe the losses in income (thus income tax) for them will offset the gain in tax revenue from disallowing this "loophole".

Hint: stop calling deductions loopholes and you will develop a clearer picture of our tax system.

OO, you really took a single, fairly innocuous statement (I've never thought the phrase tax loophole was a partisan phrase) and stretched it past its limit, especially since you seemed to pick and choose tax loopholes (sorry, deductions, I'll use a word that doesn't trigger you) willy nilly. I mean, I didn't suggest removing ALL deductions, just some.

I thought the reforming of the tax code and reduction of deductions was a pretty bipartisan idea. Both parties like the idea of a more streamlined income tax process - I know I've seen Dems and Reps talk about that.

But of the specific deductions you mentioned, the only one that I think makes sense to address is the home mortgage deduction. Someone can currently deduct the interest for up to two homes, and I see no real value in being able to do that. One home makes sense, as the reduction in tax burden in that regard does help promote home ownership, which is a great way for people to build wealth, but allowing that for two homes doesn't add value, IMO. In a similar vein, someone can deduct the property taxes they pay on all properties they own, which again, I think would be better if it was just kept to the primary residence.

But I think a perfect example of the deductions I was talking about, is the much talked about yacht deduction. This allows someone to deduct a ton of expenses of owning a yacht if >50% of the travel they use it for, is for business. I imagine it would not be too hard for someone who is wealthy enough to own a yacht to invite business clients on the boat and call that a business trip. They do that for >50% of your trips on the yacht and they get to deduct a heck of a lot of the expenses. And what is that deduction trying to encourage (well, loophole really)? It seems to really just encourage people who own yachts to have some fun with clients on a boat.

The other deductions you talked about medical, charitable giving, I think those are two good deductions to keep.

I guess it is your turn to pick and choose, willy nilly. All you said was closing loopholes.

Got to admit, the use of the word "loophole" when talking about deductions, a common practice among your liberal brethren I deal with, is one of my pet peeves. Another is the use of the phrase "one of the only", just so you know. W hen a liberal speaks of closing loopholes, generically,, i don't automatically jump to yachts.

loophole

since we are in agreement on medical and charity, let us go back to the mortgage, and the new one, the yacht.

If you think we should limit the mortgage deduction to one home, fine with me. But how much will this add to the tax base? Very little, I think. Most of the people I know who take a deduction for two houses are not billionaires like Trump, but regular businessmen who buy a lake cabin. Sure, they probably don't really use it 50% or more for business, but the bought it because they could deduct it. Or it is a condo at a ski resort. Or a hunting cabin in Colorado. I guess less of those will be sold. Less built. The banks will make less loans. and this helps the economy...how? By adding .0001% to the national tax receipts?

Tax policy is largely carrot or stick. More taxes - stick, less taxes - carrot. So a lot of the deductions are carrots, and you want to wied the stick. So i think we need to look at the activity we are encouraging/discouraging, and why.

The second house deduction is not a loophole, since it was not put there accidentally. Nor is the fact that only my medical costs that exceed 7.5% of my AGI can be deducted. It didn't use to be that way, but now it is, and not by accident.

If a yacht, or plane, or car is used for business, the expenses should be reported on the corporate return. I guess you were referring to both personal and business deductions. I was talking about personal, but now I know better. In any case, still not a loophole. The tax legislators decided and voted on this.

I guess you could repeal both of these, and how much would it raise, net? A couple of million, maybe? Remember, I said net. We have to factor in the commission the broker in Aspen doesn't get for not selling the condo to the rich guy from Chicago.

This is one of the reasons I favor a national consumption tax. Cut out the favoritism and prejudice. You want a house in Aspen, pay the tax. You want a yacht, pay the tax. You don't want to pay the tax, put your money into the bank. Before you get all upset, I would exclude groceries, gas, and medicine.

Two other reasons I like this, it taxes the underground economy just like the honest people, and it makes everybody involved in tax changes.

(05-13-2017 04:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I think a perfect example of the deductions I was talking about, is the much talked about yacht deduction. This allows someone to deduct a ton of expenses of owning a yacht if >50% of the travel they use it for, is for business. I imagine it would not be too hard for someone who is wealthy enough to own a yacht to invite business clients on the boat and call that a business trip. They do that for >50% of your trips on the yacht and they get to deduct a heck of a lot of the expenses.

Lets talk about a difference only in scale then. In the course of my practice, I will take clients to lunch. Should those lunches be deductible as a cost of business generation?

Same principle, just remove several zeroes.

Or, perhaps a law firm hosts an all-day golf outing for 200 clients. Same principle.

Or a software firm that makes specialty software for oil production having a VIP membership at a local gun club, and inviting potential and current clients to the range?

Or, how about a gun scope manufacturer hosting a wild boar hunt using those scopes and inviting representatives for firearms stores in an area?

Or a law firm firm hosting a lunch for attorneys employed in-house, the lunch featuring a speaker that earns its members annual professional education credit

If you really want to take it way down to the minimalist level, how about a CPA firm that has coffee mugs made with its logo to give away as swag?

The issue is really if you should be able to deduct the cost of client generation and retention, not the size of the outlay or the "richness" of the outlay.

If you are against the "loophole" of the yacht, then you must absolutely be against each and every one of the loopholes/deductions mentioned above.

(05-13-2017 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 05:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn't mention entitlements - so why bring it up? I was speaking about how both parties seem to ignore the national debt and annual deficit/surplus while in office. I was not arguing about how well Obama managed it in his 8 years.

But while debt went up under Obama, but it did so under Bush as well. The deficit was being curtailed and reduced each year during the final few years in office, which is what needs to happen to move towards a surplus and actually cut into the debt.

At some point reduced spending AND an increase in tax revenue (most easily through an increase in taxes/reduction of loopholes) will be what actually takes on our debt problem.

You mentioned healthcare, i mentioned Obamacare. I see that healthcare is now an entitlement when it was not so nine years ago. it will continue to be a massive additive to federal spending for ever. Already it is a major component of our national debt, and is only partially paid for by decreases in military capability.

I agree with reduced spending, but with entitlements, including healthcare, making up such a large portion of the budget, we are really hamstrung in any effort to reduce spending. It will get worse once we get to single payer, and that is where we are going. That train left the station when Obamacare was passed.

I can agree we need an increase in tax revenue, but disagree that it is best done through increases in taxes. I think the plan Owl69 has proposed is much better. Personally, I have been, for a long time now, in favor of a national consumption tax in place of the income tax. Just raising taxes is counterproductive in the long run.

Loopholes? what loopholes? By loopholes, do you mean deductions passed by Congress? I consider a loophole a result other than what Congress intended, as if they passed that law meaning it to cover the whole country but in the writing of it accidentally left out Nevada, all islands, and anybody with the last name "Smith". But all those deductions on the Schedule A were not accidents - they were intended, and so not "loopholes".

You can repeal and not replace deductions if so you like. But most of them are there for a reason. For example, the "loophole" for charitable deductions helps Rice raise more money, and the Red Cross, and Kars for Kids, et al. it would raise taxable income, and thus taxes, but at the expense of charities.

Or the "loophole" for medical expenses - it seems to help people like me with high medical costs. But OK, eliminate it and I (and many otyhers) will just pay a bit more to subsidize free medical coverage for others. Good. Not liberal at all.

How about the "loophole" for home mortgages? Only rich people can afford houses, so this is a tax break for the rich, right? So let's eliminate it - those greedy billionaires don't need the help. But it also helps first time owners afford a house, when they are still young. Nice place for their children to grow up, eh? It also helps provide support for the US building industry - lots of plumber, carpenters, and other contractors, who incidentally pay taxes on their income? Even if they made the money building a house for a billionaire? Maybe the losses in income (thus income tax) for them will offset the gain in tax revenue from disallowing this "loophole".

Hint: stop calling deductions loopholes and you will develop a clearer picture of our tax system.

OO, you really took a single, fairly innocuous statement (I've never thought the phrase tax loophole was a partisan phrase) and stretched it past its limit, especially since you seemed to pick and choose tax loopholes (sorry, deductions, I'll use a word that doesn't trigger you) willy nilly. I mean, I didn't suggest removing ALL deductions, just some.

I thought the reforming of the tax code and reduction of deductions was a pretty bipartisan idea. Both parties like the idea of a more streamlined income tax process - I know I've seen Dems and Reps talk about that.

But of the specific deductions you mentioned, the only one that I think makes sense to address is the home mortgage deduction. Someone can currently deduct the interest for up to two homes, and I see no real value in being able to do that. One home makes sense, as the reduction in tax burden in that regard does help promote home ownership, which is a great way for people to build wealth, but allowing that for two homes doesn't add value, IMO. In a similar vein, someone can deduct the property taxes they pay on all properties they own, which again, I think would be better if it was just kept to the primary residence.

But I think a perfect example of the deductions I was talking about, is the much talked about yacht deduction. This allows someone to deduct a ton of expenses of owning a yacht if >50% of the travel they use it for, is for business. I imagine it would not be too hard for someone who is wealthy enough to own a yacht to invite business clients on the boat and call that a business trip. They do that for >50% of your trips on the yacht and they get to deduct a heck of a lot of the expenses. And what is that deduction trying to encourage (well, loophole really)? It seems to really just encourage people who own yachts to have some fun with clients on a boat.

The other deductions you talked about medical, charitable giving, I think those are two good deductions to keep.

I guess it is your turn to pick and choose, willy nilly. All you said was closing loopholes.

Got to admit, the use of the word "loophole" when talking about deductions, a common practice among your liberal brethren I deal with, is one of my pet peeves. Another is the use of the phrase "one of the only", just so you know. W hen a liberal speaks of closing loopholes, generically,, i don't automatically jump to yachts.

loophole

since we are in agreement on medical and charity, let us go back to the mortgage, and the new one, the yacht.

If you think we should limit the mortgage deduction to one home, fine with me. But how much will this add to the tax base? Very little, I think. Most of the people I know who take a deduction for two houses are not billionaires like Trump, but regular businessmen who buy a lake cabin. Sure, they probably don't really use it 50% or more for business, but the bought it because they could deduct it. Or it is a condo at a ski resort. Or a hunting cabin in Colorado. I guess less of those will be sold. Less built. The banks will make less loans. and this helps the economy...how? By adding .0001% to the national tax receipts?

Tax policy is largely carrot or stick. More taxes - stick, less taxes - carrot. So a lot of the deductions are carrots, and you want to wied the stick. So i think we need to look at the activity we are encouraging/discouraging, and why.

The second house deduction is not a loophole, since it was not put there accidentally. Nor is the fact that only my medical costs that exceed 7.5% of my AGI can be deducted. It didn't use to be that way, but now it is, and not by accident.

If a yacht, or plane, or car is used for business, the expenses should be reported on the corporate return. I guess you were referring to both personal and business deductions. I was talking about personal, but now I know better. In any case, still not a loophole. The tax legislators decided and voted on this.

I guess you could repeal both of these, and how much would it raise, net? A couple of million, maybe? Remember, I said net. We have to factor in the commission the broker in Aspen doesn't get for not selling the condo to the rich guy from Chicago.

This is one of the reasons I favor a national consumption tax. Cut out the favoritism and prejudice. You want a house in Aspen, pay the tax. You want a yacht, pay the tax. You don't want to pay the tax, put your money into the bank. Before you get all upset, I would exclude groceries, gas, and medicine.

Two other reasons I like this, it taxes the underground economy just like the honest people, and it makes everybody involved in tax changes.

So since you are for a consumption tax, and as you put it, getting rid of the favoritism, why the push back when I advocated for a similar goal? Is it the means you have an issue with (i.e. Picking and choosing each deduction)? I don't get the hostility.

(05-13-2017 09:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 05:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You mentioned healthcare, i mentioned Obamacare. I see that healthcare is now an entitlement when it was not so nine years ago. it will continue to be a massive additive to federal spending for ever. Already it is a major component of our national debt, and is only partially paid for by decreases in military capability.

I agree with reduced spending, but with entitlements, including healthcare, making up such a large portion of the budget, we are really hamstrung in any effort to reduce spending. It will get worse once we get to single payer, and that is where we are going. That train left the station when Obamacare was passed.

I can agree we need an increase in tax revenue, but disagree that it is best done through increases in taxes. I think the plan Owl69 has proposed is much better. Personally, I have been, for a long time now, in favor of a national consumption tax in place of the income tax. Just raising taxes is counterproductive in the long run.

Loopholes? what loopholes? By loopholes, do you mean deductions passed by Congress? I consider a loophole a result other than what Congress intended, as if they passed that law meaning it to cover the whole country but in the writing of it accidentally left out Nevada, all islands, and anybody with the last name "Smith". But all those deductions on the Schedule A were not accidents - they were intended, and so not "loopholes".

You can repeal and not replace deductions if so you like. But most of them are there for a reason. For example, the "loophole" for charitable deductions helps Rice raise more money, and the Red Cross, and Kars for Kids, et al. it would raise taxable income, and thus taxes, but at the expense of charities.

Or the "loophole" for medical expenses - it seems to help people like me with high medical costs. But OK, eliminate it and I (and many otyhers) will just pay a bit more to subsidize free medical coverage for others. Good. Not liberal at all.

How about the "loophole" for home mortgages? Only rich people can afford houses, so this is a tax break for the rich, right? So let's eliminate it - those greedy billionaires don't need the help. But it also helps first time owners afford a house, when they are still young. Nice place for their children to grow up, eh? It also helps provide support for the US building industry - lots of plumber, carpenters, and other contractors, who incidentally pay taxes on their income? Even if they made the money building a house for a billionaire? Maybe the losses in income (thus income tax) for them will offset the gain in tax revenue from disallowing this "loophole".

Hint: stop calling deductions loopholes and you will develop a clearer picture of our tax system.

OO, you really took a single, fairly innocuous statement (I've never thought the phrase tax loophole was a partisan phrase) and stretched it past its limit, especially since you seemed to pick and choose tax loopholes (sorry, deductions, I'll use a word that doesn't trigger you) willy nilly. I mean, I didn't suggest removing ALL deductions, just some.

I thought the reforming of the tax code and reduction of deductions was a pretty bipartisan idea. Both parties like the idea of a more streamlined income tax process - I know I've seen Dems and Reps talk about that.

But of the specific deductions you mentioned, the only one that I think makes sense to address is the home mortgage deduction. Someone can currently deduct the interest for up to two homes, and I see no real value in being able to do that. One home makes sense, as the reduction in tax burden in that regard does help promote home ownership, which is a great way for people to build wealth, but allowing that for two homes doesn't add value, IMO. In a similar vein, someone can deduct the property taxes they pay on all properties they own, which again, I think would be better if it was just kept to the primary residence.

But I think a perfect example of the deductions I was talking about, is the much talked about yacht deduction. This allows someone to deduct a ton of expenses of owning a yacht if >50% of the travel they use it for, is for business. I imagine it would not be too hard for someone who is wealthy enough to own a yacht to invite business clients on the boat and call that a business trip. They do that for >50% of your trips on the yacht and they get to deduct a heck of a lot of the expenses. And what is that deduction trying to encourage (well, loophole really)? It seems to really just encourage people who own yachts to have some fun with clients on a boat.

The other deductions you talked about medical, charitable giving, I think those are two good deductions to keep.

I guess it is your turn to pick and choose, willy nilly. All you said was closing loopholes.

Got to admit, the use of the word "loophole" when talking about deductions, a common practice among your liberal brethren I deal with, is one of my pet peeves. Another is the use of the phrase "one of the only", just so you know. W hen a liberal speaks of closing loopholes, generically,, i don't automatically jump to yachts.

loophole

since we are in agreement on medical and charity, let us go back to the mortgage, and the new one, the yacht.

If you think we should limit the mortgage deduction to one home, fine with me. But how much will this add to the tax base? Very little, I think. Most of the people I know who take a deduction for two houses are not billionaires like Trump, but regular businessmen who buy a lake cabin. Sure, they probably don't really use it 50% or more for business, but the bought it because they could deduct it. Or it is a condo at a ski resort. Or a hunting cabin in Colorado. I guess less of those will be sold. Less built. The banks will make less loans. and this helps the economy...how? By adding .0001% to the national tax receipts?

Tax policy is largely carrot or stick. More taxes - stick, less taxes - carrot. So a lot of the deductions are carrots, and you want to wied the stick. So i think we need to look at the activity we are encouraging/discouraging, and why.

The second house deduction is not a loophole, since it was not put there accidentally. Nor is the fact that only my medical costs that exceed 7.5% of my AGI can be deducted. It didn't use to be that way, but now it is, and not by accident.

If a yacht, or plane, or car is used for business, the expenses should be reported on the corporate return. I guess you were referring to both personal and business deductions. I was talking about personal, but now I know better. In any case, still not a loophole. The tax legislators decided and voted on this.

I guess you could repeal both of these, and how much would it raise, net? A couple of million, maybe? Remember, I said net. We have to factor in the commission the broker in Aspen doesn't get for not selling the condo to the rich guy from Chicago.

This is one of the reasons I favor a national consumption tax. Cut out the favoritism and prejudice. You want a house in Aspen, pay the tax. You want a yacht, pay the tax. You don't want to pay the tax, put your money into the bank. Before you get all upset, I would exclude groceries, gas, and medicine.

Two other reasons I like this, it taxes the underground economy just like the honest people, and it makes everybody involved in tax changes.

So since you are for a consumption tax, and as you put it, getting rid of the favoritism, why the push back when I advocated for a similar goal? Is it the means you have an issue with (i.e. Picking and choosing each deduction)? I don't get the hostility.

Any hostility I have is against the thought expressed in the bolded section below:

an increase in tax revenue (most easily through an increase in taxes/reduction of loopholes) will be what actually takes on our debt problem.

Nothing personal, sorry if it comes off that way to you. I just think the bolded is a repeat of standard liberal thought, which I think is inadequate and simplistic.

I agree with your cutting spending portion.

(05-14-2017 12:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you think it would be easier to raise revenue by imposing a consumption tax? To me, that's woukd be more difficult, if anything because you would have to do a lot of work to figure out what rate to set to actually increase revenue.

(05-14-2017 07:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad --
If you want a deduction/loophole that is a real issue, look up what is known as a 1031 exchange. Completely legal (therefore not a 'loophole', but an explicit and specific procedure), and allows an entity that disposes of an asset held for business or investment purposes, and re-invests the proceeds into a like-kind asset within a certain amount of time, to defer all capital gains on the divestment of the first asset.
It is repeatable in that you wash, rinse, repeat over and over again. I have known entities to roll over assets 14-15 times, and each time kick the capital gains on each transaction back to the next. That means through every transaction no capital gains is paid --- only when a final sale is made and no rollover is made will capital gains tax be due.
Heck, I've used it almost a score times at this point......
To be honest, this type of deduction is a far better target for liberals/progressives to highlight as to the actual impact. But attention seems to always be paid to the murkier items hat have more emotional impact --- like yacht usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like-kind_exchange

(05-11-2017 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what Yates did (standing up to POTUS), is exactly what Senators want someone in her position to do when something like an EO is signed that is viewed as being unconsitutional.

(05-14-2017 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what Yates did (standing up to POTUS), is exactly what Senators want someone in her position to do when something like an EO is signed that is viewed as being unconsitutional.

Been thought-niggling on this statement for awhile. Perhaps you would like to mull over some of these observations regarding Yates and her decision of non-defense. Seems to cut deeply against some of the implications and assertions made on your response.

And dives into why her original response was actually quite unusual.

Just tossing it up as food for thought.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438879/Letter-From-Sally-Yates.pdf

(05-14-2017 03:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what Yates did (standing up to POTUS), is exactly what Senators want someone in her position to do when something like an EO is signed that is viewed as being unconsitutional.

Been thought-niggling on this statement for awhile. Perhaps you would like to mull over some of these observations regarding Yates and her decision of non-defense. Seems to cut deeply against some of the implications and assertions made on your response.

And dives into why her original response was actually quite unusual.

Just tossing it up as food for thought.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438879/Letter-From-Sally-Yates.pdf

You posted the wrong Goldsmith blog post, IMO.

You should have posted the one he wrote after her hearing. In short, her arguments about why she would not defend the EO change, and Goldsmith has no issues with them, as opposed to her rationale in the January letter. Basically in the hearing she explained that she viewed the EO to be unlawful, but in the letter she did not explicitly state that.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yates-changes-her-tune

(05-14-2017 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 03:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what Yates did (standing up to POTUS), is exactly what Senators want someone in her position to do when something like an EO is signed that is viewed as being unconsitutional.

Been thought-niggling on this statement for awhile. Perhaps you would like to mull over some of these observations regarding Yates and her decision of non-defense. Seems to cut deeply against some of the implications and assertions made on your response.

And dives into why her original response was actually quite unusual.

Just tossing it up as food for thought.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438879/Letter-From-Sally-Yates.pdf

You posted the wrong Goldsmith blog post, IMO.

You should have posted the one he wrote after her hearing. In short, her arguments about why she would not defend the EO change, and Goldsmith has no issues with them, as opposed to her rationale in the January letter. Basically in the hearing she explained that she viewed the EO to be unlawful, but in the letter she did not explicitly state that.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yates-changes-her-tune

The second article points out somewhat radical differences between her letter and her testimony.

Further he quotes another as stating: “As long as the President’s view is that it’s lawful, of course the Department of Justice will defend its legality in court because the President gets the final word on how the Executive branch and the Department in particular, what position they take in court.” On this view, which is probably right, Yates views about the legality of the EO were technically irrelevant.

The quote being from Marty Lederman.

Martin "Marty" S. Lederman was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, appointed by President Obama in January 2009. He previously served as an Attorney Advisor in OLC from 1994 to 2002.

(05-13-2017 11:09 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But my biggest complaint with him was foreign policy. Some of his missteps will haunt this country for decades. I bet Israel is breathing easier now, and Hamas not so much.

The point was made in another thread that, in general, our allies should trust us and our enemies should fear us. Getting those the other way round is not good foreign policy.

(05-14-2017 06:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Funny, but what I was talking about was the nice treatment of Russia and Iran and the bad treatment of Israel by Obama.

(05-14-2017 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 06:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Funny, but what I was talking about was the nice treatment of Russia and Iran and the bad treatment of Israel by Obama.

The nice treatment of Russia is a bad line - the sanctions imposed by Obama have done a lot to affect their economy. So much so that the whole Russia-Trump allegations ramped up significantly when accusations came flying that Flynn and the man pictured above were talking about lifting of said sanctions.

I just found it funny that a post recently complained about Obama treating friendly nations poorly (Israel) and non-friends well (Iran). I then saw a photo of Trump doing the exact same thing, just with different countries (Germany and Russia). I knew you were talking about Obama, I was making a joke.