RiceLad15
Hall of Famer
Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
|
RE: Trump Administration
(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.
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.
|
|