• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key Tax Breaks at Risk as Panel Looks at Cuts

Fair enough. Just don't let me ever catch you ranting that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to tax for the purpose of social engineering, or anything similar
That doesnt at all follow from what I said.
NOT taxing to promote the general welfare is an entirely different animal than taxing tp provide for the general welfare.

I know you'll say that tax deductions aren't expenses, but that's really just a matter of semantics...
No... because expenses are pay-outs, whereas deductions are not.

Since you could just as easily look at it from the perspective of renters being burdened by an ADDITIONAL tax to which homeowners are not subjected.
Sounds like an incentive to buy a house - which is the whole idea.

And I would argue that it does not do that from the federal standpoint.
Its good for everyne, everwhere. Seems like a federal standpoint to me, given that the term is 'general welfare'.

There is no reason they have to be disparate. Local governments are free to make their tax code friendly toward homeowners and odious toward renters, if they feel it's in their best interest.
Well, that;s true, but if cities start taxing at the same rates as the federal; government, they will soon be empty.
The point is that the deduction applied to a tiny tax rate doesnt create the same benefit as the same deduction applied to a higher tax rate. As such, cities ans states cannot hope to match the incentive that the federal government can offer because the tax rates of the federal government are so much higher.

Not necessarily for individuals...but from a macroeconomic perspective it definitely is. It allows employers to have a wider talent pool from whom to pick their employees, and it allows workers to have a wider range of career options from whom to pick their employer.
None of that is retarded by home ownership, except in the few points in time where houses arent selling.

The low mortgage rates were made 10-35% lower by the mortgage interest deduction.
Them, by defintion, high mortgage rates were discounted even more - why was there no bubble when mortgage rates were high?
 
Last edited:
Both were key causes. However, the effect of subsidizing mortgage interest rates (which is effectively what the mortgage interest tax deduction does) is to encourage people who have no business owning a home to own a home. It turns good renters into bad homeowners. After all, why not take out a big mortgage you can't afford, if you aren't paying 10-35% of the cost anyway.
Have gotten a mortgage lately? When a lender gives a mortgage today, it is immediately sold to an investment house and securitized. Without the regulators in place, lenders can lend and never worried about being paid because its no longer their worry. This was allowed to happen in the Bush administration, that's what brought the house down. And they want to blame Obama for the economy? The people should be in prison.
 
Have gotten a mortgage lately? When a lender gives a mortgage today, it is immediately sold to an investment house and securitized. Without the regulators in place, lenders can lend and never worried about being paid because its no longer their worry. This was allowed to happen in the Bush administration, that's what brought the house down. And they want to blame Obama for the economy? The people should be in prison.

You know who I REALLY think should be in prison?? Moody's, Standard & Poors and Fitch top management. These rating agencies graded this JUNK as AAA and Four Star. It was crap. THEY should be in prison.
 
That doesnt at all follow from what I said.
NOT taxing to promote the general welfare is an entirely different animal than taxing tp provide for the general welfare.

It's really just semantics. NOT taxing a certain group of people (i.e. homeowners) can just as easily be viewed as an EXTRA tax on everyone who isn't in that group (i.e. renters). The group that bears the tax is subsidizing the group that doesn't.

Goobieman said:
No... because expenses are pay-outs, whereas deductions are not.

Well...the government has less money to spend, and the targeted beneficiaries (in this case homeowners) have more money to spend. That's basically the same as any other wealth redistribution programs, aside from the fact that it requires fewer bureaucrats. You don't have to call it an "expense" if that word makes you uncomfortable, but from an economic perspective it works exactly the same way.

Goobieman said:
Sounds like an incentive to buy a house - which is the whole idea.

That's a perfect example of using the tax code for social engineering, which I thought you were against.

Goobieman said:
Its good for everyne, everwhere. Seems like a federal standpoint to me, given that the term is 'general welfare'.

So then, would it be accurate to say that your opposition to "artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick, and stupid" is merely based on the fact that you don't think it successfully promotes the general welfare, rather than any opposition to the government power itself?

Goobieman said:
Well, that;s true, but if cities start taxing at the same rates as the federal; government, they will soon be empty.
The point is that the deduction applied to a tiny tax rate doesnt create the same benefit as the same deduction applied to a higher tax rate. As such, cities ans states cannot hope to match the incentive that the federal government can offer because the tax rates of the federal government are so much higher.

They don't have to, they could just do the same type of wealth redistribution that the feds currently do. For example, let's say that in a certain city, the average homeowner saves $4,000 per year due to the mortgage interest deduction. If it was abolished, the city could just tax the renters enough to give all the homeowners a $4,000 subsidy (or "tax cut" if you like).

Goobieman said:
None of that is retared by home ownership, except in the few points in time where houses arent selling.

It is. If people are glued to a building, then they are less likely to move to pursue more lucrative career paths elsewhere. This is bad for both the employees and employers. If I'm an employer in DC, homeowners in New York are completely off-limits to me unless they are willing to sell their homes to relocate. It's much easier for renters to relocate, on the other hand.

Goobieman said:
Them, by defintion, high mortgage rates were discounted even more - why was there no bubble when mortgage rates were high?

Probably because the rates were high enough, even with the deduction, to make mortgages sufficiently unattractive to most people. When you have low rates and you make them even lower through government policy, it's going to cause a bubble.
 
Last edited:
I think his point was that according to Obama's promises, these should not even be on the table.

I wouldn't go that far. Politics requires you at least consider breaking your word. Actually doing so is something people do reluctantly, however.
 
Last edited:
It's really just semantics.
No, its not.
Allowing someone to keep something they have so they can spend it -promotes- that something.
Giving someone money so they can spend it on something -provides- that something.
Conceptually, these are significantly different ideas.

Well...the government has less money to spend, and the targeted beneficiaries (in this case homeowners) have more money to spend. That's basically the same as any other wealth redistribution programs...
Except that it isn't. as the weath stays with the person that earned it, and then spent by him. Its not taken from anyone nor redistributed to anyone.

That's a perfect example of using the tax code for social engineering, which I thought you were against.
That doesnt at all follow from what I said.
NOT taxing to promote the general welfare is an entirely different animal than taxing tp provide for the general welfare.

So then, would it be accurate to say that your opposition to "artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick, and stupid" is merely based on the fact that you don't think it successfully promotes the general welfare, rather than any opposition to the government power itself?
Artificially upporting the 'weak, slow, sick, and stupid' - that is, providing direct welfare - is conceptually completely different than promoting the general welfare.
Promoting the general welfare has to do with people using their own means as opposed ot being given the means to do something by someone else.

They don't have to, they could just do the same type of wealth redistribution that the feds currently do. For example, let's say that in a certain city, the average homeowner saves $4,000 per year due to the mortgage interest deduction. If it was abolished, the city could just tax the renters enough to give all the homeowners a $4,000 subsidy (or "tax cut" if you like).
This makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Probably because the rates were high enough, even with the deduction, to make mortgages sufficiently unattractive to most people. When you have low rates and you make them even lower through government policy, it's going to cause a bubble.
So the rates, not the deduction is the determiner. That's what I said.
 
it's a PANEL that will make recommendations. as i said, let me know when they make law, or better yet, let me know when obama breaks that promise.

Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making $200,000+. So, there ya are.
 
Back
Top Bottom