• 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!

Which of these things should be tax deductible?

Which of these things should be tax deductible?


  • Total voters
    12

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Which of the things listed do you think you should be able to deduct from your income taxes?
 
My answers are medical expenses, education expenses, and non-church charitable contributions...because a lot of tax-funded government programs pay for exactly those same things. Church contributions should only be tax deductible if the church is actually using the money for charity.

I don't see why any of the other stuff needs to be tax deductible at all. We'd be much better off if we just eliminated these deductions and simplified the tax code.
 
Last edited:
Church contributions are taxed? I honestly did not know that.

If that's the case, I don't think they should be taxed in the first place.
 
Church contributions are taxed? I honestly did not know that.

If that's the case, I don't think they should be taxed in the first place.

No, they aren't taxed. They're considered charitable contributions under the current tax code.
 
No, they aren't taxed. They're considered charitable contributions under the current tax code.

Oh ok, I barely know anything about taxes. :doh
 
Everything should be tax deductible, unless you're a union goon.

Been a while since I've posted here...how many little hammers does this name have?
 
Everything should be tax deductible, unless you're a union goon.

Why? What's the purpose of letting people deduct things like mortgage interest? Paying for your mortgage doesn't replace some government program...but it DOES encourage housing bubbles. Why is home ownership something the government needs to encourage?

As for state/local taxes, if you choose to live in a state with higher taxes, that's fine, but the feds shouldn't subsidize your choice.

Same goes for work expenses and union dues. You chose to pay those expenses by working where you work; the feds shouldn't have to subsidize your choice. Or tax preparation costs...you chose to use an accountant instead of doing it yourself. That's fine, but again, you shouldn't receive welfare for making that choice.

The tax code would be so much simpler if there weren't any deductions except for medical care, education, and charity.
 
Last edited:
Why? What's the purpose of letting people deduct things like mortgage interest? Paying for your mortgage doesn't replace some government program...but it DOES encourage housing bubbles. Why is home ownership something the government needs to encourage?

Well, ownership societies aren't a bad thing.

Rent should be deductible though if mortgage interest payments are.
 
Well, ownership societies aren't a bad thing.

Not everyone needs to own a home. For some people, renting is a better idea. I don't see why the government should be pushing people either way on that issue.

obvious Child said:
Rent should be deductible though if mortgage interest payments are.

There's really no compelling reason that either needs to be deductible.
 
Last edited:
All of it. Put money back in the hands of the citizens, and try to limit the growth and scope of government.

I would even go so far as to give families a tax credit, rather than a tax deduction, for medical expenses that they pay out of pocket above their insurance premium, with a cap of say $5,000. Alot of family deductibles are probably around $5,000 or so anyway, so they would essentially get that money back, hospitals would still receive their payments and remain private enterprises, and we don't have to spend money on UHC. And with the cap at $5,000 it keeps uninsured patients from getting an insane amount of money back at tax time.

I'd rather see a tax code that gives citizens back their purchasing power, than give the government our purchasing power. Make it a rewarding system(within limits) rather than a punitive one.
 
All of it. Put money back in the hands of the citizens, and try to limit the growth and scope of government.

I think some of you guys are missing the point of the question. It has nothing to do with whether you think overall taxes are too high or too low. You could have a complex system with lots of deductions that still taxes the **** out of people, just like you could have a simple system with few deductions where taxes are relatively low.

My question is about the specific tax deductions listed. Do you really think that there need to be tax laws differentiating between buying safety shoes for a factory job and buying sneakers to wear around the house?

WI Crippler said:
I would even go so far as to give families a tax credit, rather than a tax deduction, for medical expenses that they pay out of pocket above their insurance premium, with a cap of say $5,000. Alot of family deductibles are probably around $5,000 or so anyway, so they would essentially get that money back, hospitals would still receive their payments and remain private enterprises, and we don't have to spend money on UHC. And with the cap at $5,000 it keeps uninsured patients from getting an insane amount of money back at tax time.

I like the idea of a tax credit instead of a deduction for out-of-pocket medical expenses. I don't see why it needs to be capped though, as long as the expenses are legitimate.

WI Crippler said:
I'd rather see a tax code that gives citizens back their purchasing power, than give the government our purchasing power. Make it a rewarding system(within limits) rather than a punitive one.

I agree. Which is why I don't think people should be punished for choosing to rent, or choosing to work at a non-union job, or choosing to live in a state with low income taxes, or choosing to do their taxes themselves.
 
My question is about the specific tax deductions listed. Do you really think that there need to be tax laws differentiating between buying safety shoes for a factory job and buying sneakers to wear around the house?
Because when you purchase safety boots, its most likely required by OSHA that you do. I can agree that prehaps a tax write off for your business suit is a bit ridiculous. I don't know if you can do that, but you shouldn't be able to.

I like the idea of a tax credit instead of a deduction for out-of-pocket medical expenses. I don't see why it needs to be capped though, as long as the expenses are legitimate.

Well like I said earlier, the family deductible(actually I should clarify and say out of pocket expense as these are two different things) on a policy is around $5,000-$7500 anyway. The reason for the cap, is because I think it would be too expensive regarding the uninsured, if they were to have a high cost problem. As you know, a tax credit affects the bottom line on a return. I think it would cost the government too much to pay out every penny of the uninsured medical costs in this country. People would not wory about having insurance in this case, and essentially it would become government subsidized healthcare, through tax breaks. The government paying for all healthcare would simply be too much of a burden on the economy, no matter what way you slice it. It would be a "stimulus" like amount of money every 3-5 years.

I agree. Which is why I don't think people should be punished for choosing to rent, or choosing to work at a non-union job, or choosing to live in a state with low income taxes, or choosing to do their taxes themselves.

They aren't punished for any of those things, they just get incentive to do the other things. Although I think it would be dumb to move to a high tax state, just to get a tax deduction on the state taxes paid.
 
Most of all the choices I think the education and medical expenses should be tax deductible. .
 
Because when you purchase safety boots, its most likely required by OSHA that you do. I can agree that prehaps a tax write off for your business suit is a bit ridiculous. I don't know if you can do that, but you shouldn't be able to.

Ya but OSHA doesn't require you to work at that job in the first place. The employees presumably know what is expected of them as employees and consented to it.

WI Crippler said:
Well like I said earlier, the family deductible(actually I should clarify and say out of pocket expense as these are two different things) on a policy is around $5,000-$7500 anyway. The reason for the cap, is because I think it would be too expensive regarding the uninsured, if they were to have a high cost problem. As you know, a tax credit affects the bottom line on a return. I think it would cost the government too much to pay out every penny of the uninsured medical costs in this country. People would not wory about having insurance in this case, and essentially it would become government subsidized healthcare, through tax breaks. The government paying for all healthcare would simply be too much of a burden on the economy, no matter what way you slice it. It would be a "stimulus" like amount of money every 3-5 years.

It seems like this would be a good way to keep the government out of the matter (if one is so inclined). Since the uninsured are the ones who rely on the government the most for their medical bills anyway, it seems like allowing them to deduct their full expenses would help ease their problems without a government program.

WI Crippler said:
They aren't punished for any of those things, they just get incentive to do the other things. Although I think it would be dumb to move to a high tax state, just to get a tax deduction on the state taxes paid.

Getting an incentive to do other things is the same as punishing them for doing those things. Tax policy is basically a zero-sum game. For any given amount of tax revenue, if members of Group A get a tax cut, then members of Group ~A have to pay more.
 
Back
Top Bottom