Okay, I'm not a single issue voter...but if they take away the mortgage interest deduction I will be

[Anonymous]

What we need is a wealth tax to confiscate the wealth of the super rich Buffets, Gates, Kennedys etc...liberals who are always calling for higher taxes making sure nobody can ever keep enough of their money to catch up with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP,
The tax code changes all the time. Look at estate taxes, capital gains taxes, income tax rates. We're all subject to these changes, we can only plan up to a certain point. You're ducking the main question. Your HHI is in the top 3%. Again, you are not going to lose the full deduction. If your mortgage is under $500,000, you can deduct all of it. You are only going to lose part of the deduction!

Guess what: If that doesn't fly, they'll raise your income taxes. Something's got to give!

OP here. I misunderstood it when I read it. I don't mind a higher tax rate on the mortgage part above $500K. I said I didn't want this "cliff" where if you happen to be just below $500K you get some whopping amount back, while if you're around $560, you lose everything.

I took the time to read up on it, and I understand now more the rationale for getting rid of it. It's true, it's subsidizing my home ownership. I guess I'm reacting to what I imagined as a free fall in my house value and a sudden jump in my taxes next year (that I haven't saved for). I wouldn't be upset if it were phased out over a few years, and I see the point of only doing it for larger mortgages (since you do want to encourage home ownership among lower income people). But everyone makes decisions based on expectations, and I think regardless of income levels, you need to give people time to adjust to these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What we need is a wealth tax to confiscate the wealth of the super rich Buffets, Gates, Kennedys etc...liberals who are always calling for higher taxes making sure nobody can ever keep enough of their money to catch up with them.

Yes, that's why they are giving their money away. Because they are afraid you are going to catch up to them. Maybe you should try to learn a thing or two from them. Two of those names are among the greatest success stories in the history of capitalism. It's not an accident.

[Anonymous]

I guess everyone's commitment to reducing the deficit goes only as far as their own wallets.

If we won't raise taxes or remove deductions, let's do the following:

(1) Cut Social Security 20% and freeze it from here on out. Implement a means-tested program that will make up the 20% -- that is the program that will be frozen.
(2) Ask seniors to cough up to 10% of their income in medical expenses. Sorry, no need for Medicare to pay for some civil service or Wall Street retiree's routine physical. If we can get the fark off the fee for service thing and pay hospitals X dollars to take care of seniors in their area, and then have the hospital divvy the money between GP's, specialists, etc., etc., that'd be better. It'd discourage the endless parade of tests
(3) Time to get out of Europe, get out of Korea, get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan. Our carrier-based firepower is what people fear. Within a week we can rain death and destruction from 30,000 feet anywhere in the world. What we've been doing in Iraq and AfPak is one hand and four fingers of the other tied behind our back.
(4) Let doctors work off their med school debt by doing Medicaid work for 2-3 years. Also, let's be honest and have the feds pay for it themselves. Set up some sort of pro bono plan where doctors need to work 50 hours a year or something, and make it required to keep a license. Lawyers do the same thing.

If you don't have a serious proposal to cut these big four things, you're not serious about cutting spending. End of story and go back to your fantasies.

Republicans who fearmongered about Medicare cuts are goddamned hypocrites that disgust me.

Sorry liberals, there's only so much that can be done by soaking the rich or cutting defense spending. But both are needed.

Sorry conservatives, there's no Department of Bureaucracy that can be cut to erase the deficit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What we need is a wealth tax to confiscate the wealth of the super rich Buffets, Gates, Kennedys etc...liberals who are always calling for higher taxes making sure nobody can ever keep enough of their money to catch up with them.

It's called the estate tax. Actually an inheritance tax would be a better formulation. You conservatives keep complaining that people should be allowed to keep the fruits of their hard work - but in this case the worker is DEAD, he or she doesn't care! But please explain to me why an heir who maybe never worked a day in his or life should get to keep the fruits of sloth?

(And don't start on about family businesses, you and I both know there are plenty of tax code provisions to protect these.)

The republicans have been trying to get rid of the estate tax forever. Guess who supports keeping it. Warren Buffet. Guess who wrote a book about how we need an estate tax, presumably after discussions with his son? Bill Gates' dad. Guess who would benefit from eliminating the estate tax but wants to see it retained. Me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they would have to phase it in. Grandfather in those of us with the deduction but then slooowwlly phase it in over time. Talk about a plan that would send a bunch more people into default. However, if you already pay the ATM I don't think you are getting the benefit of the deduction, anyway. If anyone knows differently, please tell.

Sorry, but This. ATM does make the mortgage rate deduction tiny on a house valued at 950k which we paid 640k for if your income is over 200k. Don't blame Obama for this. It is a republican plan. Why do we Dems let the uninformed control the conversation. Le sigh.

[Anonymous]

the mortgage tax deduction is the one way around the ATM. (I think charitable contributions as well). Not sure what you guys are talking about. Read the tax code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we need is a wealth tax to confiscate the wealth of the super rich Buffets, Gates, Kennedys etc...liberals who are always calling for higher taxes making sure nobody can ever keep enough of their money to catch up with them.

Yes, that's why they are giving their money away. Because they are afraid you are going to catch up to them. Maybe you should try to learn a thing or two from them. Two of those names are among the greatest success stories in the history of capitalism. It's not an accident.

That's incorrect. Bill Gates says he doesn't want to leave his children more than a few million each because of the impact that huge sums of money would have in their work effort, moral development, etc.

Buffet is always talking about the value of philanthropy for it's own sake, even went to China to tell rich Chinese this in September, but maybe Fox didn't cover it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the mortgage tax deduction is the one way around the ATM. (I think charitable contributions as well). Not sure what you guys are talking about. Read the tax code.

Haha. I read it. My accountant reads it too and yes, charitable deductions can help but is not a way "around it". If you don't know why the ATM offsets the mortgage tax deduction, maybe you should read that part of the tax code again. BTW, are you claiming to be a tax law expert now, too?

[Anonymous]

OK, I'm not usually one who does this, but it's driving me nuts:

ATM = the thing you use to get money

AMT = the Alternative Minimum Tax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'm not usually one who does this, but it's driving me nuts:

ATM = the thing you use to get money

AMT = the Alternative Minimum Tax

Thanks. For once I was able to hold my tongue longer than someone else.

Your local nitpicker.

[Anonymous]

this is 13:16, and I believe that was the first time I posted on this thread - so not sure what you meant by me claiming to be a tax expert. Certainly I am not, but (i) I can google AMT and mortgage interest deduction and (ii) I have a huge mortgage interest deduction and very little AMT liability.

So anyways, from what I can tell, you can deduct mortgage interest against the AMT. Not home equity loans used for non-home purposes though ...

[Anonymous]

OP,
In response to your 20:58 post, yes it is vexing that these things change but they do and I think if there is a reduction in the mortgage deduction it will be phased in so folks have at least a one-year warning. It does seem to have outlived its original intention.

As for Social Security: Why do the super weatlhy and even the mere affluent take SS payments into their old age after they've received more than they contributed? Or at all? Does anyone have data on that?

[Anonymous]

social security was intended as an insurance program, not a wealth distribution program. I'm ok with tweaking it somewhat, but that was not the intent when it was created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'm not usually one who does this, but it's driving me nuts:

ATM = the thing you use to get money

AMT = the Alternative Minimum Tax

Thanks. For once I was able to hold my tongue longer than someone else.

Your local nitpicker.

I love teh nitpickers. An excellent trait, especially in an accountant.