Home mortgage interest deduction is at risk?

[Anonymous]

12:53, who said I was against soaking hedge fund managers?

Again, you seem willing to defend YOUR welfare to the death. So stop complaining when other Americans want THEIR welfare to keep going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't paying the AMT the optional? We always do both and pay the one that's lower.

REALLY?? You should be paying whichever is higher!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:53, who said I was against soaking hedge fund managers?

Again, you seem willing to defend YOUR welfare to the death. So stop complaining when other Americans want THEIR welfare to keep going.

Sorry if I over interpreted: you said there were only so many hedge-fund managers. So what? They've got a shit-load of money, and they're being completely under-taxed. Make them pay the same rate as everyone else--as income, not cap gains. Then raise the rates for everyone back to Clinton-era levels.

Nice dodge on the welfare angle though: I don't mind my taxes going up, since that's the simple answer to our current debt "crisis". Meanwhile we're talking about dropping people from Medicare, and reducing benefits for poor kids. Amid 10% unemployment.

It's laughable that you compare the "welfare" of the ultra-wealthy with the welfare of the poorest of the poor. Where's the shared sacrifice, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:53, who said I was against soaking hedge fund managers?

Again, you seem willing to defend YOUR welfare to the death. So stop complaining when other Americans want THEIR welfare to keep going.

Sorry if I over interpreted: you said there were only so many hedge-fund managers. So what? They've got a shit-load of money, and they're being completely under-taxed. Make them pay the same rate as everyone else--as income, not cap gains. Then raise the rates for everyone back to Clinton-era levels.

Nice dodge on the welfare angle though: I don't mind my taxes going up, since that's the simple answer to our current debt "crisis". Meanwhile we're talking about dropping people from Medicare, and reducing benefits for poor kids. Amid 10% unemployment.

It's laughable that you compare the "welfare" of the ultra-wealthy with the welfare of the poorest of the poor. Where's the shared sacrifice, exactly?

Poorest of the poor? Home mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to Fairfax, MoCo, Johnson County KS, various counties in CT, etc. I'd be willing to wager that the top 50% of taxpayers (which includes most DCUMers) get 90% of the deduction money; the bottom 50% either pay so little interest that the standard deduction is higher or rent.

Sorry, "giving a $10k subsidy to someone who owns a $600k home in Fairfax County" ranks below "ensuring some kid avoids starvation" in my list of government priorities. To be fair, it does rank higher than "ensuring corporate jets are properly subsidized" and "ensuring hedge fund managers get taxed at low capital gain rates" and "ensuring farmers get paid handsomely for growing nothing."

And if you think we can spend endlessly, let's ask Japan how they're doing 20 years later. 200% debt-to-GDP ratio and it's not just a lost decade now, it's a lost decades. Tax cuts worked in the early 1980s, they didn't really work in the 2000s. The same is true of Keynesian spending; it worked in the 30s and 40s, it may not work now since the bullets were all fired by Dubya.