Anonymous wrote:Most people around here probably have a mortgage interest deduction that equals half that family's take home pay.

Can anyone explain to me why that tax break exists?

It should be converted into a refundable tax credit, the value of which is capped at about $3,000 to $5,000 per year (on the high end that's about the same value as $20,000 in mortgage interest paid if you're in the 25 percent tax bracket).

Right now you could buy a $200,000 home in Washington State or Florida and not pay enough in mortgage interest to get any tax benefit.

Why do we attack Mitt Romney because he benefits from tax law.? Its not his tax law. A pp accused him of trying to make more laws to benefit himself-- how so? His highest job has been as governor from Ma, not congressman.

Well, it kinda is his tax law. A few years ago, when there was a move to change the tax rules for gains realized by hedge funds and private equity groups, there was an explosion of lobbying against the change, financed by "associations" formed and funded by, among others, Bain Capital.

So is it his tax law, in that he is a dictator and instituted it, or waved a magic wand and Shazaam!, 15% tax rate? No, of course not. But he agrees with it, actively opposed changing it, paid significant sums to keep it as is, and benefits a great deal from it. It's as much his tax law as anyones.

Romney's platform is to reduce taxes on the wealthy. Hence the issue with his current tax rate, which is already lower than pretty much everyon else's.

And $3 million in charitable donations on $44 million in income is about 7%. Many middle class families tithe 10%.

My charitable deductions are minuscule, because I choose to volunteer my time and expertise instead of money. And if I ruled the world church donations would not be tax deductible -- churches would pay taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His people are saying that he is not getting any tax benefit from his investments in all of his off shore accounts in tax havens like Luxenburg and the Caymans, but then why is he investing in those places? He must be getting some benefit. I was surprised to see that he gave more money to his church than he paid in taxes. I've never met someone who was able to donate more than they pay in taxes.

This is more important to me. I would rather vote for someone who has some sort of faith than none at all like out current President.

How about an Ayatollah? They have faith. Oh, but you didn't mean that kind of faith, did you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal hate of successful people. The food stamp president.

What a stupid statement! In fact, Democratics tend to win the rich vote. The criticism of Rommey is not that he is successful, but that he is paying taxes at a lower rate that those who do real work. Remember, Reagan eliminates the capital gains tax, and many Republicans support a flat tax of 1-2 marginal rates (all above what Rommey paid).

Democrats don't win the rich vote. What the fuck are you talking about.

Not the pp but don't lower middle class rednecks vote Republican?

Why do we attack Mitt Romney because he benefits from tax law.? Its not his tax law. A pp accused him of trying to make more laws to benefit himself-- how so? His highest job has been as governor from Ma, not congressman.

His 13.9% tax rate is based on capital gains, not income from a job. If you read any economics website about lower tax rates for capital gains, you'll see that as long as there have been capital gains taxes; they have been at a lower rate than income tax. The lower rate encourages more investing and moving money through the market.

A break down of Mitt Romney's earnings also shows hes given about more than 3million of his earnings to both charities and his church.

A look at Obama's giving: 250,000 last year.

Joe Biden: 359 dollars. (Joe Biden even charges the government rent on a maid's house at his private residence so that secret service can use it!!!!! C'mon, give me a break!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people around here probably have a mortgage interest deduction that equals half that family's take home pay.

Can anyone explain to me why that tax break exists?

I honestly think it was created to get more lower middle income people to invest in housing. It is also a boost to the housing and construction industry. Before the housing bubble of 2006 or 7, buying a housing was considered most family's largest asset. The potential for risk in losing that asset was low.

I may be wrong about this, but I believe ALL interest deductible was at one time deductible. And at some point, the government eliminated the deduction, but kept it in place for mortgage interest. So the deduction wasn't so much created as maintained, likely for the same reasons many are opposed to eliminating it now - by eliminating it, you lower housing values across the board overnight, increasing the number of underwater properties, and increase the cost of owning the same house you owned yesterday, potentially increasing the number of foreclosures.

As for the reasons behind the initial deduction for all interest, I've no idea.

I'd imagine the mortgage interest deduction also is a mechanism for encouraging citizens to "save" by encouraging more investment in home equity, rather than in rentals. Home ownership provides lots of societal benefits over rentals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people around here probably have a mortgage interest deduction that equals half that family's take home pay.

Can anyone explain to me why that tax break exists?

I honestly think it was created to get more lower middle income people to invest in housing. It is also a boost to the housing and construction industry. Before the housing bubble of 2006 or 7, buying a housing was considered most family's largest asset. The potential for risk in losing that asset was low.

It is probably helpful to the mortgage industry that the government pays a portion of everyone's mortgage, allowing more people to afford higher mortgages. So maybe (just barely conceivable?) their lobbyists had something to do with it?

Anonymous wrote:Most people around here probably have a mortgage interest deduction that equals half that family's take home pay.

Can anyone explain to me why that tax break exists?

I honestly think it was created to get more lower middle income people to invest in housing. It is also a boost to the housing and construction industry. Before the housing bubble of 2006 or 7, buying a housing was considered most family's largest asset. The potential for risk in losing that asset was low.

Most people around here probably have a mortgage interest deduction that equals half that family's take home pay.

Can anyone explain to me why that tax break exists?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how people think a family of four grossing 44K needs incentive. They have incentive. They can't buy the things they need. They don't kick back because they are afraid of the marginal tax rate on a potential raise.

They could start by getting rid of their cable service, xbox, and iPhones. Also cut back on eating out

Exactly. These poor idiots are making bad choices. If they would just cut back on all the things they don't need, they could easily afford higher taxes.

The Mitt Romneys of this world should not have to pay one penny more in taxes for as long as a single poor family has cable tv. That is simple justice.

Damn right! What could they possibly spend money on that would do as much for American jobs as Romney's Cayman investments?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how people think a family of four grossing 44K needs incentive. They have incentive. They can't buy the things they need. They don't kick back because they are afraid of the marginal tax rate on a potential raise.

They could start by getting rid of their cable service, xbox, and iPhones. Also cut back on eating out

Exactly. These poor idiots are making bad choices. If they would just cut back on all the things they don't need, they could easily afford higher taxes.

The Mitt Romneys of this world should not have to pay one penny more in taxes for as long as a single poor family has cable tv. That is simple justice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how people think a family of four grossing 44K needs incentive. They have incentive. They can't buy the things they need. They don't kick back because they are afraid of the marginal tax rate on a potential raise.

They could start by getting rid of their cable service, xbox, and iPhones. Also cut back on eating out

Do you know what food and rent for a family of four costs? 44K is a take-home pay of 2900. Take 1500 for rent and 1000 for food. That leaves 400 for lights, heat, health care, clothing, and every other necessity.

Anonymous wrote:Funny how people think a family of four grossing 44K needs incentive. They have incentive. They can't buy the things they need. They don't kick back because they are afraid of the marginal tax rate on a potential raise.

They could start by getting rid of their cable service, xbox, and iPhones. Also cut back on eating out