Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Also, I don't expect that we'd ever agree on cutting the corporate rate so that's not even worth discussing. And that's fine. But, the limitation on certain deductions and the expansion of the standard deduction strikes me as appealing to various interests if they're willing to think about it. JMO.

[AlabamAlum]

I have a close relationship with 25 letters of the alphabet. I don't really know Y.

[iam416]

Finally, if I were entirely selfish I'd want 100% SALT deduction. Let me pay as much my money as I possibly can to my local interests - to support my community, my kids - and something I can monitor and affect. But, it ain't fair. It ain't fair at all. SALT strikes me as quintessentially R. But, what do I know?

AA:

Brilliant!

[AlabamAlum]

I'll show myself out.

[Da Geezer]

Who cares which states pay more or less or receive more or less? That's irrelevant, IMO.

Agreed. Further, when the canard of "NY pays more than it gets back" is put forth, remember that includes all the corporations in NY that pay FIT. When only individual taxes are compared, a far different picture emerges. But at root, the whole argument is irrelevant.

Mortgage interest is a little different. I'm fine with encouraging home ownership, so I'm ok with it for a bit. But, I don't know why we should subsidize a million dollar home. Capping it at the levels they proposed seems extremely sensible to me.

Again, correct. This bill allows for a full deduction on new mortgages up to $ 750,000. It grandfathers in larger existing mortgages. That means on a new 750k mortgage at 4%, the rich person (who else would borrow 750K) gets to write off $ 30,000 as a mortgage interest deduction. There are many places in this country, Columbus and Grand Rapids being two of them, where a $ 400,000 house is a nice house. Of all people, I understand the societal benefits of encouraging home ownership, but why encourage mansion ownership?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Who cares which states pay more or less or receive more or less? That's irrelevant, IMO.

Look, I know you're parroting the talking points, but give me your honest non-partisan opinion on SALT. If there were no such thing would you advocate for it knowing fully that the deduction (A) favors the wealthy by a mile; and (B) encourages local taxation by discounting the cost of those taxes. In other words re (B) you take money from the federal government to spend on your own local hamlet. Why on earth should I pay reduce my fedreal obligations by paying money into UPPER ARLINGTON'S coffers?????

I'd get rid of it altogether. Period. Which is, IMO, a "big government/anti-local" position, but I think it's fair.

Mortgage interest is a little different. I'm fine with encouraging home ownership, so I'm ok with it for a bit. But, I don't know why we should subsidize a million dollar home. Capping it at the levels they proposed seems extremely sensible to me.

If Upper Arlington doesn't drain Federal coffers as much as Talladega does, I don't see why's it's 'fair' that Upper Arlington should still pay as much in taxes as Talladega does. Your community has chosen to handle things more themselves that the irresponsible people of buttfuck, Alabama

I'm probably not adapting Prog "talking points" in believing that, either. Like you said, I may, in truth, be closer to the Republicans.

New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. are all familiar whipping boys for conservatives but as you're well aware and am I, they truthfully pay more than their so-called 'fair share'.

But honestly, I'll need to think about it. Being all for transfer payments from wealthier communities (NYC) to poorer ones (anywhere in the god-forsaken South) doesn't sound terribly conservative. Heh.

Also, Paul "Cub" Bryant was a Chekist, a notorious gambler, and a ridiculer of journalistic excellence in Saturday evening periodicals. Important facts to throw out there.

[hack]

Thanks, DSL.

[AlabamAlum]

Let's leave Talladega out of this.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Let's leave Talladega out of this.

Truthfully, they went for Jones. I should've mocked the 8th Circle of Hell instead: Blount County.

[AlabamAlum]

Blount is fine.

Wilcox or Butler Counties works.

[froot loops]

The key takeaway is don't worry about the deficits when you are in power. The Democratic party shortchanged the stimulus packages and the ACA to try and satisfy deficit hawks.. They got killed for the stimulus that was too small anyway. It was better than the crazed Euro austerity nonsense, but still too small. Nobody cares, don't water down your bill because of these people. It's like worrying about the Libertarian gadflies. It is OK to criticize them as an electioneering tactic, but forget about it once you get in power.

[Kapture1]

51-48

[THE_WIZARD_]

You are wrong on the details.
(1) Persons who get a paycheck will see more money in the paycheck in February, after the accounting departments get the correct withholding.
(2) The people who pay no tax will see at least a $ 400.00 additional "refund", but not until 2019, so if you are looking at non-taxpayers, 85% of the Democrat base, then you are probably correct.
(3) In order to use reconciliation, they have to do a projected 10-year budget, and for that to fall under $1.5 Trillion (using static scoring) they had to have the high Obama taxes for individuals kick in in 2025-6. Same thing happened in 2012 with some small Bush tax cuts, but Obama made them permanent. It is hard to kill a give-away program, but it is also hard to take away a tax cut.
(4) The reason that the corporate cut is made permanent is that businesses have a much longer planning horizon than do individuals, for things like factories. Plus, the Dems mostly favor a corporate tax cut too.

We have raised up a whole generation thinking that economics is about how we split a fixed pie. They have been told that 1.5% growth is a new normal for lots of (false) reasons. So the bill is unpopular. The Republicans are betting the farm that these millennials see the power that a growing economy can produce, and that they will see it quickly.

Why the fuck would we give a tax cut to those who don't pay any income tax?

In-fucking-sanity

[SeattleLionsFan]

This bill allows for a full deduction on new mortgages up to $ 750,000. It grandfathers in larger existing mortgages. That means on a new 750k mortgage at 4%, the rich person (who else would borrow 750K) gets to write off $ 30,000 as a mortgage interest deduction. There are many places in this country, Columbus and Grand Rapids being two of them, where a $ 400,000 house is a nice house. Of all people, I understand the societal benefits of encouraging home ownership, but why encourage mansion ownership?

There are areas of the country where a million dollars gets you a decent house and not a mansion. I would be willing to bet it's been five years since ANY single family home in Seattle sold for less than $500,000.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Class envy...it's in the Libtard Handbook.