1 edit
On yahoo's front page, we have an AP article cheering obama's move to freeze federal wages.
http://tinyurl.com/35gszqj
And then, buried in the article, a single sentence is hidden:
"The popular child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction also would be eliminated."
Or put another way. We have a whole article cheering the great job Obama is doing in cutting government waste, and then....
One sentence in how he's about to destroy the middle class' ability to afford houses or children.
It's written that this "symbolic gesture would show the White House got the message".
The white house got the message that we want MORE taxes?
1 edit
Originally posted by joneschrIt seems you've had some problems with your civics. A President cannot unilaturally make or abolish laws as your post suggests. Eliminating the child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction can only be accomplished with the approval of both houses of Congress, and then with the Presidents signature. You make it sound as if a President can sweep these laws aside on a whim.
On yahoo's front page, we have an AP article cheering obama's move to freeze federal wages.
http://tinyurl.com/35gszqj
And then, buried in the article, a single sentence is hidden:
"The popular child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction also would be eliminated."
Or put another way. We have a whole article cheering the great job ite House got the message".
The white house got the message that we want MORE taxes?
It's clear your no fan of President Obama, but think about what you are writing here. Your only showing your ignorance.🙄
Originally posted by joneschrNo chance that part passes Congress (I hope). That would be an enormous middle class tax increase that would far surpass the sunset of the Bush tax cut as far as the middle class goes.
On yahoo's front page, we have an AP article cheering obama's move to freeze federal wages.
http://tinyurl.com/35gszqj
And then, buried in the article, a single sentence is hidden:
"The popular child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction also would be eliminated."
Or put another way. We have a whole article cheering the great job ...[text shortened]... ite House got the message".
The white house got the message that we want MORE taxes?
The commission can recommend it. It won't happen.
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718Where did I say the bill doesn't have to go through congress? I'm confused why you'd come to such a conclusion.
It seems you've had some problems with your civics. A President cannot unilaturally make or abolish laws as your post suggests. Eliminating the child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction can only be accomplished with the approval of both houses of Congress, and then with the Presidents signature. You make it sound as if a President can sweep these laws resident Obama, but think about what you are writing here. Your only showing your ignorance.🙄
You're correct that I'm not a fan of Obama. You're wrong perhaps, in that I was a supporter of Obama (I voted for him). But I very much question this move and this may change that. But I don't see how this is relevant, like much of your post.
Originally posted by joneschrThe sentence must have been hidden really well - because I can't find it anywhere in the article - (perhaps the writer made an error that was edited out since you posted it).
On yahoo's front page, we have an AP article cheering obama's move to freeze federal wages.
http://tinyurl.com/35gszqj
And then, buried in the article, a single sentence is hidden:
"The popular child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction also would be eliminated."
Or put another way. We have a whole article cheering the great job ...[text shortened]... ite House got the message".
The white house got the message that we want MORE taxes?
Originally posted by MelanerpesAh yeah, the time-stamp on the article shows as updated 25 minutes ago. So I guess they felt that it was insignificant point and not worth mentioning.
The sentence must have been hidden really well - because I can't find it anywhere in the article - (perhaps the writer made an error that was edited out since you posted it).
1 edit
Originally posted by joneschrThe sentence was probably referring to the work currently being done to draft a budget proposal
Ah yeah, the time-stamp on the article shows as updated 25 minutes ago. So I guess they felt that it was insignificant point and not worth mentioning.
http://documents.nytimes.com/draft-proposal-from-the-national-commission-on-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform?ref=politics#p=1
Part of this proposal is the idea of eliminating almost all the tax loopholes. The proposal considers a number of scenarios - one of which involves eliminating ALL loopholes - but other scenarios allow a very small number of loopholes to remain in the tax code (specifically mentioning the two you cited).
Originally posted by MelanerpesThanks for the link - very informative. Dropping the credits makes a lot more sense when it's considered along with the rest of the proposal.
The sentence was probably referring to the work currently being done to draft a budget proposal
http://documents.nytimes.com/draft-proposal-from-the-national-commission-on-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform?ref=politics#p=1
Part of this proposal is the idea of eliminating almost all the tax loopholes. The proposal considers a number of scenarios - one ...[text shortened]... small number of loopholes to remain in the tax code (specifically mentioning the two you cited).
Originally posted by joneschrI keep hearing rumors about removing the tax deductions for mortgages. Since housing is key to any recovery, I certainly hope this is not true.
On yahoo's front page, we have an AP article cheering obama's move to freeze federal wages.
http://tinyurl.com/35gszqj
And then, buried in the article, a single sentence is hidden:
"The popular child tax credit and mortgage interest deduction also would be eliminated."
Or put another way. We have a whole article cheering the great job ...[text shortened]... ite House got the message".
The white house got the message that we want MORE taxes?
Having said that, if there are no strings attached to the federal freeze such as eliminating tax deductions for housing and children, I would be 100% for it.
Ending mortgage deductions is a good idea, there is no real reason why government or society would want more people to own homes, and the deductions mainly just increase house prices anyway rather than really helping poorer people buy homes. The money should be used to increase the tax-free wedge so the purchasing power of those with lower incomes (especially those who do not own a home) will increase.
Originally posted by whodeyI thought you wanted to eliminate big government programs. And tax deductions for mortgages is one of the bigger programs the government's got. Do you think Big Brother should continue to artificially prop up housing?
I keep hearing rumors about removing the tax deductions for mortgages. Since housing is key to any recovery, I certainly hope this is not true.
Having said that, if there are no strings attached to the federal freeze such as eliminating tax deductions for housing and children, I would be 100% for it.
Originally posted by MelanerpesIn Britain the view taken was that mortgage interest tax relief did nothing to improve affordability of housing - it just enabled prices to be that bit higher than otherwise. As such it was irrational and it was easy to remove at a time when interest rates anyway were declining so radically. I am all for supporting people getting decent housing - but not wasting tax relief to prop up house prices.
I thought you wanted to eliminate big government programs. And tax deductions for mortgages is one of the bigger programs the government's got. Do you think Big Brother should continue to artificially prop up housing?