1 Rand Paul propose 1% across the board cuts each year for 11 years. (I'm doing this from memory so the details might be fuzzy).  After 11 years the budget would be balanced.  Attrition in many programs would take care of that, imo, and the overall negative repercussions would be minimized.  Sounded doable to me.

2

JUST CANT HANDLE A BROWN MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE EH RASCIST, FACIST NAZI BROWNSHIRTS! *SPIT!*

 

NOW LEAVE ME ALONE - IVE GOT TO GET READY FOR A HUGE BIRTHDAY PARTY IM THROWING FOR MY LOVELY AND BRILLIANT PRESIDENT!!!

 

http://tinyurl.com/3kd5fhc

3 It might make more sense to cap the Mortgage Interest Deduction and limit it to the primary place of residence. But there are a lot more giveaways in the tax code that affect fewer people and have less economic benefit.

4 Spending is one thing. Government interference is another- that's where the real cost is. We need a stable environment.

5 Means testing?

Here is my idea; hang out at the bank, doctors office or grocery store (for Food Stamps). When people show up at any of those locations driving a BMW or new Cadillac, etc. revoke those benefits on the spot.

Bet that saves a trillion a year.

Try it if you think I am kidding.

6 Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 04, 2011 01:10 PM (jx2j9)

Do his numbers take Obamacare into account?  I'm curious because I know that's going to ramp up spending in a few years.

7 I've always wondered how much debt the feds hide in our unfunded liabilities of federal pensions.

8 Looks like I may become a homeowner just in time to miss out on the mortgage deduction. *sigh* But in that case, from a tax standpoint, I'll be no worse off than I am right now as a renter, assuming my mortgage payment is about the same as my rent. So I guess I can live with that, if it will really get the country solvent again.

9 2

JUST CANT HANDLE A BROWN MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE EH RASCIST, FACIST NAZI BROWNSHIRTS! *SPIT!*

 

NOW LEAVE ME ALONE - IVE GOT TO GET READY FOR A HUGE BIRTHDAY PARTY IM THROWING FOR MY LOVELY AND BRILLIANT PRESIDENT!!!

 

http://tinyurl.com/3kd5fhc

Posted by: KayInMaine at August 04, 2011 01:11 PM (FCyBk)

Who are you quoting?  Who is the loopy woman in the photo?

10 If medical costs are driving the outrageous costs of Medicare, how about actual reforms that, you know, really lower the costs of medical care rather than just have bureaucrats ration supply and/or fix prices?

Get government completely out of the 'healthcare' business.  They unbalance the market so it can't correct itself.

11 Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce. Oh my. That is sounding awfully Atlas Shruggy. You mean, selfish, terroristic purist.

12 I am totally against means testing SS and Medicare. It will turn it into just another welfare program. In a few years the only ones getting it will be the Peggy Joseph's of the world.

Aldo, that is just another 'fix" last the last two. Cut it and increase taxes and guess what, they will simply spend it again.

I have a much better idea, Otrama increased spending by over $1T with his porkulous and other BS programs.

Eliminate every GD one of them in total now there is $1.1T right off the bat. The piss on all the rest of these ideas.

13

I'll endorse eliminating the home mortgage deduction the day that loan becomes a simple-interest loan and not compounded like a credit card debt.

Figure out what your total payments add up to to see how many multiples of the purchase price of your home you're really paying.

14 Doesn't fraud account for 33% of Medicare costs? 

How long would a private company stay in business with that happening?

15 If you think the burst of the real estate bubble in 2008 - present was bad, remove the interest rate and property tax deduction and look out below.

16 Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce. Don't call us, we'll call you.

17 NOW LEAVE ME ALONE - IVE GOT TO GET READY FOR... OK, I'll stop being the voices in your head.

18 "Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce." ------------------------- Oh, YES, it can.

19 Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at August 04, 2011 01:11 PM (PLvLS)

Agreed. Capping it, with a yearly adjustment for inflation will be manageable. And there will be an unintended consequence too: some percentage of those who hold mortgages above the cap will prepay, freeing money for other lending. That isn't such a bad thing!

20 The Syphilis - it burns!

21 One thing that I think is absolutely needed is a pay for performance program in congress.  I propose a 1 to 1 reduction in pay for each percentage point that Congressional approval rating is below 50% in scientific polling.  You could use an average of polls.

22 This doesn't matter anyway. The entire financial world is on fire today.

It may not be here tomorrow.

23 NOW LEAVE ME ALONE - IVE GOT TO GET READY FOR A HUGE BIRTHDAY PARTY IM THROWING FOR MY LOVELY AND BRILLIANT PRESIDENT!!!  Posted by: KayInMaine at August 04, 2011 01:11 PM

Someone's got a little crush.

24 How about a $10,000/year fee imposed on hipster douchebags?  They could pay it ironically.

25 $1 Trillion?  But. but. We must compromise.

26

Interest payments are just like a business expense:  A renter may not get an interest deduction, but the ower of the rental property sure does!  So, while the principle of the home mortgage is not deductable (like rental payment) the interest should be - just like it for the owner of a rental property.  In addition, the home owner pays land taxes on their home, directly, while the renter pays it through their rent.  And I suspect that there are deduction available the rental owner that are not available to the home owner, such as depreciation, that can be passed on to the renter so that comparing a rental payment to a home payment is not really apples to apples.

27 How to cut $1 trillion a year?

Easy!  Cut everything Obama has done since elected.

28 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 04, 2011 01:12 PM (FkKjr)

I only heard of the plan.  I haven't studied it, but I would be surprise if it includes the Obamacare abortion.

29 I don't understand that. Individuals aren't businesses, so how is a home mortgage interest rate an "expense"?

30 There is a piece to this puzzle that no one talks about, namely that the size of the federal government is too large and its reach too broad.  There is literally no area of our lives that Washington is not dabbling in. 

Just take a moment to think about the rationale behind bureaucrats deciding...to the milligram...how much sodium should be in cereal.  Even the trillion dollar cuts do not address this aspect of the problem; we need a paradigm shift (yes, I hate the term too) in how we think about the mission of government.  Limiting its size and reach is the only way for democracies to survive. 

31 Which, in turn, should give an idea of how difficult this is, and how large a hole we're in.

So this is it then. We know what we have to do, but we will not do it. And then the crash, and then the money runs out, and then, they payments stop....And then a whole bunch of people who have been told for years they're entitled to take from others are cut off......Did somebody just mumble "brains"?

32 15 Doesn't fraud account for 33% of Medicare costs?

I don't buy that number at all. I think it's just something that get's thrown out there to pretend there's a way to "fix" rising outlays.

33 Ace, had a hard time grokking that last part myself, but I think he was trying to distinguish the cases where one has an asset at the end (the home) and when one doesn't. Or, creating a rough equivalance between the cost of the money to buy the house and rent - those are both expenses but should be treated the same regards deductibility. (The principal not being an expense, but the price of purchasing an asset.)

I think.

34

Why don't we just go batshit crazy and tell ourselves everything is okay and Obama has the right ideas and the right team doing the right things at the right times?

 

In other words, why don't we become Anderson Coopers and revel in our man-love for Obama? Why can't we all get along??

35 Do renters pay property taxes, or is that factored into their monthly rate?

There are also homeowners' taxes and a few others that I think only apply to homeowners.

Renters also (often) get a break on certain utilities, which although are priced into their rent, are essentially "unlimited" at a flat rate.

I'm not knocking - I've rented and owned. As an owner now and former renter, I notice that there are definitely more tax bills that I never saw as a renter.

36 #13

What do you mean, 'turn into?'

37 Ace, had a hard time grokking that last part myself, but I think he was trying to distinguish the cases where one has an asset at the end (the home) and when one doesn't. Or, creating a rough equivalance between the cost of the money to buy the house and rent - those are both expenses but should be treated the same regards deductibility. (The principal not being an expense, but the price of purchasing an asset.)

I think.

38 If I give up the tax breaks for the corporate jet that I don't have, but would have if I had the money, in the rationale of our beloved ruling class, that would be like a billion percent revenue increase.

Problem solved!  Piece of cake.

39 Surely we can slaughter hapless desert barbarians more cheaply.

Yeah, but it's WAY more fun doing it via remote controlled Predator drones.  More seriously, let's remember some salient facts: as a percentage of our GDP, defense spending has not been as low as it is now since the 1930's.  We have fewer Naval vessels afloat today than since <b>before WWI</b>. 

How did THAT work out for us on December 7, 1941?

Then as now, the world was breaking down even as we were skimping on defense.  China is rising, Somali pirates of all things are reverting the African coast back to pre-European barbarism.  Drug cartels are taking over Latin America.

This is NOT the time to play games with defense.  PERIOD.

40 Easy!  Cut everything Obama has done since elected.

Out: Reset
In:   Rewind

41 Doesn't fraud account for 33% of Medicare costs? 
How long would a private company stay in business with that happening?
Posted by: Tami at August 04, 2011 01:14 PM

It's about 20 percent.  It's much lower for private insurers but I can't recall just what the percentage is estimated to be.

42 I'm surprised you guys are willing to poke Kay with a stick. Jeeze I'm scared even then some of that weapons grade crazy might get on me.

43

34 15 Doesn't fraud account for 33% of Medicare costs?

I don't buy that number at all. I think it's just something that get's thrown out there to pretend there's a way to "fix" rising outlays.

 

Well we could underfund it and then no doctors would ever use it. See how brillant Sparky is? See - See!!!

44 I still like the idea proposed yesterday that any federal benefits after they aggregate over $13000 be taxed at the gift tax rate.
Raises taxes just like the Dems want and it changes the mindset of those who get them from entitlement to what it really is, a gift stolen from someone else who had to work for it.
Just because you didn't have the balls to stand up and end the theft from you when you were younger, doesn't mean we should keep stealing. I'm looking at you retirees.

45

I am totally against means testing SS and Medicare. It will turn it into just another welfare program. In a few years the only ones getting it will be the Peggy Joseph's of the world.

I'm kinda in agreement with this. I think SS should be abolished, but if we are going to keep it, why should people who paid in the most get the least?

46 These specific-cut plans ( excepting the repeal of ObamaCare) will never ever pass. Gotta be real, people.The only method to find the support required will be a similar very small percent cut in every department. Even if we need to begin with a 0.25 % a year, the symbolism will be important as the number.
Let the Secretaries decide where to cut.
This baseline 7% annual increase must be stopped.

47 The KayinMaine makes the rest of them look sane!

I think she's got it!

48 OK.  Reread it again.

I'm not at all sure I was correct in my first take.

<litella> Never mind. </litella>

49 It simply frakin amazes me how many times the damnable media ignores all of the HUGE increases in spending they have done since the JEF was elected.

They can't think of a damn thing to cut but defense.

Its like they think the public is stupid.

wait......

50 In analyzing some tax returns for a coherent FICO, I've seen some higher grossing incomes deduct their TITHES as business expenses, I shit you not... The wealthiest simply do not pay taxes, they throw armies of accountants into the mix and "break even", or find some way to adjust the 2 box under some mean amount. The brackets are determined by the year.

51 We were told that Obama's Presidency would be historic.  They were right.

52

I'll endorse eliminating the home mortgage deduction the day that I have any reason to believe that they won't simply spend it. We have been harping upon spending cuts because of this simple reason. We have no reason to trust them to pay down the debt. Look at the crap they left in with this last deal.

 

P.J. O'Rourke: "giving money and power to Congress is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys."

53 To me it seems the principal repayment of the mortgage is analogous to the rent payment Ace mentions (aka "living expense), with the interest portion only speaking to the tax expenditure portion of the entire mortgage payment.

54 >>Mr. Obama should ponder: Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.<<

If he ever figures this out, he'll just want to confiscate wealth.

Don't give him any ideas!

55 42 Easy!  Cut everything Obama has done since elected.

Out: Reset
In:   Rewind

Posted by: cherry π at August 04, 2011 01:20 PM (OhYCU)

In: Reboot

56 41 Surely we can slaughter hapless desert barbarians more cheaply.

Yeah, but it's WAY more fun doing it via remote controlled Predator drones.  More seriously, let's remember some salient facts: as a percentage of our GDP, defense spending has not been as low as it is now since the 1930's.  We have fewer Naval vessels afloat today than since <b>before WWI</b>. 

How did THAT work out for us on December 7, 1941?

Then as now, the world was breaking down even as we were skimping on defense.  China is rising, Somali pirates of all things are reverting the African coast back to pre-European barbarism.  Drug cartels are taking over Latin America.

This is NOT the time to play games with defense.  PERIOD.
  A simple answer is CARPET BOMBING. It rids the house of pests and puts otherwise unemployable union workers to work. WINNING.

57 Here's the rub on the mortgage interest deduction:  It makes sense in the absence of subprime interest-only loans.  If the idea is to promote ownership and not the pathologically stupid real estate speculation of the past two decades then it does result in a positive for both the individual and the economy.

58

This is NOT the time to play games with defense.  PERIOD.

Meh, I feel like the DOD wastes a ton of money. I'm guessing they'd be able to get by just fine with a little belt tightening and it would force defense contractors to cut back on the gouging.

I'm not talking big cuts, but I do think we should probably cut back some on defense, especially as we wind down in A-stan and Iraq.

59 Ace,

Have you been into the Val-U-Rite again??

You forgot to mention... SHIT CAN OBAMACARE!

60 I'm fine with the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction. My only condition is that REAL cuts to federal spending have to take place first. At least 10%.

61 My place of work is highly variable. It can be twenty miles from home one day and 90 miles away the next. You can damn well bet the mileage gets deducted on taxes, though since my boss is picking up the gas cost it's his deduction, not mine. However, since that contributes to the health of the company, it's very much in my interest.

62

I just found out that the Federal government spends $600 billion per year in grants.  Maybe some room for trimming?  (Ah, if you only knew the truth about some of them!  Sometimes it's public record . . .)  It's here is a video about grant fraud:

 

http://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?File=16759

63 14

I'll endorse eliminating the home mortgage deduction the day that loan becomes a simple-interest loan and not compounded like a credit card debt.

Figure out what your total payments add up to to see how many multiples of the purchase price of your home you're really paying.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at August 04, 2011 01:14 PM (d0Tfm)

Fair point -- I hadn't thought about that.  (Not a homeowner yet...)

64 As far as Social Security goes, Galveston, TX was allowed to opt out of Social Security years ago and the last I heard, it provided magnitudes better retirement for city employees.  That should be looked at, imo.

65 brb, sending Barracky my underwear for a present.

66

"General Motors CFO Daniel Ammann said Thursday he is no rush to spend the company's $39.4 billion cash pile."

Tell ya what. Since GM only exists because taxpayers bailed them out, and Obama likes confiscatory policies how about we take this "cash pile" back from GM?

That solves at least 1/3 of the trillion dollar issue.

67 Is there still an SS payment penalty if someone over 65 earns income beyond a stated limit?  What's the argument for a limit if the earner pays a higher level of income tax on his/her income?

68

Start with big-time liberal Clinton's fy2000 budget.

Leave SS and Medicare spending like today's budget.

Increase the remainder by the difference in cpi.

The annual federal spending magically is 1.1 trillion less.

Leave in the increases in military spending and the savings is still .6 trilliion annually.

Prove it to yourself at governmentspending.com and get cpi from other readily available sources.

69

I wonder what effect eliminating or reducing home-buyer incentives would have on (local) property tax receipts.  If Uncle Sam is bribing you to buy a home bigger (or whatever) than you otherwise would've, the locality benefits.

And if property tax receipts suffer, well, that means fewer/poorer services or higher tax rates.

While I don't doubt there's some distortion, I have a feeling a lot will balance out.

Which, in turn, means that simpler equals better.  

See also tobacco subsidies and cigarette taxes.  That's inefficient right there.  Have one or the other, but having both is really stupid.

70 55 To me it seems the principal repayment of the mortgage is analogous to the rent payment Ace mentions (aka "living expense), with the interest portion only speaking to the tax expenditure portion of the entire mortgage payment.     The fallacy in this opinion is that businesses (which never die) are allowed to deduct their interest costs against income. Are we suggesting to end all interest deductions? I am okay with it as long as everyone is affected. Why pick on homeowners who were suckered by CRA, Fannie and Freddie into Clinton's re-inflation of the dot.com bomb? Shoosh. I can't help it that Wall Street started selling dot.com stock to investors when the company only had a Website.

71 52 "In analyzing some tax returns for a coherent FICO, I've seen some higher grossing incomes deduct their TITHES as business expenses, I shit you not..."


REALLY??

How much can that cost?  What do girls need for them?  Bras?  Massages down at the day spa? Tanning oil?

I mean... What??? Oh, tithes... tithes!  NEVER MIND! 

72 The wealthiest simply do not pay taxes, they throw armies of accountants into the mix and "break even"

**Ahem**

Bullshit, go get your shinebox.

This is stock leftist twaddle.

The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the income tax.

73 Is mortgage interest paid still going to be a deduction for businesses? It is legitimate. If so, eliminating the mortgage interest deduction for individuals will invite gaming the system. You can own a property and rent it out and still get the deduction. I'll rent yours and you rent mine and we'll both get to write off the interest. Business will have a leg up in the property market as their expenses are lower because they'll still get the deduction. Or eliminate it for businesses too and watch the renters howl when their rent goes up to cover the deduction they "aren't" getting.

74 One of Williamson's suggestions -- and he doesn't even include this in getting to his trillion; this is bonus -- is ending the home mortgage interest deduction.

No more tinkering with the tax code. Every time they do that ultimately it turns in to a tax increase. If they want to change the tax code then go all the way:

1. Eliminate ALL federal taxes
2. Enact a 15% flat tax on all income from all sources with no exceptions or deductions.
3. Enact a spending cap that limits spending to that collected during the previous year except in the case of a declared war. Then limit spending to 10% afterwards until war debt paid off.
4. Do that by amendment so congress can't weasel out. Write it so SCOTUS can't fuck with it under pain of instant impeachment vote by population, not congress.

75

If they tinker with the home mortgage interest deduction too much (real estate taxes, too?) look for people to set up a business to own their home and run as a rental income property.

Charge yourself lowish rent to ensure the partnership doesn't make money.  You still get to deduct the interest, RE tax, and take depreciation and mantainece costs to boot.

When you think about renters, although they can't take an interest deduction, in an economic sense, their landlord is able to and a portion of that after-tax savings may be partially built into going rental rates.

76

Out: Reset
In:   Rewind

As if we needed any more proof that everything is backwards, "progress" really isn't, is it?

77 I also don't think that real, permanent reform will ever be undertaken under the current tax system.  It is abjectly unfair and has been abused by politicians to their own benefit to the point it is unworkable.

I am for a consumption tax since the more someone earns, the more typically they spend.  But I wouldn't mind really any of the "fair tax" proposals out there.

78

It's a living expense. Those who rent don't subtract their rent payments from their income. No one subtracts their food costs from their income. 90% of the country needs a car for purposes of moving to and from their place of work, but no one suggests car ownership interest should be deducted from net income and hence immune to tax.

I'm not sure I understand why he's saying that in the case of this incurred living expense, the cost of owning one's dwelling, a taxpayer should deduct that expense from his net income for purposes of finding taxable income.

To start with those who rent do get the benefit of the mortgage interest tax deduction. Landlords take that deduction and it is passed on to renters. Some will argue it may not be passed on but look at it from the other side. If the deduction did not exist rents would surely be higher.

Regarding homeowners he is talking about the income to the economy and the government that is not measured. Things like:

Taxes paid on the construction of the home including income taxes for workers.

Taxes paid on upkeep and maintenance of the home.

Property taxes paid which fund the majority of schools

capital gains and excise taxes paid on the sale of existing homes. We in Washington for example pay a 2% excise tax on the sale of real estate.

Taxes paid by mortgage companies and their employees for making and servicing the loans.

Taxes paid by investors in mortgages.

There are more but like he said they are too hard and costly to measure so they aren't measured.

79 play games with defense

You're going to need to define that for me.

DOD is not immune from the Washington stupid virus.

80 Real fix for SS and Medicare?

1. Everyone currently over 50 goes on as before
2. Between 40 and 50 contribute at half rate and get half benefits
3. below 40 no contribution and no benefit.

IOW eliminate program in two waves.

81 OK you know its bad when my avowed communist (actually conservative in denial) neighbor thinks we should revoke all regulation and added buracracy added since 92.

Yes.

he said 92. roll it all back. peel it off . revoke it. I was stunned. this dude voted O and i cant repet the things he says about the people running cali  right now. its starts with traitors and Vampires and goes downhill from there.

we used to talk financials every day. But now i  just call him early and tell him not to turn on the business channel and avoid the stock market reports. The news wont make him happier. He thanks me and nods glumly.

He cant wait for this term to be over.

"Hes just not up top it," he says, "and if i hear one more word about how theres extraordinary events right now I'm gonna puke. Every president had extraordinary problems and circumstances. Even Bush did better."

those are strong words from him. HE HATED BUSH.

82

Is there still an SS payment penalty if someone over 65 earns income beyond a stated limit?  What's the argument for a limit if the earner pays a higher level of income tax on his/her income?

Yes, I have employees who are in that category. I believe it is 2 for 1.

So if you earn more than 14,000 dollars a year, for every dollar you earn  you lose 2 from social security.

83 I'll endorse eliminating the home mortgage deduction the day that loan becomes a simple-interest loan and not compounded like a credit card debt. they don't call you guys morons for nothing. a mortgage is simple interest.

84 The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the income tax.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at August 04, 2011 01:27 PM (7utQ2)

That is just income tax. The super wealthy have a million tricks to not generate "income". Corporations have hundreds of people whose only job is to find loopholes or lobby for breaks What would be fair is to eliminate all loopholes. Corporations and individuals pay a flat 15% (10% for capital gains).

85 I have a different solution to the SS/Medicare problem: instead of means testing, slip the retirement age back one year every two years.

One of the big differences between when SS was solvent and today is that the retirement age was around one's life expectancy before, but now they're about a decade apart.

That said, I haven't run the numbers, so I have no clue how much it would actually save -- or whether the savings would be quick enough.

86 Car Ownership Interest is deductible in some capacity if you are also claiming unreimbursed mileage for work.

87 2. Enact a 15% flat tax on all income from all sources with no exceptions or deductions.

That right there tells me you don't understand a high revenue high cost venture. The income tax was always a bad idea because it could never be fair. Flatten it and you are still tilting the playing field.

88 Posted by: Mary in LA at August 04, 2011 01:12 PM (9wOfB)

But the price of homes will fall as soon as the deduction is taken away, so you will net out the same.

**

I like the 1% solution too because it hits everyone a little instead of a few niches a lot--like the infamous corporate jet owners or the Peggy Josephs.

If they don't have the guts to raise the age of SS, why not ratchet down the benefits 5% for those under 55? Also, all federal employees should take a permanent 5% cut. We did this in our little municipality and it was no big deal.

89

I don't sweat threats of defense cuts in the long term. When we begin letting our guard down, our enemies become emboldened and behave belligerently. The inevitable terrorist attack or the arising of a potent threat (Iranian nukes, for example) will force an emergency surge of defense spending.

It would be cheaper, in the long run, simply to maintain a potent military, but that is not the way the dimwits in Washington think.

90

You know would solve this problem?  A little high speed rail.  It's a big fucking deal.  Now, where's my check from the Secret Service?  I sure hope they really are secret.  I don't want the IRS to know jack shit about this.

91 Limit Bambi to two weeks vacation a year, that woukld save a bunch.

92 Real fix for SS and Medicare?

1. Everyone currently over 50 goes on as before
2. Between 40 and 50 contribute at half rate and get half benefits
3. below 40 no contribution and no benefit.

IOW eliminate program in two waves.

Posted by: Vic at August 04, 2011 01:29 PM (M9Ie6)

Damn it, where's the "like" button on this comment?

93 IOW eliminate program in two waves.

Posted by: Vic at August 04, 2011 01:29 PM (M9Ie6)

I agree in principal Vic except you could prorate the contributions to the current system with more steps and make it even more fair.  And you would still need some kind of mandated savings program or eventually, we would have Social Security again.

94 One of the big differences between when SS was solvent and today is that the retirement age was around one's life expectancy before, but now they're about a decade apart.

Back to that myth again. The real life expectancy at age 65 hasn't changed that much since SS was enacted. When you see all these stories about life expectancy increases they are talking about average life expectancy from birth to death.

That number is meaningless for SS.

95 Real fix for SS and Medicare?

1. Everyone currently over 50 goes on as before
2. Between 40 and 50 contribute at half rate and get half benefits
3. below 40 no contribution and no benefit.

IOW eliminate program in two waves.

Posted by: Vic

1. Everyone over 55 is capped. There is no longer such thing as a COLA for anyone. ( I know that the recent ones have been deferred).

I agree with the rest.

96 91 2. Enact a 15% flat tax on all income from all sources with no exceptions or deductions.

That right there tells me you don't understand a high revenue high cost venture. The income tax was always a bad idea because it could never be fair. Flatten it and you are still tilting the playing field.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 04, 2011 01:32 PM (0q2P7)

Then explain a high revenue/high cost venture...

97

"The wealthiest simply do not pay taxes, they throw armies of accountants into the mix and "break even"

It's not bullshit.  The people who pay the taxes in the top 1% are people who have jobs (albeit well-paying ones) or small businesses.  That category of "wealthy" are republicans.

The idle rich pay very little taxes for the reason stated and because they put their money in municipal bonds and / or hide it offshore.  They don't work and they don't risk their money by starting  businesses or in the stock market befause they have enough to be self-sustaining so why should they. That category of "wealthy" are democrats.  Many of them are marxists because they want as much separation between themselves and the little people, and because they think their weatlth will protect them from the commisars.  (ps; the bourgeoisie in Russia thought the same thing)

98 And you would still need some kind of mandated savings program or eventually, we would have Social Security again.

Not only no...but...

Tell everyone, save for retirement or frakin starve...and mean it.

99

#78 Vic has the right ideas.  While we're dreaming, I'd add an Amendment that allows a member of the House to challenge a SCOTUS ruling (basing the challenge on the idea that the SCOTUS didn't interpret the Constitution correctly).  This challenge would then HAVE TO be presented to the Senate for a vote (no Sen Reid playing games) - simple majority.  If passed, the SCOTUS ruling would be voided unless the SCOTUS was able to come up with a unanimous decision to retain the ruling.  Put resonable time limits on each step.  I'd also like to see the impeachable offenses for all Federal Judges, including the SCOTUS, to be expanded to include using their position to push a private agenda rather that the laws as written. 

 

Well, a girl can dream, can't she?

100 During the Debt Ceiling debate I said no way we could cut 43% of the budget today. It's pretty dang hard. But you would at LEAST think we could cut 1%. We didn't even do that, and look at the caterwauling. It's DOOM. And the Street knows it.

101

The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the income tax.

That's 60% they still owe.

102 Real fix for SS and Medicare?

1. Everyone currently over 50 goes on as before
2. Between 40 and 50 contribute at half rate and get half benefits
3. below 40 no contribution and no benefit.

IOW eliminate program in two waves.
Posted by: Vic at August 04, 2011 01:29 PM (M9Ie6)



Paul Ryan's idea though I would throw in a modifier in how much people have put in in the 40-50 age bracket

103

Back to that myth again. The real life expectancy at age 65 hasn't changed that much since SS was enacted. When you see all these stories about life expectancy increases they are talking about average life expectancy from birth to death.

Um, I may be crazy, but isn't that the exact definition of life expectancy?

104 The idle rich pay very little taxes for the reason stated and because they put their money in municipal bonds and / or hide it offshore.

It's one of the reasons why I hate California -- Prop 13 went and created a Landed Class by removing property taxes as a significant method of revenue. Thing is, property taxes are a tax on accumulated wealth (i.e., the idle rich), while income taxes are taxes on productive work.

105 BTW:  Dow -300 again.

106 The only way we will get my ideas in place is an Art V convention.

And guess what? If it doesn't happen soon it will not matter. We are headed off the cliff now and the engine is accelerating with Barky-Otrama's foot hard on the peddle.

107 See how easy that was?

We could have reduced the debt ceiling.

108 The players in the stock market are just like my racist grandmother.  They don't a brown man in the White House with his hand in their pockets.

109 93

I don't sweat threats of defense cuts in the long term. When we begin letting our guard down, our enemies become emboldened and behave belligerently. The inevitable terrorist attack or the arising of a potent threat (Iranian nukes, for example) will force an emergency surge of defense spending.

It would be cheaper, in the long run, simply to maintain a potent military, but that is not the way the dimwits in Washington think.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at August 04, 2011 01:32 PM (PLvLS)

yes but that means that men like my Mr Grim will die needlessly for lack of equipment, because you thought it was acceptable for us to get caught with our pants down.

or worse they will just let the anti terror specialists go. Reduce forces and assume you can just train some more young guys when you need them. And think they can train a new crop without the old guys! try fighting those bad guys without any experience guiding you. Can you say ATTRITION?

my husband is not an acceptable loss.

110

they don't call you guys morons for nothing. a mortgage is simple interest.

*Ahem*

If it really was a simple interest loan, say you bought a house for $100K at 5% interest. then your interest would only be $5000, totalling $105K, not the over $250K you'll finally pay at the end of thirty years.

$250K minus the purchase price of the home, the rest is interest, which comes out to, um, _{carry the four, multiply by pi, then divide by whichever phase the moon's in}, and that comes out to a lot more than simple interest, regardless of what the mortgage companies call it.

111 Also, if you look at the stuff that government does that a lot of us morons think we could heave-ho, they fall into the category of "Stuff White People Like." And White People are still the majority. And Republicans need to understand that they can't reflexively say Defense is a sacred cow. $800B is a shit-ton of money. Cut 10%? I say more. Yeah, I am as hawkish as they come but Rumsfeld had it right. We need to be cutting that number by at least $100B a year. That's a trillion in ten years right there. Just another 9 to go.

112

Ha, everyone is a fiscal conservative until it comes to cutting theirs.

113 Maybe I'm just slow.

It's accountant talk. You're not supposed to understand it. But the reason for not targeting the home interest deduction for "savings" isn't economic (except insofar as its threatened removal is an introduction of activity-thwarting "uncertainty"), or about tax-code fairness (which comment #27 covers, sort of, in principle), or whatever.

The reason not to remove the deduction—and not to put that on the table in any early round of cut talk—is because the voters most negatively affected by its removal are your voters. Your only voters—almost.

So don't fuck 'em. At least not right away.

Y'know, the great majority of "business," and almost the entirety of the "non-profit" sector, including churches, and just about every non-military government employee, and [etc.], hates you, and uses their untaxed/stolen-from-you money to fund your political doom—so how 'bout you go fuck your way through them first? Before you do bought-a-house-under-existing-rules flag-waving NASCAR guy (and his wife and kids).

And maybe then also fuck your way through The Rich™, who also hate you, want you crushed, and fund your crushing.

Or, I mean, at least seriously consider your reasons for so strongly resisting that sort of thing, when it'd be to your practical, vote for me-level benefit. Because I think you won't find any actual reasons there.

Then, start over.

114 (1) Cut the behemoth that is mandatory spending and reform entitlements with aggressive means-testing

(2) RE discretionary, eliminate or combine departments as necessary. Direct more spending towards the vital depts such as DoD.

(3) Target corporate welfare and waste, fraud, and abuse

(4) Overhaul our budgeting system and continue making progress in areas such as discretionary caps on spending

(5) Overhaul the tax code (individual and corporate) by simplifying the system, enacting flat rates, and  eliminating loopoles and deductions

(6) Health care reform- Completely repeal ObamaCare and implement conservative reforms

115 Um, I may be crazy, but isn't that the exact definition of life expectancy?

It's always been the definition. It's just that the elderly usually pass their life expectancy (especially in males) because the young do stupid things. If you're a guy and survive your 20s, you're probably beating your life expectancy.

That said, it's the same freakin' metric that was used in the 1930s, and the young-men-are-stupid skew was about the same.

116 My one objection to Vics' plan is that someone doesn't take a hit. EVERYONE has to lose something is this is going to work. That's why I advocate existing recipients be capped and the top whatever percent get hit with a reduction.

117

Um, I may be crazy, but isn't that the exact definition of life expectancy?

Posted by: Ben at August 04, 2011 01:38 PM (wuv1c)

Not really if you actually go to actuarial tables they list number of years remaining life expectancy depending on your age.

In our early years childhood diseases and wars killed a LOT of young people that reduced the average life expectancy a lot.

If you go to the tables and look at life expectancy at age 65 in 1930 vs the same now it has not increased that much.

118 117

Ha, everyone is a fiscal conservative until it comes to cutting theirs.

Posted by: Ben at August 04, 2011 01:41 PM (wuv1c)

Hell, if they stop taking out for SS, I'd forgo any payment.

119 I am totally against means testing SS and Medicare. It will turn it into just another welfare program. In a few years the only ones getting it will be the Peggy Joseph's of the world.

You're afraid that a program whereby the government redistributes money from one group of people to another will become welfare? It is what it is. Welfare for oldsters. Money confiscated from young working people to give to older, wealthier people. You can whine all you want about paying into it all your working life, but there is no functional difference between those payments and the ones made to fund welfare, government cheese giveaways and cash for clunkers.

120 and that comes out to a lot more than simple interest, regardless of what the mortgage companies call it.

So are you willing to lend me $100k for 30 years for $5,000?

It's APR not some kind of scam.

121 Posted by: PR at August 04, 2011 01:31 PM (Iyq1N)

You are misunderstanding his stunning stupidity. He means that a home loan for, say, $250,000 should carry a simple interest rate of 5% -- total. So for the privilege of locking up the bank's money for 10 or 20 or 30 years, you should pay them $12,500. He doesn't like the fascist, capitalistic idea of compounded interest.

Or something like that.

122 If you have a strong stomach. First Lady cheerleader photo:

http://tinyurl.com/3sgtl8c

123 And Republicans need to understand that they can't reflexively say Defense is a sacred cow.

It's also worth remembering that a "cut to Defense" in Washington-speak is a "decrease in the increase in spending" to the rest of us. I don't mind cutting the rate of increase -- the worrisome thing would be cutting past that, to the true baseline that the rest of us use when we budget.

124 you would at LEAST think we could cut 1%. We didn't even do that, and look at the caterwauling. It's DOOM. And the Street knows it. You clearly do not understand the significance of our Great Victory and Grand Bargain. We have changed the debate. We have met our sacred obligations. We cannot let the addictive drug of ideology poison our minds and our markets. We have prevented the sky from falling. What? Why are you staring?

125 *Ahem* So you want to borrow money at 5% and pay one years interest but keep the money for 30 years. That is simple.

126 You ever notice how when some new legislation is passed, it ain't long before a fix is necessary. Then another. Sorta reminds you of Windows Updates, but adding a flaming dick enema.
 
Anyhoo, why not try cutting an entire useless Department like Ed....just cut it clean off at the knees. Then, when invariably we find something there that they were doing which was actually useful (okay, it's a stretch), they can pass a fixit.
 
Fuck up from the cheap side for a change. Nah, never happen.

127 "Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce."

The hell they cannot, you Ewok. Political Forces laugh at your childish faith in reality. Dey be majick! and always were.

128

So are you willing to lend me $100k for 30 years for $5,000?

It's APR not some kind of scam.

Ha that would be hilarious. Earning 5% on your money for a 30 year period.

129 Remember what happened to W when he talked - just talked - about reforming Social Security. What he was saying was a hell of a lot milder than Vic's proposal. Social Security is one of those things that White People Like. While Sheila Jackson Lee says that Republicans want to cut it because it helps black and brown people out, that's just not the case. White People LOVE Social Security because it is a good deal for them. They live longer on average so get more return. And if grandma is getting Social Security, she doesn't have to live with us. I think minority families have a much higher incidence of extended family living conditions. They are actually a lot more likely to be taking care of their old folks than having the government do it. Same deal with Medicare.

130 Sorta reminds you of Windows Updates, but adding a flaming dick enema. Dunno about Windows, but the flaming dick part sounds interesting.

131 123 117

Ha, everyone is a fiscal conservative until it comes to cutting theirs.

Posted by: Ben at August 04, 2011 01:41 PM (wuv1c)

Hell, if they stop taking out for SS, I'd forgo any payment.

Posted by: The Robot Devil at August 04, 2011 01:42 PM (136wp)

i really am handicapped and i would give it all up too if it only went to the truly destitute and we all had to live with the bite.

132 Then explain a high revenue/high cost venture...

If you have a venture which takes say initial investment of 1000 dollars to start, then over the course of a year produces 1000 dollars in revenue and accrues 900 dollars in cost, you have 100 dollars in leftover profit. That 100$ represents a 10% profit margin and a 10% return on investment.

Now another venture with 1000 dollars of investment, returns 200 dollars in revenue, for a business cost of 100$. Same Return on investment, profit margin is spectacular at 100%

In the upper case if you taxed at a flat rate with no write-offs, you would be taxing the 1000 dollars in revenue before it went to pay the 900 in business costs because you have no deductions, while the lower business only has to pay taxes on 200. Giving the low revenue, high margin venture a tax advantage over the high revenue low margin venture.

So take a real number of 5%
Business A pays 50 dollars in taxes. That eats up half the profit, and reduces the return on investment to 5%.

Business B pays 10 dollars in taxes. That only consumes one tenth the profit, the return on investment drops only to 9%.

So by flat taxing the businesses, two businesses that had the same return on investment without taxes ended up with drastically different return on investment with taxes.

Hence even with a "flat no deduction" income tax you are tilting favor of one type of business over another => unfair.

133 The players in the stock market are just like my racist grandmother.  They don't a brown man in the White House with his hand in their pockets. their bedroom with a pillow over their face.

FIFY.

134 Dow -344!

135 Cut first, then play with the tax code.

Simplification? Sure. It'll reduce transaction costs and improve productivity, but playing 'loopholes & ladders' is pointless unless the Federal government is brought to heel.

A smaller government is one that doesn't need 'revenue,' 'enhancements,' or the presumption that our money is the Feds'.

136 O/T:  Just got out of a meeting and read on twitter breaking news  that there is a person with a gun on the Virginia Tech campus.

137 117

Ha, everyone is a fiscal conservative until it comes to cutting theirs.

Posted by: Ben at August 04, 2011 01:41 PM (wuv1c)

Oh, I dunno -- didn't you see me upthread saying that I can live without the mortgage deduction if it will really help make the country solvent?  And, honestly, I don't expect to see a penny of Social Security (I'm 49), nor do I expect that Medicare will exist by the time I retire.

I get it, really, I do.  What's being taken out of my paycheck right now isn't being saved for me at all.  It's going to the people who are retired right now.  And that's just how it is.  I'm doing my best to save up for myself out of what's left.

138 One of Williamson's suggestions -- and he doesn't even include this in getting to his trillion; this is bonus -- is ending the home mortgage interest deduction.

This is an excellent idea.

139 Posted by: Ben at August 04, 2011 01:38 PM (wuv1c)

Vic is correct. Life expectancy was lower when SS was enacted. But the life expectancy at retirement age has not changed significantly. Most of the gains have come from improving survival rates among the very young.

140

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at August 04, 2011 01:40 PM (d0Tfm)

That would hold true if you have a 5% APR with a term of one year.  But in any fixed-term loan the APR is based on the amortization of the principal payments over the term of the loan.

Any interest charge has to take the loan term into account...in your example borrowing $100k for 20 years would have the same cost as borrowing it for one year.  A person who makes his $100k available for 20 years should get more for it than a short term loan.

141 So if you earn more than 14,000 dollars a year, for every dollar you earn  you lose 2 from social security.

Thanks, Ben.

142 mortgage interest isn't complex. Take your current balance i.e. $100k, multiply by rate of 5%, divide by 12 to get a monthly interest cost of $416.66 per month. The amount that your principal and interest payment is higher than this by goes toward reducing the principal balance. Next month do the same on the slightly lower balance.

143

My point is that you're paying far more than the purchase price of your home (as in 2.5 or even 3 times the price) and offsetting that big expense with a tax deduction isn't wrong, or immoral, or even fattening.

144

Or answered much better (and more amusingly) by PR:

 

So you want to borrow money at 5% and pay one years interest but keep the money for 30 years. That is simple.

Posted by: PR at August 04, 2011 01:46 PM (Iyq1N)

 

Excellent. 

145 One thing that we could do to reform the tax code is to make it illegal for corporations, unions, trade associations, PACs, bundlers, etc. to contribute to political campaigns either for an individual politicians or for political partys.  Then require politicians to fund their election campaigns from only  individuals living within their geographic boundaries, ie. House seats can accept donations only from within that district, Senate from within the state.  Presidental campaigns could only be financed by individual donations from within the 50 United States.  Period.  This would cut down on 'special interest' vs people reprented conflic our current reprentatives seem to have.  It would also make reforming our spending a LOT easier.

146 Regarding the mortgage interest deduction, it might help to remember that until quite recently, all interest expense was deductible -- home mortgages, credit cards, etc.

And the reason for this was straightforward -- all interest income is taxable.

Say that you had someone who went for the "neither a borrower nor a lender be" lifestyle, and made it through the year with no interest earned or paid; then consider someone else who borrowed $100,000 at 5% interest, then invested it for 5% return. At the end of the year, they're both in the same position -- but the economy has arguably provided more opportunities for productive transactions in the latter case.

Even today, interest is deductible for businesses but not individuals....because a certain strain of nanny-statism decided that it wasn't good for people to owe so much money and cut off personal interest deductions.

147 It's fine to eliminate the mortgage deduction providing you allow it to continue for everyone who brought their home assuming they would have this deduction.  You grandfather everyone in, then you set a date, from that point, there is no longer a deduction.

But, mike the moose made a great case for why the mortgage deduction needs to stay on a thread last week.

Of course you'll be paying all that realtor unemployment as you'll bury the housing market completely.

148 What kills me about the mess we're in is that even as disastrous as things clearly are, we will still have to suffer through pundits and spokespeople defending the Best.  President.  EVAH!

149

Mary in La,

I have no doubt you are willing to sacrifice, everyone seems to be, but there is always one area for every person where they won't.

And therein lies our dilema. When you need to eliminate a little bit from every category, you're guaranteed to touch that one area for every person.

150 One thing that we could do to reform the tax code is to make it illegal for corporations, unions, trade associations, PACs, bundlers, etc. to contribute to political campaigns either for an individual politicians or for political partys.  Then require politicians to fund their election campaigns from only  individuals living within their geographic boundaries, ie. House seats can accept donations only from within that district, Senate from within the state.  Presidental campaigns could only be financed by individual donations from within the 50 United States.  Period.  This would cut down on 'special interest' vs people reprented conflic our current reprentatives seem to have.  It would also make reforming our spending a LOT easier.

Posted by: rabidfox at August 04, 2011 01:52 PM (aoVlk)

yeah....how about no as everyone is entitled to free political speech.

151 Posted by: BackwardsBoy at August 04, 2011 01:51 PM (d0Tfm)

So what? You are ultimately paying far more than the purchase price for many things. What makes a house so special?

152

OT: I don't understand why people are having trouble squaring Perry's gay marriage stance. It isn't contradictory and it isn't hard to comprehend. You might not agree with the policy, but it is sound logic.

If you are a constitutionalist you believe that the States have most of the power (or were supposed to have). The only way the Federal Gvt. is supposed to be able to take some of that power is through the ammendment process, in which case the States would be willingly giving the Feds this new found power. So, one can believe that right now, the Federal government has no constitutional authority given them to inject themselves into the marriage debate. It's left to the States. However, you can then also claim you'd like to see an ammendment so the Feds CAN inject themselves into the debate. I mention this because I've now read multiple pieces by conservative writers that can't seem to figure out this stance..when it isn't all that tough to figure out.

Just to give an example: I would like it if Senators were appointed by the States. However, I also understand that that is not the law of the land and just because it's something I'd like to see doesn't mean the Federal government or my State government can just pass a law and make it so. No, it's an ammendment and would need to go through the process to be repealed. I acknowledge that and go ahead and vote for my senator. That doesn't mean that I don't support a repeal of the ammendment. Just like most of you don't support a repeal of the income tax ammendment.

Same with Perry, just flip the script. He can grudgingly go along with the notion that marriage is currently a state issue and, by law, the feds can't get involved. However, that doesn't mean he wouldn't like to see an ammendment that would therefore empore the feds. He's simply a man that doesn't want to step all over the law of the land in order to get his way. It's called be a constitutionalist.

/rant off.

153 I think that we should phase out Home Mortgage Deduction. I don't know if anyone remembers, but you used to be able to deduct all interest - car payments, credit cards, etc. That changed in 79 or 80. But mortgages remained. It did have an effect on consumer spending, but eventually the market adjusted. Keeping mortgage interest deduction caused a lot of the distortion as people used refinancing as a credit card - I get a deduction on my mortgage, I will refi and pay my Visa. Until boom. Taking it all out in one year would break our housing market - but a five year phase out should be doable. Yes, people are going to get hurt by it, but there ain't no easy way out of this mess. BTW - mortgage interest deduction - Stuff White People Like.

154

Ha, everyone is a fiscal conservative until it comes to cutting theirs.

Posted by: Ben at August 04, 2011 01:41 PM (wuv1c)

My only objection is viewing a tax deduction as 'spending,' which is where the real problem is.  Money in their hands will get spent, which is why I'd oppose any 'revenue enhancements.'

 

155 Hence even with a "flat no deduction" income tax you are tilting favor of one type of business over another => unfair.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 04, 2011 01:48 PM (0q2P7)

Thanks for explaining. I've re-read my original post and didn't write flat-tax no-deduction. I wrote flat-tax (but to be truthful, I did imply it).

156 Elect Sub-Tard and all your dreams will come true.

157 Real fix for SS and Medicare?

1. Everyone currently over 50 goes on as before
2. Between 40 and 50 contribute at half rate and get half benefits
3. below 40 no contribution and no benefit.

IOW eliminate program in two waves.

Posted by: Vic

If under-40s don't contribute, who is paying for the over 50's?  A half-rate between 40 and 50 isn't going to cut it.

That's the problem with a ponzi scheme - you can't give the people at the top the same amount of money but dry up the source at the bottom.  In order to reduce contributions to zero, you'd need to stop the giant sucking sound at the top of the inverted pyramid first.

158 My point is that you're paying far more than the purchase price of your home (as in 2.5 or even 3 times the price) and offsetting that big expense with a tax deduction isn't wrong, or immoral, or even fattening.

It does punish people who save to buy their house and subsidizes people who buy more house than they need though.

159 Employment numbers tomorrow.  This should be entertaining.

160

Just got out of a meeting and read on twitter breaking news  that there is a person with a gun on the Virginia Tech campus.

-------------

If this was a free country most people at the Va. Tech campus would have a gun. And then no one would be so worried when just one man does.

161

My point is that you're paying far more than the purchase price of your home (as in 2.5 or even 3 times the price) and offsetting that big expense with a tax deduction isn't wrong, or immoral, or even fattening.

But you're missing the whole perk of the loan. You're getting to purchase a home and are only required to pay 20%.

There is nothing else in life you can purchase  and utilize for such a small investment.

Also, there is a large risk in it for the bank. They're bankrolling 80% of your investment knowing full well that the value of your house could tank, you could default and they might not be able to resell, etc.

162 162 Elect Sub-Tard and all your dreams will come true.

Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 04, 2011 01:55 PM (0M3AQ)

Kang and Kodos may have something to say about that...

163 Even today, interest is deductible for businesses but not individuals....because a certain strain of nanny-statism decided that it wasn't good for people to owe so much money and cut off personal interest deductions.

Posted by: cthulhu at August 04, 2011 01:52 PM (kaalw)

Excellent point, and one I considered making myself. How quickly people forget.

164 Vic, The average life expectancy for whiyte males at age 60 for the years 1929-1931 was 14.72 years. In 2004, the last year for which I could find data, the life expectancy for the same group is 20.9 years. For white females, it's even larger. 16.05 years to 24.1 years. How can you call that insignificant? Especially since those are the costliest years as regards health care? It's not like all you have to do is change Grandma's water once a day and put down clean newspaper. As we age, it costs exponentially more to keep us alive and healthy.

165 Backwardsboy, look at it like this, by paying cash for a home you can avoid paying 2.5 to 3 times the original cost over 30 years. Simultaneously you lose the opportunity to triple your $100k in cash with interest earnings over that 30 years because it's tied up in your home.

166 I'm not in favor of ANY "revenue increases" until the Feds show they are serious about actually cutting spending. Show me a major department being zeroed out of existence, and then I'll start to listen to "loop holes" being closed and what not. But they have to go first, because the people have gone first about a bazillion times before only for the Feds to never actually live up to their share of the bargain (i.e. cutting spending).

167

It's not like all you have to do is change Grandma's water once a day and put down clean newspaper. As we age, it costs exponentially more to keep us alive and healthy.

That reminds me, I need to pick up more feed for gramps onthe way home.

168 It's fine to eliminate the mortgage deduction providing you allow it to continue for everyone who brought their home assuming they would have this deduction.  You grandfather everyone in, then you set a date, from that point, there is no longer a deduction.

Yup, no problem there. Except that people who own homes and are barely to mildly making it by now would have a sudden expense added to them for no particularly good reason. Which would make them not get by. Which means foreclosure.

If you think banks have prolems foreclosing on underwater homes now, just wait until they have to auction them off to people who know they're not getting any deductions (hint house values will drop. A Lot.).

That is of course fine if you don't have money in such a bank, or can live without ever seeing your checking account.

169 Thanks for explaining. I've re-read my original post and didn't write flat-tax no-deduction. I wrote flat-tax (but to be truthful, I did imply it).

I'm sorry I thought

2. Enact a 15% flat tax on all income from all sources with no exceptions or deductions.

Meant 'Flat Tax, No deductions'

170

Let's be real here!

Nobody is going to cut anything serious out of the Budget, Governmental Infrastructure, or the Agencies.

The only strategy that will be implemented are massive tax increases. Expect a VAT, Fuel Tax increase, Luxury, and New "Junk" Food taxes.

In others words......expect economic non-recovery. Any of you out there actually believe that just because Republicans win some power in 2012, that they can do what needs to be done, are kidding yourselves!

 

171 I have no problem with any of these cuts. 

172 >> Hence even with a "flat no deduction" income tax you are tilting favor of one type of business over another => unfair.

A really simple solution: Businesses should just pay income taxes based on their GAAP net income. This would be a true flat tax.

173 "Simple" interest compounds only on the principle.  "Compound" interest compounds on the principle and the interest.

Car = simple
House = simple
Credit card = compound
street loan = compound fractures

174

But you're missing the whole perk of the loan. You're getting to purchase a home and are only required to pay 20%.

There is nothing else in life you can purchase  and utilize for such a small investment.

Also, there is a large risk in it for the bank. They're bankrolling 80% of your investment knowing full well that the value of your house could tank, you could default and they might not be able to resell, etc.

Posted by: Ben

So businesses pay 100% for everything? They don't take out loans? Banks don't ever have to repossess 747s parked in some Godforsaken shithole?

And what in Hell are car loans? The interest is no longer deductable, but people put down far less than 20%. And the same problems apply for the bank.

175 And I am leery of messing with the mortgage deduction-not because it's a bad idea. It may not be.

My fear is that, contrary to doing the reasonable thing and grandfathering those who already have mortgages, these fucks will make it retroactive.

176

#126 Dude, 1) individuals still have freedom of speach, and 2) what I'm thinking would require an Amendment because there is no way that politicians would let their cash cows go.

You make it a freedom of speach issue.  Well, let's say I'm a union member.  I liked Bush, but my union supported Kerry.  For all the talk about how I can opt out of having my union dues go to a political campaign, money is still fungible and my money, used for operating expenses, is now freeing up other money to be used for campaign contributions.  The same situation applies to businesses and trade associations.  I threw in the PACs and bundlers abcause this is where a lot of abuse is found. 

Lastly, our Government is attacking freedom of speak left, right, and center.  For instance, what  you can advertise and when.  I'd just like to see some of that restriction used to increase the impact of my voice - cause, right now, I know that GE speaks much louder than do I. 

And I pay taxes.

177 Yup, no problem there. Except that people who own homes and are barely to mildly making it by now would have a sudden expense added to them for no particularly good reason. Which would make them not get by. Which means foreclosure.

We could always put a cap on the amount you are allowed to deduct for mortgage interest (it happens all the time with other deductions).

A smart government would just let the number creep down to zero over time.

Unfortunately, when you have divided government and one party is steadfastly against being responsible, you can never trust what they will do.

178 Last time we discussed home mortgages I put out a decent plan to get rid of it over time without both shocking and killing the market.

If you are intent on the whole "get rid of it all at once" approach you would have to make serious adjustments to keep the *whole thing* from going down in flames.

Something along the lines of. If you have a single mortgage on a single family home you live in, congratulations whatever you had in principal is cut down to 1/4. Banks write off the loss on principal to government.

BTW the mortgage deduction is now dead, you can't write it off.

That would likely adjust the market enough to keep it from destroying us on the way down.

179 Ace, Epstein is explaining why the mortgage-interest deduction makes sense for rental properties but not for owner-occupied homes.

180 184 Once you eliminate the mortgage interest deduction -- the thought of which gives most lefties a huge boner -- the next one they'll aim for is charitable contributions. Goodbye religions, it was nice knowing you.

Won't happen and that's not a good argument for eliminating the mortgage interest deduction.  That reasoning could apply to any deduction.

They won't eliminate charitable deductions because a ton of lefty activist groups are tax exempt.  One example: Media Matters.

181 So the solution seems to be that every home owner needs to transfer their home into a home ownership corporation. This corporation would then "rent" the home back to the previous homeowner for the actual consumption value. The corporation would then be able to write off everything as a business expense, including the property taxes, maintenance, and mortgage interest. I think the rental value would be double taxed as it would be after tax money paid to the corporation, but would also be taxable income for the corporation. However, I think that recreates what Epstein was driving at.

182 @183 Look, I understand where you are coming from, but have you forgotten McCain-Feingold already?

Better to have no restrictions whatsoever than to let the fucknuts in the damned Senate craft another boneheaded contraption that just makes things worse.

The only thing that should be mandatory is disclosure.

183

Goodbye religions, it was nice knowing you

I'm not too excited about Churches, Mosques, Temples, etc not paying any property tax.

Why shouldn't they have to pay and I do?

184 @191 Because they are on a Mission from God.

185 2012 Federal Budget:
$2.6 trillion revenues
$3.7 trillion spending

2006 Federal Budget
$2.6 trillion spending

Open 2006 Federal Budget
Global replace 2006 with 2012
Close
Print
Go to Lunch

186

I think I get Epstein's point regarding home mortgage interest.

Think of the home as an investment, just like any other.  Any investments generate value for the investor in two different ways.  First, they generate value through capital appreciation (such as when a stock price rises).  Second, they generate value through current yield (such as a dividend).

A home generates value by increasing in value (a rise in the price when you sell it, and the profit is ordinarly taxable as capital gains, subject to various deductions) and by giving the owner a place to live (something that Epstein is saying is difficult to value).  Nevertheless, the home does not generate value on its own, without the incurrence of costs, which include general upkeep, property tax and the payment of mortgage interest.

If the government were omniscient and wished to tax all income, it would tax the annual value derived from home ownership, less the amount the costs the homeowner incurs to own the home (i.e., upkeep, property tax, mortgage interest and the like).  Epstein is saying that since the annual value derived from home ownership is not easily determined and is not part of income, the proper way to deal with it is to take the current yield (value net of expenses) of home ownership out of the system entirely and knock out the mortgage interest expense from the "cost" side of the ledger.

That makes some sense, but it is a very crude tool, and I am convinced that it is too crude a tool to not have a distortive effect, because the relationship between mortgage interest expense and the value derived from a home is tenuous at best (since it is more dependent on the size of the loan, rather than the value the loan generates).

187 O/T:  wonder what Zero hedge posted that the plug was pulled?

188
2. Enact a 15% flat tax on all income from all sources with no exceptions or deductions.

Meant 'Flat Tax, No deductions'

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 04, 2011 02:00 PM (0q2P7)

Nope, that was Vic not me...

189 Ace, Epstein is explaining why the mortgage-interest deduction makes sense for rental properties but not for owner-occupied homes. hence everyone would game the system unless you eliminated it for business too. and taxing income without allowing expense deductions is just taxing revenue, which is idiotic.

190 Once you eliminate the mortgage interest deduction -- the thought of which gives most lefties a huge boner -- the next one they'll aim for is charitable contributions. Goodbye religions, it was nice knowing you.

So people wouldn't donate to the local church if they couldn't write that off?  That's very hard for me to believe, and in any event if that's the case then "religions" don't deserve to survive.

And as Amish Dude pointed out, a lot of that money goes to organizations I sure as hell wouldn't support if given the option.  And a tax break means I'm supporting it.

191 They won't eliminate charitable deductions because a ton of lefty activist groups are tax exempt.  One example: Media Matters.

Posted by: AmishDude

 

How naive. How trusting.

192 O/T:  According to their twitter feed Zero hedge is back up but limping.

193 Ace, One thing on cutting Social Security. I think we could get virtually all seniors to accept a 1% reduction by packaging it like they did with War bonds and economizing back during WWII. Do it for the country. It could instill a sense of joint participation as a society in dealing with tough problems. It includes a moral component as well. That way, if Dems did the granny over the cliff bit, we could rejoin with, "Nah, it's Granny to the rescue."

194 O/T:  "We apologize for the downtime which was due to a surge in traffic unseen since the May 6 flash crash, resulting in one of our servers (located naturally offshore) to literally explode."

195

During the last campaign season, Bambi said that he didn't think that home ownership should be part of the American dream.  By taking away the interest deduction on private homes but subsidizing rentals, through interest deductions, the Government is taking a step toward Bambi's dream.  I don't know about most of you on this thread, but I do need that deduction to pay for my property taxes. 

Let's take this a step further; how much of Lowe's or Home Depot is supported by private home owners vs renters? 

196 Ha that would be hilarious. Earning 5% on your money for a 30 year period.

Kinda like now, huh. Only, I'm not laughing... OK, it's actually about 5% in only a 10 year period. But you catch my drift...

197

If you eliminated all spending not mandated by the Constitution you'd save trillions.  Why do we have Energy, Education, Housing, Agriculture, etc.

 

You want to tax something, tax foundations.  All those hidden sources of income for radicals.  Tax Havard, the Ford Foundation, the Peabody Foundation, tax ACORN and the unions.

198

"Ending all welfare spending is almost impossible to contemplate."  Spoken like a true RINO/Progressive.

 

Will someone show me where the welfare office was at Valley Forge?

199 Well, just wait until Sharia law gets implemented.  Interest is illegal under Sharia.  So-called Sharia-friendly mortgages charge "loan fees" every month that are coincidentally the same amount that would be paid in interest.  However, the IRS doesn't have a home mortgage loan fee tax deduction.

200

As a homeowner, if we were really serious about cutting spending and paying down debt, I would have no problem getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction, but would want to see it phased in over 3 - 5 years to ease the pain.

We typically set up our deductions etc. so that we break even on taxes every year.  We do this assuming taxes as they currently are.  If we that deduction was suddenly gone, we would likely end up owing a couple of thousand or so in taxes that we were not expecting.

So, I would have 1st year 2/3 of the interest is deductable.  the next year 1/3, and then 0.  Or soemthing like that.

Of course, life would be simpler if we just lowered the rates and got rid of all deductions/credits.  Stop trying to engineer human nature through the tax code.

201 Got called away for a while so am late getting back.

How can you call that insignificant? Especially since those are the costliest years as regards health care?

The table I have show the increase in life expectancy from 1930 to 2000 at age 65 to be about 5 years. That is some increase but it is not that significant for SS.

Some of you guys also are misunderstanding what I am saying on means testing and the welfare program aspects. When SS was first enacted if you did not contribute you did not collect. During the LBJ years it was decided they would open that up and no longer require you to contribute. That made it a partial welfare program. If you start means testing so that the people who do contribute don't get anything and the society leaches like Peggy Joseph does get it then that is pure welfare an I am against anymore of those.

On my two stage phase out with the people under 40 no longer contributing the money would come out of the same place it is coming now, the general fund.

After all, don't all of you younger people keep saying there is no SS fund, its just another tax?

202 if you combine the liberal wet dreams of getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction for everyone with rent control, you'll probably have landlords burning down their buildings.

203

Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? Hello, massive middle class tax hike. As if real estate isn't pummelled enough, and as if people who own their properties aren't much more likely to care for them and the neighborhood than people who rent.

Is the tax code used for social engineering by the Left? Oh my yes. But to pretend you can do away with that fact on the Right is not realistic. Fight fire with fire....

204

@89 Same idea, more words at my blog under an entry from early this morning.

@98 Vic, you're missing the point.  Life expectancy from age 65 might not have changed much, but lots more people died before reaching 65, so they paid in but never took anything back out.  That's why the pay in/pay out ratio in the 40s and 50s was more like 7:1 and today is more like 3:1 (and dropping fast).

205 Well, these numbers are suspect since there's no budget but discretionary spending is $1.24 trillion this year with $2.44T in mandatory. we can definitely cut discr by $404 billion. But I guess the mandatory side will need to eliminate waste and fraud, eh? If we can't get deficit spending to less than 3% of GDP then we're doing too much.

206

Ok, Ace, a few things to note about the proposed elimination of the Mortgage Interest tax deduction. 

This may have been covered by others, but hang in there for me.

First, The price of housing currently includes the calculation for the savings you get with the deduction.  Remove the deduction and the price of housing goes down because less people can now afford to carry a mortgage in the first place.  Now more homeowners end up upside down loan-wise in their home.   Economic Bad. 

Second, If you remove the deduction for all mortgage interest, it forces tens of thousands of morgage holders who are currently just squeaking by into bankruptcy.  Economic Bad.

Third, Renters who have landlords with mortgages will have their rent increased or will be evicted when the landlord goes bankrupt and the bank repossesses the rental property because the landlord now cannot cover his costs and make a profit.  Economic Bad.

Fourth: Investor groups who currently buy up delapidated multi-unit rental properties on credit with the goal of fixing them up and reselling them for profit will not do that so much as the profit you would otherwise get from the interest deduction is now gone.  Economic Bad.

Fifth, The Federal Government gets to have an additional umpteen billion $$ to piss down a rat hole.  Economic Bad.

I could go on and on.  You get the drift here.

By the way, yes I am an economist and while I did not graduate with honors, I know what I am talking about.

207 So if the government is subsidizing rental property owners then all the folks with cash who are buying distressed properties will be the new millionaires.

208 Okay, I'm math impaired, but if life expectancy has only increased due to younger people making it through, er, youth alive, that means we end up with a bigger percentage of people on SS than in the '30s, right?

All of these schemes are great, but anything other than an across the board cut will result in frightened congress critters arguing until their last breath, while the nation burns.

209 @98 Vic, you're missing the point.  Life expectancy from age 65 might not have changed much, but lots more people died before reaching 65, so they paid in but never took anything back out.

Not true, most of those deaths that really effected the averages took place among children.

210
  Having a mortgage deduction when we purchased our first home helped immensely--it literally made the difference. Since the sale of that house financed our second home( we are free and clear with this home) it no longer affects us. Just for that reason I'd wouldn't mind seeing it continue.

 Are we alone in considering a home to be for keeps, with no intention to sell in the future? I think people like us are a vanishing breed, really.

211

I have wondered why the lefties haven't described the mortgage interest deduction as an unfair benefit to lenders. Can a good argument be made that the mortgage deduction allows lenders to lend at higher interest rates than if there was no deduction for interest? Would home buyers even notice?

 

212 What people often overlook in the mortgage interest issue is that the interest one pays is income to the bank, so it is taxed there.  the same could be said for auto loans and credit cards, but we burned that bridge already.

213 #108

Utter and complete bullshit. I was there. I saw what was happening.

In 1974 my parents bought a house that was a big step up for us. Each kid had their own room at last. This was just a regular place in the suburbs but it was reasonably priced in relation to the family's income.

Over the following years the real estate prices went insane. Consequently, property taxes based on the latest assessment also went insane. Families who acted responsibly and done nothing wrong were being priced out of their own homes solely due to the increase in property taxes. It was nothing like the current situation where you had masses of loans given to woefully unqualified borrowers.

"But hey, your house was worth so much more now! You could sell for a big profit!" And live where? All of the other houses had shot up in value, too. And you'd still have a tax bill that had risen at a ferocious pace.

The state could have simply defused this by saying, "OK, we can reduce property taxes and still have better revenue than a few years ago." But that idea never seemed to cross their minds. Instead they came up with schemes to spend all of new revenue. (It astonishes me that Jerry Brown, the governor then is now governor again. CA truly deserves anything bad that happens to it.) So the citizens had to take matters into their own hands, which the state constitution provides for.

Nobody stopped paying property tax. They just kept it down to what it had been when the house was purchased. And it was a one time deal. If my parents sold the house at five time what they'd paid, the new owners would not get any Prop. 13 break on the taxes. Yes, there are inheritance provisions but really, how many people do you know who live in or rent out the house they inherited from their parents? The number is so small as to be laughable as a scapegoat for CA's problems.

Keep in mind, despite Prop. 13, this state was booming during much of the 90s. The bulk of the dot.bomb era's benefits were right here. And just like the late 70s the state government, headed by Brown protege Gray Davis, started spending like the boom was a normal condition that would never end. Even after the post-boom collapse was plainly in site, CA set about hiring 40,000 new employees. Nobody seems to be able to say what vital role is being fulfilled by those employees that went undone during the 90s.

214

Vic, I'll grant you many deaths, but if you want to claim most you're going to need statistics to show how those affected the averages.  But, even discounting that, the fact is a larger number of people (and proportion of the population) are living to collect for a longer amount of time.

This is what I was talking about earlier in my own blog.  Assuming you can't just kill off SS (which is a pretty reasonable assumption--though it would fix a great deal of problems), there are only 4 possible courses of action to fix it: 1) Raise taxes; 2) Decrease benefits; 3) Decrease the eligible pool (i.e. raise the retirement age); 4) Means-testing.  Item 1 alone is economic suicide, item 4 alone isn't sufficient unless means testing denies benefits to a majority of people (which might be financially feasible for seniors, but see next item), and items 2 or 3 alone probably can't bend the curve enough without being political suicide for whoever enacts them.

215

To solve all the problems:

 

1.        Enact the Fair Tax Plan.  ItÂ’s the only plan that has been thought through and studied for years.

2.       Campaign Finance Reform:  Any challenger can raise any amount of money from any U.S. source and the federal government will match the highest amount for the incumbent.  While in office, it would be illegal for any elected federal official to solicit or accept any money from anyone.

3.       Raise the salaries of federal elected officials:  Congressmen should base at $500K/yr plus have an equal amount in bonus if the budget is balanced.  Senators at $750K base plus equal bonus, president at $2 million, plus equal bonus.  Congressmen get $72K/yr housing and NetJet cards based on distance from Washington.

These three changes would solve 98% of all problems in government.

216 #222 THANK YOU. Someone else understands Cali. Of course, a large part of the skyrocketing housing costs were due to the eco-fiends, who decided every Bay Swamp was sacred (cue Monty Python And The Meaning Of Life music here) followed by "Every hill is sacred) two decades later. But somehow, sending your workforce into 50 mile or more commutes from the San Joaquin Valley was just swell.

217 Eliminate the Home interest deduction AND the interest. Why the hell are we lending money from the government to the banks to lend back to us?!?!? Just make it 0% interest with a small processing fee meeting standard qualification criteria. One loan per person and yes that means married people get two why should they be penalized for being married. If you default you lose your privilege and have to seek 'private' mortgages like people wanting vacation homes.

218 Great idea except we need to come up with the billions in interest we're paying on additional dept. 193 2012 Federal Budget: $2.6 trillion revenues $3.7 trillion spending 2006 Federal Budget $2.6 trillion spending Open 2006 Federal Budget Global replace 2006 with 2012 Close Print Go to Lunch

219

Just make it 0% interest

And how on earth will a Bank do this?

220 Chris Matthews once stated that he was opposed to means testing Social Security because it would then become a welfare program. Once it became a welfare program it would lose its popular support.

221

Again, the Undisputed Hide&Seek Champion escaped detection from cutting

1 Trillion Dollars/Year from the budget.

222 Vic, I'll grant you many deaths, but if you want to claim most you're going to need statistics to show how those affected the averages.  But, even discounting that, the fact is a larger number of people (and proportion of the population) are living to collect for a longer amount of time.

I posted links on all of that way back in the Monty Doom threads long ago when we were arguing this shit. It is out there and easily researched. I'm sure the other Morons remember it. I'm not going to go back and digit all up. The facts are the age you live to after reaching 65 has increased some, but it is not enough to cause all the problems we are having in SS.

223

The facts are the age you live to after reaching 65 has increased some, but it is not enough to cause all the problems we are having in SS.

And the other problems are what? Declining birthrates? Less productive workforces?

You can't tell me life spans aren't increasing when I see it every day in health car (albeit from the bean counting side).

224 I'm so sick of all this.  You want to take away the mortgage deduction, then you know what you are doing, you are destroying the middle class.

It sure looks like the dems enjoy getting all the wealth for themselves and then taking away any deduction that would help the middle class.  So, the conservative blog advocates this now to what, make everyone go along to get along?

225 And the other problems are what? Declining birthrates? Less productive workforces?

The problem should be obvious to ALL. SS/MC were both "fixed" twice with more than enough money socked into the system by increasing payments and raising eligibility +taxing those who have other income (twice).  enough money that all agreed it was enough to get past the baby boomer hump and financed by the baby boomers who were paying into it.

They spent every nickle of it + 50% more. So now we have the "hump" and no money. Fixing it a third time will not change any of that.

Until we get rid of the underlying problem in Washington it will NEVER be fixed.

226

I'm not sure I understand that. Or rather, I understand that, but what I'm missing is why he says this should be treated like a business expense. It's not a business expense, deducted from net income, to find actual profit.It's a living expense.

Except, a house is an investment. And, when you sell the house for a capital gain (sweet dreams of the past), you get taxed on that (unless, I think, you reinvest the money within a certain time frame).

Not only that, but if you have investment income: if you are receiving interest payments on your CDs, for example, that interest is a profit and is taxed. Why would you not be allowed to deduct interest that you have to pay out?

227

The problem should be obvious to ALL. SS/MC were both "fixed" twice with more than enough money socked into the system by increasing payments and raising eligibility +taxing those who have other income (twice).  enough money that all agreed it was enough to get past the baby boomer hump and financed by the baby boomers who were paying into it.

They spent every nickle of it + 50% more.

Of course they did. You really didn't buy into the "lockbox" did you?

And the intergenerational "chain letter" nature of Social Security and other retirement plans of that nature does not change.

228 Of course they did. You really didn't buy into the "lockbox" did you?

And that is why there will be no "fix" for this ever. We have to either change Washington or eliminate the program.

229 The big problem with removing the mortgage deduction is the vast numbers of people who so far have weathered the economic storm that would be pushed over the cliff w/o that reduction in taxable income. Any attempt to remove it would need to either a: phase it out, or b: grandfather everyone of a certain means to maintain it for the life of their *current* mortgage.

But, this will also further decimate home values. The damn thing seems here to stay unless the entire income tax system gets demolished.

230

Considering that it was candidate Al Gore (D) who promised the 'lockbox' and he lost to George W Bush (R) -- who then gets the blame for absconding with the trust fund money?

No disagreement there. But the fact remains that retirement ages have to be raised and/or benefits cut (the former is a way to do the latter without hitting current pensioners). The SS system is a transgenerational "chain letter" otherwise.

By the way, I'm with you on home mortgage interest. How my fellow morons can want to basically destroy what is left of the housing market and sign onto a massive tax hike astounds me.

231 But the fact remains that retirement ages have to be raised and/or benefits cut (the former is a way to do the latter without hitting current pensioners). The SS system is a transgenerational "chain letter" otherwise.

That will work just about as good as it did the lst two times. IOW, not at all.

232 I could go with once you sell your home, that $200,000 home that you paid $450,000 for over 30 years, that you have now sold for $500,000, you should be able to deduct the interest.

Sold the home for $500,000, remove the $250,000 in interest payments, that leaves $250,000, you paid $200,000 for the home, that is $50,000 profit.

Pay taxes on the $50,000

233 Ace, I think the point he's making is that a house, unlike food, is subject to depreciation. Why shouldn't I be able to depreciate the reduction in value of my capital asset?

234

By the way, I'm with you on home mortgage interest. How my fellow morons can want to basically destroy what is left of the housing market and sign onto a massive tax hike astounds me.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 04, 2011 04:42 PM (ujg0T)

I would give up the prospect of a home mortgage interest deduction in exchange for a complete revamp of the tax system or whatever it took to get the country solvent again and stop the drunken-sailor spending.  I wouldn't do it for nothing.  Hope that makes my POV clearer.

235 Mortgage interest is a deduction because it is taxable income to the bank... 

All corporations get interest deductions... 

Think about it, the bank pays 34% on its interest profits, while the typical homeowner would only pay 15-28%

before the Reagan tax rate cuts, all interest was deductable...

236 Let me take this moment at the end of a nearly dead thread to briefly explain why trade tariffs on manufactured goods from third-world countries other than military/strategic allies is the ONLY solution to our "revenue" and debt problems.

Let me further explain why a strategic default on out country's debts is a reasonable threat should those nations being tariff-ed choose to engage in a trade war.

And let me further explain that such tariffs would not be placed on food, commodities, energy (commodities) or first-world countries.

Finally, let me explain why now is the time to implement such tariffs while our nation still has the premier military in the world.

The inflation that will be caused by tariffs is no more than that which would be caused by a VAT or the natural inflation caused by QE-X.  In fact, the inflation would be counter-balanced by tens of millions of Americans finding jobs in the newly rejuvenated manufacturing sector.

Our elites have sold us out to the Chinese.  Bill Clinton traded America's future for a pittance in campaign contributions much like the Indians sold Manhattan for a handful of beads.

237 The one, unusually tightfisted person have a propensity to compare themselves to other person.