Don't forget the Osprey.

More name calling and ridicule. Again, everybody: this is why the politics forum gets ugly. Want it to stop? Tell LO to stop. Nip it in the bud.

Didn't you call him a hammer in the post just before that?:rolleyes:

.

Not from what I've seen in this thread. Lookout seems pretty reasonable to me. You seem to be the one on the attack.

So you're ok with his demeaning, snide, provocative comments?

This got skipped over, but I think this is a great idea. All the BS deductions they miss… right into the coffers of the Gov’t.

Change the payroll tax - in essence that’s has the same effect as a deduction, of sorts. And interest income… tax it the same as regular wages. IIRC that would have one of the largest effects on increasing revenue.

OH, and thanks Pete. Bout time someone pointed the finger in the right direction.

A lot of people get snide and provocative, not just LO. It is sort of the nature of these kinds of discussions. And he has not gone overboard with it, either. I think he maybe made one comment that was somewhat that way. I don't really see demeaning. If anything, it has been refreshing to see the issues actually discussed in here, rather than a lot of childish name-calling. I am just not seeing that with this discussion.

FTFY

Really, Classic?

Lookout may have been a bastard in some other thread. I dunno. I don't read all of the Cellar. But I've re-read each Lookout post since #183 (where he first chimes in this thread). And I see no evidence of bad behavior on Lookout's part. Rather it looks to me like you are trying to start a vendetta against Lookout.

I'll give you an example. In post #183 Lookout includes defense as one of the departments that needs to be cut. In post #185 he specifically says that military R&D should be cut.

Then in #189 you say "There's a whole lot of waste in the military, but, because of your ideology, you don't want to cut there." Clearly you did not read or did not understand his posts.

Lookout calls you on it in post #191. Which you complain about in post #192.

Really? Seriously? All the UG, tw, and Merc posts on this board you've got to work with and this is what you want to complain about for meanness?

Another finger-pointing thread for the peanut gallery to pop up in, saying "SEEEE? SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?"

ffs

Only by Spexx. I've actually been enjoying this thread. Some conservative ideas espoused without the usual conservative vitriol.

Really. Absolutely. You've been stalking him for months, if not longer... Let it go.

Pete, back in the day Lookout use to tag team with Merc in the nastiness department of the politics threads. This is probably what is fueling Spex's 'vendetta'.

I have to say, though, he has seriously cleaned up his act this go 'round.

Thanks for the background, P&M. I thought it might be something along that lines.

And if this is the new Lookout, I think UG and Merc could take a lesson. You catch more flies with honey etc. Scary Right is getting old.

I think the uncomfortable feeling associated with the flat tax has something to do with the "marginal utility of the dollar" or the fact that a dollar for the worker living on a minum age has more value to him in terms of purchasing power than a dollar to the millionaire.

There is also a psychological barrier assoicated with the flat tax. One might tend to have second thoughts when faced with paying $1.40 (30 cent VAT and 10 cent state sales tax) for a product worth $1.00 that you dont experience when you are only paying $1.10 (along with the current income tax that you dont see on each purchase).

Bullshit. Tag teaming has never been my style and certainly not with Merc.

I have not seriously engaged in political threads in a long time. After the latest round of "why is the cellar so different now..." crap in the other thread I chose to reengage here. On topic. My early posts were on topic and while you may disagree with my replies to TW even those you should be able to see were an attempt to get him to read my posts rather than his usual copy and paste. He has done so and I thought we had a decent discussion. Spexx is Spexx. This is what he does, he throws grenades and then says "look look, that nasty conservative guy was nasty" before dredging up a years old post as if that settled the issue.

I haven't changed my style of posting from anywhere in the cellar. Over the past 7 years I've been in and out of most of the forums depending on what grabbed me. In my 10,--- posts I'm pretty consistant. You may think I'm a vindictive asshole or a reasonable poster (I'm probably both) but you get what you see.

If spexx wants to play his games that's cool with me. My only involvement in this thread will be on topic.

I don't support a VAT because lower income households really do spend every dollar they earn and will be taxed on every dollar UNLESS we create more deductions, credits, and loopholes to help them out. More deductions, credits, and loopholes will be written by politicians and paid for by lobbiests. Who do you think they will really benefit.

I firmly support gutting the tax code. TW has the right idea when he says every politician should be able to complete their own tax forms. Interest on a owner occupied home should be deducted from gross income. After that a simple 1% up to $XX,000 and 20/25/30% across the board on every dollar beyond that. 1 form, done and dusted.

Well sorry, Lookout...you didn't post as sophomoric as Merc sometimes does, but I have a lingering memory of you being pretty shitty at times...usually just directed at 'silly libs'. This goes pretty far back though. It was the way everyone was posting though, due to the election.

I missed the reference is 183. I interpret his statement in 185 to separate military and R&D, it was a response to F&B's comment, which absolutely separated military and R&D. LO responded (you say calls me on it) with
Instead of saying
he made a nasty, demening, dismissive, off-topic comment.

In light of the recent Kim fiasco, I let him know, without insult,
I promise that I will not police the politics forum again. I'll see yout in the next "the politics forum is full of nast, mean people, who shouldn't say those things" thread.

I've had ug and merc on ignore for ages, and try as I might, I can't get past the second sentence of a tw post. Disjointed sentence fragments are unreadable to me.

Just curious, why do you feel that mortgage interest should be treated differently from other expenses?

I believe home ownership is a positive in that it encourages people to have roots. I believe people take pride in what they own vs what is just a temporary place to sleep. Areas with higher home ownership vs renters tend to benefit from better maintenance and lower crime. That results (over the long term) in higher property values. Desireable businesses tend to move into areas with well kept homes and low crime (which also tend to have higher levels of income) bringing jobs. Beyond that, home owners spend money on their houses and property. That is more money that flows into local businesses.

While an elimination of the deduction wouldn't result in every single family choosing to rent it would result in a larger number of renters. Some would look at the simple math and realize a home is no longer a strong asset in which to leave their money. Some would simply be unable to afford a home if they couldn't deduct it from their taxes. People choosing to rent over own would reduce the value of homes which would make them even less desireable to own. At some point only those who are absolutely hooked on the idea of ownership would continue to hold their properties.

Spexx, this is coming from a centrist who really likes to hear what you have to say, please try to stick with the meat of the posts. Lookout's style is meant to be amusing and if you read it without the hate of UG/Merc it really can be. He posts a lot like we used to when the Cellar had a strong political forum smart, edgy, and funny, nobody soft-selling their beliefs but not hating on each other. We have sucked ass here for quite a while and we all need to be on board if we're going to get real again.

I'd like to end the home deduction because it creates an unnatural pressure to buy that played into the bubble a bit.

Do people really do that, though? Buy a house thinking, "Ooh, and this'll be a big tax deduction?" We certainly didn't. Didn't even occur to us until the first tax year after we bought it. But maybe we're weird.

Good question. It would seem to raise the value of a house... I'm an owner-builder though so it is just theory for me.

A family who pays $12,000 in mortgage interest each year on a $80,000 family income would probably say that$2-2,500 really makes a big difference to their bottom line. Couldn't they survive without it? Probably but we've got a lot of empty houses and homes underwater right now. I think keeping an incentive on homeownership in place would be a positive. Over the long term I could see phasing it out to encourage more home owners vs those who carry mortgages for life, but the country just isn't there right now.

Griff, I believe the unnatural pressure to buy came from our government telling us everyone should be a homeowner and then dropping and keeping interest rates far too low for far too long. That created a mindset that houses were not homes but merely short term investments with 70-80% profits every two years. Not good.

Rather like health insurance pushes up the cost of health care, perhaps the mortgage interest deduction artificially inflates housing prices. (This might be the same same thing Griff was saying in post #264.)

I personally find value in the homeownership/roots/community side of things but you aren't going to break my heart if you say ZERO deductions.

It wouldn't hurt us any if that deduction was taken away as long as the standard deduction stayed the same. We didn't go for a mortgage that was out of our reach...and thank god for that. Our house isn't much, but it sure is within our means.

In my view of things without the interest deduction there are ZERO deductions.

I'm all for eliminating the deductions, but have to admit that they were helpful in my paying off my mortgage early. If they hadn't been in effect, I may not have been able to keep my home given the $2 million+ in medical expenses I've incurred over the last 2 years. No, I didn't have to pay it all, but even 90% of 2 mil is a HUGE number for me personally.

As far as taxing income from different sources differently ... I think that needs to go as well. That will hit the wealthy much more than the rest of us.

I have to say, I'm conflicted. Ideologically, I support lookout's plan. But in reality, we currently benefit from medical deductions to the point that this past year we paid no taxes at all. And that refund really, really helped us. We would have been pretty fucked without it, truth be told. So I'm a hypocrite.

I'm right there with you Clodfobble. I have not had less than $10K out of pocket for the last three years and have absolutely needed the refunds that resulted in that time.

If we fix the healthcare system, the deduction becomes unecessary.

I get that kids cost money. I'm not going to be even slightly popular when I say it wasn't my choice that others have those kids, so I don't know why the refunds increase with every decision someone makes to have kids.

It takes a village? Sure. I'll support schools and libraries, I'll support a community in which those kids can be brought up.

I won't even get into the whole overpopulation thing.

But seeing 4, 5 thousand dollar tax refunds...it's ridiculous. I think it puts into perspective the argument that the richies don't pay enough taxes. Maybe they don't, but someone is backing all those negative thousands tax liabilities. It might be me.

I have, as is part of my profession, seen thousands of tax returns. It boggles the mind. I want to jump and shout for my little "making work pay" credit.

I chose to have a cat. I don't expect anyone to subsidize that choice.

(oh crap, I'm in trouble)

This is where I take umbrage. You smoke right? Well, when you are sixty and using Medicare to subsidize your emphysema/cancer treatments, will you care if non-smokers taxes are subsidizing it?

I agree with the benefits of homeownership that have been listed, and add that when we're invaded, people will more strongly defend a home they own than one that they rent. On the other hand, there is data out there now that says our economy is suffering because workers are unable to relocate to where the jobs are. I don't think everyone needs to own their home. Some people have ruined their financial lives trying to acheive that particular "American Dream".

I expected umbrage.

I expect I need an umbrella, such stong words.

I don't know. I have insurance. I work for that.

You drive right?

Owning a home is not the only way to establish roots.

I have never owned a property. I doubt I ever will. But I have been living in the same village for about 15 years, 7 of them in my current house. I am as much a part of this community as my neighbour.

In some parts of Europe, renting and leasing are the norm. very few people are able to own a home outright, and mortgages are seen in many parts as a debt too far. That used to be the case here too. It was only really after the 80s that home ownership began to be seen as the norm. Now, in the wake of the property bubble bursting it is becoming more common again to rent, and the stigma which had grown up over the past few decades is starting to die off. The average age of a first time buyer now is mid 30s.

Do you drink? How's the liver?

I spoke in general terms about how taxes work (with what little I really know, but how much I see) and you ding me for smoking? A bit personal. I never said people suck for having kids, I just don't get the 5000 dollar 'refunds.'

Besides, George Burns did just fine as a health heathen. ;)

That's my point IM. Isn't there somewhere, somehow, something that you do or will benefit that others don't, but still are paying in? Simplistic, I know. And I probably shouldn't step all over your complaint, since I have similar ones too.

I didn't mean umbrage to be taken so strongly IM. I thought it was kinda mild myself. Sorry about that. I didn't really take offense...:blush: Smoking was just the quickest, best example I could come up with, I didn't mean it as a 'ding'.

As I said, I'm willing to support the community. The schools. The hospitals. The things that happen, could happen, to any of us that might take extra care...I get that.

I am speaking specifically about the hugely skewed tax system. Buys a lot of big screens, and I'm only speaking from my experience from friends who brag about those very things.

It makes sense to subsidize increased population because:

- The government has to populate the next generation of Iraq and Afghanistan babysitters.

- Corporations need cheap labor. A higher population will increase competition for jobs, pressuring salaries down.

- When regulation is reduced, more workers will be killed/injured on the job, and replacement units workers will be required.

:rolleyes:

And don't forget that Tuesdays we get Soylent Green.

Here's the problem as I see it. The ideology bumps up against reality.

Federal income taxes currently generate about $1.2 trillion in revenue (the rest comes from corporate taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, etc) for a $3 trillion budget and your proposal would reduce that revenue significantly and spending cuts would need to be much deeper (not just waste, fraud, redundancies, etc.) than the economy could bear or that the people would likely accept OR the rates would need to be higher than you suggest and middle class taxpayers would be adversely impacted much more than the wealthy.

It will have several other impacts as well.

State income taxes would likely increase to fund essential or beneficial programs that came under the federal knife.

And, by ending the deductions for charitable donations, there would be less incentive to make those donations, particularly among the wealthy, meaning that the charitable sector will also see less revenue and be unable to make up the difference resulting from those deep federal cuts.

Finally, the reason why every industrial economy in the world has a system of progressive taxation is simple and its not as a result of the influence of lobbyists or the taxing authority, but because it is the best system to fund government services and spread the cost so that no one is burdened with taxes beyond their means.

How exactly would the revenue be cut? I've repeatedly stated I'm not looking for tax cuts. While the marginal rates would likely be cut for some I think we've already established that those very same people are already paying significantly less than those marginal rates currently.

Its either/or

Either revenue would be significantly reduced or the middle class taxpayers would have to pay significantly more than they presently pay.

The current "effective" federal income tax rate for the middle two brackets, i.e. the middle class, is in the 5-10% range and you want to raise that to 20% or more?

I would support this.

Define middle class. I haven't put a fixed number on it because I don't know what it will actually have to be. I believe it will be lower than you actually do if everyone is actually paying on it.

You want to extend the 1% rate out to $65, 70, 80? I don't really care. I care that everyone pays something and that the new system is simple, easy to understand, and impossible to manipulate.

So if a family earning $75K now pays out an average of 10% that is $7,500. That same family if the cutoff is at $60K would pay $3,600 at the 20% rate or $5,100 at the 30% rate. Either way, I don't really care because they'll be using the same scale as their neighbor regardless of kids, retirement plans, or any other tax deductions.

By middle class, I am referring to the middle brackets, with a marginal rate of 25-30% but an effective rate of 3-6%.

Depending your cut-off, they would pay significantly more as would everyone but the top 1% whose current effective rate is about 20%.

By bumping into reality, consider your situation and Clodfobble's described above, where you have an effective federal income tax rate of 0% or the millions of middle class families with combined income in the range of $100K - $200K, with circumstances resulting in fewer (but still significant) deductions and with an effective rate of around 5%.

Putting aside the issue of "fairness" on which we disagree. Do you really think you can sell to the American people the fact that their taxes will probably increase while acknowledging that taxes for the top 1% of taxpayers wont?

The Mercenary may buy it, but I dont think you will find a groundswell of support among most working families.

Then I will. ;) All the deductions should go out the window if we're serious about this.

I think there should be a child tax - with an adder for an extra head.

Drop the rates and I would completely support this. No deductions for anyone, regardless of income.

Not important. Raise it and eliminate the deductions. Everyone pays an equal amount of tax.

Well this settles it. Obamy is Irish....

http://www.vevo.com/watch/corrigan-b...a/IEUV70800012

Ouch. The tail wagging the dog for sure....

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...medium=twitter