Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Your wife ran a 4:30 800? were you married to Fringey?

Oprah.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
Actually, equally to the mortgage industry. What public policy argument justifies my newly increased mortgage deduction as a result of my new car purchase?

2. And why favour home ownership over rental? Without the deduction people may choose to rent and put the down payment et al into investment into productive enterprises.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Actually, equally to the mortgage industry. What public policy argument justifies my newly increased mortgage deduction as a result of my new car purchase?

Technically, are you allowed to deduct home equity interest used for something other than home improvements? Isn't there a significant limit at least on how much of that you do?

But, yeah, it shouldn't be deductible.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
I don't read the NYT and you shouldn't either.

Penske tells me that Friedman is #4. I would have to guess that Krugman, Dowd and Rich are a 3 way tie.

Personally, I read the WSJ, the Economist and Stuff

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Penske tells me that Friedman is #4. I would have to guess that Krugman, Dowd and Rich are a 3 way tie.

Personally, I read the WSJ, the Economist and Stuff

Far distant 4th. Comparing Friedman to Dowd, Krugman and Rich is like comparing Dickens to the collective used toilet paper from a multiple asswiping chunky-shitter.

I read the Sunday NYT to stay current on faux intellectual cultural elitism. What would you expect from a Syrah-swilling faux-kilt wearing metrosexxxual?

[blueballs]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the collective used toilet paper from a multiple asswiping chunky-shitter.

Sounds similar to the postings of most of the emptyheaded LeftWing contingent here, except that this board is not in smellvision. Thank G-d.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Are you nuts? Unless you live in NY or CA, or some such place with higher wages, big state income tax rate tables, and huge mortgages, this is a dead-bang winner. Note how he waited until the AMT started to impinge on red-state wage levels? Shrewd . . .

Okay. Bilmore's for the tax increase, since they only screw Democrats. Check. Nice to know you and the Republican party are getting the back of all Americans.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Okay. Bilmore's for the tax increase, since they only screw Democrats. Check. Nice to know you and the Republican party are getting the back of all Americans.

No, you've left an internal contradiction in your statement.

(Sorry, I just couldn't pass that one by.)

(ETA) - and, no increase. Should be revenue neutral. Just, more taxes on the backs of them what tend to vote for more taxes, and less on those of us what don't. It's like a dream outcome.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Technically, are you allowed to deduct home equity interest used for something other than home improvements? Isn't there a significant limit at least on how much of that you do?

No limit at all, as long as you put debt against a primary house. If you can get your banker to loan you ten mil against your one mil house, you can use ten mil for . . whatever. Cars, boats, second homes, vacations, blow, huge under-the-table contributions to local politi . . . . er . . . I mean, birthday presents, airplanes, . . .

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
No limit at all, as long as you put debt against a primary house. If you can get your banker to loan you ten mil against your one mil house, you can use ten mil for . . whatever. Cars, boats, second homes, vacations, blow, huge under-the-table contributions to local politi . . . . er . . . I mean, birthday presents, airplanes, . . .

Dude, Consult your tax advisor.

Putting aside the $1m limit on mortgage interest deductibility, I'm pretty sure there's a second cap on home equity. But, hey, if you can stick it to the Man, mor epower to you.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, you've left an internal contradiction in your statement.

(Sorry, I just couldn't pass that one by.)

(ETA) - and, no increase. Should be revenue neutral. Just, more taxes on the backs of them what tend to vote for more taxes, and less on those of us what don't. It's like a dream outcome.

I can't express how pissed off this makes me. It just makes me shake with rage.

So we're going with it's not a tax increase because it's revenue neutral?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I can't express how pissed off this makes me.

But, you're going to try anyway, aren't you? I can sense this.

It just makes me shake with rage.

What'd I tell you? You tried.

All I can say is, You have a low threshhold for rage. Or shaking. Can't tell which from just one variable.

So we're going with it's not a tax increase because it's revenue neutral?

Uh, yeah. That's sort of the definition. Every year, even if not one single tax law, reg, or rate is changed, people make more or less money than the year before, and their taxes change. If, magically, that overall shifting resulted in exactly the same number of tax dollars collected from one year to next, I think we'd not be counting it as a tax increase, even though some individuals saw their taxes increase. Guv'mint won't have any more money to play with, people who like to raise taxes will pay more, people who think taxes are too high will pay less - damn, it's a win/win!

But, fear not. Soon, the Democrats will take over again, and then our taxes will go sky-high, but they'll be "revenue enhancements", or "fair-share adjustments", but certainly not "tax increases."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Dude, Consult your tax advisor.

Putting aside the $1m limit on mortgage interest deductibility, I'm pretty sure there's a second cap on home equity. But, hey, if you can stick it to the Man, mor epower to you.

Yeah, in my enthusiasm, I blew right through the mil. But, AFAIK, the home equity cap isn't an issue. Unless I'm missing what you mean, you just refinance a first.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore


Uh, yeah. That's sort of the definition. Every year, even if not one single tax law, reg, or rate is changed, people make more or less money than the year before, and their taxes change. If, magically, that overall shifting resulted in exactly the same number of tax dollars collected from one year to next, I think we'd not be counting it as a tax increase, even though some individuals saw their taxes increase. Guv'mint won't have any more money to play with, people who like to raise taxes will pay more, people who think taxes are too high will pay less - damn, it's a win/win!

But, fear not. Soon, the Democrats will take over again, and then our taxes will go sky-high, but they'll be "revenue enhancements", or "fair-share adjustments", but certainly not "tax increases."

There's a certain freshness to defending the adjustment of effective tax burdens to have a correlation of punishment of Democrats and benefit to Republicans. Usually these kinds of distinctions are made by income and not voting preferences, but your embrace of this particular solution as a "win/win!" is something that I have to award points for candor.

I'm sure you'll have the same grudging admiration for the next Democratic Administration which would institute, say, a higher probability of compulsory service for families of neo-conservatives that advocate a vastly more aggressive foreign policy funded through the elimination of moehair subsidies. The age of minutely targeted public policy has arrived.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, you're going to try anyway, aren't you? I can sense this.What'd I tell you? You tried.

All I can say is, You have a low threshhold for rage. Or shaking. Can't tell which from just one variable.

So, lets talk real dollars here. How much is getting Bush back in netting you in this little resource reallocation?

Just wondering if its going to be more than the $1000s its going to cost me. 'Cause I'd just as soon keep it in the family.