A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
how--because people would pay cash otherwise? Or because people take out larger mortgages?

The real problem with eliminating it is that it would depress home values, and with 67% of americans owning homes, that's a pretty good constituency.

The only way to get rid of it without massive displacement is to phase it out--e.g., drop 5% of the deduction each year for 20 years (so only 95% of interest is deductible this year, 90% the following year, and so on)

Amen. Right now, it truly serves no purpose for the homeowners - it's priced into home values completely. And an abrupt end would be painful - like killing rent control in one day would be. We need to be weaned off of it - all it does now is make people think they're getting some benefit. They're not.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm OK with that. But I might just be bitter. See above as to actual use by large numbers of people.

I'll be bitter too. No tax laws are immutable, but the endurance of the mortgage deduction is something that encourages people to make long term decisions like calculating in the deductions you earn from paying shitloads of interest. It's one thing to have that deduction unavailable as a going-forward proposition, but the prospect of having it yanked away after the purchase has been made is a real pain in the ass.

ETA, yeah, what Burger and bilmore said. Weaning it away would make it an easier experience.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's one thing to have that deduction unavailable as a going-forward proposition, but the prospect of having it yanked away after the purchase has been made is a real pain in the ass.

See my and Bilmore's posts as to why the two are basically no different as problems. Unless negative equity doesn't concern you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The first half of Hume's statement is entirely, completely accurate -- a quote from FDR. The second half of Hume's statement is at most a use of the last paragraph of the FDR quote that is subject to different interpretations. Hume may be wrong in his spin on what FDR would have wanted -- but I don't think any reasonable person could say he is lying.

No reasonable person could look at the historical record and think that FDR wanted privately-funded annuities to replace the government-funded benefits.

Here's what FDR said:

• In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

No one who reads this with any care could possibly think that FDR wanted the "voluntary contributory annuities" to replace the "compulsory contributory annuities" (i.e., what we call Social Security). The point of the last sentence is that the "old-age pension plan," for the benefit of people who would be retiring soon, would be replaced over time by "compulsory annuities," not -- as Hume suggested -- that either the pension plan or the government-funded Social Security would be replaced by voluntary contributions.

The only way you can read this and think Hume got it right is if your eyes glaze over when you first hit the word "annuity" and you stop paying attention. Which is exactly what Hume, FOX and other supporters of the President are hoping will happen.

Originally posted by bilmore
You want to argue the merits of the matter. That's not what I was doing. I was addressing whether Hume accurately attributed a notion to FDR. I think all of your quoted language supports Hume.

Exactly as I said -- the only way to defend Hume on the substance is to pay no attention to the words FDR used, and what they meant. Hume certainly attributed "a notion" to FDR. That notion had nothing to do with what FDR said, but figuring that out would involve a little work, so don't bother.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
See my and Bilmore's posts as to why the two are basically no different as problems. Unless negative equity doesn't concern you.

Agree that they're joined as problems.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
you're also ignoring the principle of taxing consumption rather than income.

Were you a Puritan in a prior life?

She's a Democrat. I'm a Democrat. Income taxes are immensely preferable to consumption taxes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No reasonable person could look at the historical record and think that FDR wanted privately-funded annuities to replace the government-funded benefits.

No reasonable person would propose that that's what's been said here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
As has your side, for decades, whenever selling that crisis helps your initiatives. If Bush simply drops this idea now, he's way out ahead - every Dem leader is now on record clearly claiming there's no SS problem. We can dine out on that for another twenty years.

I know that you don't support what Bush is trying to do, so there's no need to pretend that I support what "every Dem leader" has said on the subject for "decades." I think it would be great if we could tweak SS to ensure that it will be solvent for decades to come. For example, (1) raise the retirement age somewhat, (2) raise the cap on earnings subject to SS somewhat, and (3) establish formulas based on economic data for the next many years so that (1) and (2) are automatically rejiggered if the economy does somewhat better or worse than expected.

If Bush did this, no one could really argue, and he would take away the Dems' refrain that the GOP is trying to end Social Security. But he'd rather kill the system than save it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
you're also ignoring the principle of taxing consumption rather than income.

No, I'm not ignoring it. I think that income should be taxed. I'm OK with sales (consumption) taxes, but I don't in any way think they should replace income taxes.

Phasing out the mortgage deduction works for me. It will depress (or, in some areas, just slow the growth of) home prices, which will hurt mortgage lenders (smaller mortgages) and realtors (smaller commissions) and will fuck up places that depend heavily on property taxes for income (Texas). C'est la vie.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anybody see his racist comments the other day?

Bitch, please. What he said was in no way racist.

Speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus, here's what Dean said:

• "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?," Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

Here's what Ramesh Ponnuru said about the tired conservative attacks on Dean for saying that:

• Give me a break. Dean is saying, hyperbolically, that there aren't many blacks or other nonwhites in the Republican party. He's right. I've been to many, many Republican dinners where most nonwhites present have been serving the food. (Or giving the keynote.) If Republicans are bothered when people make that observation, they should try to make it less true.

linky

eta: Sorry not to STP. Clearly, bilmore has Ponnuru's proxy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But he'd rather kill the system than save it.

"Kill the system"? Hysterical ranting. Knowing and intentional hysterical ranting, to be sure - best said to scared AARP members in the quest for votes in two years, or four - but profoundly dishonest.

[bilmore]

Pro-Kyoto Greenpeace protesters swarmed into the International Petroleum Exchange yesterday, looking to shut it down forcibly.

The on-floor traders kicked their asses, and shoved them back out.

The poor Greenpeace cruds say the traders are mean, nasty thugs.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...487741,00.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No reasonable person could look at the historical record and think that FDR wanted privately-funded annuities to replace the government-funded benefits.

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

Originally posted by bilmore
No reasonable person would propose that that's what's been said here.

Did you even bother to read what Hume said? From the top again, Hume said:

• In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Hume inserted the words "government funding" there to imply that Roosevelt was talking about something like what Bush wants to do. He wasn't.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Pro-Kyoto Greenpeace protesters swarmed into the International Petroleum Exchange yesterday, looking to shut it down forcibly.

The on-floor traders kicked their asses, and shoved them back out.

The poor Greenpeace cruds say the traders are mean, nasty thugs.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...487741,00.html

Goddamn amateurs.

This is why it's important to build alliances with the Teamsters.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Kill the system"? Hysterical ranting. Knowing and intentional hysterical ranting, to be sure - best said to scared AARP members in the quest for votes in two years, or four - but profoundly dishonest.

I'm not suggesting that Bush is going to propose elimination of Social Security. But he is suggesting fundamental changes that will, over time, eliminate support for it, and seem designed to do so.