Support NeoGAF

[gcubed]

Why should you have an incentive to own a home aside from having your own private property and a roof over your head?

because homeowners pay property and school taxes?

 

[GhaleonEB]

So where does this go from here? Cause I don't like the looks of this...

Steps:

1) This proposal goes to the full Commission for debate and changes.
2) Assuming they're able to find agreement, 14 of the 18 vote to approve it.
3) Proposal goes to Obama.
4) Obama makes revisions/additions of his own, sends proposal to Congress.
5) Congres does nothing.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Steps:

1) This proposal goes to the full Commission for debate and changes.
2) Assuming they're able to find agreement, 14 of the 18 vote to approve it.
3) Proposal goes to Obama.
4) Obama makes revisions/additions of his own, sends proposal to Congress.
5) Congres does nothing.

lol

So does this mean he is not gonna end the Bush tax cuts? Or he is but his tax policy will actually be even greater cuts for the wealthy?

 

[gcubed]

lol

So does this mean he is not gonna end the Bush tax cuts? Or he is but his tax policy will actually be even greater cuts for the wealthy?

i dont see 90% of this ever making it through congress though... none of this is Obama's call besides him just being able to ask for it

 

[ToxicAdam]

This is going to be like the stimulus bill. Nobody will be completely happy with it, but many will realize it's a necessary thing that needs to be done.

 

[badcrumble]

lol

So does this mean he is not gonna end the Bush tax cuts? Or he is but his tax policy will actually be even greater cuts for the wealthy?

everything terrible will happen

 

[CharlieDigital]

because homeowners pay property and school taxes?

And?

I mean, there's really no way to justify the mortgage interest rebate deduction.

 

[mckmas8808]

Debt Commission Chairmen Seek To Head Off Leaks, Put Positive Spin On Report
Brian Beutler | November 10, 2010, 3:00PM

The White House's debt commission co-chairs were not planning on publicly releasing their preliminary recommendations, at least not in such a hurried fashion. But the commissioners' reactions to their eye-popping proposals weren't exactly positive. And so, concerned about potential leaks and negative press, the co-chairs decided to unveil it and get ahead of the spin, according to a source with knowledge of the proceedings.

In that regard, this afternoon's briefing was a bid to keep the commission and its work from unraveling precipitously -- to lay out their discussion document publicly, as a starting point from which members will have to work.

"This is not a package that I could support," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) -- one of the only progressives on the panel -- told Bloomberg during a break at the commission's private meeting this morning.

These draft proposals are for the commissioners themselves. They'll have a chance to debate them and modify them over the next two or three weeks, before voting on whether to send them to Capitol HIll for further consideration. But for that to happen, 14 of the 18 commissioners would have to agree to a final set of recommendations. That will be a tall order.

"We're not going to have an up-or-down vote on this," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). "There are proposals in there that are painful. I told them I said there are things in here which inspire me and other things which I hate like the devil hates holy water. I'm not going to vote for those things."

"We're not asking anybody to vote for this plan," insisted co-chair Erskine Bowles this afternoon, "This plan is a starting point. It represents only [co-chair] Al[an Simpson]'s and my thinking, and no one else's."

"We have no idea whether we'll get the 14 of the 18," Simpson added. "We'll sure sit down and do a lot of hard work together starting today."
​

#####################

So people calm down and breathe. This is the very very very beginning of this process. Even some GOP members were sweating after seeing this report.

 

[reaver18]

jesus we won't be able to retire until fucking 80 the way this shit is going. and why are taxes being cut for everyone when we're pushing a huge deficit, it just doesn't make sense. If my savings was in the negatives, I wouldn't lower the amount of money I'm putting into my savings.

 

[kaching]

What's the logic behind increasing the retirement age, asking people to work longer, when we can't adequately provide jobs for people now? Shouldn't that be tied to unemployment rate, somehow?

 

[dschalter]

What's the logic behind increasing the retirement age, asking people to work longer, when we can't adequately provide jobs for people now? Shouldn't that be tied to unemployment rate, somehow?

fallacious understanding of the economy strikes again!

 

[C.Dark.DN]

back up off NASA bitch

 

[soco]

no taxes for anyone and increases services to all! let other countries fund it!

it's the new american way!

 

[Princess Carl]

This is going to be like the stimulus bill. Nobody will be completely happy with it, but many will realize it's a necessary thing that needs to be done.

Yea totally. Oh wait sorry I thought you were talking about something that isn't completely stupid.

"Let the peasants work longer so they can't stop and think about how much more money we're making. Who needs funding anyway?"

 

[kaching]

fallacious understanding of the economy strikes again!

Guilty. I sincerely don't get it and would be happy to hear an explanation that makes sense of it, if you or someone else is willing. Or a link that explains it. Whatever. Thanks.

 

[TomServo]

And?

I mean, there's really no way to justify the mortgage interest rebate deduction.

I wasn't arguing whether the mortgage interest deduction is justified or not. All I'm pointing out is that without it there's no incentive to own a home. As it stands, the mortgage interest deduction + deduction from property taxes covers my average annual expenses for home repair / upkeep. So it lets me break even with renters.

I'm certainly not paying a premium to own a home. Private property? LOL. Try not paying your property taxes and see how long it remains "private property".

 

[CharlieDigital]

I wasn't arguing whether the mortgage interest deduction is justified or not. All I'm pointing out is that without it there's no incentive to own a home. As it stands, the mortgage interest deduction + deduction from property taxes covers my average annual expenses for home repair / upkeep. So it lets me break even with renters.

I'm certainly not paying a premium to own a home. Private property? LOL. Try not paying your property taxes and see how long it remains "private property".

Why should the government give you an incentive to own a home? Are you for Fanny and Freddie as well? Their mission is the same. Are you for sub-prime mortgages? Are you for 0 down interest only mortgages?

The concept of private property has no link to taxation. You pay taxes for the services the township provides with most of that going to public education. You're still part of a township and enjoy the roads and sidewalks and infrastructure that is partially paid for and maintained by the township. Your roads in the town are plowed in the winter. You're still protected by your local police. The two concepts aren't related.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

So what happened to buying within your means?

This is America. No one has lived within their means in 40 years.

 

[TomServo]

Why should the government give you an incentive to own a home? Are you for Fanny and Freddie as well? Their mission is the same. Are you for sub-prime mortgages? Are you for 0 down interest only mortgages?

Justification is irrelevant to whether or not home ownership sans mortgage interest (and property tax) makes financial sense. If there's no good reason to own a home you just removed the last barrier to me dropping my underwater home on the bank - the credit hit. Since I wouldn't be in the market for a home anyway, I wouldn't give a shit about my credit rating for some time.

The only benefit I can see is the light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel from having a paid-off home as opposed to a lifetime of renting. The converse of that is that renting affords you flexibility to move to a region that maximizes your wages throughout your career instead of dealing with an anchor like home ownership.

The concept of private property has no link to taxation. You pay taxes for the services the township provides with most of that going to public education.

It does when the final recourse for neglecting to pay for those services is confiscation of said property.

 

[JoeBoy101]

"This is not a package that I could support," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) -- one of the only progressives on the panel -- told Bloomberg during a break at the commission's private meeting this morning.

Really?

Six members were chosen by the president. He appointed co-chairs Erskine Bowles, a Democrat who was White House chief of staff for President Clinton, and Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming (watch their interview on the NewsHour). He also named three Democrats: Alice Rivlin, a former vice chair of the Federal Reserve who also served as director of the Congressional Budget Office and the White House budget office; Andrew Stern, retiring president of the 2.2 million-member Service Employees International Union; and Ann Fudge, former head of Young & Rubicam Brands, a global marketing and communications company. He also named one Republican: David Cote, the CEO and chairman of Honeywell, a technology and manufacturing company.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi each picked three congressional Democrats: Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who chairs the Senate Finance Committee; and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate; Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the Budget and Ways and Means committees; and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee; and

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Congressional Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner also appointed three members each. They are Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has sponsored legislation aimed at spending cuts; Sen. Michael Crapo, R-Idaho, a member of the Senate Budget Committee; Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee; Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee; Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, an outspoken proponent of deficit reduction; and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the top Republican on the House Budget Committee.

Now I recognize some of these can be Blue Dogs or Democrat, but not Progressive? ALL but one? Dick Durbin is not progressive? Andrew Stern is not?

 

[state-of-the-art]

America has, IIRC, the second highest corporate income tax rate of all industrialized nations, but is below average in the effective corporate tax rate, ie what corporations actually pay, because of all the tax loopholes and tax shelters.

I understand that, I was just having difficulty guaging your response to my sentiment was all.

 

[empty vessel]

A reader from TPM made an astute observation. The report really goes into government discretionary spending and Social Security. But real budget problem is Medicare. Not just its size, but the growth rate of Medicare is what's chewing up the federal budget down the road. And this report does almost nothing to it. It's basically slashing everything else, but doesn't do much to push the growth curve down at all.

Social Security has less of a growth problem. It basically needs a one-time tick up in revenue (lift the payroll tax cap!) and it's fine. But Medicare has a major growth problem. Any serious proposal would have tackled that first.

Absolutely. The failure to recommend nationalizing health insurance or health care means that the commission was not serious about anything. Add on top of that the failure even to recommend drug price negotiation and it's downright comical. It is clear that certain business interests were "off the table" at the start, and that means there is no reason to accede to any raises in taxes/fees or cuts in credits/social security that impact the middle class.

 

[TomServo]

Absolutely. The failure to recommend nationalizing health insurance or health care means that the commission was not serious about anything. Add on top of that the failure even to recommend drug price negotiation and it's downright comical. It is clear that certain business interests were "off the table" at the start, and that means there is no reason to accede to any raises in taxes/fees or cuts in credits/social security that impact the middle class.

Yup.

 

[CharlieDigital]

The only benefit I can see is the light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel from having a paid-off home as opposed to a lifetime of renting.

So that's not reason enough?

It does when the final recourse for neglecting to pay for those services is confiscation of said property.

Uh yeah, you're paying for the infrastructure that the township provides and maintains for you such as roads, sidewalks, some utilities (water supply and treatment), plowing, leaf pickup, etc. You're payment for these services is in the form of property taxes. It's your private property, but you're still a part of a township and you still use their infrastructure and services. That has no bearing on the fact that the legal status and rights of property owner is clearly differentiated from that of a renter.

Let me ask: are you for or against Fanny and Freddie, who serve essentially the same purpose? Are you for free market principles?

 

[TomServo]

So that's not reason enough?

Nope.

Too many other benefits to renting; mobility, lack of liability, no worries about large financial surprises, ability to quickly downsize in lean times... I could go on and on.

Plus, even a paid-off house has costs in upkeep, taxes, and insurance. Those things alone can start to approach rental costs, so you're never going to live anywhere for free.


As for the other discussions, with all due respect I'm not interested in them right now. Sorry for the cop-out, been a long day and I'm still relaxed from yoga. Not interested in getting fired up about anything.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Nope.

Too many other benefits to renting; mobility, lack of liability, no worries about large financial surprises, ability to quickly downsize in lean times... I could go on and on.

Plus, even a paid-off house has costs in upkeep, taxes, and insurance. Those things alone can start to approach rental costs, so you're never going to live anywhere for free.

Then rent and stop your bitching. Home ownership is, was, and always has been a financial risk.

As for the other discussions, with all due respect I'm not interested in them right now. Sorry for the cop-out, been a long day and I'm still relaxed from yoga. Not interested in getting fired up about anything.

So are you for or against the existence of Fanny and Freddie? Are you for or against free market principles?

 

[Evlar]

On the "optics" of this: There's a damn good reason the commission released this while Obama was literally on the other side of the planet.

 

[TomServo]

Then rent and stop your bitching. Home ownership is, was, and always has been a financial risk.

If they kill the mortgage interest deduction then I will be renting! See, we've gone full circle back to my original comment. Fun.

Have a good evening, PoliGAF.

 

[norinrad]

You guys worry too much, India, China, Brazil and Japan will be paying for all of this, there's no need for you guys to worry. anyway turn on the machines Mr Bernanke

 

[T'Zariah]

Tax cuts for the rich? Ugh. Fucking hell!

 

[mckmas8808]

Nope.

Too many other benefits to renting; mobility, lack of liability, no worries about large financial surprises, ability to quickly downsize in lean times... I could go on and on.

Plus, even a paid-off house has costs in upkeep, taxes, and insurance. Those things alone can start to approach rental costs, so you're never going to live anywhere for free.


As for the other discussions, with all due respect I'm not interested in them right now. Sorry for the cop-out, been a long day and I'm still relaxed from yoga. Not interested in getting fired up about anything.

But wouldn't rental cost go up if the owners lost this tax incentive.?

 

[Chichikov]

What's the logic behind increasing the retirement age, asking people to work longer, when we can't adequately provide jobs for people now? Shouldn't that be tied to unemployment rate, somehow?

Increasing the retirement age is going to increase unemployment and through that increase the cost of social security (which pays for unemployment benefits), however, it will be offseted by the fact that retirees will have 5 years less to withdraw benefits.

It's still boggle the mind that people would prefer that to increasing the payroll taxes cap.
It's insane that me and Steve Balmer pay the exact same amount to social security.

 

[timetokill]

Effectively raising taxes on the wealthy by cutting out deductions/loopholes even while making the "nominal" rate lower sounds good. Especially if it simplifies the tax code.

 

[Opiate]

This is not nearly as bad as some of you are implying. It's a very complex recommendation. Many of these tax cuts, with deductions removed, will ultimately be tax hikes which disproprtionately affect the wealthy. That's very well done.

I'm not particularly fund of the spending cuts, however. I am, as many others here are, of the opinion that defense spending should be cut hugely, while science-based funding should (if anything) increase.

 

[NeoUltima]

Wtf at some of those discretionary cuts.

 

[Shard]

Yea, wow, no way this document makes it anywhere in real life.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

Except of course public education is not handled by the federal budget, otherwise. Its not like those items are the only things they are recommending. Read the report in full as opposed to just the OP.



I'm going to regret this...

It?

you sure about that i think public school systems still get federal money on top of state and local.

 

[wayward archer]

you sure about that i think public school systems still get federal money on top of state and local.

"In the 2004-05 school year, 83 cents out of every dollar spent on education is estimated to come from the state and local levels (45.6 percent from state funds and 37.1 percent from local governments). The federal government's share is 8.3 percent. The remaining 8.9 percent is from private sources, primarily for private schools. "

from the department of education website (ed.gov).

 

[SouthernDragon]

I am happy if military spending decreases while infrastructure and science finding increases proportionally and the tax code is simplified.

 

[teiresias]

Not going to read the actual report, but I love how these guys always like to suggest freezing federal employee pay increases or cutting federal employee jobs and never seem to be late getting around in voting for themselves to get raises.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Absolutely. The failure to recommend nationalizing health insurance or health care means that the commission was not serious about anything. Add on top of that the failure even to recommend drug price negotiation and it's downright comical. It is clear that certain business interests were "off the table" at the start, and that means there is no reason to accede to any raises in taxes/fees or cuts in credits/social security that impact the middle class.

Yup, I think that's the crux of it. I'd be more forgiving of some of the proposals had they taken an even approach across the board. But it's quite protective of business interests (especially the health care and drug sector), and as such makes much larger than necessary cuts to spending to compensate.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Limiting deductions is a huge hit to corporations and counting dividends/capital gains as ordinary income is a huge hit to the wealthy. There is something in here for everyone to hate!

Anything that helps the wealthy and the corporations hurts America regardless.

I am happy if military spending decreases while infrastructure and science finding increases proportionally and the tax code is simplified.

Prepare to be disappointed.

 

[Zzoram]

If the USA actually did what is being proposed by this commission, I would be shocked and amazed by the courage of the politicians doing it. I want to believe it could happen but I know that it won't.

The only thing I disagree with is the cut in federal jobs exempts military contractors. They should be fair game for cutting too.

I love the idea of a simple tax code with no loopholes or exceptions.

 

[avaya]

Capital gains change proposed won't work without international agreement. Corporate tax change is pretty much irrelevant considering the effective rate is far below the new rate purposed for any multinational with a competent tax team.

 

[empty vessel]

Effectively raising taxes on the wealthy by cutting out deductions/loopholes even while making the "nominal" rate lower sounds good. Especially if it simplifies the tax code.

This is not nearly as bad as some of you are implying. It's a very complex recommendation. Many of these tax cuts, with deductions removed, will ultimately be tax hikes which disproprtionately affect the wealthy. That's very well done.

I don't think we know that. I would be fine with such a change--I especially support simplification of the tax code--if the effect were really to be a "tax hike" on the wealthy. But I'm extremely skeptical that is the case. Lowering the marginal top rate by 12 percent is pretty significant.

And instead of further consolidating the income brackets (or perhaps in addition to consolidating the current income brackets), why not add in tax brackets at higher income levels? Why should the 250,000 thousandth dollar of income be treated the same as the 5 millionth dollar of income? The failure to recommend this is a strong indication that protecting the top 1% was part of the agenda of the commission.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I am happy if military spending decreases while infrastructure and science finding increases proportionally and the tax code is simplified.

Honestly, me too.

But increase capital gains tax.

 

[mckmas8808]

If the USA actually did what is being proposed by this commission, I would be shocked and amazed by the courage of the politicians doing it. I want to believe it could happen but I know that it won't.

The only thing I disagree with is the cut in federal jobs exempts military contractors. They should be fair game for cutting too.

I love the idea of a simple tax code with no loopholes or exceptions.

The report does cut some military contract jobs.

 

[timetokill]

I don't think we know that. I would be fine with such a change--I especially support simplification of the tax code--if the effect were really to be a "tax hike" on the wealthy. But I'm extremely skeptical that is the case. Lowering the marginal top rate by 12 percent is pretty significant.

Skepticism is certainly warranted. I'm just saying that if those changes were to happen, it would be a good thing in my book.

I also wouldn't be opposed to some additional brackets at the higher levels, though in the interest of simplicity I still wouldn't want to add too many of them.

 

[mavs]

I don't think we know that. I would be fine with such a change--I especially support simplification of the tax code--if the effect were really to be a "tax hike" on the wealthy. But I'm extremely skeptical that is the case. Lowering the marginal top rate by 12 percent is pretty significant.

It's lower the top rate *or* raise the bottom rate:

* The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually.
* In their first plan, called "The Zero Plan," they suggest reducing the tax brackets to three personal brackets and one corporate rate while eliminated all credits and deductions. Without any credits or deductions (including the EITC and mortgage interest deductions), the 3 tax rates would be 8, 14 and 23 percent.
* In their second plan, they would increase the personal deduction to $15,000, create 3 tax brackets (15, 25 and 35%); repeal or significantly curtail a number of popular tax deductions (including the state and local deduction and the mortgage interest deduction); and eliminate other tax expenditures.
* The third plan would force Congress to undertake comprehensive tax reform by 2012 by raising taxes for each year Congress fails to act.
* All their proposals limit Congress to collecting taxes on income made within the United States, reducing or eliminating taxes on American expats and revenues companies earn abroad.
* They also suggest raising the federal gas tax by 15 cents per gallon.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Hey look, they suggested something good

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/...+wsj/washwire/feed+(WSJ.com:+Washington+Wire)

Creating a public health insurance option — perhaps the most contentious idea of last year’s health overhaul debate — is among the possible solutions for reducing federal spending outlined in today’s debt commission report.