Skip to main content

Economics Daily Digest by the Roosevelt Institute banner

By Rachel Goldfarb, originally published on Next New Deal

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How a Widely Beloved Tax Deduction Really Just Benefits the Well-Off and Exacerbates Inequality (TAP)

The mortgage interest deduction primarily benefits those who make at least $100,000 a year, and dwarfs funding for housing programs for the poor, writes Alex Ulam.

  • Roosevelt Take: In his latest white paper on tax reform, Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz suggests changes to the mortgage interest deduction that would make it more equitable.

What Would Real Economic Justice Look Like in Ferguson? (The Nation)

Michelle Chen reports on organized labor's involvement in Ferguson, MO, where a millennial labor group called Future Fighters is asking protesters want they want their community to look like.

Fed Dissenters Increasingly Vocal About Inflation Fears (NYT)

The newly released minutes from the Federal Reserve's July meeting show that some Fed officials feel the central bank has done all it can to improve the economy, writes Binyamin Appelbaum.

CEOs are Dumb When it Comes to This (MarketWatch)

Simon Constable reports on a new study that shows that stock option compensation isn't really considered in dollars: CEOs tend to get the same number of options regardless of the stock's value.

Why Bank of America Probably Won’t End Up Actually Paying US$17B in Mortgage Securities Settlement (Financial Post)

Consumer relief as negotiated in this settlement and others rarely cost the banks much at all, says Jeff Horwitz. But with few other sources of consumer relief, advocates welcome this one.

The Latest Attack on Labor, From The Group That Brought Us ‘Harris v. Quinn’ (In These Times)

Moshe Marvit explains the National Right to Work Committee's latest tactic, which aims to end exclusive representation in public sector unions and weaken collective bargaining.

New on Next New Deal

Mean and Lean Local Government

In his video speculation for the Next American Economy project, Stefaan Verlhurst, Co-Founder of GovLab, projects how municipal governments might shift tactics to take advantage of broader resources.


Originally posted to Daily Kos Economics on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 05:03 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  To answer the question: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eyo, ozsea1, Words In Action

    only if the consideration involves rethinking the appropriateness of unearned income on the part of lenders. Why should there be a cost associated with the transfer of IOUs, other than the cost of record keeping.

    Because those IOUs are also taxed? The purpose of federal taxes ought to be to keep the currency circulating at a good rate to lubricate trade and exchange and prevent stagnation.  

    Using the availability to regulate and control other kinds of behavior is counter-productive.  Evidence for that can be found in the fact that since about 1991 the velocity of the dollar has rather consistently slowed.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/...

  •  Mortgage deduction (8+ / 0-)

    Maybe a ceiling on it, rather than dumping it entirely. I think now, too, it's allowed for three homes - cut it back to one or two. Thing is, it benefits me, and I've never once made as much as $100k in a year.

    The Reagan tax cuts increased my taxes significantly - they took away several deductions I used, eliminated income averaging, and increased the rate for single taxpayers making around $17k a year, which was exactly what I was. My taxes went up from like $700 to over $2000, nearly tripled.

    Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

    by Land of Enchantment on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 06:04:42 AM PDT

    •  The MID is a subsidy to the high priced coasts. (0+ / 0-)

      The real issue with the mortgage interest deduction is that you have to itemize to take it.  This means that there is a minimum interest total below which it doesn't help you.  This is correlated to the fact that 2/3 of all filers don't itemize on their returns.

      "People who bought their houses 20 years ago" and are close to paying them off don't benefit from the MID.

      "People who live in low-priced areas of the country" don't benefit from the MID.  At a 6% interest rate, roughly speaking, a married-filing-jointly couple would need to purchase a $160K house to gain any benefit at all from the MID.  There are entire Metropolitan Areas where the average home selling price is less than $160K.  None of those people benefit from the MID.

      Perhaps surprising to some, the state of New York is home not only the most overpriced city (New York City ties with Honolulu for the dubious honor), but also the most affordable: Buffalo. With a median family income of $63,500 and a median home sales price of $100,000, home ownership is attainable for 88.5% of the local population.

      -7.75 -4.67

      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

      There are no Christians in foxholes.

      by Odysseus on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 07:18:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are not listening (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MadMs, Capt Crunch

        I am not any of the things you said.

        I am not on the coast. I am not high income. I'm only a few years into a mortgage I refinanced in 2009. My real estate isn't high end, my mortgage is for less than 100k. The interest is above $5k. It doesn't take a whole lot to itemize. If you have some medical costs, mortgage, property tax, state income tax, that's enough to itemize.

        Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

        by Land of Enchantment on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 06:11:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Refinance (0+ / 0-)

          If your mortgage balance is less than $100K and you are paying more than $5,000 in interest, then your rate of interest on your mortgage is over 5%.

          The HAMP program should be able get you a refinance at closer to 4% and put about $100 back into your pocket each month.

          •  My interest is under 5% (0+ / 0-)

            ... though not by a lot. Even with $1200 less of interest, as you suggest, I'd still be itemizing my deductions. So my point still stands that eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would affect me adversely.

            Quit rejecting the point I've made, repeatedly, in more and more depth. Consider the possibility that I know what I'm talking about. Drop the idea that I'm wrong, don't know what I'm talking about, lying. Whatever the fuck it is you object to.

            All these statements that it only helps rich people with expensive homes is false. It helps me: I have modest income and a modest residence. It still helps me. I'm starting to get fucking pissed off at you trying to discredit what I have said.

            Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

            by Land of Enchantment on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:56:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are yelling at the wrong person (0+ / 0-)

              I never suggested that you do not benefit from the MID.

              And your throwing curse words at me is more than uncalled for.

              But what I do know is that your math does not add up.

              As you have claimed - you cannot be paying $5,000 in annual interest on a loan balance below $100,000 without an interest rate greater than 5%.

              And since you've insulted me, I'll just call you less than bright for not being able to understand that 5% of $100,000 is $5,000.

              So, if your loan balance is less than $100,000 (as you claimed), you cannot be paying $5,000 in annual interest unless your interest rate is greater than 5%.  That's simple math.

              Or, your loan balance is greater than $100,000 and you just simply lied for no reason.

              Either way, I don't give a darn.

              But maybe now yo can see I was offering you friendly advice.

              And just to add insult to your own injury, refinancing at current interest rates would still save you money.  Ya'see, I'm still trying to help.

            •  Your point is slightly off. (0+ / 0-)
              Quit rejecting the point I've made, repeatedly, in more and more depth.
              Yes, the MID, as one deduction among many, makes your collection of deductions ever so slightly more valuable.
              If you have some medical costs, mortgage, property tax, state income tax, that's enough to itemize.
              Don't overstate your point.

              Again, from the article:

              U.S. homeowners who have gross adjusted gross incomes of more than $100,000, and who in 2012 consumed a whopping 77 percent of the benefits. Homeowners from the top two percent of American taxpayers who earn more than $200,000 (or married couples who earn more than $250,000) annually fared the best: They gobbled up 35 percent of the subsidy.

              The inequities and inefficiencies inherent in the MID are obvious to leaders of a wide range of groups advocating for its overhaul or elimination.

              You're quibbling over pennies.

              -7.75 -4.67

              "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

              There are no Christians in foxholes.

              by Odysseus on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:30:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Reagan tax cuts (0+ / 0-)

                As already mentioned, they tripled my taxes, and my income at the time was under $20k/year. I don't need another tax increase, no matter how enthusiastic you are about imposing one on me. Even if you do dismiss it as an insignificant amount. No matter how insignificant it is to YOU, it's not insignificant to me!

                I suggested limiting it in both dollar amount and in the number of homes it can apply to. I think that would be fair. I don't think dumping it entirely is fair.

                Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

                by Land of Enchantment on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 02:24:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You are lookig at gross $$, not number of people (0+ / 0-)

                You are looking at gross $$ benefit, not number of families who benefit.

      •  News flash - lots of people live near the coasts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrQA

        Real people working real jobs that don't come anywhere near the big bucks listed in the diary. These people require the Mortgage Deduction in order to purchase a place to live.

        Did you get that - REQUIRE the Mortgage Deduction.

        And you would take that away from them? That's just nuts.

        There are entire Metropolitan Areas where the average home selling price is less than $160K.  None of those people benefit from the MID.
        What a load. They do indeed benefit. What world are you living in?

        And to talk about this at a time when folks are having a hard time just holding onto what they have now?

        Get a clue.

        •  Nonsense. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WillR
          Did you get that - REQUIRE the Mortgage Deduction.
          Anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you differently.

          The Mortgage Interest Deduction was a one-time gift to anyone who owned a house before it was created.  All of those houses instantly became more valuable the day it passed.

          Now, it does nothing at all to make housing more affordable.  The prices have already adjusted higher to compensate.

          Eliminating the MID would lower house prices.

          -7.75 -4.67

          "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

          There are no Christians in foxholes.

          by Odysseus on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 08:53:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As you said, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Capt Crunch

            "Eliminating the MID would lower house prices."

            Why is that desirable?

            The entire housing stock in the U.S. is over $25trillion.

            Why is it desirable to create a negative wealth effect by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction?

            There is plenty of evidence that suggests the MID does create more affordable homes for those who can benefit from the deduction.

            This too drives new construction and helps create jobs.  Matter of fact, the remaining hole in jobs recovery from the Great Bush Recession is men who worked construction jobs.  We could certainly argue that there were too many of these jobs during the housing bubble, but the housing market has yet to truly recover….and the reason the Fed will continue to keep interest rates as low as possible.

            If the people who benefit the most by having the MID are high-income earners, taxing the balance of their income at a higher rate is fine by me.

            •  Your Nobel prize awaits. (0+ / 0-)
              There is plenty of evidence that suggests the MID does create more affordable homes for those who can benefit from the deduction.
              Write the paper to prove it, and I'll pay for your plane ticket to Stockholm.

              There is no such evidence.

              -7.75 -4.67

              "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

              There are no Christians in foxholes.

              by Odysseus on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:25:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This requires no White Paper nor research. (0+ / 0-)

                Let's start very simple - by definition, the use of any deduction makes the item more affordable.  Otherwise, there would be no benefit to the taxpayer for taking the deduction and no loss to government for providing the deduction.

                By the standard you established, I should be able to receive my Noble Prize now.

                On to mortgages, deductions, and affordability.

                The mortgage interest deduction puts cash into peoples pockets, just like any deduction is intended to do.

                Simple accounting proves it.

                Let's continue to be enlightened.

                A person can have a lower monthly house payment by virtue of a lower interest rate.  The lower the interest rate, the more house a person can afford for the same cash-flow (income).  Lower interest rates makes homes of equal value more affordable.

                I can only assume that you agree with this premise.

                If not, I suggest that you go to any on-line mortgage calculator and play with 'how much house can a person afford' while adjusting interest rates higher and lower.  Higher rates means a person can only afford a less costly house if their income is held constant.

                Similarly to lower interest rates, a person can have an 'effective' lower monthly payment by paying less in income taxes by virtue of receiving a deduction for the mortgage interest paid.  Deductions, like lower interest rates, keeps or puts money into people's pockets.  So, the more deductions, the more affordable a house of equal value becomes to any home buyer.

                Therefore, I stand by my statement:

                "There is plenty of evidence that suggests the MID does create more affordable homes for those who can benefit from the deduction."
                And maybe you are just completely missing the point being made by Joseph Stiglitz, the MID benefits mostly the wealthy (and people who benefit from itemizing their taxes) and harms the government by providing less revenue.  However, he is not making any claim that deductions do not make purchasing homes more affordable.  To the contrary, that is his point - the MID makes more homes affordable to those who can afford more than one home.

                No need to send the plane ticket to Stockholm.  But I appreciate the sentiment.

                •  Wrong scope. (0+ / 0-)
                  Let's start very simple - by definition, the use of any deduction makes the item more affordable.
                  This is only true when you are analyzing the time period for which the deduction has always existed unchanged.

                  Again, creating the MID in the first place caused housing prices to jump the day it was signed.  It was a one-time gift to everyone who owned a house already then.

                  -7.75 -4.67

                  "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                  There are no Christians in foxholes.

                  by Odysseus on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:34:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

                    You are changing a variable - housing prices.  Frankly, that's cheating.

                    Also, you are making an assumption that housing prices rose immediately following the availability of the MID.  From what date are you starting your calculations?

                    The MID has been around more than 100 years.  Home mortgages became more common after the creation of the Federal Housing Administration and subsequently Fannie Mae.  During the ensuing time, home prices have both increased and decreased.  America has fought in plenty of wars too which may have impacted housing prices and general inflation.  In other words, your notion….

                    Again, creating the MID in the first place caused housing prices to jump the day it was signed.  It was a one-time gift to everyone who owned a house already then.
                    is effectively outdated by at least three generations, millions of homes, and trillions of dollars.

                    Even if you want to use the changes in tax code from 1986, according to Case-Shiller, there was a marked decline in home prices far in excess of the rise that occurred leading up to and immediately following the changes in tax code in 1986.

                    You are merely suggesting that home prices are inflated because of the MID - without any way to prove your case.

                    Regardless, your assumption does not change the math of a current home buyer - the MID makes a relatively more costly home more affordable….unless you fudge the variables by making an unsubstantiated claim about home values.

                    Oddly, you are seemingly convinced that eliminating the MID would benefit the economy by deflating the value of the current $25trillion housing stock.  Has there ever been a period of deflation that was good for our economy?  We just lived through the first one since the Great Depression - how'd it turn out?  

                •  No, that's precisely my point. (0+ / 0-)
                  And maybe you are just completely missing the point being made by Joseph Stiglitz, the MID benefits mostly the wealthy
                  That's precisely why the MID is a subsidy to the high priced coasts.

                  -7.75 -4.67

                  "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                  There are no Christians in foxholes.

                  by Odysseus on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The benefit to the wealthy is in dollar terms, (0+ / 0-)

                    The benefit to the wealthy is in dollar terms, not the number of individual families.

                    The % of population that owned their homes increased steadily up until about 1980 - the period of great economic achievement for the middle class.  Then the % of home ownership fell….after the wealth transfer of the Reagan tax cuts.  Home ownership as % of population remained flat until extraordinary growth associated with the internet age……years after the change in 1986 tax code.

                    Now, make your case.

                    And your use of the 'coasts' as a pejorative is senseless.

                    Even after calculating the net cost to the government of the mortgage interest deduction (and all others deductions), the 'blue' states on the East & West coasts send far more to the government than they receive back from the government.

                    In other words, you like throwing barbs, but cannot show any facts proving my statements inaccurate.

                    •  Huh, what? (0+ / 0-)
                      but cannot show any facts proving my statements inaccurate
                      I'm the one relying entirely on facts, and giving citations besides.

                      -7.75 -4.67

                      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                      There are no Christians in foxholes.

                      by Odysseus on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:54:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, you have provide nothing but opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                        Matter of fact, you've provide no links and barely even written a paragraph total in three replies.

                        On the other hand, I have provide historical facts of when homeownership rates increased (from 1920-1980), the facts of when the MID began being used by the general public (in early 1900's), and Case-Shiller citing recent history (from 1980's) to indicate the increases and decreases in home values that have nothing to do with the MID that was in existence for over 100 years.

                        Moreover, and to the point of your delusion, eliminating the MID will cause deflation in the most common element of wealth creation - the $25trillion housing market.  You have not addressed that at all.

                        You may be relying on facts, but you have shown none to refute my demonstrated facts.

                        In other words, you are having a silent debate with yourself, because you have provided nothing else to debate my claims.

          •  Back on planet Earth (0+ / 0-)
            it does nothing at all to make housing more affordable.
            Maybe on planet Odysseus but on planet Earth that exactly what it does.

            To deny that is to deny reality.

      •  Math? (0+ / 0-)

        Mortgage rates are closer to 4% - 1/3 the amount used in your analysis.

        Would the MID work for people at 1/3 the home value used in your analysis - about $112,000?

        Mortgage payment on $112,00 home is less than $600 month.

        Average rent in U.S. is over $800 month.

        More over, home values remain depressed from 2006 levels while rent prices have outpaced relative inflation.  Unless a family is trying to sell their home, even having an underwater situation will accumulate equity over time.

        Is a person better off accumulating equity at a fixed-rate in a home by way of mortgage payments or by flushing away money on rent at an increasing rate?

        •  Ahem... (0+ / 0-)

          Not, Mortgage rates are closer to 4% - 1/3 the amount used in your analysis.

          Rather 2/3's the amount used in your analysis; or, 1/3 less than the amount used in your analysis.

        •  No, lower rates have the opposite effect. (0+ / 0-)

          You have to itemize to take the MID.  So you have to pay a minimum amount of interest before itemizing to claim the MID makes sense.

          Lower rates lower interest paid.  This raises the value of the house before you qualify for the MID.

          The median home price in Indianapolis is $102K as of 2012.  Assume no money down.  4% interest * 102K = $4080 in interest every year.  The median house in Indianapolis does not qualify for the MID.

          "Flyover country" is full of this kind of example.  The Midwest has a huge population which does not benefit from the MID.

          -7.75 -4.67

          "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

          There are no Christians in foxholes.

          by Odysseus on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:40:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I only have a few thousand left to pay (0+ / 0-)

      on my mortgage, so I suppose I've benefited considerably from the mortgage deduction. However, I've been opposed to it in principle from the get-go. I believe that it is one of the main driving forces that has jacked up housing prices here in California. I believe that it is also partially responsible for the unique California housing style: a house that is too big on a lot that is too small.

      I agree that it also increases wealth disparity by only directly benefiting those who can qualify to get a mortgage on a home.

      I'll also remind you young whippersnappers that until Ronald Reagan came along, all consumer interest was deductible (yes, interest on credit cards and student loans and car loans: all deductible). This is because the interest deduction was originally considered a deduction of a business expense (non-business loans were rare).

      •  That's more Prop 13. (0+ / 0-)
        I believe that it is one of the main driving forces that has jacked up housing prices here in California.
        Proposition 13 limited the amount by which real estate taxes could be increased every year.  So if that limit is lower than inflation, real estate taxes effectively get lower every year.

        Proposition 13 benefits those who live in one place forever and never move.

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:44:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How did Prop 13 cause housing prices to rise? (0+ / 0-)

          Prop 13 (and other elements of the Jarvis Jihad) trashed the state infrastructure, but housing prices were ballooning before Prop 13 passed, and have have certainly continued to rise well after it. I blame (in part) the mortgage interest deduction, which subsidizes a large portion of one's house payments (at least in the earlier part of the repayment schedule). It artificially allows people to buy a more expensive house than they would otherwise be able to afford, thereby distorting the market. In fact, I believe that one of the main reasons that Reagan et al. didn't get rid of the mortgage deduction along with the other load interest deductions was that he probably knew that there would be a riot if he did: the immediate result would be that everyone's home would be underwater because the resale value would plummet.

  •  In Canada, we have no mortgage deduction-- (7+ / 0-)

    on the contrary, what we have is a tax credit that is specifically aimed at helping low-income people with the cost of rent or property taxes, and home energy costs. People can receive it even if their income is low enough that they don't owe any tax.

    Babylon system is the vampire... ~Bob Marley

    by sfinx on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 06:04:49 AM PDT

  •  Mortgage deduction (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadMs, Free2bMe, MrQA

    I don't make anywhere near $100,000 and I could not afford the place I live in without the mortgage deduction.

    I can guarantee you I would work against ANY candidate that would seriously consider eliminating it.

    I would also work against ANY organization which that would consider eliminating it.

    You don't have to screw over one group of people to help another group.

    Politically it's suicide - rightfully so.

    •  Not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus

      If you gave a housing credit to EVERYBODY, roughly equal to the average of housing costs in the area (and since nobody does taxes by hand, this is eminently doable), it would be a wash for most people and a huge help for renters.

      The only people who would be hurt then are those who have really expensive houses or multiple houses.

      It really wouldn't impact those who rent the houses out, since that now becomes a business and all the costs of the house are business expenses.

      I'm tired of subsidizing expensive houses and vacation homes.

  •  Mortgage deduction should be eliminated (0+ / 0-)

    If you rent and don't have children you get double zapped. You not only don't get a deduction for your rent but you have to pay taxes to send other peoples kids to school.

    ...the GOP seems perfectly willing to hold their breath until the whole country turns Blue.

    by tommy2tone on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 08:27:40 PM PDT

    •  Rubbish. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spyresca

      If your schools are funded by property taxes, then we all pay for children to attend schools - whether you rent or own.  

      Going to school is a right you had.  Why would you deny that right to other children simply because you have no children?

      Moreover, on it's face, this notion is absurd.

      When the person with no children is old or disabled, it is someone else's children who will be paying the taxes that will pay to care for that old or disabled person - not to mention, physically taking care of the old or disabled person.

      The person with no children should pay more - they will receive more in government benefits than their economic legacy will provide to future generations.

      And your point of view is skewed - people without children are not paying more in income taxes, but rather, people with children are paying less in income taxes…..because caring for a child generates economic activity.

      Similarly, people who purchase their homes are being given a credit for spurring economic activity that comes from home building.  Landlords receive that same benefit, not the people without risk.  

      •  Let me guess (0+ / 0-)

        You own a home and have children?

        ...the GOP seems perfectly willing to hold their breath until the whole country turns Blue.

        by tommy2tone on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 11:35:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Relevance? (0+ / 0-)

          I purchased my home long before we had a child.  Matter of fact, we never thought having a child was possible.  In other words, purchasing a home had nothing to do with having a child.  We purchased a home because renting gives no equity.

          Let's do some math on home ownership:

          $200,000 house with 20% down ($40,000).  Average annual growth rate of house prices 2%.  Home value increases by $4,000 a year (25 of $200,000).  $4,000 increase on $40,000 is a 10% annual return on my $40,000.....while mortgage gets paid down.  I had to live somewhere, so cost of mortgage vs. renting is essentially a wash.  My home is an investment whereas rent is lost money.

          By the way, my wife and I each have life insurance too.....long before we had a child that we never thought we'd have.

          And we invest in 401(k) & IRA's too.

          And I sit home all day and make a nice living.

          I hope and pray your as as fortunate as we are and make investments in as many ways as you can.

          •  I love me some me. (0+ / 0-)

            Thanks Captain Smugness for that Forbes moment. You left out the part about you dick size?

            ...the GOP seems perfectly willing to hold their breath until the whole country turns Blue.

            by tommy2tone on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 02:03:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And you left your intellect (0+ / 0-)

              And you left your intellect in the gutter with your manners.

              But I give you some credit, at least you provided half a laugh with a dick joke.

              Then again, more likely just your projecting a little on your own parts - that does provide me with an opportunity to ROFLMAO.

  •  You guys don't read comments, I suppose? At any... (0+ / 0-)

    You guys don't read comments, I suppose? At any rate, Stiglitz swings and misses on the basis step up. Far from peculiar, it is typical of any tax system with an inheritance or estate tax.

  •  not just for the rich (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrQA, Odysseus

    The MID may primarily benefit wealthy homeowners, but it's also a big help to moderate-income earners like me. I make less than $40k a year as an independent contractor, and the MID is what makes it possible for me to itemize deductions for a home office and work related expenses. It saves me a ton of dough that way.

    It would make sense to cap it and eliminate the deduction for second homes, but don't get rid of it. The last thing we need right now is another burden on the housing market.

  •  Why are we having this conversation? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevemb

    Why are we even fighting over trying to take away an average working person's MTD when there are so many Corps paying 0, or getting refunds, the 1% are paying 15% to my 29%, and the rich are getting subsidies, and driving through loopholes as big as Egypt??

    Let's fix those gaping issues that actually matter, and not set the average person against each other over table scraps!

    When the 1% and Corps are paying their fair share, then we can worry about the pennies that the MTD represents by comparison.

    You have your right to your opinion, I will grant you that, but do not denigrate my right to mine!

    by MrQA on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:34:35 AM PDT

  •  While we're at it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevemb, Odysseus

    We need to eliminate the Bush tax credit for dependent children. Allowing people to take $1,000 per kid right off their tax bill is one of the primary reasons that 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. That's the equivalent of a $3,000-$6,000 deduction per child, depending on one's tax bracket.

    As a single person who'll never have kids, I don't mind paying property taxes to support the schools and giving parents a sensible deduction for kids, but I'm tired of getting socked with the costs of subsidizing two-income families.

    •  Because today's children (0+ / 0-)

      Because today's children will pay for your SS, your Medicare, and God forbid, your disability.

      And bully for you for wanting to pay for the public schools that you yourself had the chance to benefit from.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site