Skip to main content

View Diary: LA Times Article Will Sink Romney (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction (35+ / 0-)

    will reduce homeownership and benefit landlords, because they will be able to continue to deduct the property as a business expense.

    My husband refuses to spend a nickel on fixing up our house even though vegetation is growing through our driveway because he's worried that the Rs' policies will tank the housing market and we'll have to fire-sale our house anyway when we move in a year or two.

    •  He's got a point, your husband that is, (17+ / 0-)

      R&R's policies would tank the housing market along with all the associated businesses and industries. One of the reasons the economy has been so slow to recover is because housing and related industries have not recovered and are coming back very slowly, but R&R's plan would put the whole industry on a tail spin and drag the whole economy down with it.

    •  What they're actually discussing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OleHippieChick, rb608, Creosote

      is eliminating it on second (third, fourth) homes, not primary residence. And I think it's unlikely to pass, no matter who's President, because it so clearly raises taxes on many many people. That's why the Romney plan is so dishonest -- it assumes you can eliminate enough preferences to offset a major rate cut for the top, when in fact, you really can't.

      •  How many families (6+ / 0-)

        earning less than $200,000 have more than one house?  

        The mortgage interest deduction is already limited to a certain amount depending on your income level.  

        If you own a million dollar house with a mortgage and  your interest is more than $20,000 a year, your might only be allowed to deduct $16,000.  

        I see that on tax returns at work.  

        If we don't fight to keep the mortgage interest deduction, even for people with a second home or with a mortgage on a million dollar home, first they'll take that and then they'll come for us...

        It's their foot in the door.  I have nothing against wealthy people - as long as they pay their fair share in taxes.  They already get a break by not contributing to SSA and Medicare on their FULL salaries (anything over $106,000 it stops coming out).  They get breaks on dividend and investment income - the kind on income that people like me don't have.  

        If mortgage interest and charitable contributions are taken away from people who make more than $100,000 (or $200,000 - depending on what plan we're reading) what's to stop them from taking it away from everybody else - there are more of us, and our little $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 deductions add up.  

        "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential." - Barack Obama

        by Ricochet67 on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:13:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          craiger, PrahaPartizan

          people making over $106k in income don't get to collect SS benefits on that additional income.  A person who made $1mil every year of his working life is going to collect the same benefits as someone who made $106k every day of his working life.  

          •  ??? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marty marty, basquebob

            I'm going to guess that the person who made $1 mil every year of his working life is fairly unconcerned about the size of his social security check

            "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
            CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 07:30:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  yes it is regressive. The plan is to raise the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            cap, not eliminate it, for SS. I've heard 200 - 250,000 as the probable caps - lower much more likely.

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 07:32:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And to be fair, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            no one contributes to SS above the $106K mark since that's the cap. But I don't think that that is the definition of fair. Although SS does pay in proportion to what one puts in, it shouldn't be a straight line. In other words, SS should provide at least a modicum of dignity to all retired individuals, so some might put in more than they get out but in the end the objetive should be to provide some kind of floor for everyone. I know that that is not how it works but it is not a bad aspiration for a society. And as TrueBlueMajority said above, "the person who made $1 mil every year of his working life is fairly unconcerned about the size of his social security check", unless something catastrophic happens to them and then there will always be SS for them. Even Adam Smith said

            "What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
            •  That's exactly how it works (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Theres a floor, and a ceiling. Nobody gets less than the floor, regardless of how little they made during their working life, and nobody gets more than the ceiling, regardless of how much they made, because the contributions are capped.

              I think that's fine. Theres no need to change it, other than raise the cap slightly, and adjust the top payout levels very slightly.

              Tweaks, not major overhauls.

        •  Minor point (5+ / 0-)

          There's no limit on FICA deductions for Medicare, but Social Security deductions are capped.

          We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

          by Samer on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:39:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  My family (6+ / 0-)

          and a lot of us who had to move for work, but have not been able to sell the old place yet are sitting on two mortgages.  If the old place is not in renting condition, or no renters nibble you are out of luck.

          Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

          by barbwires on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:53:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm pretty sure it's already gone (4+ / 0-)

        on anything beyond a 2nd home.

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:18:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's deductible on any rental property (4+ / 0-)

          And I know of many military folks who own rental properties, and who earn far under <$200K.

          It's sometimes easiest/cheapest to buy when stationed in a new city...and then easiest/cheapest to rent it out when ordered to the next base - particularly with the housing market issues, a lot of people couldn't sell when they had to PCS (conduct a permanent change of station).

          If Romney's plan takes away the rental property deduction, it would hit a lot of middle-class military pretty hard.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site