1/1, 2/1, or 3/1 ?

[milohimself]

Getting to $2.9 trillion would likely require him to eliminate some of the largest items, such as the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for charitable contributions and the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance.

it's supposed to be tax neutral. i assure you eliminating interest deduction would not be a tax break for the wealthy.

I think we're soon going to see a shift in elimination and/or consolidation and reduction of tax deductions while allowing for lowering marginal rates... I can live with that.

 

[milohimself]

eliminating the interest deduction is a huge tax increase on the wealthy since on average the wealthy have a much high % of their income going to housing than the middle class. the reason? they can afford a high % of their income for a mortgage.

he's not suggesting compeltely cutting medicare. he's suggesting that we don't give the state gov'ts a blank check and allow them to spend whatever they want and then get a 100% match from the federal govt with no questions asked. this seems resonable.

the lower and middle class already benefit far more than the rich in the current system. they are getting these services essentially for free off the back of the rich.

Blank checks? I was under the impression each state gets block sums of money for Medicaid/Medicare. For instance, last I checked here in Oregon, nobody can sign up for OHP (our Medicaid/Medicare program), regardless of situation.

????????????

Originally Posted by utgibbs
No. I believe the lower tax rate is simply a corollary of the new economic principles in the vanguard.

No isn't clear?

Just a backasswards way of trying to promote bottom-up fiscal policy. We saw that during the relative control economy WWII/post-WWII, but I think we'll see either another world war or national revolution before we go back to that.

 

[TheDeeble]

I am one of the biggest anti-tax people on here. With that said, I will admit that if congress could show me on paper that they are cutting spending and entitlement programs and that I need to pay an extra 2 or 3% more per year in taxes so that we can totally wipe out all debt in the next decade I would be all for it. I just don't think it will ever happen. When I hear I need to pay more in taxes, I hear I need to support more lazy people.

If I actually believed they would follow through with it, I'd be for it also. I really miss having the belief that I'm in control of my financial health.

As it is now, I feel there's nothing I can do to change the pattern this country is in and my future is solely in the hands of a bunch of officials that aren't up to the task. I've spent my life working hard, avoiding debt, saving a good % of my income. And it feels to me now like I never had a chance. It's all going to be for nothing.

Congress could/Obama could show me himself verified by my personal attorney that the legislation would cut spending in needed areas.........and I'd still expect them to direct that money elsewhere instead of paying off debt. I firmly believe they'd just come out with some bs proposal to spend it somewhere else and trot out some % of savings over a 10 year span that is heavily disputed and relies on a myriad of factors that will never occur.

 

[utvolpj]

I think we're soon going to see a shift in elimination and/or consolidation and reduction of tax deductions while allowing for lowering marginal rates... I can live with that.

of course you're for it since you likely have very few deductions. They need to scrap and start over

 

[droski]

Blank checks? I was under the impression each state gets block sums of money for Medicaid/Medicare. For instance, last I checked here in Oregon, nobody can sign up for OHP (our Medicaid/Medicare program), regardless of situation.

than that's oregon's rule. the feds match any money spent. no questions ask. obviously the states have to spend 50%.

 

[lawgator1]

We can debate the specific mechanism of the increased revenue all day long, i.e. does it come from tax rate increase on the top (my preference), or from eliminating the mortgage interest deduction (apparently on the table with Ryan's proposal).

The point is, if we are going to move forward, let's fundamentally agree on a ratio and, knowing how much the debt is, then figure out a way to cut spending to match its share and increase revenue to match its share.

Just a way to get them off the starting spot.

 

[droski]

eliminating the mortgage deduction is a great way to ensure the housing market never recovers. personally i'd leave the tax system alone sans the two things i mentioned earlier and focus on the cost side.

 

[VolDad]

We can debate the specific mechanism of the increased revenue all day long, i.e. does it come from tax rate increase on the top (my preference), or from eliminating the mortgage interest deduction (apparently on the table with Ryan's proposal).....

The middle would be affected the greatest by this since the Alternative Minimum Tax effectively eliminates the deduction for the “Evil Rich”.

 

[utvolpj]

so Obama said the deficit is definitely an issue he will tackle. So I wonder, does he mean he'll start with this upcoming budget or is that just more that we will have to dig out from under?

 

[BeecherVol]

so Obama said the deficit is definitely an issue he will tackle. So I wonder, does he mean he'll start with this upcoming budget or is that just more that we will have to dig out from under?

I will take the bold to be more the realistic.