Obama is attempting to gut jmfcst

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All this talk about “closing loopholes” in the tax code is just another word for tax increase.  And there are 4 (four) areas where Obama is attempting to gut my wallet:
1)   raising income taxes
2)   ending deduction for charitable contributions (which is really nothing more than an attempt to close down churches as tithers would get creamed by ending this deduction)
3)   ending deduction for health-insurance premiums
4)   ending deduction for mortgage interest (this is not really an issue for me, but is for many other jmfcst's)


never mind the fact that the jmfcst’s are the bedrock of this economy:
1)   those who have never taken government assistance
2)   families who made the choice at the very beginning of parenthood to have one parent stay at home with the children, sacrificing economic gain for the good of the children, keeping their kids out of trouble and in school
3)   those who support the community and help others in need
4)   those who live frugally and make savings a priority
5)   self-employed who pay BOTH sides of social security tax

what is Obama going to attempt to tax next, my pre-tax IRA contributions?...so that I will have to rely on social security and become another ward of the state?!

Seriously, Obama knows very little about how people in the real world, much less the economy, function.

[opebo]

Dude, the man is going easy on you - in a better world you'd be down-the-maw:



So don't complain about a little privilege-reduction.

[Yelnoc]

This calls for....

[opebo]

And btw, what's with the rabbit pellets in your signature, jmfcst?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And btw, what's with the rabbit pellets in your signature, jmfcst?

they are were my black jelly beans, which la Mikado, the Bitch, stole.

[J. J.]

And he'll probably lose exceptionally badly if he tries to end charitable deductions.

Do you actually have a link to what he is proposing.  There is a charitable deduction limit.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And he'll probably lose exceptionally badly if he tries to end charitable deductions.

Do you actually have a link to what he is proposing.  There is a charitable deduction limit.

it came during the "grand plan" debt reduction talks and McDonnell almost went for it before Cantor and Ryan slapped him around and brought him back in line.  I made reference to it back then:

when the $4T deficit reduction plan, including $1T in new taxes, was being negotiated behind closed doors, I heard they were going to remove 3 tax breaks:  mortgage, health insurance, and gifts to charity.

I have no idea what they were thinking, but this would have unleashed a reaction that would have dwarfed the anger at the town hall meetings which spawned the Tea Party Movement.

If the GOP is smart, they will hold town hall meeting to take the pulse of the people before decided which reforms to make, because a new tax bracket for millionaires is going to be MUCH more palable to the GOP base than elimination of these tax breaks.  McConnell has no clue that he came very close to destroying the GOP.

[bullmoose88]

Friend,

I agree with your general premise that doing some of these things, right now, would be deleterious for the overall economy.  But I've read your points and some of them...seem..."funny."

For starters...

3)   ending deduction for health-insurance premiums
4)   ending deduction for mortgage interest (this is not really an issue for me, but is for many other jmfcst's)

never mind the fact that the jmfcst’s are the bedrock of this economy:
1)   those who have never taken government assistance

a)  If we're going to tax income...shouldn't we tax all the compensation an employer gives its employee for the latter's work?  Health Insurance IS compensation/income, and I doubt you'll disagree with calling it that.  

b) It being income ties in with this point...giving a deduction for mortgage interest IS a subsidy.  It makes homes more attainable for the middle class and wealthier joe in ths country and boosts the construction business.  

c)  While not as overt or explicit as cash assistance, food stamps, welfare etc...it is government assistance to all those people smug that they aren't living on what the great "o" calls our inadequate government dole.

That's not to say...that ending that assistance, at this time...is a good idea.

5)   self-employed who pay BOTH sides of social security tax

Everyone working, ultimately pays both side of the employment/SS/medi tax.  You just pay both halves directly.  The other workers are deprived of compensation that employer is more than willing to pay Washington as part of the tax calculated on the employee's salary/wage.  If the employer is willing to pay a base salary that generates "its" share of the tax, it should follow that it'd be willing to pay the employee that amount absent the tax.  After all its still paying x(wage)+t(tax)...why should they care if it all goes to the employee absent the tax.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Friend,

I agree with your general premise that doing some of these things, right now, would be deleterious for the overall economy.  But I've read your points and some of them...seem..."funny."

For starters...

3)   ending deduction for health-insurance premiums
4)   ending deduction for mortgage interest (this is not really an issue for me, but is for many other jmfcst's)

never mind the fact that the jmfcst’s are the bedrock of this economy:
1)   those who have never taken government assistance

a)  If we're going to tax income...shouldn't we tax all the compensation an employer gives its employee for the latter's work?  Health Insurance IS compensation/income, and I doubt you'll disagree with calling it that. 

You’re off topic BM.  We’re not discussing taxing of employer provided health insurance for those working for someone else.  Rather we’re talking about the self-employed being able to deduct health insurance just like corporations deduct health insurance costs.

---

b) It being income ties in with this point...giving a deduction for mortgage interest IS a subsidy.  It makes homes more attainable for the middle class and wealthier joe in ths country and boosts the construction business.

c)   While not as overt or explicit as cash assistance, food stamps, welfare etc...it is government assistance to all those people smug that they aren't living on what the great "o" calls our inadequate government dole.

If you’re going to end the mortgage “subsidy”, you don’t end it for those already locked into a mortgage, else the extra tax burden could push them over the financial cliff and push them closer to foreclosure.

But, like I said, this doesn’t really impact me, just saying it would be political and economic suicide.

---

5)   self-employed who pay BOTH sides of social security tax

Everyone working, ultimately pays both side of the employment/SS/medi tax.  You just pay both halves directly.  The other workers are deprived of compensation that employer is more than willing to pay Washington as part of the tax calculated on the employee's salary/wage.  If the employer is willing to pay a base salary that generates "its" share of the tax, it should follow that it'd be willing to pay the employee that amount absent the tax.  After all its still paying x(wage)+t(tax)...why should they care if it all goes to the employee absent the tax.
 

If you think most employers would simply increase your salary accordingly, then you’re not living in the same business environment I am.  That’s like saying if the company cuts x amount of costs, they will pass that savings along to the employees instead of passing it along to the business owners.

[Tender Branson]

Well, of course he doesn't know how the real world works.  His only job has been as a community organizer (which is basically a glorified Democrat voter registration worker), and after that he spent his years in academia.

But seriously, though, for some reason I saw Opebo in the thread title.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, of course he doesn't know how the real world works.  His only job has been as a community organizer (which is basically a glorified Democrat voter registration worker), and after that he spent his years in academia.

But seriously, though, for some reason I saw Opebo in the thread title.

the only things separating Obama from opebo is CO2 and pushrods...other than that, they're basically indistinguishable.

[bullmoose88]

Err...1) Point taken. As your own employer you should be able to (continue?) deduct your business expense: health insurance. That's what i get for reading too quickly.

2) I'm not advocating an immediate removal. Especially now. Something gradual with some sort of grandfathering coupled with measures to prevent those from gaming the system by taking the largest mortgages they can before the cutoff to take advantage.

3) Im aware of the whole business wouldn't pass cost onto employee thing. Unusual for a blue avatar to make it. And you're probably right. But that doesn't negate the fact that the general employee pays both halves of the tax whether he knows it or not. Perhaps without the tax the employee could make the very argument I made. And maybe business will take it. Or not. But that doesn't change the fact that the employee pays the tax. No matter how disguised.

[King]

I believe Newt Gingrich wishes to do the same.

[angus]

All this talk about “closing loopholes” in the tax code is just another word for tax increase.  And there are 4 (four) areas where Obama is attempting to gut my wallet:
1)   raising income taxes
2)   ending deduction for charitable contributions (which is really nothing more than an attempt to close down churches as tithers would get creamed by ending this deduction)
3)   ending deduction for health-insurance premiums
4)   ending deduction for mortgage interest (this is not really an issue for me, but is for many other jmfcst's)


never mind the fact that the jmfcst’s are the bedrock of this economy:
1)   those who have never taken government assistance
2)   families who made the choice at the very beginning of parenthood to have one parent stay at home with the children, sacrificing economic gain for the good of the children, keeping their kids out of trouble and in school
3)   those who support the community and help others in need
4)   those who live frugally and make savings a priority
5)   self-employed who pay BOTH sides of social security tax

Tithing would be affected, and therefore churches and charitable organizations, which do gets lots of money from higher-income folks, would be affected.  But that amounts to about a 7% increase.  Every dollar you give to charity effectively costs you only 65 cents.  Under the proposal, that dollar would cost you 72 cents.  A difference, but not a huge difference.  Am I reading this right?

[WillK]

2)   ending deduction for charitable contributions (which is really nothing more than an attempt to close down churches as tithers would get creamed by ending this deduction)

Are you saying that tithers only give for the tax benefit of it?  That they don't actually believe in supporting their church?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Are you saying that tithers only give for the tax benefit of it?  That they don't actually believe in supporting their church?

it would be kinda dumb to give x amount for the sole purpose of savings ~30% of x amount in taxes. 

but, mark my words, there will come a day (and a lot sooner than people think) when a church will have to choose between its tax-free status and preaching the gospel, for the hate-crimes intent is to silence free speech and before preaching against some things becomes totally unlawful, church's will have their charitable status revoked if they continue to preach such things.

[WillK]

Are you saying that tithers only give for the tax benefit of it?  That they don't actually believe in supporting their church?

it would be kinda dumb to give x amount for the sole purpose of savings ~30% of x amount in taxes. 

Sure, but that seemed to be what you were claiming at the beginning.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Are you saying that tithers only give for the tax benefit of it?  That they don't actually believe in supporting their church?

it would be kinda dumb to give x amount for the sole purpose of savings ~30% of x amount in taxes. 

Sure, but that seemed to be what you were claiming at the beginning.

no, I said it was an "attempt":  "which is really nothing more than an attempt to close down churches as tithers would get creamed by ending this deduction"

charitable deductions have been a part of the federal tax code since the federal tax code began....because the government has always understood that having a neighbor help you is much better than having a government help you

[opebo]

the only things separating Obama from opebo is CO2 and pushrods...other than that, they're basically indistinguishable.

Right wing fantasy - Obama's much closer to you than he is to me..

[Boris]

I'm fine with attempting to provide health insurance to those who can't afford it, but it's really difficult to go out there and vote for someone who is going to actively reduce one's disposable income and standard of living. Especially in such a relatively toxic sales environment for small businesses and the fact that so many recent college grads are unemployment and therefore dependent on their parents.

1)   those who have never taken government assistance

No student loans?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1)   those who have never taken government assistance

No student loans?

not me, I worked my way through school.  But my arab wife took out loans, and I am the one who ended up paying them back.  Should have viewed it as a premonition as to how expensive she was going to be - I used to be able to drive a new car every two years, but since I married her, I drive a new car about once a decade.

[TJ in Wisco]

Are you saying that tithers only give for the tax benefit of it?  That they don't actually believe in supporting their church?

it would be kinda dumb to give x amount for the sole purpose of savings ~30% of x amount in taxes. 

Sure, but that seemed to be what you were claiming at the beginning.

People are going to donate less money if they elimintate the tax deduction. It's not just a matter of giving or not; it's how much.

[opebo]

not me, I worked my way through school. 

That's actually impossible, because university costs more than toils pay.

[TJ in Wisco]

Right now, one service program I contribute to is in an internal struggle over a related Obama initiative. The program is part of a Catholic organization and its purpose is to feed the homeless. It is part of a larger framework that does other things, but this organization in itself does not engage in evangelization. This program isn’t overtly sectarian in nature but does have one prayer at the beginning of every run that say. We have a variety of people from other religions than Catholicism and no one has ever complained before—in short there wasn’t a problem.

But, now President Obama has launched his new “Interfaith and Community Service Challenge” and our institution is partaking. The program I am involved in is voluntarily going along with the “Interfaith Challenge” and we’ve recently “decided” (though the discussion is far from over) that the prayer has to be removed because it’s against the spirit of the “Interfaith Challenge”.

Mind you, the entire point of the “Interfaith Challenge" is a “way to build understanding between different communities and contribute to the common good.”* It would seem to me that deleting all references to God (and the particular saint the program is dedicated to) does the exact opposite: it balkanizes religion into a separate sphere, removed from daily life and marginalized. Apparently the president believes that the way to get people to overcome religious differences is by deleting them.

* http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ofbnp/interfaithservice

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Right now, one service program I contribute to is in an internal struggle over a related Obama initiative. The program is part of a Catholic organization and its purpose is to feed the homeless. It is part of a larger framework that does other things, but this organization in itself does not engage in evangelization. This program isn’t overtly sectarian in nature but does have one prayer at the beginning of every run that say. We have a variety of people from other religions than Catholicism and no one has ever complained before—in short there wasn’t a problem.

But, now President Obama has launched his new “Interfaith and Community Service Challenge” and our institution is partaking. The program I am involved in is voluntarily going along with the “Interfaith Challenge” and we’ve recently “decided” (though the discussion is far from over) that the prayer has to be removed because it’s against the spirit of the “Interfaith Challenge”.

Mind you, the entire point of the “Interfaith Challenge" is a “way to build understanding between different communities and contribute to the common good.”* It would seem to me that deleting all references to God (and the particular saint the program is dedicated to) does the exact opposite: it balkanizes religion into a separate sphere, removed from daily life and marginalized. Apparently the president believes that the way to get people to overcome religious differences is by deleting them.

* http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ofbnp/interfaithservice

I wish you would have allowed me to remain ignorant of such ignorance.