Republican Budget Deal

  • Thread starter Thread starter evrheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 55
  • Views: 1K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
Agreed. Repealing the mortgage intertest deduction would double the penalty of selling. It would seize up a real estate market that is already broken.

Of course, Prop 13 has already done that in California. No one wants to sell in California because it means effectively doubling your property taxes (unless you move out of state). So only dead people, divorcees and retirees sell, which keeps the prices of houses artificially high and screws over the young people wanting to buy a house. Also makes it a very tough market for real estate agents.
Click to expand...
Yeah grandfathering in property tax rates like that is terrible policy. But repealing it will be really unpopular with existing homeowners whose rates will explode, so I dunno where they go from here.
 
CFordUNC said:
Whole lot of middle class folks gonna not like that mortgage interest deduction getting removed.
Click to expand...
The mortgage interest deduction and my wife staying home really helped my family when we first got started.

Now, with a 2.35% mortgage it makes no difference. But my daughter, who had a 4.5% rate, it helps.
 
For married filing joint taxpayers the standard deduction is $30k for 2025.
The 10k limit on SALT knocked more people out of itemizing deductions than the mortgage changes.

The mortgage deduction essentially says the bigger house you buy, the bigger tax break you get .... I can't believe all the lefty pinkos of the board would support such a thing. :D
 
BubbaOtis said:
For married filing joint taxpayers the standard deduction is $30k for 2025.
The 10k limit on SALT knocked more people out of itemizing deductions than the mortgage changes.

The mortgage deduction essentially says the bigger house you buy, the bigger tax break you get .... I can't believe all the lefty pinkos of the board would support such a thing. :D
Click to expand...
They capped it at $750k in the 2017 tax deal. Which is basically 60% of the median house price in Orange County, CA (and 50% in San Mateo). So you no longer get a bigger tax break with a bigger house.
 
BubbaOtis said:
For married filing joint taxpayers the standard deduction is $30k for 2025.
The 10k limit on SALT knocked more people out of itemizing deductions than the mortgage changes.

The mortgage deduction essentially says the bigger house you buy, the bigger tax break you get .... I can't believe all the lefty pinkos of the board would support such a thing. :D
Click to expand...
And what is that standard deduction for a single filer. And what is the median home price in Raleigh or Charlotte? And what are interest rates now?

You want to have a grown up discussion or not?
 
BubbaOtis said:
For married filing joint taxpayers the standard deduction is $30k for 2025.
The 10k limit on SALT knocked more people out of itemizing deductions than the mortgage changes.

The mortgage deduction essentially says the bigger house you buy, the bigger tax break you get .... I can't believe all the lefty pinkos of the board would support such a thing. :D
Click to expand...
Oh, shoot, silly me, I did not realize that lefty pinkos were somehow immune from wanting to keep more of their hard earned money instead of giving it to uncle Sam!
 
CFordUNC said:
Oh, shoot, silly me, I did not realize that lefty pinkos were somehow immune from wanting to keep more of their hard earned money instead of giving it to uncle Sam!
Click to expand...
The rule of thumb seems to be that if a tax provision helps me, it's solid policy. If it helps someone else it's a "loophole "
:p
 
BubbaOtis said:
The rule of thumb seems to be that if a tax provision helps me, it's solid policy. If it helps someone else it's a "loophole "
:p
Click to expand...
It's more about helping a majority of people who need it vs helping a fucking billionaire who is dead set on being the first person ever to be worth a trillion dollars.

And if 90%+ tax payers don't have the means to meet the qualifications for the tax break, it's a loophole, doesn't matter who it's helping.
 
evrheel said:
https://www.rawstory.com/house-republicans-budget-bill/

The New York Times has written an outline of Republican plans for a major budget reconciliation package and it suggests seems to involve slashing money for programs that benefit low-income Americans to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

Among other things, the Times reports that the GOP is eyeing work requirements to Medicaid that would cause an estimated 600,000 people to lose their health coverage; slashing the portion of Medicaid paid out by the federal government, thus putting an increased burden on states to fund the program; taxes on people whose offices offer free gyms; taxing all scholarship and fellowship income; ending the home mortgage tax deduction; and slapping a ten percent tariff on all imported goods, which would raise costs on consumers.

MOD EDIT TO ADD GIFT LINK TO NYT STORY —> What Republicans Could Cut to Pay for Trump’s Tax Cuts: Medicaid and More
Click to expand...
Dear lord, this would be devastating financial FAFO for tens of millions of Americans. Leopards, faces, and all that.

And Pubs better keep their grimy little fingers off my mortgage interest deduction.

1000006428.gif
 
rodoheel said:
I don't think there's any doubt that Dems aren't getting through to rural poor (as they haven't for decades) but if you think there are people on Medicare or Medicaid who won't care about losing it and having to pay out of pocket for medical insurance or go without, I think you're quite mistaken. (Personally I'm sure the GOP is much more likely to cut from Medicaid than Medicare anyway.)
Click to expand...
Which is curious because 60% of people in nursing homes are out of money and must have medicaid to pay for it.

That will be a fun battle to watch.
 
UNCatTech said:
And if 90%+ tax payers don't have the means to meet the qualifications for the tax break, it's a loophole, doesn't matter who it's helping.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be pedantic or argumentative, but this is a pet peeve of mine. A loophole is an available benefit that Congress did not intend to be an available benefit. If Congress meant to do a thing, it's not a loophole, it's a policy choice.
 
aGDevil2k said:
Which is curious because 60% of people in nursing homes are out of money and must have medicaid to pay for it.

That will be a fun battle to watch.
Click to expand...
And correct me if I am wrong-but that nursing home number is growing a lot-boomers
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Not trying to be pedantic or argumentative, but this is a pet peeve of mine. A loophole is an available benefit that Congress did not intend to be an available benefit. If Congress meant to do a thing, it's not a loophole, it's a policy choice.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting perspective.

Not sure this is the thread to discuss.

My understanding of loopholes is obviously somewhat different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top