U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2017, 12:30 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,906,546 times
Reputation: 3782

Advertisements

The solar investment tax credit for homeowners is 30% of the installation cost net of any state or utility company rebates. If the entire credit cannot be used in the current tax year, it can be carried forward over a five-year period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2017, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Close to an earthquake
890 posts, read 626,758 times
Reputation: 2384
I'm for broadening the tax base and lowering tax rates. Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction and charitable contributions deduction would broaden the base.

Eliminating tax incentives reverts things to an economic perspective. The tax tail should never wag the economic dog.

And while we're at it, there are a ton of business tax incentives that should be eliminated too. Again, broaden the tax base and lower tax rates.

Regardless of the approach, neither do much if government spending isn't curtailed. That's the tough part. So, we're stuck with deficit spending and a federal deficit that will continue to grow. Kicking the can down the road as a political solution will continue being the solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,432,561 times
Reputation: 14942
I'm all for eliminating deductions for state income taxes, city income taxes, property taxes, and mortgage interest.

Personally, I'm in favor of maintaining deductions for charitable giving - so long as the contributions are not mostly paying for the compensation of the charity administrators. I just don't see why a major charity needs to pay its top employees 7 figures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 01:52 PM
 
2,243 posts, read 1,388,386 times
Reputation: 4895
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
I'm all for eliminating deductions for state income taxes, city income taxes, property taxes, and mortgage interest.

Personally, I'm in favor of maintaining deductions for charitable giving - so long as the contributions are not mostly paying for the compensation of the charity administrators. I just don't see why a major charity needs to pay its top employees 7 figures.
Not that I think any of those changes will happen, but how is a top quality administrator for a non profit any less valuable than one working in a for profit enterprise? There's still a market rate for that skill set, and "non profits" still seek profit to survive and grow. It's just that the profits are redistributed back through the entity rather than being distributed to owners.

If they want talent, they still need to pay for it just like any other structure. A "top charity" won't be there for long with lacking leadership.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 01:54 PM
 
2,243 posts, read 1,388,386 times
Reputation: 4895
Quote:
Originally Posted by steiconi View Post
I don't have a mortgage (though I might in the future). Every year, I calculate standard deduction vs. listing everything, and I save more with standard. So in my current situation, raising the standard deduction would be good for me, as well as renters and folks who have paid-off homes.

Why should home mortgage interest be deductible, anyway? Sure, it encourages people to buy homes, but is it fair to penalize people who aren't financing a house? Like, poor people?

It does seem like a lot of tax credits aren't thought through very well. Like the credit for solar systems (solar power systems, that is, not the planets grouped around our sun); if you don't owe enough taxes, you pay more for solar than people who are earning enough to owe a lot. That's right, poor people have to pay more.
The tax credits aren't poorly thought out, you just don't seem to know the difference between refundable and non refundable credits.

Also, non homeowners aren't being penalized. There's a huge difference between being incentivized to act in a certain way compared to being penalized for not acting that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 01:59 PM
 
10,706 posts, read 20,126,250 times
Reputation: 9859
The problem is people hear "no mortgage deduction" and since 70% of the population are idiots and can't understand that at Trumps suggested deduction 95% of homeowners won't have to itemize. How amazing would it be to do taxes in 30 mins with almost no record keeping required?!?

I get some pretty generous deductions with my job but have to do a lot of record keeping, it's a PITA. I'd rather just make it nice and simple.

While we're at it let's make all capital gains as regular income and simplify it even more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 03:09 PM
 
6,820 posts, read 4,412,863 times
Reputation: 11941
Quote:
Originally Posted by steiconi View Post
Why should home mortgage interest be deductible, anyway? Sure, it encourages people to buy homes, but is it fair to penalize people who aren't financing a house? Like, poor people?
The mortgage interest deduction favors persons in more expensive markets, and/or persons buying pricier houses, where the mortgage interest is high. It disfavors persons who pay cash for a house, who buy cheaper houses, or who have been homeowners long enough, that the interest-portion of their monthly payments has become small. In sum, this deduction favors young professionals buying their first house in an expensive city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Yet is has nothing to do with what's personally beneficial and everything to do with what's socially beneficial.
What’s “socially beneficial” is not an incontrovertible fact, but itself a matter of contentious debate and opinion. By one reckoning, we need more assiduous mowing of residential lawns, and should encourage such behavior. By another, lawns are wasteful and environmentally unjustified, so we should discourage weekly lawn-mowing, given its pollution and noise. Who is right?

And besides, who among us has sufficient magnanimity and fortitude, such that we would NOT conflate narrowly personal interest, with abstract claims about the “greater good”?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 04:28 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,906,546 times
Reputation: 3782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
And besides, who among us has sufficient magnanimity and fortitude, such that we would NOT conflate narrowly personal interest, with abstract claims about the “greater good”?
People who cannot see beyond narrow self-interest should not participate in public decision-making. We routinely disqualify jurors for such shortcomings after all.

And what I've still not seen on this topic is an efficient model for how existing homeowners who bought and paid with an HMI deduction in place can sell to new waves of potential buyers who will not have that deduction available.

Last edited by Pub-911; 08-14-2017 at 05:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,432,561 times
Reputation: 14942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
Not that I think any of those changes will happen, but how is a top quality administrator for a non profit any less valuable than one working in a for profit enterprise? There's still a market rate for that skill set, and "non profits" still seek profit to survive and grow. It's just that the profits are redistributed back through the entity rather than being distributed to owners.

If they want talent, they still need to pay for it just like any other structure. A "top charity" won't be there for long with lacking leadership.
That's the conundrum. Yes, they require competent management. At the same time, expending 91% of total revenue on compensation of employees leaving little for the actual good work of the charity is unreasonable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,432,561 times
Reputation: 14942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Yet is has nothing to do with what's personally beneficial and everything to do with what's socially beneficial...
... according to the Will of the Protektorat. Funny how, despite yielding incredible social benefits, government bureaucrats don't just stop wasting the oxygen in the atmosphere. I guess they put what is personally beneficial to them above the social good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
People who cannot see beyond narrow self-interest should not participate in public decision-making.
Yes indeed -- yet they populate the ranks of the Deep State. Should they be allowed physician-assisted suicide for the social good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
What’s “socially beneficial” is not an incontrovertible fact, but itself a matter of contentious debate and opinion.
True. Unfortunately, the inside-the-beltway bureaucracy is convinced it knows best. And elected officials and government bureaucrats have seldom found any problems that couldn't benefit from just a bit more, "fiddling about" (as The Who said in rock opera Tommy).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top