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.
I have to ask though, if paying more interest is better because it saves you more money why don't more people get an interest only mortgages? Or why do people try to get the lowest interest-rate they can even refinancing to get a lower interest-rate?
See my above post. It's not that paying MORE interest is so much better, it's that doing it in the first place may not be needed. For example, we own our homes in full. But "the market" tells me I should take out 3.5% mortgages on them so I can get an interest deduction.
Since my average return in my brokerage accounts is 10% (since 2003), I could then invest that money and get another tax break on the capital gains I make.
But is this true Economic Activity that benefits the nation as a whole- to the extent it drains our common Treasury? I'd say no.
This is why more people want to migrate legally or illegally to USA and not other countries.
In fact, another anecdote, all of my nephews and nieces from the UK, actually my husband's nephews and nieces would love to migrate here, UK is the home of the Economist, they live in near poverty or poverty as I and my kids see from across the pond. Even with free healthcare there vs here. In fact two are already here. Another couple is debating to come here. If not for the fact that one doctor has to be recertified again, she would have been here in a hard beat.
The UK is the closest to the US in "lack of" economic mobility.
I can give you dozens of anecdotes. Don't mean nothing. You can go to many clubs of cancer survivors. Doesn't tell you a thing about those who "didn't beat" the disease.
The UK is a MUCH poorer county (per capita) than the USA - but when you talk about social mobility, you aren't comparing per capita...you are discussing the ability to change your "born into" class in an economic fashion.
There have been a number of studies which looked at this and came to the same conclusion - that income inequality in the USA and UK are more exaggerated than in other western democracies and that the opportunity to move your class is less.
This does not mean that a poor American isn't better off than a poor English or French person. Of course, if one is very poor just the universal health care is a BIG deal. Without health we have nothing.
Just curious how those on the board feel if many current tax deductions such as mortgage interest & charitable giving were eliminated and a higher standard deduction was applied? ...
OneSlip, I’m a proponent of most, (if not all) mention of finite numbers of dollars within federal laws and regulations should be subject to those amounts being annually cost of living adjusted; (as we similarly adjust social security retiree’s monthly benefits).
Similarly in concept, I advocate that individual taxpayers’ total annual tax credits and deductions of taxable interest for their non-commercial residences, should be subject to a “cap” based upon USA’s prior year’s median individual residential house values.
We should not be subsidizing mansions.
Computers could now enable the IRS to require recognized charities to account for, and annually publish their percentages of administrative costs. The IRS should reduce portions of allowable charity deductions based upon the individual charity’s percentage of administrative costs.
This being the land of imperturbable sense of equality, we're all supposedly middle-class. It's just that some are more middle than others.
The IRS Statistics of Income tables provide all the yardstick one might need in seeking to estimate such a vague-to-begin-with notion as that of "middle class." It is true as you point out that some do self-identify as "middle class" who should not, but the point was over whether current tax proposals might be part of yet another conspiracy from the top to shift tax burden away from themselves and onto somebody else, whethr those be called the "middle class" or not.
The UK is the closest to the US in "lack of" economic mobility.
I can give you dozens of anecdotes. Don't mean nothing. You can go to many clubs of cancer survivors. Doesn't tell you a thing about those who "didn't beat" the disease.
The UK is a MUCH poorer county (per capita) than the USA - but when you talk about social mobility, you aren't comparing per capita...you are discussing the ability to change your "born into" class in an economic fashion.
There have been a number of studies which looked at this and came to the same conclusion - that income inequality in the USA and UK are more exaggerated than in other western democracies and that the opportunity to move your class is less.
This does not mean that a poor American isn't better off than a poor English or French person. Of course, if one is very poor just the universal health care is a BIG deal. Without health we have nothing.
I'm not surprised by your comment. Knowing you constantly post about the billionaires getting Medicare.
But back in my SIL time, she and her husband started out with nothing, and were able to boost strap to living a multimillion pounds house in a posh suburb. For her kids, no such luck, despite them being brought with stellar schools and colleges. So mobility actually decreases for the younger generation. Of course, it's just one person I know. But overall, the UK used to pay for college and a lot of free stuff. Not anymore. I mentioned the U.K. Because the Economist is from the UK. Right now, everybody is the same now, no chance of mobility for anybody.
If you think other countries have better mobility then move there. What you wrote discount the fact that millions of immigrants, both legal and non legal, still want to come here. Why?
The IRS Statistics of Income tables provide all the yardstick one might need in seeking to estimate such a vague-to-begin-with notion as that of "middle class." It is true as you point out that some do self-identify as "middle class" who should not, but the point was over whether current tax proposals might be part of yet another conspiracy from the top to shift tax burden away from themselves and onto somebody else, whethr those be called the "middle class" or not.
Have you studied the most-recent IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin? I have.
For 2015, the total tax liability of those by adjusted gross income (last number reported at bottom on page 1 of IRS Form 1040), was as follows:
Less than $30,000 of adjusted gross income - 25.1% of all tax returns filed reported total tax liability of 1.8% of all tax returns filed.
Less than $100,000 of adjusted gross income - 75.6% of all tax returns filed reported total tax liability of 20.4% of all tax returns filed.
Over $250,000 of adjusted gross income - 4.2% of all tax returns filed reported total tax liability of 51.6% of all tax returns filed.
So, to whom has the tax burden been shifted? Use statistics and not rhetoric please.
The minute you mentioned the Economist then your credibility may be questioned. My husband is thinking of discontinue his subscription of the Economist. They have been wrong on multiple issues. Even the Thomas guy that most newspapers cite for his income inequality's article repeatedly saying that people are misquoting him. I'm not citing anecdote to prove my point. But I think the US is the best in mobility comparing to other countries in Western countries. We have the best in retirement satisfaction according to a recent USC survey.
This is why more people want to migrate legally or illegally to USA and not other countries.
In fact, another anecdote, all of my nephews and nieces from the UK, actually my husband's nephews and nieces would love to migrate here, UK is the home of the Economist, they live in near poverty or poverty as I and my kids see from across the pond. Even with free healthcare there vs here. In fact two are already here. Another couple is debating to come here. If not for the fact that one doctor has to be recertified again, she would have been here in a hard beat.
Have you studied the most-recent IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin? I have.
The SOI tables contain reference data. You don't "study" them but look things up in them. Like what a reasonable definition of "middle class" might look like. The discussion at hand is meanwhile about vague ideas of what PROPOSED tax changes that haven't even been formally proposed to this point might look like. There are no real-world data for such things. You can't look them up anywhere.
Sorry, you are jumping to conclusion. I never even read that website ever. The only newspaper I read is WSJ. My kid who is only 21 just spent a month in Europe and she has since reached the same conclusion. I've reached this conclusion for years of travelling to U.K. My money did go a lot further in USA and I make more here too.
Last edited by NewbieHere; 08-17-2017 at 01:42 PM..
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.
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.
