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.
......And taxpayers already do subsidize the mortgage payments of homeowners with mortgage interest deduction and SALT.
Actually, I agree with you there.
Mortgage interest and SALT deductions should be phased out completely.
If it's any consolation, they have been capped at $10k each going forward.
Plus it's mostly the well-off, and those mortgaged up to their eyeballs! - who will feel the loss, as they are more likely to file itemized returns.
That number is sure to decline next year when the standard deduction is doubled for everyone.
Last edited by PamelaIamela; 02-08-2018 at 11:23 PM..
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,572,211 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela
Actually, I agree with you there.
Mortgage interest and SALT deductions should be phased out completely.
If it's any consolation, they have been capped at $10k going forward.
And if it's any consolation, most homeowners don't itemize, so mostly the well-off ones - and those mortgaged up to their eyeballs! - will feel the loss.
But then again don't stop there.
People with kids also shouldn't get write offs over those without.
Married couples shouldn't pay less than single people etc etc.
But then again don't stop there.
People with kids also shouldn't get write offs over those without.
Married couples shouldn't pay less than single people etc etc.
actually many married pay more than single . that is the marriage penalty . it happens when both incomes individually are in the 15% bracket but combined it spills over in to the 25% bracket
Actually, I agree with you there.
Mortgage interest and SALT deductions should be phased out completely.
If it's any consolation, they have been capped at $10k each going forward.
Plus it's mostly the well-off, and those mortgaged up to their eyeballs! - who will feel the loss, as they are more likely to file itemized returns.
That number is sure to decline next year when the standard deduction is doubled for everyone.
Very interesting to watch Democrat and Democrat voters in thee high-tax states, paying much more than $10,000 in property tax are now complaining about paying more taxes.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,572,211 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
actually many married pay more than single . that is the marriage penalty . it happens when both incomes individually are in the 15% bracket but combined it spills over in to the 25% bracket
Yes, some do but some pay more. Typically where the people make disparate incomes, they will pay less. Typically where the people make equivalent incomes, they will pay more. IMO, there should be no marriage bonus or marriage penalty. Taxes should be the same regardless of marital status.
But then again don't stop there.
People with kids also shouldn't get write offs over those without.
Married couples shouldn't pay less than single people etc etc.
I repped you.. then realized you maybe were being sarcastic.. were you?
Of course neither singles NOR marrieds should gain advantage for simply teaming up!
Dependent deductions are more problematic.
In an ideal world, they too would be phased out, but for now the effects on birth rates could be extremely undesirable, as the poor, already paying no taxes, gain even more advantage via welfare supplements, while middle class birthrates would experience a society-altering decline.
For this reason, and this reason only, the subsidy for children, small as it is, should remain.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,572,211 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela
I repped you.. then realized you maybe were being sarcastic.. were you?
Of course neither singles NOR marrieds should gain advantage for simply teaming up!
Dependent deductions are more problematic.
In an ideal world, they too would be phased out, but for now the effects on birth rates could be extremely undesirable, as the poor, already paying no taxes, gain even more advantage via welfare supplements, while middle class birthrates would experience a society-altering decline.
For this reason, and this reason only, the subsidy for children, small as it is, should remain.
Yeah, a little. But still I think having deductions that some people can have and others cannot is unfair. If you are going to eliminate deductions, take them out across the board.
For children, it's a choice. Kids are expensive and people should consider the cost carefully in a perfect world.
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.
