Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-12-2010, 12:00 PM   #121
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreqFlyer View Post
Won't the "Death Panels" save us money by pulling the plug on grandma?
Oh, my!

If we thought the rhetoric got stupid, mis-informed, deliberately manipulative hot when the government was trying to extend benefits to people, I can only imagine what happens when we try to take some away.
__________________

__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-12-2010, 12:01 PM   #122
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreqFlyer View Post
Won't the "Death Panels" save us money by pulling the plug on grandma?

Yes they will. But folks will get used to the fact that spending big bux keeping geezers alive makes no sense when some younger folks are doing without needed care. You're old, you're dieing, get on with it so someone else can crawl into that bed!!
__________________

__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:13 PM   #123
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
My point was without that extra $600, our house would become about 40-50% of net pay, which is too tight IMO- we would be better off (quality of life) by walking away and renting that reducing savings or some other savings technique if the tax break was removed. That tax cut would make whatever mortgage crisis we have now 10X worse.
I'm sure any changes would be phased in, so you'd retain the taxpayer subsidy of your mortgage interest for a period of years, probably a decade or more. But, there's no doubt this would depress home prices for expensive houses and for homes in vacation areas (due to the targeting of deductions for second homes).

Lots of people argue for government involvement in various economic spheres to dampen the cruel price swings of the market. It's useful to remember that changes in government policy can produce swings just as cruel and far more capricious.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:17 PM   #124
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I would agree that the mortgage interest deduction can't be immediately 100% repealed because of the impact it would have on the housing market. This is also a concern with the "fair tax" or national sales tax (or VAT) that some are floating -- it also eliminates the mortgage interest deduction 100% in one fell swoop and could really tank the housing market at a time when it's already searching for bottom.

However, I see no reason why you can't (a) grandfather the deduction for mortgages that are already in place AND (b) reduce the deduction by (say) 5-10% a year for 10-20 years for all new mortgages in that time frame. That would allow an orderly unwinding of the deduction so it wouldn't have an immediate and devastating impact on home values.
I agree that home mortgage deduction can't be immediately 100% repealed, either. It can surely be capped and limited to first mortgages right away, though.

Your second paragraph is a good one, too. I noted earlier that personal interest was phased out (no grandfather provision) from the 1986 Tax Reform Act and losing the deductibility of credit card and student loan interest did not stop anyone from using their credit cards or getting student loans.
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:33 PM   #125
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
That tax cut would make whatever mortgage crisis we have now 10X worse.
The same can be said for any tax increase or spending decrease of any consequence. Each and every one of them will have some negative impact on some part of the economy. Rest assured that every single person impacted will claim that his personal tax shouldn't be raised or his benefit be cut for this, or that, reason. Oftentimes it will be the same person arguing for both lower taxes and higher spending, while simultaneously complaining that deficits are too high.

We really only have two choices. We can do it willingly now, and in a way that spreads the pain over a number of years and decades. Or we can wait and have it unwillingly forced upon us all at once. I'll choose the former. I hope most other Americans will too.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:34 PM   #126
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
For Defense spending... we should present Korea along with a few other countries!

I am for pulling out of most of the foreign bases we occupy.

Let Japan and Europe pay their own defense costs.

We have a big enough Naval fleet, long range aircraft, and missiles to take care of our business.
__________________
chinaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 12:45 PM   #127
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,156
Please check out this link: Poll: Will the US cut spending?
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 01:55 PM   #128
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
We have a decent income (6 figures+) and a proportional mortgage which is about 20k of mortgage interest and 30-40k on schedule A each tax return.

My point was without that extra $600, our house would become about 40-50% of net pay, which is too tight IMO- we would be better off (quality of life) by walking away and renting that reducing savings or some other savings technique if the tax break was removed. That tax cut would make whatever mortgage crisis we have now 10X worse.
This will sound like an attack on you... but I am not trying to... or trying to be mean...

But, it sounds like you bought more house than you can afford... and if you are putting down $40K in deductions.. that means you are not being taxed on say $30K... at 28% that is an $8,400 tax savings you have... or another way to look at it is that you not paying your share of taxes by $8,400...

I did not hear anything on why your home purchase or kids should be 'subsidized' by the gvmt.... (subsidy being lower taxes paid)...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 01:57 PM   #129
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
I'm fairly certain that the way to shrink government is to require it to be paid for...
+1
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 02:10 PM   #130
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
+1

I read an article on yahoo a few nights ago about this- if this is enacted, it needs to INCREASE my income by $600/mo because that is what the mortgage deduction is worth to me (the article I read discussed taking away the mortgage interest deduction)- and this does not even factor in property taxes, state taxes or kids (deductions and credits).

If they take away the deduction for mortgage interest, but do not offset my income another way, we would walk away from our house (probably) and deal with the consequences.
When you calculated the impact on your taxes, did you include the lower rates? The 10% and 15% brackets go to 9%, the 25% and 28% go to 15%.

I'd guess that you would still pay more with this proposal because it looks like you're a big user of itemized deductions, but it's worth looking at the whole picture.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 02:41 PM   #131
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
kyounge1956's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
+1

I read an article on yahoo a few nights ago about this- if this is enacted, it needs to INCREASE my income by $600/mo because that is what the mortgage deduction is worth to me (the article I read discussed taking away the mortgage interest deduction)- and this does not even factor in property taxes, state taxes or kids (deductions and credits).

If they take away the deduction for mortgage interest, but do not offset my income another way, we would walk away from our house (probably) and deal with the consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
We have a decent income (6 figures+) and a proportional mortgage which is about 20k of mortgage interest and 30-40k on schedule A each tax return.(snip)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
When you calculated the impact on your taxes, did you include the lower rates? The 10% and 15% brackets go to 9%, the 25% and 28% go to 15%.

I'd guess that you would still pay more with this proposal because it looks like you're a big user of itemized deductions, but it's worth looking at the whole picture.
jIMOh,
I am not sure you would lose your mortgage interest deduction under this proposal. Page 26 of the slide show gives the details of "Option 2" of the possible tax changes—it removes the mortgage interest deduction only for second homes, equity loans and mortgages over $500K. I'm not sure how to interpret this latter. It could mean you lose the entire mortgage interest deduction on any mortgage over $500K, or it could mean you can deduct the interest on the first $500K of a mortgage on a first home, but no more than that. If the mortgage is on a first home and under $500K I think you could still deduct that $20K/year.

In addition to the lower rate pointed out by Independent, when looking at the proposal's effects, did you include the increase in the standard deduction which is also part of Option 2? That would offset at least some of the loss of itemized deductions.
__________________
kyounge1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 06:58 PM   #132
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
The Commission came out with a couple of different options, so we don't know exactly what the plan is. But "Option 1" cuts the top marginal rate to 23%, treats dividend and cap gains as ordinary income, and gets rid of a bunch of deductions.

Compared with current law where the top rate goes to 39.6%, dividends are treated as ordinary income and cap gains are taxed at 20%, that sounds like a really, really good deal for high income people.

Most of the itemized deductions also get phased out already, so the folks who get stung by the repeal of those are the people making six figures rather than the guys making seven, eight and nine.

"Option 2" sounds like it would be better for lower income folks, with higher rates and a much larger standard deduction.
You are right there are several different options. Option 1 in turn has several different proposals, the zero option which nobody including the co-chairs expect to have any traction. The more realistic proposals have a top tax rate at 27-28% and include Child credits and ETC which specifically help poor people. Option 2 which is my personal choice, (although that is primarily because there aren't details in Option 1) has a some distinct advantages primarily that represent real legislation with bi-partisan sponsors.

In any case the current tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15% (not 20%) and unless the tax discussion completely stall the rate is likely to remain at 15% for the next few years. Therefore the increase from 15% for rich people income (i.e. capital gains) to 27-35% is quite large.

Finally, I noted that there is no phase out for mortgage interest on primary home and refi for people including 10 Million+/year actors and athletes were very popular prior to the crisis.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 07:42 AM   #133
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
Finally, I noted that there is no phase out for mortgage interest on primary home and refi for people including 10 Million+/year actors and athletes were very popular prior to the crisis.
No phase out but the deduction is limited to mortgages of $1MM or less. Those are the kinds of homes people with good six figure incomes buy, but are likely too quaint for the eight figure set.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 08:18 AM   #134
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Can we the original poster's perjoritive title to:

"Should we allow supply siders to acheive victory in their seventy years war against the middle class?"
__________________
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 09:11 AM   #135
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by keegs View Post
Can we the original poster's perjoritive title to:

"Should we allow supply siders to acheive victory in their seventy years war against the middle class?"



Pot calling the kettle black? More like a whole kitchen full of pots calling one little kettle black.




Holy (Sacred) Cow! - if you think your suggestion is less 'loaded' than the OP Title, I think my impression of you from earlier posts has been confirmed.

At least the OP was serious enough to spell the title words correctly.

Quote:
pejorative pe·jo·ra·tive –adjective

1. having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force:
What did you hope to achieve with that post? (please don't answer - that is a rhetorical question).


-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 09:20 AM   #136
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post


Pot calling the kettle black? More like a whole kitchen full of pots calling one little kettle black.




Holy (Sacred) Cow! - if you think your suggestion is less 'loaded' than the OP Title, I think my impression of you from earlier posts has been confirmed.

At least the OP was serious enough to spell the title words correctly.



What did you hope to achieve with that post? (please don't answer - that is a rhetorical question).


-ERD50

Don't MAKE.... me take the letter "T" out on you ..... ERD
__________________
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 09:33 AM   #137
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Charlie Rose - David Walker & Martin Feldstein on the Deficit
__________________
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 12:43 PM   #138
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
jIMOh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyounge1956 View Post
jIMOh,
I am not sure you would lose your mortgage interest deduction under this proposal. Page 26 of the slide show gives the details of "Option 2" of the possible tax changes—it removes the mortgage interest deduction only for second homes, equity loans and mortgages over $500K. I'm not sure how to interpret this latter. It could mean you lose the entire mortgage interest deduction on any mortgage over $500K, or it could mean you can deduct the interest on the first $500K of a mortgage on a first home, but no more than that. If the mortgage is on a first home and under $500K I think you could still deduct that $20K/year.

In addition to the lower rate pointed out by Independent, when looking at the proposal's effects, did you include the increase in the standard deduction which is also part of Option 2? That would offset at least some of the loss of itemized deductions.
I read a yahoo article prior to seeing this thread- it made no mention of a 500k limit/floor on where the tax cuts were.

If the posters to this thread are correct, then my modest 6 figure income and 350k mortgage would be under the limits, I think.
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
jIMOh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 04:21 PM   #139
Moderator Emeritus
Nords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by friar1610 View Post
You would know the details better than I, but wasn't New London originally on the Round 2 list for closure but then got taken off due to extensive lobbying by the Connecticut folks?
I don't mean that example to negate the wisdom of using a BRAC-like approach; I think it worked very well.
Sorry, missed this one the first time through.

I was on COMSUBPAC when BRAC'93 revved up, and that accounted for a majority of our no-notice crisis-inspired point papers to save the Pearl Harbor Shipyard and the attempts to save other California submarine facilities. It was amazing how much lobbying came from the military's rank & file for strategic reserves. I wonder how much of New London's salvation came from having Electric Boat/General Dynamics right down the street.

New London could've been saved by the political lobbying, but I bet it was pretty darn hard to find another place to replicate their training & maintenance facilities. Norfolk is already too crowded, Charleston is/was long gone, and Portsmouth lacks the space. King's Bay would be the only other alternative.

Then there'd be the expense of replication. It's amazing how much money goes into building a submarine schoolhouse, especially the firefighting and damage-control trainers. Nuclear maintenance facilities aren't cheap either, and their capacity can't easily be ramped up.

I think the submarine force is already at rock-bottom levels, so to speak, but if for some reason we shrank to the size of the Japanese submarine force then New London could be consolidated into King's Bay. For a price...
__________________
*
*

The book written on E-R.org, "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement", on sale now! For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I don't spend much time here anymore, so please send me a PM. Thanks.
Nords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 09:19 PM   #140
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
We really only have two choices. We can do it willingly now, and in a way that spreads the pain over a number of years and decades. Or we can wait and have it unwillingly forced upon us all at once. I'll choose the former. I hope most other Americans will too.
Sounds like you helped write the Healthcare bill.........
__________________

__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
when to get social security Rob FIRE and Money 71 08-12-2010 07:09 AM
Social Security, --- Again Sundance Kid Other topics 12 03-05-2007 08:53 PM
Social Security Again Again??? greg Other topics 60 11-13-2006 05:06 PM
any way to keep social security .............. zuki FIRE and Money 12 02-23-2005 05:23 PM
From the President's Panel on Social Security..... Cut-Throat Other topics 36 01-05-2005 09:24 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:58 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.