Taxpayers to Obama: Keep your hands off our deductions
posted at 8:48 am on April 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
In his speech on Wednesday, Barack Obama suggested that eliminating some tax deductions might be necessary to close the budget deficit, at least on a means-tested basis. Gallup’s latest poll taken after the speech shows the political risk in pushing that idea. Large majorities support the deductions Obama mentioned in the speech, even when told it would help close the federal budget deficit:
Americans make it clear they want to keep common federal income tax deductions, regardless of whether the proposed elimination of those deductions is framed as part of a plan to lower the overall income tax rate or as a way to reduce the federal budget deficit. No more than one in three Americans favor eliminating any of the deductions in either scenario. …
Budget plans that call for lower overall tax rates, such as the one proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, would essentially require that popular deductions be eliminated, basically trading off one tax break for another. President Obama’s commission on deficit reduction last December called for eliminating deductions, including the one for mortgage interest, as part of its plan (ultimately rejected) to reduce the federal budget deficit.
The most eye-opening result in the survey is that the home-mortgage deduction actually comes in last among the three mentioned (61%), although it’s nearly a tie with the deduction for state and local taxes (62%). More than seven in ten people want to keep the charitable-contribution deduction (71%), with only 26% favoring its elimination. When framed as a deficit reduction measure, support for the state and local taxes deduction drops to 58%, while support for the home-mortgage deduction (60%) and the charitable donation deduction (68%) barely move.
The commitment to these deductions doesn’t rely on personal use, either. Only 43% claim the mortgage deduction and it still gets 61% support. Among those who don’t claim interest on their taxes, the deduction gets near-majority support at 49/39, which means elimination isn’t even popular among renters. Majorities claim deductions in the other two categories, but majorities of the minorities that do not still support the deduction: 62% of those who don’t claim charitable donations, and 52% for those who don’t claim state and local taxes.
Politically speaking, it will be almost impossible to eliminate these deductions, at least when keeping the existing tax system. Unlike the corporate tax code, people understand their own deductions and how it benefits themselves and the economy without playing favorites or choosing winners and losers. Cancelling the home-mortgage interest deduction would have a devastating effect on the housing market, which is hardly a beacon of economic health these days as it is. Charitable organizations would get hurt in an elimination of the deduction, although probably not to the extent the housing market would. The least defensible of the three would be the state and local taxes deduction, as the federal government probably shouldn’t indemnify taxpayers for those expenses, but convincing people to pay more through closing that deduction will be a difficult task at best.
The only way to get around these popular deductions would be to replace the current system entirely, either with a flat tax that offers no deductions but a much more realistic and transparent tax rate, or with a consumption tax that eliminates income reporting. Otherwise, for people looking to find revenue in eliminating these deductions — and how much would we find there anyway? — this looks like No Sale.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
That’s my point. That’s essentially how we did it before the sixteenth amendment. I’m well aware that the absence of the sixteenth amendment doesn’t preclude the taxation of income. It does preclude taxation of a direct personal nature, however. Taxes would cease to be a function of individual income, and would start to be a matter of state population — which is how the founders always intended it.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM
Actually, you are exactly right. Senators were chosen (and sometimes recalled) by the state legislatures since excessive spending would land on the states.
The House acted like the “wish list” (which is why spending bills must originate there), and the Senate acted as a check on them so that spending wouldn’t get out of control.
dominigan on April 15, 2011 at 10:32 AM
These deductions have been around a long time. They create distortions and so make our economy less efficient by misdirecting resources, particularly toward real estate. However, it is the credits, not the deductions, that have exploded over the past twenty years that need to be curtailed. It’s turned the tax code into a giant weath redistribution system. In 2010 people making $48,360 can get the earned income tax credit! Couples with a stay at home parent subsidize two income households through the Child and Dependent Care credit. They just keep adding them, picking winners and losers in the tax code lottery: tuition tax credits, energy efficiency credits, first time home buyer credit, child tax credit, making work pay credit, etc. etc. They are nothing but social engineering. They should all should be abolished.
Ted Torgerson on April 15, 2011 at 10:32 AM
No. it. isn’t. Me subsidizing the state and others a little less is not the same as the state sending me an entitlement payment. You are adopting the leftist perspective that allows Obama to call genuine tax breaks government “spending”. You are buying into leftist spin that heavy tax payers like me are somehow being “paid” money if we write anything off to reduce our burden of subsidizing the State and non-taxpayers.
Maybe I’ll go buy that $600 tv today that’s on sale for $500 and tell my wife I got paid $100. We’ll see how she reacts.
forest on April 15, 2011 at 10:32 AM
Wage income taxed without apportionment was held to be unconstitutional three times, including twice when it was used as war funding. The sixteenth amendment was an end-run around this issue.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:33 AM
I would prefer an amendment to cap on the size of the federal government at 10% of the GDP. If we start weening people off Social Security, this could be realistic in the future.
thuja on April 15, 2011 at 10:37 AM
It’s a curious argument for Obama to make that the ‘Bush tax cuts aren’t paid for’. Even if you buy into such a notion Obama and his fellow Democrats are directly responsible for 4 Trillion of debt since 2008 so obviously they don’t have a problem with things ‘not being paid for’.
gwelf on April 15, 2011 at 10:38 AM
I’m not normally given to citing poll numbers for any reason, but even if you assume Obama’s ratings are pure bunk, it’s still astonishing the number of people who probably do buy what he’s peddling.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Nah, if we pared the Federal government back down to that, we wouldn’t need the income tax anymore.
Repealing the 16th doesn’t just eliminate the income tax, it also returns us to having to apportion spending, which eliminates redistributionism.
LarryD on April 15, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Apportioning taxes would have the practical effect of capping the size of government. Whatever anyone else tells you, that is the real reason the sixteenth amendment probably won’t be repealed (even though I wholeheartedly believe that it should be).
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:42 AM
As I said before, the ultimate in flat tax! ;)
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:42 AM
I’m for replacing the present tax system with something else–fair tax, flat tax, etc. But I do know that non-profit organizations that are primarily concerned with relief efforts will have problems if the deductions for charity are eliminated. Many take in thousands of dollars of “matching gift” money from companies like Microsoft whose employees donate directly through their paychecks to the orgs. That money is then matched by the company, who is willing to do it because of the charitable donation deduction. There’s also something known as “gifts in kind,” where a company will donate to a non-profit things like t-shirts that they couldn’t sell at a game (the wrong team won) that are then distributed to the poor. Or other things like bottled water, or toothbrushes, or blankets. Those items are given a monetary value and then deducted off of the companies’ taxes. Eliminating that deduction would affect a lot of the funds and much-needed items that charitable non-profit orgs take in–both religious and secular.
theotherone on April 15, 2011 at 10:43 AM
I understand your concern, but this cuts to the heart of the matter where our founding principles are concerned. Government simply has no business encouraging charitable donations. We need to change to a tax system that allows people to keep more of their own money so that they can make decisions to give to charity on their own.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Not exactly. For example, the 1864 act levying an income tax was upheld in Springer v. United States in a unanimous decision.
Later (1895) the tax on property income was challenged in Pollock based on the apportionment, with the Court making a decision that if part of the tax were invalidated based on the apportionment requirement, then the entire tax should be struck down because the intent of Congress is unclear that the entirety of the tax should be borne by only wage earners (in other words, the ruling wasn’t based on a finding that the entire tax was unconstitutional, but only that a portion of it was.). I think this is what you’re referencing. It’s interesting to note though that in this very case the SCOTUS ruled that an income tax in and of itself is not a direct tax.
JohnTant on April 15, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Lowering rates and removing loopholes at the same time would be a good plan. Oh, wait, that’s in Ryan’s plan and the Budget Commission plan.
Obama’s plan would remove loopholes and RAISE rates, which is a double whammy on the people who support America’s charities, companies, and workers.
hawksruleva on April 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM
C210,
You are so off it’s not even funny. Let me enlighten you as to the differences between all of these.
Companies pay unemployment taxes, which you then collect if they fire or RIF you…there is some transfer among companies, especially if you collect longer than normal. But unemployment taxes a company pays increases the more people they fire or lay off, which can be a deterrent for some. The only time the taxpayer pays for this is when the Feds force states to lengthen unemployment eligibility, which means they either tax or borrow from that fiscal year. But those laid off aren’t getting their hard-earned money back, but instead taking from companies or active taxpayers.
Welfare is more obviously a transfer in wealth, as recipients NEVER contribute to a system, but instead take from employed taxpayers. PERIOD.
Social Security, as the only permitted Ponzi scheme, is a special situation. Anyone who’s already retired is actually taking from current contributors, where those who have yet to retire will be lucky to live long enough to get their investment back. Let me explain: If you retired in 1991, you got your investment back in 1-2 years (or by age 65, if retired at age 63). If you retire in 2035, you’d have to live 40 years just to get your investment back (or 117 for those retiring at age 67). So current recipients are the first generation who might (MIGHT) be able to make the claim they just want their hard-earned money back, but it depends on when they retired.
WHEREAS, tax deductions for mortgage interest is deducted, by the individual, from TAXES PAID, by the same individual, within that same tax year. This, in my view, is the ONLY OPTION you mentioned that actually qualifies as ‘keeping one’s hard-earned money’, yet you lump in all this irrelevant and inaccurate information…as if you intend to convolute the discussion (unless it’s not clear in your head).
I actually have no issue with eliminating this deduction as part of a 16th Amendment repeal, but we’d have to eliminate most of the Federal government too.
I don’t mind my employer’s SS tax to con’t paying for those over 50/55 to receive SS (that should be means-tested to ensure it stays in the black), and eliminate it for all under that age. We’re not going to get our money back anyway, regardless of income (black men almost NEVER get it now, since their life expectancy is below the retirement age)…why even try to dangle that shriveled carrot?
Eliminate all other programs not in the Constitution (I’m okay with keeping LE and Intel agencies, but all others can go, IMHO, as all they do is skim $ off the top & nothing more).
Miss_Anthrope on April 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Not at all. The deduction is every bit as much a part of the tax rate as the taxed income is. Is is one whole package. Tax owed equals applicable percent of income less deductions. That is the cost of government to you. The money received back is just a return of your own money which the Govt. was holding in trust for you. It’s the same as withdrawing your own money from the bank which you had previously deposited to your account. Again, your scenario only makes sense if one assumes every dime of income anyone makes is the government’s from the get go.
tommyboy on April 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Also, it’s hard to understand how a duly ratified amendment can be considered an “end-run.” An end-run would be something willed into being through judicial fiat…and frankly, the outlier decision in the first Pollock decision more neatly fits the definition of end-run with it’s inconsistent premise that a tax on income from property is the same as a tax on the property itself.
JohnTant on April 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM
Not if taxes taken from income are apportioned according to census data. It’s rather self-evident to me that if the very concept of “tax brackets” didn’t run entirely contrary to the principles of our founding as espoused in the constitution, an amendment wouldn’t have been necessary.
I’m not making the “income tax is unconstitutional” argument that got Wesley Snipes in trouble. I’m simply saying that if it’s not that big of a deal (and I don’t think it is), we the people should be able to undo the changes that we the people made. We made those changes, embodied in the sixteenth amendments, based on a pack of lies that we were spoonfed, and much of our erosion of freedom has stemmed from that era.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM
I mostly agree with what you said, but there is an economic argument that favors the mortgage deduction:
This argument has the problem that it would also apply to interest on credit cards. I guess you could argue that use of credit card debt is much more voluntary that having a mortgage.
thuja on April 15, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Now you’re going down a rabbit trail there that I hadn’t intended to follow. I believe that the sixteenth amendment, indeed duly ratified by the people, was sold to us on the basis of a series of lies. I think it was always the progressives’ intention to use it as a tool of social engineering, and it is that social engineering that I am against as a moral question.
As a practical constitutional question, if we the people changed it, we the people can change it back. Whether we have the political will to do what is necessary in order to accomplish that is another matter altogether.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM
I don’t take from your comments that you think income taxes are unconstitutional (evil maybe, but not unconsitutional…), but just pointing out that even without the 16A wage income can be taxed without apportionment.
The need for the 16A exists because of Pollock and, honestly, political considerations. An income tax that only hits wage income but leaves rental/dividend income alone would not fly (you think you see class division NOW…). On the other hand, satisfying the apportionment requirement on property-derived income would require even more intrusive and labrynthine regulations than is currently the case…and that’s really saying something.
I’m losing you when you’re talking about income brackets. I’m not sure if you’re coming from an equal protection perspective or something else…
JohnTant on April 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM
I am so happy that this post about economics has got over 100 responses so quickly. This issue is so much more important the news posted about gay marriage which gets a thousand responses in an hour.
thuja on April 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM
If you went to a 10% flat tax on all income above the poverty line without deductions, then we’d all be better off and things like home mortgage deductions wouldn’t be important anymore.
EasyEight on April 15, 2011 at 10:59 AM
I just want it to go back to the way it was before. I’m a pretty simple guy, and still relatively young. I’d like to die in the same America my great-grandparents grew up in.
And I still say repeal the sixteenth.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Conservatives note that because state and local income taxes are deductible, to an extent we are all subsidizing those poorly run democratic-held states with high tax rates. They are going to get higher as the greedy government unions in those states raid their treasuries. We all laugh at hellholes like Illinois and California for their corruption, but we are not entirely isolated from their bad government.
slickwillie2001 on April 15, 2011 at 11:03 AM
A series of lies? Well, I think it’s clear the 16A was passed and ratified to correct a rogue SCOTUS decision in Pollock, so I guess I would see that statement as defensible. :)
I also agree the 16A, as an academic matter, can be repealed. Certainly.
Where I think we part ways is the effect of that repeal. The most that will happen is we will get back to the Brushaber status quo that says taxes on property income must be apportioned but everything else will be left alone. There will undoubtedly be a challenge to Pollock that, given how the majority went askew from stare decisis in its premises on the nature of taxes on property income, will probably overturn that ruling.
As for me, I’ve long been a supporter of a flat tax and no payroll withholding. I don’t believe the so-called FairTax is workable, so count me in the camp that says we all send in a postcard every year with a check. :)
JohnTant on April 15, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Part of the reason for 16th amendment was to eliminate the financing of the federal government by tariffs. I believe that was an admirable goal.
thuja on April 15, 2011 at 11:05 AM
In that case, whatever difference-of-opinion you and I may have, I can live with it.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 11:06 AM
And I believe that part of the reason for that argument stemmed from American entry into WWI. The scaling back of Tariffs didn’t correspond with an economic surge until the constantly increasing tax brackets were rolled back in the late ’10′s, thusly facilitating the roaring 20′s boom.
There were a lot of factors that prolonged the Great Depression, but tax policy certainly was among them.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM
In considering the fair/flat tax, always remember the Canadian experience. When their government first introduced the GST concept, the story pushed was that it would eventually replace the income tax altogether. Of course it didn’t, they now have both and always will because politicians will never willingly turn off a flow of revenue.
Government is greedy.
slickwillie2001 on April 15, 2011 at 11:10 AM
The history of this deduction would interesting. All I know about it is that it came with the Revenue Act of 1913, the first income tax law. I’d bet it became law in some back room deal with a Senator from a high tax state, but that is merely speculation on my behalf.
thuja on April 15, 2011 at 11:13 AM
Slightly O/T:
The Revenue Act of 1913 also established the first federal debt ceiling, thusly allowing congress to put the government in debt without individual votes on every debt issuance.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Elimination of the charitable donation deduction is key to understanding the rancid mind of the Leftist. He wishes to wipe out all such acts of charity as they challenge the government’s supreme role as holy benefactor to all.
rrpjr on April 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM
The deduction for state and local taxes MUST stand. A wage-earner never sees the money he/she pays to state and local governments, and the Federal Government cannot impose taxes on “income” a person never had–this would be double taxation, or a tax on a tax.
The charitable-contribution deduction encourages generosity, while letting individuals freely choose which charities are worth their gifts. Why should a person be taxed on money he/she has given away?
The mortgage-interest deduction is the least defensible on Constitutional or moral grounds, but it is vital for the home-construction industry. For a fixed-rate mortgage, the interest payment is highest early in the repayment period, usually when the borrower’s income is lowest, and the tax deduction can be crucial in whether a borrower can qualify for a loan. Later in the repayment period, the interest payment decreases, and most of the payment reduces principal and increases homeowner equity. If this deduction were suddenly removed, many RECENT home-buyers (who were the most vulnerable in the 2008 crisis) would be forced out of their homes, which would throw thousands of home construction workers out of their jobs, and increase the unemployment benefits paid by governments.
Steve Z on April 15, 2011 at 11:17 AM
How about just getting government out of social engineering altogether?
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Gryphon, you are confusing the time line. The justification for the 16th Amendment occurred before it passed in 1913. The Democratic Party had wanted to get rid of tariffs for a century by then. I’m sure both of us would have agreed with some of the arguments that the Democrats used during that time period. Some of their arguments and motives were not Progressive. Still, it is too bad that Teddy Roosevelt went all Lindsey Graham on us and the 16th Amendment was passed.
thuja on April 15, 2011 at 11:21 AM
If rental income and dividends are taxed, then why not regular stock/company investments? I mean, if we really want to ‘target’ the wealthy (a la PBHO), then why hasn’t he taken up this as his mantra?
Could it be because that is where all of his political supporters are? Hmmm?
Just because my household is in the 6-figures doesn’t mean I’m wealthy. I can’t afford a house, and the childless status adds to my tax pain. I drive a $13k vehicle, and my hubby’s cost us $16k. We live in a 2-br apt, and my commute is at least an hour to earn all that so-called ‘wealth’. The cost of living here is literally KILLING us.
Yeah, I’m rich all right.
IMO, our real problems stem from taxing the sh!t out of people trying to BECOME wealthy (who haved earned enough income to seriously invest), but allowing those who are ALREADY wealthy (and earn no income) to avoid paying anything. Warren Buffett anyone? He pays FAR BELOW what the rest of us in those ‘top’ brackets do.
If you REALLY want to eliminate class warfare, we either ALL pay a flat (or MUCH flater) tax or NONE of us pay a thing.
I could live with either. What I can’t live with is earning any more. I actually took a pay CUT last year after I owed $5k out of pocket with no deductions, no allowances, and $200/additional withholding/paycheck. As a result, we have to take out ANOTHER $200/paycheck just for us to get money back this year, even WITH the paycut.
It’s time to quit & become a Greeter at WalMart.
Miss_Anthrope on April 15, 2011 at 11:22 AM
The resistance to an actual constitutional amendment wasn’t worn thin by people’s supposed hatred of tariffs. It was worn thin by American entry into WWI and the need for war funding. I think good people can disagree on how much practical effect the sixteenth amendment had, but there sure is a hue and cry over repealing it for something that supposedly only has symbolic meaning.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 11:24 AM
There is something wrong in this senario… because I thought the real problem was corporations not having to pay money they make overseas and things like that…
Housing, charity, and anything family related seems an odd place to start the arguement.
I don’t really know much about corporate taxes but it seems like the people who are really serious are those who discuss corporate taxes for money made overseas and outsourced and stuff that actual has an adverse effect on our domestic economy.
How do billion dollar corporations not pay US taxes? Maybe I’m being niave but that seems wrong to me. Why do we reward US business for out sourcing to other countries? Or setting up a dummy tax address in the Caymans, when the business is really done here and that is a front.
I am really out of my depth on this subject but it almost seems like a strawman arguement to threaten go after families.
petunia on April 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Petunia, I suggest you look at the entire structure of taxes. Corporations make money to pass that money to that money to their owners. If the owner is paying taxes on dividends and capital gains, then the corporate income tax means the owner is taxed twice on the same dollar. Either dividends and capital gains shouldn’t be taxed or their should be no corporate income tax.
thuja on April 15, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Haven’t a couple of commenters here already spoken out earlier in the thread against double-taxation?
The most basic economic truism is, as Thomas Sowell likes to point out, people will buy more at lower prices, and less at higher prices. All else being equal the same applies to labor.
If you want to make corporations come back to America, you don’t need to pass a law. In fact, history has shown us time-and-again that passing laws is counterproductive more often than not. Make it less expensive to do business here than elsewhere, and “corporate loyalty” will cease to be a problem.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Ummm, home ownership is lower than it’s been in a while. Why would renters care? Why is that so surprising?
grosven on April 15, 2011 at 11:53 AM
Renters care because landlords don’t operate at break-even. Every tax they pay gets passed on to their renters in some form or another, just like corporate taxes always get passed on to the consumers of corporate goods.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 11:53 AM
heh, didn’t read the rest of the article. Stupid comment :D
grosven on April 15, 2011 at 11:55 AM
They should care, but they don’t. This is where economic illiteracy rears its socially destructive head. What happens is renters just resent the increased rent. Just like credulous citizens take up the “corporations are evil” mantra when they read headlines about corporate taxes (written by equally illiterate MSM “business reporters”). If Republican politicians ever tried to make clarifying arguments on any of these points… but they’re either illiterate as well or just cowards.
rrpjr on April 15, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Flat tax is the way to go. Instead of tying up so much intellectual brainpower in legal tax obligation avoidance, those people could actually do something productive.
Ditto for the IRS.
disa on April 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Sounds like everyone has their entitlement/s…
Karmi on April 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM
I’m a renter, and I care. I’m not an entrepreneur or a business executive, but I care what happens to entrepreneurs and executives. I hope to God I’m not in a minority in knowing that what happens to entrepreneurs and executives and landlords affects me, but I fear I probably am.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM
You are the one buying into the leftist spin that deductions aren’t entitlements and spending, dipstick.
Count to 10 on April 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM
Yep. Corporate income tax is just double taxation of investment income, complete with even more spending-in-the-form-of-deductions.
Count to 10 on April 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM
Now don’t go calling me “dipstick” because you can’t understand what’s obvious.
Revenues (or lack thereof) are on one side of the ledger and expenditures (or lack thereof) are on the other. They are supposed to balance, but that does not mean they are the same thing. Entitlements are expenditures. The government writes a check. Tax write-offs, for people who are net tax payers, are not government payments. They are a reduction in taxes paid by that taxpayer. I know you and Obama want people to believe that the State foregoing some revenue is spending, but it simply isn’t.
And I don’t much care for you saying I’m being “subsidized” while I sit here and write checks to the government to the tune of $10,000 per quarter. I’m paying the government. They aren’t paying me. I’m the one doing the subsidizing. If you think the government is “spending” by “subsidizing” me, I’d like to see the check.
forest on April 15, 2011 at 1:39 PM
I submit that Americans remember aaaaall the way back to 1986, the last year of “tax simplification.” Spearheaded by Reagan and Rosty, it eliminated a whole pile of then-popular tax deductions — including interest on consumer loans — in exchange for lower tax rates.
Then what happened? As predicted by cynics (myself included), Congress and special interests immediately set about unraveling this reform. We ended up with higher tax rates (though, admittedly, not as usurious as before) — and we didn’t get any deductions back. (More at Wikipedia.)
Hey, Obama: Fool us once, shame on you…
Paul_in_NJ on April 15, 2011 at 1:51 PM
The final balance between you and the treasury is irrelevant. It is the process that matters.
Count to 10 on April 15, 2011 at 2:10 PM
And thus is your ignorance laid bare for all to see.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:18 PM
Just do what a friend of ours did: he runs a 2 man boiler repair buisiness in ND. He has more work than he can handle. He wanted to hire another full timer, but when he looked into it, the extra business would have caused him to move into a higher tax bracket.
So he’s not going to hire another person & basically his incentive is to work less & make less $$$ bcs it isn’t worth it.
This is disgusting that people are having to make these choices.
I have an example of renter gouging & it is getting insane in W. ND.
My daughter who has been a valuable, responsible renter has seen her rent increase by $200/month.
This building is very old, from the ’60s.
They do MINIMUM maintence on overything & that is only AFTER the tenants have complained for months.
The upstairs dryer needs to be replaced bcs it takes 2 full cycles to dry a normal load. It used to never dry but they replaced the heating element after many months of not working & it still doesn’t work right.
My daughter also had a nasty black mold problem in her bathroom. The company doesn’t want to replace the flooring, just slap new linoleum on top. But it won’t get rid of the mold. So the contractor’s doing his best to convince them it is necessary to replace the subfloor.
There are still slum lords out there.
And in Oil Country: W. ND, there has been a lot of that crap lately.
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 2:28 PM
You know where those problems are worst, Badger? Where government rent controls are in place. If you’ve not already done so, I highly recommend reading the latest edition of “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell. 99.9% of the time, where people have these sorts of problems, there’s a government agency lurking somewhere in the background screwing something up.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM
You will be raped with wire-brushes, at best, in his second term. If you vote for him, you and your progeny deserve it fully.
Schadenfreude on April 15, 2011 at 2:33 PM
So let me get this straight-if I pay no federal income taxes bcs of all of the deductions, I am being subsidized bcs I’m not paying for govt services?
So paying gas tax, sales tax, property tax, phone taxes, utility tax, etc. is not helping pay for govt services at all?
I’m just an entitlement leech?
I have no problem with going for a flat tax rate.
All of these little taxes are eating us all alive.
If we just pay the flat rate, it will be much easier on all of us, IMHO.
And govt will then have to operate according to this level of funding.
Just bcs a person does not pay federal income taxes does not mean they do not contribute in any meaningful way.
I do not partake in govt subsidies like Medicaid, SS, food stamps, commodities, WIC,LIHEAP, etc.
I pay state income taxes & local property taxes.
I also pay sales taxes & gas taxes, which are both state & federal.
Our side business, commercial trucking, we pay IFTA taxes, as well as fuel taxes.
The federal govt has no revenue problem witht he existing taxes on the books now.
It has so much money that it wastes it.
It needs to operate within a thin means.
And IMHO the flat tax is probably the best thing for that, after repealing the 16th.
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 2:34 PM
It wasn’t like this until the Bakken went nuts.
I’m sure some OSHA regs, EPA crap etc may be adding to costs somewhere. I do not deny that.
But the sharp increases in rent in our oil boom towns is only for pure profit.
I cannot blame anyone for trying to profit off of the oil boom.
But when you pay for a service & then are asked to pay double, the least they could do is treat you decent.
But bcs there’s a hundred other guys waiting to rent that apt & will put up with low or no maintenance, the rental companies can get away with treating people like crap.
It’s very unfortunate bcs you’d think a rental company would want responsibile tenants.
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 2:38 PM
That’s why I’m not a member of the anyone-but-Obama crowd. I don’t want to have to make a choice between the wire brush of Obama, or the smooth broom handle of a statist-lite Republican.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:38 PM
Schadenfreude on April 15, 2011 at 2:38 PM
A rental company wants to turn the best profit they can, just like any other business. Economic truisms are no less true because of individuals’ emotional considerations. I have no end of sympathy for the frustration, but basic human nature and the attendant economic realities never change.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:40 PM
And for the record, I’m certainly not saying that these companies should be penalized.
But if the city of Dickinson wants more for their town than mancamps everywhere with the high crime & slums, then perhaps they need to figure out a way to help this situation.
Bcs families are having a hard time living here. They’re moving away & there’s lotsa jobs in Dickinson, but no one can find a place to live.
It’s pretty bad.
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 2:40 PM
Nevermind the specifics of my situation then and address the rest of the comment. Saying that tax write offs and tax cuts are “spending” is a false equivalence that the president indulges in to try to justify his tax increase schemes.
I’d personally prefer some kind of flat tax or consumption tax to what we have now, but I’m not going to indulge in faulty arguments to try to get there.
forest on April 15, 2011 at 2:41 PM
Amen, Badger. I’d like to see both happen. I like to think that if the 16th is repealed, some sort of flat tax would become a practical necessity, but there is room for good people to disagree on that point.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:41 PM
See my above comment.
I think that is where local govt comes in.
I’m not for all sorts of rules & regs.
But Dickinson has become a raging hell hole.
1st the college started it when they started bringing in all of these foreign students for the $$$-AKA multicultural experience.
All it did was raise crime & drive away native students.
Now the oil fields are making real estate prime stuff.
They say lately there’s only like maybe 30 properties available at any one time.
Stuff’s bad.
I hope the city can find a way to do something about it without being draconian.
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 2:43 PM
I don’t live that far from Dickinson, actually. I’m from South Dakota, myself — northeast corner, to be more specific. It can not be stressed enough, where people get screwed over, government is almost always directly or indirectly responsible. It’s true of the banking/investment industry, health care, housing, you name it.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:43 PM
The closer the solution is to local, the closer it is to private-sector, the better — but I’m all too familiar with zoning/code enforcement that some people from my hometown see as draconian. Even my dad’s had a few run-ins with the Z/CE office that’s cost him tens-of-thousands of dollars on a property he doesn’t want to get rid of, but hardly steps foot in anymore.
I haven’t been in Dickinson for I couldn’t tell you how many years, but I wonder if there aren’t some other dynamics at work up there that you and I might not be aware of. I dunno, but I’m awfully jaded, and I can’t help but think it’s a real possibility.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:47 PM
IDK Dickinson’s far west. I’m sure you know that. But NE SD is quite far away.
I’m just north of Lemmon SD by like 30 miles, right across the border.
I think that is why local control is where these things should begin & end. The state should be the only entity involved in dealing with problems like the oil boom in ND.
The feds have no business in any of this & in actuality, they have been doing nothing but robbing the states of $$ & redistributing it.
I know ND is a receiver of federal funds-something like $2 for every dollar we send out.
And that isn’t right really.
I just cannot fathom why we need so much federal funding.
Like when I see the Fargo, Grand Forks, & Devil’s Lake areas getting declared disasters & getting FEMA money.
These people are living in active flood plains.
WTF is wrong with them for staying there once they’ve been flooded out several times?
I really have no sympathy for these people.
I can’t help it bcs we go through this EVERY YEAR!
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 2:51 PM
Relatively near. I mean, near enough that I’ve been there visiting family via automobile. I don’t have family there anymore, suffice it to say — and for much the same reason you are feeling so much frustration.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:53 PM
A reason for housing crisis in Dickinson is the 80s oil bust. Dickinson & many other oil communities got burned back then by ponying up a lot of $$$ to develop housing etc for the ‘coming oil boom’ that never occurred.
Well now things are much different.
This boom isn’t like the last one.
India & China are competitors now for one thing.
So the Bakken is going to continue to be Rockin’.
New housing is being built. Like to the west of the mall, something like 3 new large apt buildings are going up.
There is more N toward Killdeer going up, too.
Companies are trying to locate man camps, but there are towns going NIMBY on them.
These guys have to have somewhere to stay.
So I hope they iron things out.
This boom is a blessing, but it’s also a curse.
Communities are really struggling.
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 2:55 PM
I see the oil development coming down here to hettinger co, Adams co & down into the Buffalo SD region.
We are right now getting some oil folks moving in bcs there’s no housing in Dickinson & we’re 50 miles from there.
I welcome the development. My hubby is wary.
I am really hoping they want to lease our ranch & stick a bunch of pumpers up on it.
I say go for it ;)
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 2:57 PM
Yup, I hear ya. Back in the 1980′s, they figured there was petroleum under there that they just couldn’t extract economically. Now that oil prices are going up and technology is increasing, the infrastructure that was left up there is starting to heat up again. I remember travelling through the highways along the wildcat fields back in the day — like little ghost towns.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 2:58 PM
I think you can make a pretty penny up there now with wildcatters, can’t you? If they actually find anything, that’s sweet sweet icing on the cake. :P
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM
He’s not trying to have a real discussion. He’s literally acting like a troll.
fossten on April 15, 2011 at 3:19 PM
Your ignorance is jaw dropping. You sit hear and whine to everyone about loosing your own personal entitlement. You don’t even get that P.BO wasn’t even talking about deductions — he was trying to label the cut of the top tax bracket’s marginal rate as “spending”.
Count to 10 on April 15, 2011 at 3:26 PM
Who is acting like a troll? I am correcting you error. Wake up! Your deductions are just part of the leftist spoils system.
Count to 10 on April 15, 2011 at 3:27 PM
You’re having a difference of opinion.
You think they are wrong & they think you are wrong.
End of story.
I also happen to think some of the things you’ve said here are wrong.
In the end, I think we can all agree the feds spend way too much & the beast needs to be starved.
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 3:40 PM
I can only imagine that the irate responses I am getting by pointing out the truth on this are because people know deep down that it is true, but don’t want to admit it even to themselves.
Count to 10 on April 15, 2011 at 3:44 PM
I wouldn’t equate anger toward anything you are saying automatically as an indication that you are speaking the gospel truth.
Sometimes people get angry bcs the person they are arguing with is being obtuse.
If people get angry when they are debating with me, I try my very best to step back & consider if their anger is justified.
I feel that some of it is in this case.
Of course, you are always free to believe that you are right, we are all wrong, & then, of course, there is nothing left to say.
Bcs in the end, no matter what, you feel you will always be right.
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 3:52 PM
OT: Speaking of money, the Post Office printed 3 billion stamps with the face of the Statue of Liberty replica from Las Vegas, not the real statue in the harbor.
I wonder if the casino will sue over the use of the image, or was it available for anyone to use after paying a fee? Three billion stamps would mean a lot of royalties.
Just askin’.
KyMouse on April 15, 2011 at 4:20 PM
I don’t understand the purpose of that.
In actuality, why does the post office need to print fancy stamps.
There’s no need for it. Simple monetary values on the face with counterfeit measures. That in of itself is expensive enough. WhyTF do we need pretty pictures on our stamps?
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 4:23 PM
See, I reject the premise that deductions constitute the government giving me anything. That’s my money. I earned it. Now if we’re going to have an argument over whether I’m entitled to keep the money that I actually earn? That’s really straining credulity.
I know, I know. You’re going to turn around and tell me, “That’s not really money you’ve earned.” Okay, then. I guess that’s a difference-of-opinion you and I will have to work through in this debate. I think I’m pretty confident that the founding fathers would be on my side, anyway.
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Badger40 on April 15, 2011 at 4:23 PM
American stamps are extremely cheap and not high quality at all so don’t worry.
lexhamfox on April 15, 2011 at 7:46 PM
I did some insurance work for a new pipeline there. They are pumping more than they can remove which is causing a bottleneck. If the prices stay where they are they should be able to eventually go back and extract in areas where they have already drilled for more but the current work is all pretty cheap to extract and would be viable even at low prices.
lexhamfox on April 15, 2011 at 7:51 PM
Wait, so a deduction in taxes owed IS spending (in your view) but a reduction in rate (which deducts taxes owed) is NOT spending (in your view)?
So your point is basically that reducing taxes is spending AND reducing taxes isn’t spending…
Want to try that again?
gekkobear on April 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2