This Romney dressage hobby certainly is snooty

We also contributed to the care and feeding of the nearly 50% of Americans who pay no federal income tax at all, so throwing a horse in there doesn’t really bother me.

CurtZHP on July 28, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Really? You’re Hell-bent-for-leather to tax poor people and the old folks but you’re fine with a tax write-off for horsecare?

urban elitist on July 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM

To my buddy Rogerb —

I may be a liar/moron/commie/statist/elitist/welfare cheat, but I apparently have more of a real life others who post here and so I often spend my time living, rather than keeping endless internet discussions going. It’s fun to have fun and all that, but sometimes I like to read a book, talk to my wife, catch a movie, see friends or have a nice meal. Certainly, I have to wonder about someone who comes back to week old discussions looking for answers to questions that — as you looked them over — should have seemed a little insipid. But:

So you and I paid for the care and feeding of his horse.

urban elitist on July 28, 2012 at 8:08 PM

For consistency’s sake, you also oppose any/all welfare recipients keeping pets other than service animals, correct?

rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Mitt Romney’s horse is (potentially) costing me money. For consistency’s sake, I oppose welfare recipients keeping pets if it costs me money — that is, if their TANF payment increases based on the number of pets they’re feeding. Also, for consistency’s sake, I have no problem with the Romneys keeping a dressage horse whose grooming does not become a tax write-off.

Here’s the problem — you clearly didn’t think this question through, because a non-taxpayer funded cat is not the equivalent of a show horse that doubles as a tax write off.

Urban Elitist, one more, and it’s a simple yes/no question:

So governments create their budgets anticipating taxpayers’ full total pre-adjusted wages/incomes, and then have to figure out ways to make up the funding after they’ve “lost” taxpayer deductions?

rogerb on July 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM

That’s, of course, not at all what I said — or so gross an oversimplification (I know you need to keep things simple) as to miss the point entirely.

Government expenditures have to be paid for, either through current revenue or borrowing, which in turn must be paid for. In its wisdom, the government determines various tax rates for various groups and entities: corporations, partnerships, individuals and families of varying income levels and so on. Whenever one group pays less, that amount must be made up somehow.

We allow mortgages and donations to NARAL and other charities to be deducted from our income taxes. That means, in order to realize the same amount of revenue, the overall tax rate has to rise. This is arguably unfair to renters and the non-charitably-minded, but society has determined that your church and my house deserve to be supported by people who will never set foot in either one of those structures. And a credible, if not entirely persuasive, argument can be made that charitable donations and home ownership bring sufficient public benefits that the public should support them.

If Mitt is writing off $77k on his horse, the tax on that income will ultimately have to be made up somehow.

Really, it is simple. And if you were a conservative, rather than just some random internet crank, you’d be as appalled as I am. Even Romney should be appalled — isn’t this just the type of loophole he’s pledged to close so that he can lower tax rates?

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 9:51 PM

urban elitist on August 10, 2012 at 10:17 PM