Obama is open to a big budget deal, but wants more revenues

Puhleeze

Now you want tax loopholes

cmsinaz on February 8, 2013 at 7:53 AM

This is no swipe at you, but I simply want to make a point about the term loopholes. I love this damn a** politicians who disparage legitimately enacted tax deductions that have been in the Internal Revenue Code longer than most of them have been alive.

To be sure, you can walk through the sections of the IRC that deal with corporations and other business entities and find provisions that favor certain industries. Fine–amend them in broad-based tax reform.

But when it comes to individuals, the talking points are usually about the itemized deductions listed on Schedule A of a Form 1040. And let’s be clear that in the case of each deduction, it involves a taxpayer’s expenditure of cash or some other asset that Congress has long ago decided warrants reducing that taxpayer’s taxable income for that year because the expenditure relates to an activity that Congress is willing to underwrite. Unreimbursed medical expenses (to alleviate hardships to some extent); mortgage interest (to promote home ownership); real estate taxes (same); state and local income taxes (in effect, a revenue transfer from the feds to the states); charitable contributions (to promote individual charitable giving). There are a few other Mickey Mouse deductions, but all have previously passed muster as promoting policies that Congress favors. To disparage them now as loopholes–shenanigans that enable taxpayers to get away with something–is absurd.

If we want to revisit these deductions, great. Let’s start with state and local income tax deductions. Why should residents of low-tax states and local governments subsidize the residents of high-tax areas? Eliminate the deduction altogether. Indeed, that fat a** Nadler from New York has, in the past, tried to get legislation passed that would enhance the ability of residents of high-tax areas to deduct their taxes. Mortgage interest and real estate taxes? Maybe there should be a cap so that the feds aren’t subsidizing the purchase of home over a certain value. Charitable? I tend to see this one as sacrosanct, but liberals hate it. It means enabling the rabble to use tax dollars for charitible donees of their choice rather than leaving the doling out to the feds.

Uh, hey there, Barry. You told Charlie Gibson back in ’08 that you were more concerned with fairness than revenues when it comes to tax policy. You could live with less revenue as long as you thought that fairness had been achieved. Why are you so concerned with revenues all of a sudden?

Bitter Clinger on February 8, 2013 at 8:19 AM

That’s an excellent point. The GOP should point to the Clinton-era reduction from 28% to 20% and the Bush reduction from 20% to 15% and say that if Obama wants more revenue, lower taxes!

BuckeyeSam on February 8, 2013 at 8:42 AM