JayB

Back in what day? My house is right around 3400 sq ft and it is a hundred years old. Why is it suddenly a "mansion". And for everyone else out there ready to tell me I should live in a 600 sq ft studio--fuck you. One of the many things I like about living in America is I can live wherever the fuck I want. Just so happens, I chose to live in the best thing in the best place I can afford (all subject to my own opinions and tastes obviously). And I agree that changing the status quo on this deduction sucks; many of us factored that into our purchasing decisions (it doesn't change my ability to live in my home--but I have other homes I also finance and use as income property). Our tax system is screwed--but don't fuck the middle class in the ass til the ass is worn out. Try taxing the uber rich, the mega hedgefunds, equity brokerages, and the corporations at the same rate those of us in the middle class get taxed. At least pretend to be fair. Corporate versus personal tax schedules here: http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html#ci Share of income and tax burdens by income bracket: Where's the write-off and credit section? that is where the rub is. I believe the chart shows actual receipts, so the figures are net of write-offs, credits, etc. Really? That wasn't apparent to me when I followed that link and looked at the page. It just lists rates. Furthermore, I don't see on that little graph where personal taxes are seperated from corporate taxes. Do you? I think that the chart in question deals only with taxes paid by individuals. This link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Shows share of total income and share of total (individual) taxes paid by income group from 1980-2004. "The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $60,041) earned 66.1 percent of nation’s income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (84.9 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $328,049) earned approximately 19 percent of the nation’s income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 36.9 percent of all federal income taxes." Whether you think that this is fair or not is a matter of perspective.

If discussing some generalities which relate to Craig in some fashion were the same thing as defending Craig, then you'd have a point.

I'd actually be in favor of full legalization of all drugs, extending the legal benefits of marriage to any two consenting adults, etc - but this isn't about my policy preferences. I've just been arguing that there may be people who may feel that their lifestyle choices may not be an ideal template upon which to base the construction of public policy. So long as they're candid about their own behavior, I don't think that charges of hypocrisy are warranted. Different standards apply to different behaviors - especially those involving consensual behavior between two mentally competent adults, or behaviors which don't harm anyone else directly - but I think there are cases in which one can engage in behaviors and still conclude that they should be condemned, illegal, etc. I don't think that Patrick Kennedy, for example, is under any ethical obligation to argue that driving while gorked out on prescription meds should be decriminalized because he was caught doing so. T

Back in what day? My house is right around 3400 sq ft and it is a hundred years old. Why is it suddenly a "mansion". And for everyone else out there ready to tell me I should live in a 600 sq ft studio--fuck you. One of the many things I like about living in America is I can live wherever the fuck I want. Just so happens, I chose to live in the best thing in the best place I can afford (all subject to my own opinions and tastes obviously). And I agree that changing the status quo on this deduction sucks; many of us factored that into our purchasing decisions (it doesn't change my ability to live in my home--but I have other homes I also finance and use as income property). Our tax system is screwed--but don't fuck the middle class in the ass til the ass is worn out. Try taxing the uber rich, the mega hedgefunds, equity brokerages, and the corporations at the same rate those of us in the middle class get taxed. At least pretend to be fair. Corporate versus personal tax schedules here: http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html#ci Share of income and tax burdens by income bracket: Where's the write-off and credit section? that is where the rub is. I believe the chart shows actual receipts, so the figures are net of write-offs, credits, etc.

Back in what day? My house is right around 3400 sq ft and it is a hundred years old. Why is it suddenly a "mansion". And for everyone else out there ready to tell me I should live in a 600 sq ft studio--fuck you. One of the many things I like about living in America is I can live wherever the fuck I want. Just so happens, I chose to live in the best thing in the best place I can afford (all subject to my own opinions and tastes obviously). And I agree that changing the status quo on this deduction sucks; many of us factored that into our purchasing decisions (it doesn't change my ability to live in my home--but I have other homes I also finance and use as income property). Our tax system is screwed--but don't fuck the middle class in the ass til the ass is worn out. Try taxing the uber rich, the mega hedgefunds, equity brokerages, and the corporations at the same rate those of us in the middle class get taxed. At least pretend to be fair. Corporate versus personal tax schedules here: http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html#ci Share of income and tax burdens by income bracket:

What about older houses that are poorly insulated and equipped with extremely inefficient appliances? Seems like total consumption would determine who has the highest eco-virtue, not necessarily the size of the home.

It isn't. The question was whether it's possible for someone to make a distinction between their personal choices and what they consider to be the correct public policy. Another example might be a senator who smokes cigarettes but votes for higher taxes on cigarettes, for the elimination of subsidies for tobacco farmers, etc. because he's convinced that policies which reduce the number of smokers would be beneficial for the country. In order to be a more accurate parallel, you'd have to have an openly gay legislator who declined to support pro-gay policy initiatives, or a legislator who routinely criticized smokers while taking drags in secret - but I think that there are cases in which someone can conclude that their personal conduct or preferences aren't an ideal model to base public policy upon or to promote via legislation and decline to do so. For my part, I think that a certain degree of candor regarding one's own conduct crucial for anyone that wants to straddle this line without being a hypocrite.

We have a convoluted tax code with "checks and balances" throughout it. The tax rate is progressive and based on income. Deductions are based on individual expenses and financial burdens balanced with benefits to society and the economy as a whole. Deductions themselves are in turn limited and based on income - e.g. the AMT. The deduction for a "child" (there are at least 2, three if you are poor enough) is for a dependent, which can include an elderly parent. The deduction helps the family afford care for that parent - otherwise the state would have to pay for said care. The deduction for a child makes it easier to afford the basics for taking care of the child - food, shelter, health care, education, music and sports lessons, etc. Take away the tax credit and something else MUST give. Another deduction that has not been mentioned is for cost of adoption. Families are reducing the state's responsibility for an orphan or unwanted child by adopting, at a great personal cost. The benefits to society should be obvious. There are deductions for moving more than 50 miles, for having a disability, for having exhorbitant health expenses, etc. And then of course there are the benefits for employer-sponsored 401(k)s. Why should that be a deduction? I mean, if you choose not to save money, that's your choice right? And employer-sponsored flexible spending programs - why should you get a tax break for paying your insurance premium, buying sunglasses, etc - we all have those bills, right? In short discussing removal of one or two specific deductions in isolation is ludicrous. They are all part of a complicated progressive tax system. The alternative is actually something like the "flat" tax, which may seem like an enticing alternative, but I strongly suspect it would actually prove worse than our existing system. I agree with most of what you wrote here, especially the part about modifying two deductions while leaving the remainder untouched. I haven't invested any time in comparing flat-tax regimes with complex tax codes like our own, but there are a few states that have made the switch and it would be interesting to see what their collective experience has been. Aside from the uneven distribution of subsidies, exemptions, etc is the problem of corruption that is inherent in such a system. When an entire industry depends on tariffs, subsidies, or tax breaks for it's existence, or when some particular group stands to reap a substantial windfall from some modification to the tax code, this can only promote corruption of the law and/or the tax code for the benefit of some subset of society. I doubt that there's any system of taxation which eliminates these outcomes entirely, but it's hard to argue that a simplified tax code would be any worse than the system that we're living with at the moment.

Just to stir the pot a bit, isn't it possible to engage in a behavior and still believe that it's wrong, or destructive, or dangerous and shouldn't enjoy the sanction of the state? Take the case of an elected official who frequently gambles a significant portion of his net worth, but believes that legislation which eliminated restrictions on gambling would be contrary to the public interest? Is this position entirely untenable from an ethical perspective?

Not from P-Chem or DiffEq's if my experience is any guide. Still remember writing "Go Huskies!" on the final question of one of those exams, which was good for 1 point out of 10....

rental properties have lots of costs they take on, and pass on to you, but you don't have to spend your time on addressing them either (maintenance, meeting fire codes, etc.) Time translates to money as well. if you want to reap the benefits of these tax deductions, buy. if not, quit whining about it. until you have run your own household, and seen what it takes (a hell of a lot more cost and work than renting), you'll never know. I definitely sympathize with and applaud the efforts of anyone trying to keep his or her family housed and fed these days, but that's true whether they own their shelter or rent it.

Because we only believe in free markets when we want to? Also known as "the only subsidies I don't like are the ones I can't get" Pointing out the absurdity of a situation where homeowners enjoy subsidies and renters do not isn't the same as arguing for subsidies for renters. Neither renting nor owning should be subsidized in any fashion IMO. I'd favor a wholesale shift away from annual on taxes on property to taxes on either profits realized by the occupants of the land (corporations/famers/car-dealerships, etc) or income (individuals), coupled with taxes on the capital gains realized on the sale of property that are consistent other asset classes. For one thing, this would keep old people from being taxed out of their homes.

"Of course, no landlord would include the costs of their mortgage and property taxes in the rent they charge. They just eat that cost." Hey - someone stole my reply. It's also conceivable that the difference between the value of the interest-subsidy exceeds the value of property taxes in the majority of the cases, in which case you still have a net subsidy for homeowners relative to renters, even if you don't factor the payment of property taxes through rent into the equation.

I like Bug, but disagree with the majority of the statements included in the post, starting with the following: "Their views on things mountainous and/or spiritual are quite different from our western way of percieving our world. Science is a great thing but to set it in opposition to religion or spirituality is as ignorant as setting religion or spirituality in oposition to science." If religion makes statements that are demonstrably false, attempts to influence anything that falls outside the proper bounds of its authority on the basis of such claims, etc - then science and religion are in direct conflict and pretending otherwise seems immeasurably more foolish to me. If your Church doctrine states that the world is 6000 years old, or that your ancestors materialized out of the mud in the midst of the lands that your tribe currently occupies, or that HIV is caused by demonic possession - then the moment that your religion/spirituality/whatever enters the realm of public debate, or attempts to influence public policy, then at that point it's claims enjoy no special exemption from analysis or scrutiny, and any state of affairs in which they do enjoy such exemptions is one that any reasonable person - religious or not - should dread.

Any reason why homeowners with children should be more heavily subsidized than renters with children?

This is an interesting idea, certainly the size home one owns has an impact just as the size and efficiency of one's car. Neither of these choices, however, has anywhere near the environmental impact as having children. If the US was serious about limiting environmental impact we would eliminate tax breaks for having children, or better yet implement tax penalties for having children. Another heartless right-winger attacking welfare. Shameful.

I've been constantly amazed that large homes haven't come under the same level of enviro-scrutiny that large cars have, and it will be interesting to see what kind of response this proposed legislation gets before its inevitable demise. I am sort of surprised that it's taken Dingell this long to come up with a way to extend the costs of addressing climate change beyond Detroit. I'd like to see the end of the mortgage interest deduction anyway, seeing as it can't be defended on economic or social grounds, as well as the elimination of the capital gains exemptions on profits from the sale of homes - but that's another topic. "WASHINGTON -- To add to mortgage meltdown miseries, the credit panic, plunging home sales and rising foreclosures, here's a new worry: a proposed cutoff of mortgage-interest tax deductions for all houses larger than 3,000 square feet. One of Capitol Hill's most experienced and powerful legislators is drafting a "carbon tax" bill that would do precisely that. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, expects to introduce comprehensive climate change reform legislation once Congress returns next month. Besides imposing hefty new federal taxes on gasoline, the forthcoming bill will, in Dingell's words, seek to "remove the mortgage-interest deduction on McMansions -- homes over 3,000 square feet." Dingell said he recognized that proposals such as these would be controversial, but that he believed they were essential to reducing carbon emissions by 60% to 80% by the year 2050. "In order to address the issue of climate change, we must address the issue of consumption," Dingell said in talking points prepared for town hall discussions of the legislation. "We do that by making consumption more expensive." Houses, like autos, long have been known to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through heating, cooling, electrical usage and building materials, plus the highways and roads needed to make far-flung subdivisions accessible to buyers.

Maybe Ted Haggard should move to Idaho run for the Senate seat in order to restore the dignity of the office....

Fight the power.

The combination of the speeds and the quality of the photos is what continually amazes me.

So vis-a-vis Donny Baker - is this life imitating art or the other way around?

Bountiful BC....

"Global Inbreeding Researchers who study inbreeding track consanguineous marriages—those between second cousins or closer. In green countries, at least 20 percent and, in some cases, more than 50 percent of marriages fall into this category. Pink countries report 1 to 10 percent consanguinity; peach-colored countries, less than 1 percent. Data is unavailable for white countries."

Let's get to the incident which prompted this post. Which mixed martial artist touched you inappropriately Dru? XOVS_SYyXe8

Ur. ---->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur Seriously. Ur welcome.