KaskadskyjKozak

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.

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.

grades in US high schools and universities are ridiculously overinflated. they've even dumbed down the SAT so scores can be higher. it's all about not harming the fragile self-esteem of our students, making them "feel good" about themselves (w/o justification). the culture of entitlement. hmm... "feelings" and "entitlement", I wonder where a lot of THOSE ideas come from.

if you don't like it, buy a property.

Eliminate property taxes, and don't RAISE the federal income tax, and I'll be happy to forgo some of these deductions. The problem is overtaxing from multiple sides. As long as we have this crazy system of taxation nickle and diming us to death, I will have to play the game.

I'm glad to see that you await my every post with eager anticipation, Minxie.

if you're right about that (I can't afford your house) then you're rich enough that it doesn't matter either way. And you are more than welcome to NOT take that deduction and pay extra taxes, BTW. For folks in the middle class, who shoulder the tax burden, the mortgage deduction and child tax credit are HUGE.

Yes, because they pay a mortgage (with interest) and property taxes.

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. The childless renters speak. Try managing a budget and raising a family in a decent neighborhood before you spew your crap. The children your neighbors have (and get a tax break for) will be funding your social security payment someday.

I'll bet I could run circles around YOU w/r/t geography, Mr. Smug. Knowledge and intelligence is all relative.

I see this happening in actuality far less than it is claimed by the left to happen. Especially in the last few years.

This is probably one of the more intelligent things I have read on this board lately. Excellent points. The first half is... then it deteriorates into the same tiresome cliches and hand-wringing.

stfu, treetoad! she's a rocket scientist in comparison to you

1/5 of American schoolchildren can't find the US on a map - that's pretty damn good! I'm surprised 4/5 can.

He should switch parties; he'd make a perfectly normal liberal. Maybe he and Rev. Teg Haggard should get together and counsel the rest of the right wingers on family values and spiritual purity. According to your conservative goddess Ann Cunter, er, ah Coulter liberals have neither. Oh yes, one guy here and there, clearly EVERY Republican is a sexually repressed hypocrite. You guys are laughable, and MattP wanders why nobody wants a serious debate about issues.

It may surprise no one that there was a day when I'd never think about expressing praise for John Ashcroft. But my mind is changed now, and I've something different to say. Today I say Ashcroft deserves a Medal of Freedom award for when he was hospitalized but still mustered the strength to tell Gonzales to go fuck himself. Damn near in a coma, yet approached by Gonzales to sign off on the latest conspiracy by the Bush Crime Family, Ashcroft refused. Now, while it's true the recent Senate hearings revealed that FBI agents were on the scene that day as specifically ordered to protect Ashcroft from manipulation by Gonzales, I still say Ashcroft deserves recognition for taking a stand for the Constitution instead of for the Boss. For me, there's a big difference between political differences and organized, political crimes. I've only pity and scorn for those here who apparently cannot see that difference, yet I'd gladly shake the hand of John Ashcroft any day. There, I said it. My comments were not related to Gonzales' supposed 'crimes', but to the very topic you addressed above. The fact that you, and those like you were part of the posse that drove Ashcroft from office (read his book) make you partly responsible for the subsequent outcome. "Careful what you wish for" comes to mind. And you and Matt still haven't answered my question about who the next pinata will be. Yeah, but Ashcroft was a CHRISTIAN. The horror! He HAD to go!

He's from Idaho, not Enumclaw.

Pervert? Why do you hate gays, Dru? You know what the difference is between kinky and perverted? Kinky uses a feather. Perverted uses the whole chicken. And if you met some chick and "did" her in public place, why that would be kinky, and just fine, right? Score!

Pervert? Why do you hate gays, Dru?

And what's your problem anyways, you homophobes? Leave him alone! He just wants to get some!

He should switch parties; he'd make a perfectly normal liberal.

Do, or do not. There is no 'attempt.'

Chickens are dumb animals; raised to be eaten. Dogs are family pets, not raised to be eaten... except maybe in Korea.

You're in Swedenm, single, partying and posting on this site? There is something profoundly wrong with that.

I'd say realistic, not pessimitic. Especially on cc.com, but not exclusively here.