kevbone Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Actually I own what would be called a mcmansion in a nice neighborhood (you couldn't afford to live there) and I have a child. Wow.....someone just got bitch slapped in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Actually I own what would be called a mcmansion in a nice neighborhood (you couldn't afford to live there) and I have a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 what about people that live in caves? or treehouses? http://www.freespiritspheres.com/eryn.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Actually I own what would be called a mcmansion in a nice neighborhood (you couldn't afford to live there) and I have a child. Wow.....someone just got bitch slapped in the face. Oh yes, DPS really knows the value of my property and my annual income. I've been so burned. And one child, God, what an expense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Since when is 3000 sq ft a mansion? My house is 3900 square feet, and my wife thinks we need more space when we have another kid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 If owning a home is so burdensome, rent It's not as burdensome, thanks to the deductions for mortgage interest, you dumbass. We all can figure our personal cost-benefit analysis and make that choice based on the status quo. The proposal was to CUT the deductions for mortgage interest, and child/dependent care deductions. Changing the status quo is the topic under discussion. If someone thinks it's so unfair to rent and not get a deduction, figure out if you could benefit more by owning. If so, buy. If not, shut up. If you think people benefit monetarily by having kids and taking a deduction, well, I've got news for you, you don't come out "ahead", but you do get a lot of help to make ends meet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Since when is 3000 sq ft a mansion? My house is 3900 square feet, and my wife thinks we need more space when we have another kid... An absolute number in isolation is meaningless. Divide your square footage by the number of occupants, and you get a more meaningful baseline for discussion. 3000 sq ft for 2 or 3 people is ridiculous. For 5 or 6, is not so bad at all. How many single childless folks here would live in a 600 sq ft studio and think that is "luxurious"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Since when is 3000 sq ft a mansion? My house is 3900 square feet, and my wife thinks we need more space when we have another kid... Damn! Thats a castle. I live very comfortably (with a child) in a house half that size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Since when is 3000 sq ft a mansion? My house is 3900 square feet, and my wife thinks we need more space when we have another kid... An absolute number in isolation is meaningless. Divide your square footage by the number of occupants, and you get a more meaningful baseline for discussion. 3000 sq ft for 2 or 3 people is ridiculous. For 5 or 6, is not so bad at all. How many single childless folks here would live in a 600 sq ft studio and think that is "luxurious"? I lived for years in studios smaller than that and was very comfortable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 If owning a home is so burdensome, rent It's not as burdensome, thanks to the deductions for mortgage interest, you dumbass. We all can figure our personal cost-benefit analysis and make that choice based on the status quo. The proposal was to CUT the deductions for mortgage interest, and child/dependent care deductions. Changing the status quo is the topic under discussion. If someone thinks it's so unfair to rent and not get a deduction, figure out if you could benefit more by owning. If so, buy. If not, shut up. If you think people benefit monetarily by having kids and taking a deduction, well, I've got news for you, you don't come out "ahead", but you do get a lot of help to make ends meet. I have no problem with rent and the fact that renters can't deduct. I have an enormous problem with the proposition that "My freely chosen lifestyle is so costly that I can't make ends meet without a government subsidy, therefore I deserve one." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Interesting to see house sizes balloon from what they used to be back in the day. All the little boxes out in the West Seattle are slowly being replaced with huge behemoths such as the towering sun eclipser next door. I guess it goes hand in hand with the fattening and spine weakening of america. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I lived for years in studios smaller than that and was very comfortable. How small. Be specific. And are you still in such a small studio? Also, if you regularly used common/shared space in your rental building you have to add that to your square footage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I have an enormous problem with the proposition that "My freely chosen lifestyle is so costly that I can't make ends meet without a government subsidy, therefore I deserve one." I would be more than happy to get rid of all deductions, if the government would then cut all marginal tax rates by 5 percentage points or so, such that the total revenue to the government were unchanged. The proposal to only change the law for large houses is just a means of increasing taxes on the wealthy. It would be a lot easier (and more transparent) to just raise the tax rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Since when is 3000 sq ft a mansion? My house is 3900 square feet, and my wife thinks we need more space when we have another kid... Damn! Thats a castle. I live very comfortably (with a child) in a house half that size. No shit, I live very comfortably in a house less than half that size, with 2 kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Interesting to see house sizes balloon from what they used to be back in the day. All the little boxes out in the West Seattle are slowly being replaced with huge behemoths such as the towering sun eclipser next door. I guess it goes hand in hand with the fattening and spine weakening of america. Define behemoth. There's a point where you are right, and a point below that where we completely disagree. I think the ability for many middle-class americans to afford a 2000 sq ft house for a family of 4 or 5 is a great improvement in the quality of life over a 1000-1200 sq ft house that the GI's might have moved into after WWII. It's a sign of progress, not weakness. The "fattening" of America is occurring by means completely unrelated to home sizes, IMO. Entitlement, laziness, lack of standards, low expectations - these are what lead to our "fattening". As for spine weakening I don't know WTF are you talking about there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Since when is 3000 sq ft a mansion? My house is 3900 square feet, and my wife thinks we need more space when we have another kid... Damn! Thats a castle. I live very comfortably (with a child) in a house half that size. No shit, I live very comfortably in a house less than half that size, with 2 kids. 4 people with 1500 sq ft is not bad. If you're happy good for you. I wouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 210 square feet for several years (that *was* pretty small), then several that were 450-500ish. No extra storage space. No "common area" other than the hallway. Now I have a 2Br apt (I think it's massive), with a roommate, because it's actually cheaper than any studio I could find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted August 28, 2007 Author Share Posted August 28, 2007 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 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. I could come up with a simplified tax code, and immediately people would jump all over it and talk about how one group or another was getting screwed and someone else (usually the "rich") are benefiting. I mistrust the flat tax proposals because rich Republicans like Forbes are all over them. Something smells rotten in Denmark. I mistrust a lot of anti-flat tax proposals because I suspect those detractors are worried of losing their base, that they pay off with the current system of deductions. And what would happen to all those tax lawyers, tax-preparation firms, Quicken, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 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. I could come up with a simplified tax code, and immediately people would jump all over it and talk about how one group or another was getting screwed and someone else (usually the "rich") are benefiting. I mistrust the flat tax proposals because rich Republicans like Forbes are all over them. Something smells rotten in Denmark. I mistrust a lot of anti-flat tax proposals because I suspect those detractors are worried of losing their base, that they pay off with the current system of deductions. And what would happen to all those tax lawyers, tax-preparation firms, Quicken, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 of course, one of the leading reasons for the bigger houses is so that you have a place to put all the CRAP you buy participating in the consumer economy which of course is "progress". buy consume more stuff get it so hot purchase buy get bigger house buy consume Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 in fact, i need a new wing for my climbing gear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 of course, one of the leading reasons for the bigger houses is so that you have a place to put all the CRAP you buy participating in the consumer economy which of course is "progress". buy consume more stuff get it so hot purchase buy get bigger house buy consume Crap? You mean like climbing gear right? The sport of the rich, with high-priced luxury items made of space-age materials, light-weight alloys, synthetic fibers, and so on? Or your shit don't stink? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 little slow on the draw, aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.