On Jul 24, 10:24*am, John H wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:01*pm, North Star wrote:





On Jul 23, 8:45*pm, John H wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/3r5l8ur

I wonder if the Democrats realize that it doesn't take a 'yacht' to have a head, stove, and bed.
Hell, I had that in my 21' Proline.

If they want to do away with a second home mortgage interest deduction, then do it for *all* second
homes.

Why do they pick only on boat owners?

What the 'ell are you whining about??
We don't get a mortgage interest deduction on our income taxes for our
principal home.. let alone cottages or boats.
No wonder the USA is in such deep debt.... no one wants to pay their
fair share of taxes.

Donnie, how do you define 'fair share'. Remember, we have about 47% of
our population who pay *no* federal income taxes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would say that anyone earning above the 'poverty level', as defined
by the gov't, should start paying taxes. even if at a minimal rate.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 06:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 23, 9:44*pm, Florida Jim wrote:
On 7/23/2011 9:35 PM, wrote:







On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:58:14 -0400,
wrote:

On 7/23/11 7:55 PM, LilAbner wrote:
On 7/23/2011 7:45 PM, John H wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/3r5l8ur

I wonder if the Democrats realize that it doesn't take a 'yacht' to
have a head, stove, and bed.
Hell, I had that in my 21' Proline.

If they want to do away with a second home mortgage interest
deduction, then do it for *all* second
homes.
All boats and all second homes over a certain value...that'll do it.
What if you travel around in an RV and trailer a boat?

What if you live on your large yacht and have a very big dinghy?

LOL

Eliminate all mortgage interest deductions. That'll do it better.

At least it would be fair across the board. Might not be popular and
might have a somewhat detrimental impact on the housing market. It
would probably help the rental market though.

Somewhat detrimental? Gee, you think? I think it would be fine to
eliminate it, but not now. It is yet again one of those things that
have a great deal of impact on the middle class and virtually no
effect on the rich.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:47:58 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 06:15:23 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

Eliminate all mortgage interest deductions. That'll do it better.



At least it would be fair across the board. Might not be popular and
might have a somewhat detrimental impact on the housing market. It
would probably help the rental market though.

===========

Home ownership has always been part of the American dream and the
interest rate deduction is a tacit reaffirmation of that goal.
Without question home ownership leads to a more stable citizenship and
increased two parent family formation. Those were worthwhile goals at
the time and still are.

Not according to some right-wing assholes in Congress, however.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 06:13:46 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 23, 9:35*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:58:14 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

On 7/23/11 7:55 PM, LilAbner wrote:
On 7/23/2011 7:45 PM, John H wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/3r5l8ur

I wonder if the Democrats realize that it doesn't take a 'yacht' to
have a head, stove, and bed.
Hell, I had that in my 21' Proline.

If they want to do away with a second home mortgage interest
deduction, then do it for *all* second
homes.

All boats and all second homes over a certain value...that'll do it.

What if you travel around in an RV and trailer a boat?

What if you live on your large yacht and have a very big dinghy?

LOL

Please read your post. At what are you laughing?

What if???

I was laughing with Wayne.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:07:20 -0400, Disgusted wrote:

On 7/24/2011 8:40 AM, Harryk wrote:
On 7/24/11 8:37 AM, Florida Jim wrote:
On 7/24/2011 6:39 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:01:05 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

What the 'ell are you whining about??
We don't get a mortgage interest deduction on our income taxes for our
principal home.. let alone cottages or boats.
No wonder the USA is in such deep debt.... no one wants to pay their
fair share of taxes.
It's not that simple. Actually I think that most people do want to
pay their fair share but it gets complicated when the rules change in
mid-stream. People make long term financial decisions based on the
tax structure in place at that time, and then they have to live with
that decision expecting the rules to stay the same.


It should be that simple. The tax code is a quagmire that needs to be
simplified, not expanded. Same with legislation.

It's a quagmire because the people with money pay lobbyists big bucks to
have exemptions written into the tax code for them. The rich simply do
not want to pay their fair share of taxes.


And why do these congress critters, on both sides, yield to the
lobbyists. Oh...they're looking out for our well being. NOT!!

That's certainly true for many of them. The solution is not to ignore
the vast differences in programs that are put forward between the two
major parties.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 24, 8:40*am, Harryk wrote:
On 7/24/11 8:37 AM, Florida Jim wrote:









On 7/24/2011 6:39 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:01:05 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

What the 'ell are you whining about??
We don't get a mortgage interest deduction on our income taxes for our
principal home.. let alone cottages or boats.
No wonder the USA is in such deep debt.... no one wants to pay their
fair share of taxes.
It's not that simple. Actually I think that most people do want to
pay their fair share but it gets complicated when the rules change in
mid-stream. People make long term financial decisions based on the
tax structure in place at that time, and then they have to live with
that decision expecting the rules to stay the same.

It should be that simple. The tax code is a quagmire that needs to be
simplified, not expanded. Same with legislation.

It's a quagmire because the people with money pay lobbyists big bucks to
have exemptions written into the tax code for them. The rich simply do
not want to pay their fair share of taxes.

Neither do the 47% who pay *no* income taxes.

That again? You might want to look for another right-wing talking
point, as that one is complete nonsense.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 06:24:15 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 23, 11:01*pm, North Star wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:45*pm, John H wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/3r5l8ur

I wonder if the Democrats realize that it doesn't take a 'yacht' to have a head, stove, and bed.
Hell, I had that in my 21' Proline.

If they want to do away with a second home mortgage interest deduction, then do it for *all* second
homes.

Why do they pick only on boat owners?

What the 'ell are you whining about??
We don't get a mortgage interest deduction on our income taxes for our
principal home.. let alone cottages or boats.
No wonder the USA is in such deep debt.... no one wants to pay their
fair share of taxes.

Donnie, how do you define 'fair share'. Remember, we have about 47% of
our population who pay *no* federal income taxes.

Your right wing nonsense is showing again...

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:47:37 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:35:45 -0400, I_am_Tosk wrote:

In article 755e3f2f-d08f-4c7d-a527-
, says...

On Jul 23, 11:01*pm, North Star wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:45*pm, John H wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/3r5l8ur

I wonder if the Democrats realize that it doesn't take a 'yacht' to have a head, stove, and bed.
Hell, I had that in my 21' Proline.

If they want to do away with a second home mortgage interest deduction, then do it for *all* second
homes.

Why do they pick only on boat owners?

What the 'ell are you whining about??
We don't get a mortgage interest deduction on our income taxes for our
principal home.. let alone cottages or boats.
No wonder the USA is in such deep debt.... no one wants to pay their
fair share of taxes.

Donnie, how do you define 'fair share'. Remember, we have about 47% of
our population who pay *no* federal income taxes.

He defines it exactly as he thinks Harry would...

Actually, I was trying to avoid a **** storm.

You _are_ a **** storm. Well, actually just a little ****.

On 7/24/11 12:07 PM, North Star wrote:
On Jul 24, 10:24 am, John wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:01 pm, North wrote:





On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, John wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/3r5l8ur

I wonder if the Democrats realize that it doesn't take a 'yacht' to have a head, stove, and bed.
Hell, I had that in my 21' Proline.

If they want to do away with a second home mortgage interest deduction, then do it for *all* second
homes.

Why do they pick only on boat owners?

What the 'ell are you whining about??
We don't get a mortgage interest deduction on our income taxes for our
principal home.. let alone cottages or boats.
No wonder the USA is in such deep debt.... no one wants to pay their
fair share of taxes.

Donnie, how do you define 'fair share'. Remember, we have about 47% of
our population who pay *no* federal income taxes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would say that anyone earning above the 'poverty level', as defined
by the gov't, should start paying taxes. even if at a minimal rate.

Well isn't that convenient, that would make sure you didn't pay any taxes.

On 24/07/2011 7:58 AM, Harryk wrote:
In ,
says...

http://tinyurl.com/3r5l8ur

I wonder if the Democrats realize that it doesn't take a 'yacht' to have a head, stove, and bed.
Hell, I had that in my 21' Proline.

If they want to do away with a second home mortgage interest deduction, then do it for *all* second
homes.

Why do they pick only on boat owners?

My new yacht has two heads and two showers. It's the best of the best. I
wonder where my lobsta' boat went?

I see you dream a lot.

--
Obama, enslaving Americans with debt-tax slavery for a spending binge.
Doesn't even borrow real money, Bernanke just creates it like a
counterfeiter. .