On 7/24/2011 4:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:43:29 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:47:58 -0400, Wayne 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.
I'm not knocking home ownership. I think it's great. But, if the mortgage interest deduction were
removed, I still think people would want to buy a home. I don't think that would change. However,
for many people, the cost would have to come down far enough to offset the lack of the interest
deduction.
Some maybe, but it would be a huge disincentive.
How do you know?

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:43:42 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:50:50 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 24, 12:34*pm, wrote:
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.

Gosh, you think?

Doing away with the deduction for boat owners does the same. But the
Democrats have never had a problem screwing with the middle class.

Really? How have the Dems in recent history "screwed" the middle
class? You mean by protecting SS and Medicare from Republican slash
and burn policies?

Go back and read the first post in the thread. That'll explain the statement.

Oh, and if that's not enough, read the Obamacare bill very carefully.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:51:56 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 24, 12:38*pm, wrote:
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.

Look it up.

It's a nonsense statistic. I'm sure you're including all the poor
people who barely squeak by. Not much of a number, but it's a great
right-wing talking point.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:53:14 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 24, 12:40*pm, wrote:
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 ****.

Just can't stay away from the name-calling, can you?

Does it satisfy some inner need? Does it make you feel more
intelligent?

No, but it certainly is an apt description.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:30:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 24/07/2011 10:07 AM, 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.

That is where it is headed. Milking some few rich for millions hardly
compares to miking the majority of people for 10's of thousands. The
later is much more lucrative. If it is true, 47% don't pay taxes, well,
there is part of the huge problem. Want big fat government, well, they
too need to pay.

But tax increases are not really the answer. You could literally double
everyones income taxes and Obama still be broke. Fewer people working,
those that are making less, fewer billionaires, businesses making less
money as we have fraud low interest rates makes for a huge revenue
shortfall.

Only way out:

- more taxes for everyone. Remove mortgage deductibility and loop holes.

- massive deep cuts in spending, including the war machine.

- simple administrative efficiencies. Michelle does not need 50+ hand
maids.

- raise interest rates to set business earnings needs higher for more
taxes, and interest on lending is a revenue source currently dry as a bone.

- tighter credit, no money down is no loan. Less liberalism in debt.

But will not happen, America worships debt like a false god.

You and morons like you are the problem.

On 7/24/11 6:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:37:38 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

Boats are a little different since they are
typically financed over a much shorter period of time and are a luxury
item with no overall benefit to society much as I hate to say it.

Unless you consider the people who build and maintain boats. We saw
this with the "luxury tax" a while ago. Boat builders laid off
thousands of workers.

The same could be said about the rapid depreciation rules on corporate
jets. It causes these planes to be turned over faster and helps the
aircraft builders.
It should also be noted, most of these small planes are not actually
owned by the fat cat corporations you think of. They belong to small
charter airlines and leasing companies.

We need to shut down corporate subsidies and corporate welfare. The only
tax breaks a business should get should be directly related to the
hiring of people in the United States.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:29:27 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:51:56 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 24, 12:38*pm, wrote:
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.

Look it up.

It's a nonsense statistic. I'm sure you're including all the poor
people who barely squeak by. Not much of a number, but it's a great
right-wing talking point.

....reported by the New York Times.

Whatever you say. But, it's a fact.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:30:05 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:53:14 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 24, 12:40*pm, wrote:
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 ****.

Just can't stay away from the name-calling, can you?

Does it satisfy some inner need? Does it make you feel more
intelligent?

No, but it certainly is an apt description.

Greg was correct.

Goodbye.

On 7/24/2011 7:24 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:30:05 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:53:14 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Jul 24, 12:40 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:47:37 -0400, John
wrote:









On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:35:45 -0400, wrote:
In article755e3f2f-d08f-4c7d-a527-
, says...
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.
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 ****.
Just can't stay away from the name-calling, can you?

Does it satisfy some inner need? Does it make you feel more
intelligent?
No, but it certainly is an apt description.
Greg was correct.

Goodbye.
Greg was correct about what?

Also Let us know what you find out about the registry cleaning utilities.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:51:36 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

On 7/24/11 6:42 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:37:38 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

Boats are a little different since they are
typically financed over a much shorter period of time and are a luxury
item with no overall benefit to society much as I hate to say it.

Unless you consider the people who build and maintain boats. We saw
this with the "luxury tax" a while ago. Boat builders laid off
thousands of workers.

The same could be said about the rapid depreciation rules on corporate
jets. It causes these planes to be turned over faster and helps the
aircraft builders.
It should also be noted, most of these small planes are not actually
owned by the fat cat corporations you think of. They belong to small
charter airlines and leasing companies.

We need to shut down corporate subsidies and corporate welfare. The only
tax breaks a business should get should be directly related to the
hiring of people in the United States.

Exactly. I'm sure it's fun to worry about the poor rich people and
multi-million dollar corps who will have to spend a few more dollars
to buy another jet.