I think eliminating or reducing over time, the mortgage deduction would be pure insanity. I’m in the same boat, did my finances around this deduction and planned long-term for it. I make a pretty good living, but no enough to cover what would be at least a 12k/year tax increase on my end.

Also, as someone who’s self-employed, removing any health insurance deduction would destroy me as well Policies for individuals are through the roof.

As it is, including deductions, I pay less than 20% in taxes. Removing the deductions and replacing them with a flat 25% tax would be a net tax increase which I cannot afford. Not to mention, it would kill the housing market even further, prolonging the economic downturn, etc. There has to be a better way than this. I’m all for doing my share, but not to the extent of 12k-20k right out of my pocket, that’s quite excessive.

What job is it of the American taxpayers to subsidize our house purchases? It is nothing less and redistributive welfare from those that don’t have to (non-house buyers) to those that do (house buyers). Any tax credit is an amount that has to be made up somewhere else, and that amounts to higher taxes — or, in Obamaville, more debt, another burden on all American taxpayers.
As such, it is similar to repealing Obamacare, not imposing it. It ends another socialistic redistribution vehicle.
Will the mortgage elimination “decimate” (a 10% hit) the housing market. Quite possibly, for a while. But markets have to be flushed out to truly be free and work MOST efficiently. In a few years, every private citizen, including home buyers and the private sector, will benefit. Especially when we close down Freddie and Fannie and repeal the Community Reinvestment Act. Until then, some people will have to stay in apartments a while longer. That won’t kill anybody. And it will end stealing from Peter to finance Paul.

I would prefer a 0% corporate tax, and treat cap. gains as ordinary income.

This eliminates the double taxation and resulting penalty on the corporate fom of doing business. This double taxation encourages corporations to retain wealth and ‘emire build’, instead of limiting themselves to the areas where they have an expected competitive advantage.

Tax people, not corporations, and tax all income equally. How hard is that?

I would prefer a 0% corporate tax, and treat cap. gains as ordinary income.

This eliminates the double taxation and resulting penalty on the corporate fom of doing business. This double taxation encourages corporations to retain wealth and ‘emire build’, instead of limiting themselves to the areas where they have an expected competitive advantage.

Tax people, not corporations, and tax all income equally. How hard is that?

by entrepreneurs, which is where most job growth comes from normally. In addtition, big companies don’t pay everything out in dividends. They grow the value of the company ( higher stock price) = cap gains.
I’ve studied economics for many years, and I think you are completely wrong, All of the economic growth after the Bush cuts and the Clinton hikes was because both of them reduced the cap gains tax. You’ve noted how the dems keep howling about the good economic growth after Clinton hiked income taxes. They completely miss the point that Clinton CUT cap gains taxes.
Hopefully top level GOPers have a better understanding of economics. I know Newt ‘gets it’.
There is no “social engineering” in reducing the cap gains tax. There was social engineering in the specific home owners tax policies. That has nothing to do with taxes on businesses. (more complications due to Congress interfering in the tax code, just like all of the special tax credits and deductions that convolute our tax code. I say cancel ALL of those)

A) He’s a global warmist
B) He’s a gay marriage/civil union/”civil rights for homosexuals” supporter
C) He originally supported a form of cap/trade, although it appears perhaps that has waned
D) He has expressed support for ESCR
E) The “run for office while working for Obama” thing that Erick brought up before can be considered an indicator of the guy’s character.

That’s what comes to mind off the top of my head…

it takes 3/4 of Congress to raise *any* rate.

In short, if it’s got predictability, and if it effectively limits blood flow to the cancerous tumor on the body politic that is D.C.

Mew

I get in arguments every April about the nobility of the charitable donation deduction. While helping others comes naturally to many, I don’t have a problem with the tax incentive. I’m sure the many organizations that are aided don’t spend time wondering about the intentions of their donors. However, I have little faith that the government’s definition of “charity” is accurate.

I think I would also support a cap if only because of the potential manipulation afforded to those with less than benevolent intentions. Despite my mantra of minimizing/eliminating government whenever possible. I don’t want Soros types wiggling out of tax burden with donations to the Al Gore church of carbon credits.

Your opinion is the same as mine right now: I have a very bad feeling from him.

To be sure, I dislike phony politicians – like the present resident of the White House – who roll up their sleeves and take off their ties to visit a car factory or a bowling alley and pretend that they are just one of the guys!

They are all millionaires: they are NOT just one of the guys, and I do not want to vote for somebody who is “just one of the guys.”

Although right now, a person picked at random from a bowling alley would have to be an improvement over the current White House resident.

Still, Huntsman comes across to me as an unpleasant know-it-all. I will nevertheless be willing to listen more to him, but remain skeptical.

I dislike Huntsman as well, but on this one point—he should get kudos. It is good for us and the country if candidates start to roll out some specifics in terms of ideas. To respond to the first such rollout with “but it doesn’t include X’ is not a way to incentivize future plan rollouts.

of Huntsman’s plan, but there are three other parts:

Regulatory reform:

Repeal Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, and of course Obamacare.
Rein in the EPA, especially the ozone restrictions which would destroy construction industry (this has been withdrawn, I think).
Streamline patent process, streamline the FDA. Reform the NLRB, oppose the ruling re Boeing in SC. On housing, privatize Fannie and Freddie, allow the market to level out.

Energy independence:
End OPEC’s Pricing And Supply Power, Promote Jobs, And Increase Overall Domestic Supply. The United States must expedite the process for reviewing and approving safe, environmentally sound energy projects, including the development of North American oil and gas reserves; oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; shale gas and oil in the U.S.; and Canadian oil sands. Support the Keystone pipeline.

Eliminate the subsidies and regulations that support foreign oil and inhibit domestic alternatives such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electricity, biofuels, and coal-to-liquids, which are not price-controlled by OPEC.

Free Trade:
Pass the three trade agreements Obama has been sitting on, also pursue agreements with Taiwan, Japan and India.

The whole plan which is quite detailed can be found at the campaign website.

That’s an interesting thought. Just from the economics angle I can see your point, but .. this isn’t just about economics.

I view the incentivizing of home ownership as one of two or three incentives in the tax code worth keeping – a lower rate for marrieds filing jointly (that doesn’t currently exist but has in the past) and a deduction for education being the other two.

Mew