Comments on: In Praise of Jon Huntsman

By: MF

MF — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:06:33 +0000

Many of us (me included) have planned on that mortgage deduction. Suddenly taking it away is a HUGE problem. It will cause many of us to lose our houses. I am already majorly upside down, and if they took away the mortgage deduction, I would walk away from it. So would millions of others. What do you think would happen to the banking industry then?

By: streiff

streiff — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:27:46 +0000

maybe AMWAY distributors start out that way, but if you are trying to start a business capital gains, retained earnings, and how the tax code treats them is very close to the front of your mind. Most guys who start a new business don’t get paid at all for months in the beginning.

By: czs

czs — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:17:39 +0000

If you encourage start-ups by giving preferential treatment to capital gains income, you are by definition distoring the marketplace in favor of new business ideas which may, in fact, be a waste of capital.

If I were to give a preference to anything in the tax code, it would be capital gains, but I feel confident that any such preference is a slippery slope. And we are already a very long way down that slope.

By: czs

czs — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:17:39 +0000

By: groverc

groverc — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:52:54 +0000

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.

By: msjallen

msjallen — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:51:23 +0000

it looks good on paper but can’t function in reality. My negative stance on Huntsman was his serving 0. Compromise is never the answer. I don’t believe he can be trusted.

By: acat

acat — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:33:00 +0000

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

By: Bill S

Bill S — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:24:58 +0000

By: Green_Lantern

Green_Lantern — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 13:27:46 +0000

was for gay marriage, just civil unions, but that is splitting hairs to me. I see the global warmist stuff, I did find some of that. Anyone who has ever supported cap and tax is a believer in supporting a false and hoky economy.

I have turned over “E” and thought a lot about it. If once you work for someone, are you automatically disqualified from challenging him? Now if he attacked the character of his former boss after praising him so effusively (I found his acceptance letter to Obama) then I would have a problem with that. I do not, however, have a problem with simply challenging a boss on ideas. I don’t see where that is a problem. That said, the other things, taken together, do seem to disqualify him for me, although I would vote for him as “not-Obama”.

By: usdebateboard

usdebateboard — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:35:00 +0000

No ifs, ands, or buts.

By: acat

acat — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:30:48 +0000

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

By: juumanistra

juumanistra — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:56:13 +0000

The only way for the housing market to start sorting itself out is for it to find its natural bottom. The only way to do that is to dynamite the remaining structural supports to the artificially high valuations of the housing bubble of 2001-2007. A bitter pill? Certainly. But the federal government has spent three years doing everything in its power to stave off the reckoning which is at hand, and…well, things haven’t exactly gone swimmingly for us economically, have they?

The mortgage interest deduction is a microcosm of the larger fights that lay ahead to bring fiscal sanity to entitlements. Lots of good, decent folks are going to be financially disadvantaged by getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction. And? That’s not a good enough reason to keep it, for if it is, the sample applies a dozen times over to Social Security and Medicare. Either the Right has the testicular fortitude to screw over some people in the name of the greater good, as is required here by the structural needs of a sane tax code and the process of deleveraging the real estate market, or there’s no point in expending any more effort in trying to reform anything. Can the phase-out be crafted to mitigate against the damage and disruption caused by it? Certainly. But we can’t hem-haw about the ultimate destination, as only solidarity of purpose can hope to get us through the political pitfalls required to get there.

By: mattonium

mattonium — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:29:13 +0000

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.

By: rightwingmom52

rightwingmom52 — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:09:24 +0000

One good proposal does not a conservative make, nor does the fact that he has a good pro life record.

Being pro life is at the top of my checklist, but it’s not the only thing, and there are others who meet my standard without having to look for something. Besides, I wouldn’t trust him not to go moderate when the time came were he the President.

By: congressworksforus

congressworksforus — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:56:57 +0000

It’s not about some kind of welfare.

It’s about planning for the long term.

When I took out my mortgage, I needed the first 10-15 years of the mortgage interest deduction to justify the purchase decision.

To take that away is no different from the uncertainty that the Obumblescare Albatross is around every business’ neck.

And no, the corresponding federal tax reduction WON’T compensate for the loss of that deduction.

Now that I’ve stated my skin in the game, let me point out another unfortunate truth over this particular deduction:

1. It WILL decimate the housing market.

2. It WILL eliminate the incentive for the private sector to be the primary builder / provider of housing. (And if you disagree, look no further than the UK.)

I would also put the charitable deduction in the same boat — eliminating it will cause FAR more problems.

Everything else, including state/local tax deductions, medical deductions, etc. you can ditch entirely.

That said… replace the income tax entirely with the “fair tax” and we can eliminate everything, because I can compensate for those “loses” by not spending money…

By: septembergurl

septembergurl — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:45:50 +0000

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.

By: Bill S

Bill S — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:03:32 +0000

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…

By: Ausonius

Ausonius — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:28:39 +0000

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.

By: Locked and Loaded

Locked and Loaded — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:53:06 +0000

The accepted train of thought here has been that Huntsman is THE one to hand it to Obama – which makes his move here, well, ingenious.

By: victrola

victrola — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:27:57 +0000

I hear conservatives tout this idea of 0% capital gains, and I’m very much of a supply-side, tax cutting conservative, but 0% capital gains really would be an unfair, regressive form of taxation.

Basically, the Mark Cuban’s and Warren Buffetts of the world would no longer pay ANY federal taxes. Billionaires and other wealthy investors don’t really get paid a salary, they make money off their investments, so they would essentially be living a tax-free life while a janitor would be paying a MUCH higher tax rate on his income.

National Review had a great article about why the ultra rich have no problem with tax increases, it’s because most of their money is only taxed at the 15% capital gains:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268584/questionable-tax-martyrdom-super-rich-veronique-de-rugy

I’m all for expanding programs like IRA/Roths/ 401k etc as shelters for retirement investment, but it would greatly undermine conservative tax policy in the eyes of Americans if you had billionaires not paying federal taxes but the middle-class were basically splitting their paycheck with Uncle Sam. The optics would be terrible.

Conservatives should push for an across the board, flat tax that EVERY income generating American pays into.