• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Spanish Election

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Nixon

"in assisting with" - don't forget that part of the sentence. Governemnt doesn't need to "create" the drug plan - it should limit its role and provide incentives to the market place to establish an affordable drug system. The same can be said for housing in this country. Government allows mortgage interest deductions so people who finance the purchase of a house will receive government assistance in the form of reduced income taxes to help pay the mortgage. Government didn't "create" the loan, but it did assist in that transaction nonetheless. While I am here, should government also repeal the home mortgage interest deduction? After all, renters are not permitted to deuct any part of their rent for personal living. Why does government subsidize one and not the other?
 
Upvote 0
"establish" implies making something new that did not exist before.

But sure, why not? I don't see any reason why somebody who buys a house should pay less taxes then someone who rents.

But you must understand that I couple all of these things with
1) drastically cutting the size and scope of government
2) drastically cutting taxes
Without those two, anything that keeps money away from the government is good, even silly tax writeoffs.
 
Upvote 0
Next question - since government has no role in assisting with seeing the delivery of an affordable health care system, what do we as a country do with people that could be helped by medical technology but cannot afford to pay for it, especially when withholding the care will most likely result in death?
 
Upvote 0
lightning,

"OK, if government has no role, then Congress should repeal the Internal Revenue Code that permits companies to take a deduction for all amounts paid to employees and their dependents for health care coverage. Congress must also require employees to include in their taxable income all amounts received through their employer's health care plan. This government subsidy must stop immediately."

I think the deduction should not be alowed (that basically allows the employed to have gov. subsidised healthinsurance). What the ER pays is however an expense, and should be used to offset profits.


As far as the primary home interest deduction (remember only can be used on primary not secondary homes), if that is taken away, taxes should be lowered. I don't have a problem with the interest deduction. My reason is that those who rent do not pay property taxes, those that own do. The gov. already has checks in the system, because if you take too much of a deduction, they through that table away and charge you AMT. It is basically set up to help middleclass folks afford homes.
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod said:
Next question - since government has no role in assisting with seeing the delivery of an affordable health care system, what do we as a country do with people that could be helped by medical technology but cannot afford to pay for it, especially when withholding the care will most likely result in death?
Click to expand...

The government does nothing.

If you want to help, private charity. If the liberals are as generous as they claim to be, there would be no problems. If not, it shows they don't like to spend their own money but love to spend others.
 
Upvote 0
There are only so many dollars (sure, alot of dollars in the Gov. case, but still only so many).

an 80 yearold person needs some surgery, a while to recoup in the hospital, and drugs to keep that person going if the person doesn't get the care they will die. the cost of all of this is "x."

A few hundred kids need measles' shots a well as other medicine to keep them from dieing. The cost of this is also "x".

Seeing as how there is only a limited amount of funds the gov. can spend, what does it do? In either case there will be death.
 
Upvote 0
gbear

Let's suppose you are a landlord who rents apartments to individuals as personal dwelling units. When you establish your rent, would you factor in proerty taxes that you will pay on that property? Isn't the tenant paying that proerty tax indirectly? And while we are at it, why should property taxes be allowed as a deduction? Isn't that a federal government subsidy to the county?
 
Upvote 0
OK, I am glad I am not a liberal, because I do not see the government as the solution for social problems. But I do believe government has some role in societal issues such as health care. Let's suppose polio reared its ugly head once again in the US. Does society pick and choose who gets innoculated? Society will not last very long with that attitude. And what about the person who would most likely face death without high tech medical care but cannot afford it. I would argue that this is as much a "pro-life" isssue as abortion is a "prolife" issue. Is there any difference bewteen abortion and withholding medical care from somebody whose life depends on it yet cannot afford it?
 
Upvote 0
Liberals to often believe that people are generally unable to make it on their own. The goverment is needed to aid us and show us the way.
I'll never forget the 1991 debates between Clinton, Bush and Ross p.
A long haired guy stood up and ask these men "Why don't you just treat us as if we were your children"?
This is the epitome of the liberal mindset.
 
Upvote 0
lightning,

I haven't used the word liberal.

regarding your post "Let's suppose you are a landlord who rents apartments to individuals as personal dwelling units. When you establish your rent, would you factor in proerty taxes that you will pay on that property? Isn't the tenant paying that proerty tax indirectly? And while we are at it, why should property taxes be allowed as a deduction? Isn't that a federal government subsidy to the county?"

To my knowledge property taxes are not a deduction (I have an accountant that does my taxes, I frankly don't look at it too closely so maybe it is... if it is, isn't that double taxation of which is not permitted per the constitution?).

A landlord who rents apartments isn't going to break even on buying the apartment, paying the mortgage, paying the property taxes, maintaining the apartment, etc. During the time of the loan, if they didn't put anything down.

The owner of the apartment might have put money down, to lower the mortgage expense, and then be able to turn a profit. Sure the expense is figured, however the landlord is making their money in property appreciation (deffered income if you will, seeing as how it isn't realized until the property is sold), and rental income upon full payment of the mortgage. The landlord is also taking a risk, in that if the property isn't rented, they could be in financial trouble... what if the place isn't rented, then who's paying the taxes? The fact is renting is expensive (no use of deducts, no building of equity, no prop. appreciation), why people think it is ok to rent is beyond me. Unless you move alot/ are in a place for a limited amount of time, it just doesn't make sense. With FDA loans you can borrow with a minimal amount down, or you can go the 80-20 route and buy with zero down. The poor, the middleclass, and the wealthy should all be homeowners.

However don't kid youreslf the first several years for a landlord tend not to yeild much in terms of income... over the long term it can be a nice cash cow (read when the mortgage is paid off), however in the short term it can actually be an expense.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top