Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (711044)	11/4/2005 6:33:28 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

As per usual, you have still failed to explain your recommendations for comprehensive tax code changes --- if any --- or explain any rationale for your peculiar non-definition of 'income'.) But what else is new? Apparently you believe that attacking with FUD and lies is a better tactic then proposing and defending anything yourself.... I've told you this before, Peter... but still you keep on with the lies. (We might be able to settle this matter, if we could just agree that we disagree over the meaning of the word 'income'. That one little thing seems to lie at the heart of the whole matter, since I believe that, as a matter of policy, ALL income should be taxed at one FLAT rate and with a bare MINIMUM of exceptions/loopholes/special preferences, etc. You, on the other-hand, appear from my perspective to be a supporter of lots of loopholes in a complicated, unfair and unproductive tax code, inherently resulting in multiple passes through the 'tax sieve' for many economic participants... and special treatment and special rates for whatever groups you personally seem to favor... with the government continuing to pick and choose 'winners and losers' by manipulating the special preferences in the tax codes.)

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (711044)	11/4/2005 7:34:31 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769667

Greenspan Urges Congress to Offset Any Tax Cuts November 4, 2005 By EDMUND L. ANDREWS nytimes.com WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, told lawmakers on Thursday that they should not extend President Bush's tax cuts if they could not make up for the lost revenue with savings in other areas. "We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing," Mr. Greenspan said in testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. "We do not have the capability of having both productive tax cuts and large expenditure increases, and presume that the deficit doesn't matter." Mr. Greenspan's comments are likely to be a headache for Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress. They are struggling to pass tax cuts before Thanksgiving totaling $70 billion over five years, but would not try to offset the cost with savings in other areas. The biggest of the cuts would be a five-year extension of Mr. Bush's 2003 tax reduction on stock dividends and capital gains, which is set to expire at the end of 2008. The Fed chairman, a Republican, repeated his longstanding support for reducing dividend taxes, on the ground that they amount to "double taxation" of profits, first at the corporate level and then at the individual. But in unusually pointed language, he all but said he would prefer giving up that cut if Congress did not make up for the cost with spending cuts. "I would say, let's confront the question of the trade-offs - of what the advantages are of keeping or even increasing the reduction of the double taxation on dividends with the context of what other priorities there are," he told the lawmakers. Mr. Greenspan's comments could strengthen the hand of moderate Republicans, especially several in the Senate, who worry that the tax cuts will worsen the federal budget deficit at a time when spending continues to soar. The deficit dropped nearly $100 billion in the 2005 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, to $319 billion. But Mr. Greenspan took cold comfort Thursday from that decline. "Even apart from the hurricanes," he said, "our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially further until we restore constraints similar to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990," which imposed caps on discretionary spending. Mr. Greenspan's career as a Fed governor expires at the end of January, and Mr. Bush has nominated Ben S. Bernanke, a former Fed governor and now a top White House economic adviser, to succeed him as chairman. Mr. Bernanke has supported Mr. Bush's tax cuts since joining the White House, and he is less likely than Mr. Greenspan to insist on "pay as you go" for them. Mr. Greenspan made it clear in his testimony that he was worried more about rising inflation than about any slowing in growth. He did note that the pace of inflation, other than in energy prices, remained mild. But he also said that some of the main forces behind the low level of inflation, including the emergence of China and other low-cost countries as major exporters, would not suppress a rise in prices forever. And he warned that American consumers were likely to face an unpleasantly expensive winter, with natural gas prices remaining high and, if the weather proves colder than normal, perhaps spiking. "I think people are going to be quite surprised by their heating bills this winter," he said. * Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (711044)	11/4/2005 7:45:52 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769667

Tax Panel Could Shrink Mortgage Benefit By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS November 4, 2005 Filed at 6:02 p.m. ET nytimes.com WASHINGTON (AP) -- That most sacred of tax breaks, the mortgage interest deduction that has helped millions buy homes, could vanish if President Bush and Congress follow the recommendations of his tax advisory board. Nine tax experts, tasked with developing simpler and fairer tax laws, concluded that the deduction does more for wealthier taxpayers than for people struggling to buy a home. But mortgage bankers and real estate agents see irreparable harm if the tax break disappears. The National Association of Realtors estimated that housing prices could decline 15 percent, bad news for owners who have seen the value of their homes increase. ''You're going to be taking away from Middle America,'' said David Lereah, the association's chief economist. ''Everyone, whether you use the mortgage interest deduction or not, the value goes down. You've just reduced the retirement nest egg for everyone.'' The idea is a long way from becoming reality, and several lawmakers have already declared their opposition. The current tax break lets homeowners deduct interest paid during the year on a mortgage up to $1 million and a home equity loan worth up to $100,000. Homeowners also benefit from breaks that let taxpayers deduct state and local property taxes from the federal bill. Almost 36 million taxpayers claimed the deduction in 2003, according to the most recent statistics compiled by the Internal Revenue Service. The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform urged the administration to do away with the deduction and replace it with a credit worth 15 percent of interest paid during the year. They would scrap the deduction for property taxes, too. If enacted, mortgages eligible for the tax break would be limited by a formula reflecting the average regional price of housing. If in place today, that range would spread from $227,000 to $412,000. Mortgages for second homes and interest paid on home equity loans would not be eligible for the credit. Taxpayers who currently own homes would have five years before they had to use the new credit. During that period of transition, a taxpayer could still take a deduction but the size of the mortgage eligible for a tax break would gradually fall. At the end of five years, everyone would be using the proposed credit. Connie Mack, a former Florida senator and chairman of the tax panel, said less than 5 percent of mortgages in the nation exceed the proposed cap. ''It is a fair plan. It shares the benefits,'' he said. For homeowners with a small mortgage who don't itemize their deductions, the credit means a new tax benefit defraying the cost of housing. Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said it's time policymakers rethink a housing subsidy for people who don't need it. ''Changing it isn't going to decrease homeownership,'' she said. ''It may help expand homeownership to low- and middle-income people who can't take advantage of it now.'' Taxpayers who bought $1 million homes expecting a generous tax break could be in for a shock, said Michael Fratanponi, senior director of single family research and economics at the Mortgage Bankers Association. ''That's going to really bite,'' he said. Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, said the proposed credit won't help homeowners in regions of the country, like New York and California, where housing prices have skyrocketed. ''It seems to ignore the plight of a first-time buyer in an expensive market,'' he said. Because the panel would convert the deduction to a credit, taxpayers who pay income tax at marginal rates over 15 percent will see their benefits shrink. Clint Stretch, director of tax policy for Deloitte Tax, calculated that housing gets more expensive, for example, for a family carrying a $500,000 mortgage and earning income in the 25 percent tax bracket. The proposal would take away $4,400 of the tax benefit. Stretch said the shock might be as much psychological as financial. ''It also has a piece of American dream about it,'' he said. ''It's not just what people get now, but what they hope and dream they're going to have someday. I think a lot of taxpayers who would never have a mortgage above the (limits) sure hope they would.'' ^---- On the Net: President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform: www.taxreformpanel.gov * Copyright 2005 The Associated Press