Can you believe these people in Washington D.C.? They are in absolutely no hurry to solve the fiscal cliff crisis. Imagine running a business the way these people do. They would be out of business in a New York minute.
As part of the fiscal cliff talk, we are hearing some mild talk about getting rid of deductions and credits. One of those is the mortgage deduction that affects everyone with a mortgage. A large part of the Great Recession is the problems associated with the housing market. This shows that these people in Washington D.C. are totally lacking in any financial knowledge. They have no clue about basic finance.
Right now, if you are in the 28% tax bracket and own a mortgage, you can file Schedule A and put down the interest you paid for the year and get a tax deduction. In order to simplify things, this means that you receive a 28% savings on your tax return for the interest that you paid. If you take away this deduction, then this would mean that the prices of houses are now more than 28% over priced when you factor in the interest costs. Therefore, the housing market would be immediately impacted. This means further that if your house was worth $200,000 with the mortgage interest deduction, then it will immediately drop down to roughly $129,000 without the mortgage interest deduction and factoring in the interest costs.
Everyone who owns a mortgage would be affected. This would crush the housing market and tank the economy like we have never seen before. You think things are bad now. Wait until you see what happens if they take away the mortgage deduction.
Think about it. If you are going to buy a house and you know that you will not have a mortgage deduction, then this means that the net amount that you can afford for housing has to and will go down. Normally, on a $200,000 mortgage with 10% down, a 30 year term with a 4% interest rate, the payment is $859 per month. With the mortgage deduction, the net payment with a 28% tax deduction is only $618 per month. The net effect is that you can buy a bigger house with the mortgage deduction.
If you take the mortgage deduction away and factor in the interest costs of what $618 per month will buy on a 30 year mortgage, then the affordability of what you can buy is now about $129,000. Do you see the potential impact on the housing market? Suppose you are trying to sell a house for $200,000 before they remove the mortgage deduction. If they remove this deduction, then the people who can now afford your home becomes a much smaller group. Someone who previously could have easily bought your $200,000 house with the mortgage deduction can now only afford a $129,000 home without the deduction. I see said the blind man.
Removal of the mortgage deduction will cause a housing market meltdown of nuclear proportions.
Let's hope these people in Washington D.C. come to their senses.
Support your local real estate agent. These folks are our first line of defense.
Showing posts with label Taxpayers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxpayers. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Friday, April 15, 2011
$10,000,000. Really? Was It Worth It?
I read that the cost of the trial against Barry Bonds was $10,000,000 give or take. This is taxpayer highway robbery whether you agree or disagree with the outcome. Since we are on the subject of shrinking government, then I have a suggestion. We need a third party taxpayer advocate who will stop these needless and extremely expensive lawsuits from occurring.
Even if you are a baseball purist who believes strongly that Barry Bonds tarnished Major League Baseball, do you really and I mean really believe that spending $10,000,000 in this economy was worth the price? As my friends at ESPN say..."Come on, Man!"
Why do these cases every make it to trial? Because there is an inherent conflict of interest built into the judicial system. Forget about the Barry Bonds case. I am just being general here.
Lawyers become the judges who decide whether the case has enough merits to proceed. Judges at one time were attorneys. They in turn protect their own. You think there might be a wee bit of a conflict of interest inherent in this process? I for one do.
A judge who does not throw out a case that is going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars over perjury, ought not to be allowed to make this decision. It is a $10,000,000 decision! Do you get that? Instead, I propose that a taxpayer advocate who weighs the harm to the community, the harm to taxpayers and the harm to victims and most importantly, the cost to the taxpayers are the ones who should make these decisions. Prosecutors and defense attorneys should present a preliminary case to the taxpayer advocate for a final determination as to whether or not a case can go forward. Of course lawyers would be totally against this, because they would no longer be able to control their own destiny. The taxpayer advocates should be people from the local community who can easily determine whether a case has merits. Yes, it is hard to believe, but there are some people out there who are smarter than attorneys.
Who is looking out for the taxpayers in the Barry Bonds case? No one. Nada. These lawyers can bring these frivolous cases any time they feel like it and we taxpayers have to foot the bill. It is not justice to the taxpayer! Forget the guilt or innocence issue. What about the monetary concerns?
How many people could have been helped with putting that $10,000,000 of taxpayer money to better use? You will never convince me that spending $10,000,000 trying to put a baseball player in prison is a good use of taxpayer dollars. For God's sake, he was a baseball player. He's not a member of the Mafia!
On the way in to work today, I was listening to The Dan Patrick Show. Apparently, Bob Costas was fuming over the Barry Bonds outcome. I did not hear what Bob Costas had to say about the Barry Bonds case, but I already know where he stands on it. He thinks he is a fan of baseball, but in my opinion, he is just a guy with a bad attitude. He thinks he is on a one man crusade to destroy the reputations of anyone and everyone who ever used steroids. Such a worthy goal, isn't it?
Bob Costas is precisely the person that raises enough of a stink, because he has the bully pulpit, that causes prosecutors to go after Barry Bonds. These are the kinds of people that demand justice. Hey Bob, was the $10,000,000 worth it to satisfy your bad attitude? I do not think so. Otherwise, you would not be calling in to The Dan Patrick Show asking to spew your opinion on the subject.
The true miscarriage of justice in this case is not whether or not Barry Bonds perjured himself. The true miscarriage of justice is that there ever was a trial in the first place that cost the taxpayers, in this economy no less, $10,000,000.
Really? Come on, Man!
Even if you are a baseball purist who believes strongly that Barry Bonds tarnished Major League Baseball, do you really and I mean really believe that spending $10,000,000 in this economy was worth the price? As my friends at ESPN say..."Come on, Man!"
Why do these cases every make it to trial? Because there is an inherent conflict of interest built into the judicial system. Forget about the Barry Bonds case. I am just being general here.
Lawyers become the judges who decide whether the case has enough merits to proceed. Judges at one time were attorneys. They in turn protect their own. You think there might be a wee bit of a conflict of interest inherent in this process? I for one do.
A judge who does not throw out a case that is going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars over perjury, ought not to be allowed to make this decision. It is a $10,000,000 decision! Do you get that? Instead, I propose that a taxpayer advocate who weighs the harm to the community, the harm to taxpayers and the harm to victims and most importantly, the cost to the taxpayers are the ones who should make these decisions. Prosecutors and defense attorneys should present a preliminary case to the taxpayer advocate for a final determination as to whether or not a case can go forward. Of course lawyers would be totally against this, because they would no longer be able to control their own destiny. The taxpayer advocates should be people from the local community who can easily determine whether a case has merits. Yes, it is hard to believe, but there are some people out there who are smarter than attorneys.
Who is looking out for the taxpayers in the Barry Bonds case? No one. Nada. These lawyers can bring these frivolous cases any time they feel like it and we taxpayers have to foot the bill. It is not justice to the taxpayer! Forget the guilt or innocence issue. What about the monetary concerns?
How many people could have been helped with putting that $10,000,000 of taxpayer money to better use? You will never convince me that spending $10,000,000 trying to put a baseball player in prison is a good use of taxpayer dollars. For God's sake, he was a baseball player. He's not a member of the Mafia!
On the way in to work today, I was listening to The Dan Patrick Show. Apparently, Bob Costas was fuming over the Barry Bonds outcome. I did not hear what Bob Costas had to say about the Barry Bonds case, but I already know where he stands on it. He thinks he is a fan of baseball, but in my opinion, he is just a guy with a bad attitude. He thinks he is on a one man crusade to destroy the reputations of anyone and everyone who ever used steroids. Such a worthy goal, isn't it?
Bob Costas is precisely the person that raises enough of a stink, because he has the bully pulpit, that causes prosecutors to go after Barry Bonds. These are the kinds of people that demand justice. Hey Bob, was the $10,000,000 worth it to satisfy your bad attitude? I do not think so. Otherwise, you would not be calling in to The Dan Patrick Show asking to spew your opinion on the subject.
The true miscarriage of justice in this case is not whether or not Barry Bonds perjured himself. The true miscarriage of justice is that there ever was a trial in the first place that cost the taxpayers, in this economy no less, $10,000,000.
Really? Come on, Man!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)