Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Biden Doesn’t Care If College Graduates Actually Get Any Money
Our Constitution, which President Biden swore to uphold, says that the President cannot spend taxpayers’ money. No money can be spent from the federal Treasury unless Congress votes on it, and passes a law. Our Founders, apparently, anticipated that we might have the occasional scoundrel in the office of President, who might consider using Treasury funds for political purposes. They were, unlike my leftist friends, familiar with human nature.
Thus, when President Biden decided to give tens of billions of dollars from the Treasury to young college graduates who might vote Democrat, he could have proposed legislation to that effect. As Presidents have always done. And it may very well have passed. But he didn’t do that. His lawyers just made up a legal excuse, and Mr. Biden pretended to pull out his own personal money, and start throwing around free cash like Oprah Winfrey. I don’t think that anyone, Democrat or Republican, thinks that this is legal. Imagine if President Trump had announced that he was going to give every American $500 so they could buy a gun. That would have gotten shut down quickly. As it should have. It’s blatantly unconstitutional.
I also don’t think that Mr. Biden cares if any college graduates actually get any money. I suspect that he hopes that, right before mid-terms, Republicans across the country publicly try to take money away from hard-working students of color. I even suspect that his lawyers made their rationalization intentionally weak to encourage legal challenges, giving Democrats even more opportunities to make Republicans look mean in public hearings. He sees this as a way to gain seats in the midterms, and nothing more. Otherwise, he would have just proposed a bill to Congress, as Presidents have always done. This is obviously about Congressional elections, not college loans.
Or perhaps I’m being too cynical.
But over the past couple years, that seems impossible…
Published in General
Mostly due to a Supreme Court ruling that made employer-administered intelligence testing illegal. So employers had to search for a proxy.
Sure, but about their plans, they also didn’t differentiate between whether they were referring to federally produced loans or federally guaranteed loans; they appeared to go back and forth, but I couldn’t tell. And yes, it was deliberately vague.
And they don’t consider the worthlessness of the degree or student
But all students are victims.
But last I heard, Hewitt still believes things like the mortgage interest deduction can never be undone, which also shifts financial burdens in similar ways.
How many people these days do you think understand things like that?
What’s your point?
Legislative paralysis due to “harming” someone “innocent” would mean that nothing can ever change. I don’t fall for it. And it’s usually only the position of certain people in certain situations that THEY don’t want to lose out for personal benefit. In the case of the property tax credit, it’s like how mortgage rates affect prices. People might buy a more expensive house than they “should” – even more than they actually need – because in effect, other taxpayers are paying part of their property taxes for them.
There is an enormous difference between not doing a policy and undoing a policy. In the case of the mortgage interest deduction, it’s not just political, it’s economic. As in it would be deflationary for the whole economy.
Some day, the Republicans might be able to get rid of it over 100 years.
I have 18 hours to finish this conversation.
Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.
And the value of the deduction has always been grossly overstated anyway. Deductions only have value to the extent that they exceed the standard deduction. If the standard deduction is $24,000 and you have $26,000 in deductions, you’re only getting the value of $2000 off your taxable income – you would have gotten the $24k anyway.
Spending money in order to “get back” a fraction of it on your taxes is stoopid.
Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.
So you would bet money that it wouldn’t change people’s net worth that much? Like it’s not inhumane. It’s politically feasible. And it won’t destroy the financial system. That is your position?
Per the link above, less then 12% of taxpayers itemize at all. Some unknown fraction of those presumably have other expenses than Mortgage interest.
Prior to the 1986 tax reform, all consumer interest (credit cards, vehicle loans, etc) was deductible. Did eliminating that deduction “destroy” the financial system? Have people avoided interest bearing debt since then?
I’m not saying you’re wrong yet, but those things are not the same as levering up on a house, both on the micro and macro level. At least I don’t see it, myself.
It seems like the discussion about this topic has been exceptionally simplistic given the amount of revenue to the government that everybody is worried about.
If you’re in the 39% tax bracket and you have $26,000 in deductions, congratulations, you just saved $780 in taxes.
You spent $26,000 to do it, but hey, maybe you think that’s a good deal.
So your position is it’s not going to change the value of housing stock in this country?
Maybe marginally on the very high end. For the vast majority? Minimally if at all. The loss of the SALT deduction was just as big a hit as losing the mortgage deduction would be [It’s why I don’t itemize anymore], have housing prices fallen in high tax states?
The [vast?] majority of homeowners already don’t use the mortgage deduction – either they have no mortgage at all (roughly 50% based on a quick google search) or have a low enough balance that the interest is insufficient to exceed the standard deduction.
OK I’ll defer to you. It’s strictly a political charade that the GOP can’t explain.
cEntRal pLAnNing MakEs oUr liVEs beTTEr
That depends too on what the $26,000 went for. If they were the same kind of general expenses – living expenses, whatever – that the Standard Deduction also more or less accounts for, then it’s not like you wasted money on things that you wouldn’t have done otherwise. Especially if they’re “unusual” expenses such as medical costs to a larger extent than most people have. Unless you want to claim that “just don’t go to the doctor, it’s a waste of money” is a valid response.
It’s impossible to know what housing prices would have been if things had been done differently. But one of the arguments of the Hugh Hewitts of the world, and others like them, is that downward pressure on housing prices at the high end, DOES also put downward pressure on housing prices (more or lesS) all the way down.
Overall, though, it’s undeniable that a SALT deduction has the effect of subsidizing (at the federal-tax level) people who live in high-tax (mostly Democrat-run) states and cities, at the expense of people who live in lower-tax areas.
I listen to him very closely and I’m pretty sure he’s strictly making the political argument.
I’ve always assumed the other arguments, but I may not be right.
The thing about it is, the government has to intervene to create 30 year loans, which is arguably required for civilization. Then inevitably… lol
I haven’t listened to his current show in some years, many issues involving the show as well as his web site, etc. So maybe he’s changed tune somewhat more recently. But when I was listening on a daily basis, every time the subject came up he said explicitly that limiting tax deductions on high-price housing applied downward pressure on prices at the bottom too.
I think you may have misspelled “stoopid”. Isn’t it spelled stewped?
How about making my weapon / ammo purchases tax deductible.
So why does he not just pay it all off? I suspect he does not want to but just pay a bit each election so they have the issue.
Guns would suddenly cost $500 more?
Hey it worked for “higher education!”