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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 86 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    MarciN (View Comment):
    Unfortunately, a bachelor’s has become as much a necessity in our knowledge-based society as a high school diploma used to be. In and of itself, it doesn’t mean a person knows anything, but it implies certain characteristics about a job candidate that employers or graduate or professional education programs want to see. In Massachusetts, firefighters and law enforcement officers now have to have a bachelor’s before they start professional training.

    Mostly due to a Supreme Court ruling that made employer-administered intelligence testing illegal.  So employers had to search for a proxy.

    • #61
  2. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Let me ask it this way. I just read the White House briefing on student loan repayment, but I don’t understand the very general phrasing they use. The talked about forgiving most (or eventually all) of Pell grants, but otherwise referred to student loans without specificity as to what types of loans would be partially forgiven.

    Also I just read a brief article that said that only federally granted loans would be given $10k to $20k, and would also be given a waiver from making payments through the end of the year. The article also said that neither the forgiveness (my term not theirs) nor a waiver through the end of the year would apply to private loans that are government backed.

    Still, from what I can gather we’re still talking about $10 billion in relief, but that does not apply to all of the outstanding loans, or much of the outstanding loaned amount.

    Does anybody know how much money, and to what type of student, and for what types of loans the government is providing relief?

    You didn’t understand their vague wording because they couldn’t come out and say they were fulfilling their promise to pay “reparations” by admitting people to overpriced universities where they could either drop out or get worthless degrees and leave with high debt. Then they could be told their debt was excused so they just got their $20,000 reparations.

    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.

    • #62
  3. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Let me ask it this way. I just read the White House briefing on student loan repayment, but I don’t understand the very general phrasing they use. The talked about forgiving most (or eventually all) of Pell grants, but otherwise referred to student loans without specificity as to what types of loans would be partially forgiven.

    Also I just read a brief article that said that only federally granted loans would be given $10k to $20k, and would also be given a waiver from making payments through the end of the year. The article also said that neither the forgiveness (my term not theirs) nor a waiver through the end of the year would apply to private loans that are government backed.

    Still, from what I can gather we’re still talking about $10 billion in relief, but that does not apply to all of the outstanding loans, or much of the outstanding loaned amount.

    Does anybody know how much money, and to what type of student, and for what types of loans the government is providing relief?

    You didn’t understand their vague wording because they couldn’t come out and say they were fulfilling their promise to pay “reparations” by admitting people to overpriced universities where they could either drop out or get worthless degrees and leave with high debt. Then they could be told their debt was excused so they just got their $20,000 reparations.

    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

    • #63
  4. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Let me ask it this way. I just read the White House briefing on student loan repayment, but I don’t understand the very general phrasing they use. The talked about forgiving most (or eventually all) of Pell grants, but otherwise referred to student loans without specificity as to what types of loans would be partially forgiven.

    Also I just read a brief article that said that only federally granted loans would be given $10k to $20k, and would also be given a waiver from making payments through the end of the year. The article also said that neither the forgiveness (my term not theirs) nor a waiver through the end of the year would apply to private loans that are government backed.

    Still, from what I can gather we’re still talking about $10 billion in relief, but that does not apply to all of the outstanding loans, or much of the outstanding loaned amount.

    Does anybody know how much money, and to what type of student, and for what types of loans the government is providing relief?

    You didn’t understand their vague wording because they couldn’t come out and say they were fulfilling their promise to pay “reparations” by admitting people to overpriced universities where they could either drop out or get worthless degrees and leave with high debt. Then they could be told their debt was excused so they just got their $20,000 reparations.

    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.

    • #64
  5. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Let me ask it this way. I just read the White House briefing on student loan repayment, but I don’t understand the very general phrasing they use. The talked about forgiving most (or eventually all) of Pell grants, but otherwise referred to student loans without specificity as to what types of loans would be partially forgiven.

    Also I just read a brief article that said that only federally granted loans would be given $10k to $20k, and would also be given a waiver from making payments through the end of the year. The article also said that neither the forgiveness (my term not theirs) nor a waiver through the end of the year would apply to private loans that are government backed.

    Still, from what I can gather we’re still talking about $10 billion in relief, but that does not apply to all of the outstanding loans, or much of the outstanding loaned amount.

    Does anybody know how much money, and to what type of student, and for what types of loans the government is providing relief?

    You didn’t understand their vague wording because they couldn’t come out and say they were fulfilling their promise to pay “reparations” by admitting people to overpriced universities where they could either drop out or get worthless degrees and leave with high debt. Then they could be told their debt was excused so they just got their $20,000 reparations.

    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.

    • #65
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Never misunderestimate the capacity of a Progressive (particularly of the Joe Biden variety) to screw things up.

    Listen to Hugh Hewitt on special report last night. The part at 6:20.

    Unconstitutional.

    Largest decision ever made in the history of government, $300,000,000,000 to $800,000,000,000 per Wharton Business School. How does that turn out positive? It’s just pushing too much money and too many things around.

    https://www.foxnews.com/shows/special-report

     

    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.

    • #66
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    The always foolish left thought it would be a good idea to go after those Republicans who got PPP loans. The Ricochet podcast zoom this morning had a great point which I repeated on Twitter to those spreading the leftie attack.

    Are Democrats stupid? That had to be done because of constitutional protections and the “takings clause.” The government mandate shutting down the businesses was a “takings” so the people hurt were entitled to compensation. Loans aren’t a “takings.” Dems better find a new spin.

    How many people these days do you think understand things like that?

    • #67
  8. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Never misunderestimate the capacity of a Progressive (particularly of the Joe Biden variety) to screw things up.

    Listen to Hugh Hewitt on special report last night. The part at 6:20.

    Unconstitutional.

    Largest decision ever made in the history of government, $300,000,000,000 to $800,000,000,000 per Wharton Business School. How does that turn out positive? It’s just pushing too much money and too many things around.

    https://www.foxnews.com/shows/special-report

     

    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.

    What’s your point?

    • #68
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Never misunderestimate the capacity of a Progressive (particularly of the Joe Biden variety) to screw things up.

    Listen to Hugh Hewitt on special report last night. The part at 6:20.

    Unconstitutional.

    Largest decision ever made in the history of government, $300,000,000,000 to $800,000,000,000 per Wharton Business School. How does that turn out positive? It’s just pushing too much money and too many things around.

    https://www.foxnews.com/shows/special-report

     

    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.

    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.

    • #69
  10. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Never misunderestimate the capacity of a Progressive (particularly of the Joe Biden variety) to screw things up.

    Listen to Hugh Hewitt on special report last night. The part at 6:20.

    Unconstitutional.

    Largest decision ever made in the history of government, $300,000,000,000 to $800,000,000,000 per Wharton Business School. How does that turn out positive? It’s just pushing too much money and too many things around.

    https://www.foxnews.com/shows/special-report

    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.

    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.

    • #70
  11. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Never misunderestimate the capacity of a Progressive (particularly of the Joe Biden variety) to screw things up.

    Listen to Hugh Hewitt on special report last night. The part at 6:20.

    Unconstitutional.

    Largest decision ever made in the history of government, $300,000,000,000 to $800,000,000,000 per Wharton Business School. How does that turn out positive? It’s just pushing too much money and too many things around.

    https://www.foxnews.com/shows/special-report

    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.

    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.

    https://smartasset.com/taxes/how-did-the-trump-tax-bill-affect-itemized-deductions-2021

    • Less than half as many itemizers. In 2017, 47.1 million taxpayers itemized deductions, relative to 15.3 million in 2018. This dramatic shift maps to a more than 19 percentage point drop in itemizers as a percentage of all taxpayers, from 30.90% to 11.47%.

    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.

    • #71
  12. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.

    Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    • #72
  13. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.

    Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

     

    • #73
  14. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    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. 

    • #74
  15. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.

    Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    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.

    • #75
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.

    Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    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?

    • #76
  17. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.

    Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    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.

    • #77
  18. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.

    Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    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

    • #78
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.

    Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    • #79
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Doubling the standard deduction and eliminating the SALT deduction was a huge step towards “eliminating” the Mortgage interest deduction.

    Fair enough. This stuff is really complicated and I have a limit of knowledge.

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    • #80
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):
    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.

    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 

    • #81
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #82
  23. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Never misunderestimate the capacity of a Progressive (particularly of the Joe Biden variety) to screw things up.

    Listen to Hugh Hewitt on special report last night. The part at 6:20.

    Unconstitutional.

    Largest decision ever made in the history of government, $300,000,000,000 to $800,000,000,000 per Wharton Business School. How does that turn out positive? It’s just pushing too much money and too many things around.

    https://www.foxnews.com/shows/special-report

    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.

    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.

    https://smartasset.com/taxes/how-did-the-trump-tax-bill-affect-itemized-deductions-2021

    • Less than half as many itemizers. In 2017, 47.1 million taxpayers itemized deductions, relative to 15.3 million in 2018. This dramatic shift maps to a more than 19 percentage point drop in itemizers as a percentage of all taxpayers, from 30.90% to 11.47%.

    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.

    I think you may have misspelled “stoopid”. Isn’t it spelled stewped?

    • #83
  24. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Stad (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: Imagine if President Trump had announced that he was going to give every American $500 so they could buy a gun.

    He’s got my vote!

    How about making my weapon / ammo purchases tax deductible.  

    • #84
  25. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    This is so very Joe Biden. He would dearly love to forgive all student loans and presumably buy an entire voter demographic. His entire concept of politics is buying constituencies and harming opponents.

    Non-senile grownups told him that there was no way the country could afford such a policy so he petulantly crafted an utterly pointless substitute that is too small to change the burden for the heavily indebted but will still knock a hole in the federal budget. It will be yet another “win” for Joe Biden!

    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.

    • #85
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Dr. Bastiat: Imagine if President Trump had announced that he was going to give every American $500 so they could buy a gun. 

    Guns would suddenly cost $500 more?

    Hey it worked for “higher education!”

    • #86
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.