Distribution of New House Prices for the USA and broken down by region:
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/quarterly_sales.pdf

looks like houses >$500K account for about 15% of houses sold since 2014.



Certainly capping mortgage deductions isn't going to make that number 0%, but again, residential home construction is a HUGE employer of both working and middle class people. Building McMansions is one of the few ways that wealth actually trickles down in this country. Seems like there could be unintended consequences.

11/2/2017 5:26:13 PM

There's that, and there are other provisions you can either nitpick or defend as reasonable in that plan, but that really shouldn't be the focus of the debate. The main effect of this bill is to blow a $1.5 trillion hole in the budget for the purposes of giving already cash rich corporations and the super wealthy a huge tax break. I don't mind deficit spending at all, we could easily add trillions to the debt with no ill effects, but not for the purposes of more trickle down gobbledygook.

11/2/2017 5:32:24 PM

Man, that's going to have a major impact for expensive locations like here in DC, where it's difficult to find a decent house < 500k

11/2/2017 6:05:53 PM

Is lying under oath just not a thing anymore? Because Sessions did it like three times we know of already.

11/2/2017 7:46:32 PM

I don't like any tax cuts that provide an advantage to the wealthy but it seems like most of you only support the ones that help your pocket. That makes you no different from the corporate Republicans.

Some of you are so hypocritical because you are criticizing these provisions that only affect the upper middle class and up. We shouldn't have to pay people (through tax deductions) for saving a lot of money or buying an expensive home.

Also, its a bit absurd to think that the upper middle class will stop saving or buying homes because they no longer get massive tax deductions. If you are putting more than 2500 in your 401k or buying a house over 500k, then you should pay your full share of taxes. Period.

11/2/2017 7:53:57 PM

I feel like hch's numbers were wrong. Would $3,000 @ 30% mean you're making $10,000 a month? And is that after taxes? So really like 150,000+?

11/2/2017 8:22:08 PM

Quote :

"We shouldn't have to pay people (through tax deductions)"

This is the definition of liberal thought.



[Edited on November 3, 2017 at 8:36 AM. Reason : ^12($3k*3) = $108k]

11/3/2017 8:33:01 AM

Quote :

"Anything that provides downward pressure on home prices is bad for anyone who owns a home and the middle class in general. Home appreciation is about the only "savings" most of the middle class accumulate."

it's a trend we have to stop at some point, and there aren't any painless solutions to the process. housing should be a commodity, not an investment.

11/3/2017 8:39:34 AM

Quote :

"The federal government cant set policy based on just a few high cost locations"

What's more important, setting a tax policy that accounts for as many large, expensive cities as possible or lowering the taxes on the wealthiest? Because make no mistake here, doing away with that deduction is in this plan solely to get the deficit consequences down to ONLY 1.5 trillion

Quote :

"Also, its a bit absurd to think that the upper middle class will stop saving or buying homes because they no longer get massive tax deductions"

I'm currently looking at buying in NYC. I pay $3,900 in rent. If I buy something big enough for my family I'm spending at least 1 mm, probably more, with let's say 300k down. Mortgage deduction would bring my average monthly outflow down to around or even below the rent I pay now. Without it, I'm WAY, WAY above. So no, it's not absurd to think I won't buy a home because of the deduction, it's reality.

11/3/2017 9:06:34 AM

Pretty much no one was complaining about mortgage interest deductions until the Republicans wanted to limit/eliminate them to pass tax breaks to the rich.

Pretty much no one was complaining about people using the bathroom that matches their gender identity until Republicans decided to make a City ordinance a state issue.

Pretty much no one was complaining about concealed carry permits until the Republicans decided those infringed on 2A rights (nevermind the fact that Republicans fought for CCH permits).

See the pattern?

[Edited on November 3, 2017 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

11/3/2017 10:01:44 AM

that's not true, capping the mortgage interest deduction has been something that was frequently discussed long before this tax debate and is something progressives have called for for a long time

[Edited on November 3, 2017 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

11/3/2017 10:11:00 AM

Quote :

"Without it, I'm WAY, WAY above. So no, it's not absurd to think I won't buy a home because of the deduction, it's reality."

You should have just worked harder or inherited money from a wealthy family.

11/3/2017 10:11:12 AM

Liberals: "Housing prices are too high! Stop giving tax cuts to the rich!"

Republicans: "OK, we'll reduce the tax incentive for buying houses that are mortgaged for over $500,000. That will not impact the tax burdens of most American homeowners at all, and it will naturally put downward pressure on home prices by encouraging people to mortgage for smaller amounts."

Liberals: "WTF why are you raising my taxes! How am I supposed to pay for this $800,000 2 bedroom in posh LA?!"

Quote :

"Pretty much no one was complaining about mortgage interest deductions until the Republicans wanted to limit/eliminate them to pass tax breaks to the rich."

This is literally the opposite of what is happening.

11/3/2017 11:53:07 AM

that's neoliberals, not liberals

we wanted it closer to $300k

11/3/2017 11:54:23 AM

Sorry, allow me to adjust my question to you before

What's more important, setting a tax policy that accounts for as many large, expensive cities as possible or lowering the taxes on the wealthiest 2%?

11/3/2017 11:57:53 AM

is that a question for me? that's a false dilemma

11/3/2017 12:00:16 PM

For anyone arguing that it's a good idea to cut the mortgage interest to 500k while also lowering the taxes on the super rich and corporations. I'm not arguing the theoretical, I'm arguing within the tax plan that's been put forth

11/3/2017 12:03:56 PM

it's good to lower cap for mortgage deductions, it's bad to lower taxes for wealthy

11/3/2017 12:10:29 PM

There are multiple arguments going on here I guess:

1) Looking to buy a home above 500k does not make you very wealthy in some of the more expensive cities. Some seem to be arguing that because this represents approximately 15% of the US it's ok, because you have to draw the line somewhere. My point is that the only reason the line's being drawn in this plan is so they can give tax cuts to the ultra wealthy
2) In these areas, eliminating the deduction absolutely will stop some people from buying, period. Will it depress prices in the long run? You can argue that it might, but it also might not. What is definite, is it will hurt sales in the short term, but not necessarily enough to impact those who would only buy due to the deduction

11/3/2017 12:19:00 PM

Quote :

"so they can give tax cuts to the ultra wealthy"

Where are the tax cuts for the wealthy? While there will be significant tax cuts for the bottom 3 tax brackets, the top tax bracket stays at 39%. Additionally, the wealthy will be on the hook for the following:
• Businesses would lose the ability to deduct certain executive compensation above $1 million, which they can now do for performance-based pay.

• Tax-exempt bonds could no longer be used to build professional sports stadiums.

• Sets a top 25% rate for pass-through businesses such as S corporations and partnerships. The plan includes complicated guardrails that limit people from turning what would otherwise be wage income taxed at up to 39.6% into business income taxed at a lower rate.

• New limits on corporate interest deductions, which would be capped at 30% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, which is a measure of cash flow. Real-estate firms and small businesses would be exempt from that limit.

• Creates a new one-time tax on overseas profits set at 12% for cash holdings and 5% for illiquid holdings, a provision meant to force companies to repatriate overseas profits. Creates a new 10% tax on U.S. companies’ high-profit foreign subsidiaries, calculated on a global basis, but active overseas profits wouldn’t otherwise be taxed.


And don't take this as an argument for the plan above. I just want to understand where liberals are seeing the tax cuts for just the wealthy, while sticking it to the middle class and poor?

[Edited on November 3, 2017 at 3:44 PM. Reason : 1]

11/3/2017 3:42:36 PM

Market's about to close so I don't have time to go into a point by point analysis but the estate tax and the fact that it adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit would be a couple initial responses to you

11/3/2017 3:53:16 PM

How is an increased deficit a tax cut for the wealthy?

The estate tax is a morally ambiguous tax which should have been removed long ago.

11/3/2017 3:59:27 PM

Yeah this country's all about making sure the wealthiest families get to pass that money and influence onto the next generation that didn't do shit to deserve it

11/3/2017 4:13:38 PM

You realize the estate tax effects farmers more than it does oil tycoons, right?

11/3/2017 4:21:44 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/10/news/economy/farmers-estate-tax/index.html

how about some more talking points?

11/3/2017 4:51:20 PM

The GOP Kool Aide for this billionaire tax break plan is strong, but a fair share of republicans don't even care about facts, let alone the inevitable 1.5 T deficit this will cause, so ya'll should stop trying to reason with these trickle-down hopefuls.

[Edited on November 3, 2017 at 5:47 PM. Reason : open yo moufs for dat billionaire piss]

11/3/2017 5:44:15 PM

1) The estate tax does effect farms (maybe not to the degree I indicated)https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/federal-tax-issues/federal-estate-taxes/

2)The estate tax is morally reprehensible. And this ain’t some republican talking point. The chairman of Bill Clinton’s Economic advisory council (and Nobel laureate) argued that the “estate tax increases inequality by reducing savings and driving up returns on capital (which largely benefit wealthy holders of capital).” https://taxfoundation.org/economic-effects-estate-tax-testimony-david-s-logan-pennsylvania-house-finance-committee

3) The estate tax is viewed as unfair by a majority of Americans, both liberal and conservative.
https://taxfoundation.org/americans-say-estate-tax-unfair-should-be-repealed
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1882227

4)If the elimination of the estate tax is the only evidence you have of this tax plan benefiting only the mega-rich, you might want to look back through the plan with a bit of an open mind. If you want to call out the Republicans on this bill your argument should start and end with the elimination of the adoption deduction. I still haven’t seen a logical argument for that.

[Edited on November 3, 2017 at 10:03 PM. Reason : adoption deduction]

11/3/2017 9:57:21 PM

As a liberal who hasn't followed that closely I'd have to say the tax plan isn't some nightmare scenario like the Obamacare repeals, but it also seems totally unrealistic from a financial standpoint, especially from the party who pretends to care about the debt.

Like all these tax cuts would be cool... if we didn't already have a crippling healthcare prices situation that we should be helping with and Trump wasn't talking about building thousands of unnecessary new nuclear weapons.

11/4/2017 1:44:21 AM

^^ Clinton is not an economic liberal, fyi

11/4/2017 6:08:13 AM

Quote :

"2)The estate tax is morally reprehensible. And this ain’t some republican talking point. The chairman of Bill Clinton’s Economic advisory council (and Nobel laureate) argued that the “estate tax increases inequality by reducing savings and driving up returns on capital (which largely benefit wealthy holders of capital).” https://taxfoundation.org/economic-effects-estate-tax-testimony-david-s-logan-pennsylvania-house-finance-committee"

HOLLLLEEEEEE SHIT this is rich. A good find for your defense, but this might be the most "down is up" article I've read in a while. I mean just on the surface, he is comparing pennsylvania's inheritance tax, which literally taxes everyone's estates, to the federal estate tax, which only taxes estates >$5million. That's a huge difference. If you take that difference into account it destroys the rest of his arguments.

Another thing that really irks me, He cites Joe stiglitz multiple times, but all the papers are from 1977, meanwhile stiglitz released "The Price of Inequality" a year after this testimony. A book that absolutely lays out the argument for attacking dynastic wealth with tools like the federal estate tax.

11/4/2017 8:52:03 AM

Quote :

"The estate tax is morally reprehensible."

A+++++++ would chuckle again!!!!!!

11/4/2017 12:22:52 PM

Quote :

"3) The estate tax is viewed as unfair by a majority of Americans, both liberal and conservative. "

The majority of Americans probably also think that the estate tax will take a third of meemaw's $10,000 estate.

11/4/2017 4:47:34 PM

^^^ money is a tool of society, not something you tangibly own.

11/4/2017 5:03:11 PM

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16606812/republican-tax-plan-corporate-cut

Quote :

"Ryan and his team have even cooked up a model family — a mom, dad, and two kids getting by on the national median household income [of $59,000] — who stand to reap a windfall of $1,182 per year from the plan. Unfortunately for the American middle class, Ryan is lying. The hypothetical family... would get a tax cut of almost $1,200 — for one year. It gets smaller in year two, smaller still in year three, smaller still in year four, and smaller still in year five. It nearly vanishes in the sixth year of the Ryan tax plan, and in years seven, eight, nine, and 10 the family would be paying higher taxes than under current law. That tax hike is not only permanent, it actually grows over time because of a change to the inflation indexing of tax brackets."

11/6/2017 5:10:22 PM

The only way to lower taxes is to reduce the spending which never happens. Other than that they are gonna get their money one way or another its just what optics and groups of people they decide to screw this time.

11/7/2017 3:26:44 PM

This MS13 thing is so bizarre but such a patently GOP thing to incite. I refuse to believe there is a massive gang problem in fucking Tyson’s Corner.

11/7/2017 5:38:42 PM

^ it's just racist dog whistling

In a way it represents a positive step for black people-- they aren't hated enough by enough people for the GOP to use them as a boogeyman like they used to, so they have to move on to latinos and muslims.

11/7/2017 6:10:04 PM

Trump is pretty much doing to Mexicans exactly what Nixon did with African Americans.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

11/7/2017 6:20:35 PM

It’s going to get far worse before it gets better. The GOP is going to double down on the culture war after seeing Gillespie lose like he did. Yes, he embraced the worst of Trumpism down the stretch but most voters knew he was pretty standard DC.

We are two different worlds at this point in this country.

11/8/2017 9:21:33 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html

Time to see how hypocritical the right will be with this versus Weinstein..

[Edited on November 9, 2017 at 1:02 PM. Reason : Breitbart already showing their ass here.]

11/9/2017 12:59:44 PM

Hey, technically it's ephebophilia.... /alt-right

11/9/2017 1:42:15 PM

Does Trump endorse him? If he doesn't, he admits the MSM is credible.

11/9/2017 1:54:10 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_moore-art-1pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6c2f12a71860

Leigh Corfman says she was 14 years old when an older man approached her outside a courtroom in Etowah County, Ala. She was sitting on a wooden bench with her mother, they both recall, when the man introduced himself as Roy Moore.

It was early 1979 and Moore — now the Republican nominee in Alabama for a U.S. Senate seat — was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. He struck up a conversation, Corfman and her mother say, and offered to watch the girl while her mother went inside for a child custody hearing.

“He said, ‘Oh, you don’t want her to go in there and hear all that. I’ll stay out here with her,’ ” says Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71. “I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl.”

Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

...

11/9/2017 2:27:13 PM

interesting development, for sure.

I think the Dems should be trying to win a much closer race in AL. I don't think they can do it, but if they come close enough, it still sends a message.

11/9/2017 3:03:01 PM

Like all women who accuse virtuous conservative men of misdeeds, I am certain Ms Corfman is a harlot, an abortionist, a liar, and a liberal.

11/9/2017 4:04:01 PM

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alabama-state-auditor-defends-roy-moore-against-sexual-allegations-invokes-mary-and-joseph/article/2640217

11/9/2017 4:16:50 PM

I can't compete with that.

11/9/2017 5:18:00 PM

Quote :

"After a long pause, Alabama Bibb County Republican chairman Jerry Pow tells me he'd vote for Roy Moore even if Moore did commit a sex crime against a girl. "I would vote for Judge Moore because I wouldn't want to vote for Doug (the democrat)," he says. "I'm not saying I support what he did.""

and there you have it, the reason why Trump's disapproval rating has nothing to do with 2020. At the end of the day, republicans are willing to throw everything else out of the window in favor of what advances their politics.

And this

Quote :

""Other than being with an underage person - he didn't really force himself," Alabama Geneva County GOP chairman Riley Seibenhener tells me. "I know that's bad enough, but I don't know. If he withdraws, it's five weeks to the election...that would concede it to the Democrat.""

Quote :

"Alabama Geneva County GOP chairman Riley Seibenhener, who called me back, says he doesn't believe the allegations are true, but if they're true he won't support him - but, at the same time, it's not "forcible rape." "I know that 14-year-olds don't make good decisions," he adds."

Quote :

""It was 40 years ago," Alabama Marion County GOP chair David Hall tells me. "I really don't see the relevance of it. He was 32. She was supposedly 14. She's not saying that anything happened other than they kissed.""

Real question: Is it legal to makeout with a 14 year old? Is that not indecent liberties or something?

[Edited on November 9, 2017 at 11:03 PM. Reason : "lesser of two evils" guarantees evil]

11/9/2017 11:00:47 PM

This from the party that wants to protect your children from the evil transgenders

11/9/2017 11:28:04 PM

^^ if you read the article you’d see it wasn’t only kissing and the legal aspect is covered.

You’re not wrong about the rest. Weinstein was rightfully accused and convicted in the eyes of public opinion immediately by both sides more or less. Moore is a politician who they need to win so won’t be though some in the GOP to their credit have.

The current landscape makes all the Trump accusations basically being ignored after one news cycle all the more astonishing. He’s Teflon Don. Basically the new Gotti.

11/10/2017 6:17:22 AM