4 ms·

"I think you're missing the thrust of ProPublica's reporting. This is not an article claiming that laws have been broken. It is pointing out the difference in i

by rsync 5y ago

"I think you're missing the thrust of ProPublica's reporting. This is not an article claiming that laws have been broken. It is pointing out the difference in intent and reality for a part of our financial law." If that is what it is trying to point out then it is failing. This is the intent of a Roth IRA. This is not an accidental feature or a weird corner-case or an unintended consequence. One cannot borrow against a Roth IRA and one cannot withdraw from it without paying taxes. AFAICT there is nothing interesting here other than the dollar value. "... and I think you should be embarrassed to say that the people who created the Roth intended this." I am not your comment-parent but I think they should neither be embarrassed nor not-embarrassed. Are you embarrassed that Billionaires can deduct mortgage interest on their primary residence ? Are you embarrassed that Apple Computer can write off business lunches ?

lmm 5y ago
> Are you embarrassed that Billionaires can deduct mortgage interest on their primary residence ? I was embarrassed to live in a country that had that law, yes (I don't any more). It's a real indictment of a political system that would allow such a thing.
- prepend 5y ago
  If you’re embarrassed that corporations with billions and trillions can expense expenses then the problem may be you. A political system that has different expense rules for different company sizes sounds like a nightmare of dipshits trying to micro issues. Set the rules that are fair on first principles, make sure taxes are proportionate, stick with that.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Rules that are fair on first principles are exactly what I want. The mortgage interest tax deduction is nothing of the sort; it's a grotesque carve-out that distorts the tax system for the sole purpose of transferring common wealth to the people who least need it. It's just obscene.
    - prepend 5y ago
      The mortgage tax deduction is only for the first $375 (or $750 for couples). It seems pretty fair as billionaires don’t even notice such a tiny deduction. If anything it gives money to the middle/upper class but encouraging home ownership is an overall positive force.
      - lmm 5y ago
        It encourages debt and buying larger homes (e.g. the common advice to get the biggest mortgage you can), which doesn't necessarily increase overall home ownership (larger homes means fewer homes). Even if it does encourage home ownership, why is that a social positive worth spending tax money on - especially when we're talking about putting tax money straight into the pockets of the top ~half of the population (the bottom ~half don't own homes at all), and the more expensive your house the more you get? Even with a cap, that's just backwards.

by rsync 5y ago

lmm 5y ago

> Are you embarrassed that Billionaires can deduct mortgage interest on their primary residence ? I was embarrassed to live in a country that had that law, yes (I don't any more). It's a real indictment of a political system that would allow such a thing.

prepend 5y ago
If you’re embarrassed that corporations with billions and trillions can expense expenses then the problem may be you. A political system that has different expense rules for different company sizes sounds like a nightmare of dipshits trying to micro issues. Set the rules that are fair on first principles, make sure taxes are proportionate, stick with that.
- lmm 5y ago
  Rules that are fair on first principles are exactly what I want. The mortgage interest tax deduction is nothing of the sort; it's a grotesque carve-out that distorts the tax system for the sole purpose of transferring common wealth to the people who least need it. It's just obscene.
  - prepend 5y ago
    The mortgage tax deduction is only for the first $375 (or $750 for couples). It seems pretty fair as billionaires don’t even notice such a tiny deduction. If anything it gives money to the middle/upper class but encouraging home ownership is an overall positive force.
    - lmm 5y ago
      It encourages debt and buying larger homes (e.g. the common advice to get the biggest mortgage you can), which doesn't necessarily increase overall home ownership (larger homes means fewer homes). Even if it does encourage home ownership, why is that a social positive worth spending tax money on - especially when we're talking about putting tax money straight into the pockets of the top ~half of the population (the bottom ~half don't own homes at all), and the more expensive your house the more you get? Even with a cap, that's just backwards.