Bachmann blasts breast-feeding pump tax deduction

[GannonFan]

I'm just against using the tax code to encourage behavior, especially when there is no scientific assurance that the behavior in question will alleviate the problem it is trying to solve. You can use the home mortgage interest deduction, in there to encourage home ownership, as an example of a tax code being used to encourage behavior that has, to an extent, gone wrong.

this is also a measure designed to make having kids more affordable (which is, by roundabout extension) about reducing abortions (seriously... that's how this stuff is viewed on the hill)

as for the mortgage deduction - it's the underpinning of middle class home ownership... a very good thing indeed... the world of mortgages and home financing on the other hand is complete shitmess and another story entirely.

The thing is, though, the people who need help to make kids more affordable, i.e. the poor, aren't making enough money to even itemize such a deduction anyway. And regardless, most of them aren't paying a dime of federal income tax anyway, so how is this supposed to help them? And that just ignores the question of whether we should be encouraging the poor to have even more kids anyway, especially since affording kids is a big problem to begin with.

The thing about the mortgage deduction, though, is that plenty of other countries have similar home ownership levels, even amongst the middle class, and yet they've accomplished this without enacting a mortgage deduction in the tax code. That's one of the fallacies of the whole mortgage deduction argument - there's enough proof out there that we don't need it to get the level of home ownership we want, and that ignores the debate over whether we should really want those home ownership levels anyway.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Nailed it!

I could go for that argument. The efforts to tax alcohol out of existence seem to have fallen flat.

that's never been the intent of the excise tax on alcohol

the intent is to limit consumption and draw revenue. if they wanted to tax it out of existence they'd tax it much more... look at cigarettes - they ARE being taxed in to oblivion - depending on where you live

[TwinTownBisonFan]

this is also a measure designed to make having kids more affordable (which is, by roundabout extension) about reducing abortions (seriously... that's how this stuff is viewed on the hill)

as for the mortgage deduction - it's the underpinning of middle class home ownership... a very good thing indeed... the world of mortgages and home financing on the other hand is complete shitmess and another story entirely.

The thing is, though, the people who need help to make kids more affordable, i.e. the poor, aren't making enough money to even itemize such a deduction anyway. And regardless, most of them aren't paying a dime of federal income tax anyway, so how is this supposed to help them? And that just ignores the question of whether we should be encouraging the poor to have even more kids anyway, especially since affording kids is a big problem to begin with.

The thing about the mortgage deduction, though, is that plenty of other countries have similar home ownership levels, even amongst the middle class, and yet they've accomplished this without enacting a mortgage deduction in the tax code. That's one of the fallacies of the whole mortgage deduction argument - there's enough proof out there that we don't need it to get the level of home ownership we want, and that ignores the debate over whether we should really want those home ownership levels anyway.

True facts about itemizing...

[GSUAlumniEagle]

Am I the only one that can actually kinda see her point?

And you guys know how much that pains me to say anything remotely nice about that crazy lady.

No. She does have a point. But you could make that case for alot of tax deductible items....like kids....so I hope she'll be consistent championig all unnecessary tax deductible items....

I see her point and mostly agree with it. I just don't think it's something to get all in a tizzy about. I imagine this program costs the federal government relatively little in the grand scheme of things in the budget and I'm sure there are very similar programs that the conservatives introduced. So while I might see her point, to me it's just an example again of a politician who keeps making a mountain out of a molehill because it scores her political points. But if she was really serious about reducing spending, we know that the real area to do so isn't in discretionary spending -- but it wouldn't score her political points to begin discussing cuts in Medicare or Medicaid, or increasing the Social Security retirement age, or reducing defense spending. So she'll keep hammering away at breast pumps.

EDIT: Wow, two really bad typos in there. Proofread before you submit!

[Appaholic]

No. She does have a point. But you could make that case for alot of tax deductible items....like kids....so I hope she'll be consistent championig all unnecessary tax deductible items....

I see her point and mostly agree with it. I just don't think it's something to get all in a tizzy about. I imagine this program costs the federal government relatively little in the grand scheme of things in the budget and I'm sure there are very similar programs that the conservatives introduced. So while I might see her point, to me it's just an example again of a politician who keeps making an ant out of a molehill because it scores her political points. But if she was really serious about reducing spending, we know that the real area to do so isn't in discretionary spending -- but it wouldn't score her political points to begin discussing cuts in Medicare or Medicaid, or reducing the Social Security retirement age, or reducing defense spending. So she'll keep hammering away at breast pumps.

ding! ding! ding!

[Ivytalk]

I want to know what Lady Gaga thinks about this burning issue.