Sammy – The tax credit is targeted at lower income brackets. Wake up.

What on earth makes you think she hasn’t?

The rules of the House limit it:

Sammy, you slay me. You remind me of that “fact checker” who gave Haley Barbour a bunch of “Pinocchios” for claiming that there were welfare cheats, when in fact cheating on welfare is clearly against the law!

A pro was cleaning up his golf shop when a female player entered, complaining that she’d been stung by a bee.

“Where were you stung?” inquired the pro.

“Between the first and second holes.” replied the lady.

“Well, obviously,” chuckled the old pro “your stance is too wide.”

Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (fdfc57) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:17 pm

What on earth makes you think she hasn’t?

The rules of the House limit it:

http://www.house.state.pa.us/rules/2011HouRules.htm

No proxy voting shall be permitted in committee, except as provided for herein. If a member reports to a scheduled committee meeting and advises the chair and other members of a conflicting committee meeting or other legislative meeting which he or she must attend on the same day, the member is authorized to give the chair or minority chair his or her proxy in writing which shall be valid only for that day and which shall include written instructions for the exercise of such proxy by the chair or minority chair during the meeting. The member should also advise the chair where he or she can be reached. In the event the conflicting committee meeting or other legislative meeting is scheduled to convene at the same time or prior to the meeting at which a member desires to vote by proxy, such proxy shall be delivered by the member in person to the offices of both the chair and minority chair prior to, but on the same day as, the conflicting meetings.

It is not permitted at all on the floor, except there is this business about pairing votes on opposite sides of a question (unless that stopped)

Sammy, you really don’t understand “possess” in the context of firearms.

Well, if someone owns a firearm, and he or she gives a non-lethal part of it to a child to hold, is the child, “possessing” the weapon? What about a visitor?

So, no, David Gregory did not possess this, NBC did. At no point was he going to do anything on his own with it. I grant you, had he stolen it, he would have possessed it, but he did not.

Current law, as interpreted by the IRS, about HSA’s (Health Saving Accounts – From 8889) MSA’s (Archer Medical Savings Accounts – Form 8853) FSA’s (Flexible Spending Arrangements) and HRA’s
(Health Reimbursement Arrangements)

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/ar02.html

We know what his charitable deduction proposal is: Reduce the deduction to 28% even if the marginal tax bracket is higher. Which would mathematically be the same as taking the fraction 28/marginal tax rate including phaseouts, and multiplying that by the amount of the contribution.

Now something the wealthy can take advantage of that most Americans can’t, is a charitable donation of appreciated stock or a painting perhaps.

Obama seems not to have made any proposal dealing with appreciated assets (where the current value gets deducted, but no capital gains tax is charged)

http://www.fpanet.org/journal/BetweentheIssues/LastMonth/Articles/ObamaProposaltoCapCharitableDeductions/

Maybe medical deductions since since only a lucky few can afford to pay for medical care (and besides, there’s the ACA).

There are very few medical deductions left. On Schedule A it only applies to expenses over 7.5% and this has now been raised to 10% except for people over the age of 65 for another 4 years.

The big “loophole” some see here is the deductibility of employer provided health insurance. Because unions take advantage of this, Obama is unlikely to want to change any of that.

Sammy, less than half own homes, so he mean the mortgage and property tax deductions.

Technically, it might be correct that they aren’t available to “most Americans” but that would be true for most deductions – certainly ones involving college tuition, which he favors. Could you really say they they are (only) available to “the wealthiest individuals”

The child and dependent care credit would be one not available to most Americans, and heavily tilted toward the upper income brackets, since this only applies when all the guardians of a child under the age of 13 * are working or looking for work, a full-time student, or unable to take care of themselves and therefore also a child, and are people are paid on the books except that a person’s own children under 19 don’t count even if they are paid on the books, for hours that are not considered schooling if the child is attending kindergarten or higher, and only for hours necessary to enable someone to work,* and no more than the minimum necessary to pay * to get the care from that particular source for those days covered. Payments for tutoring or summer school also do not qualify.

So this is one maybe that only a limited number of people can take advantage of, and they’re mostly upper income.

—————–
* Age 13. The way thing are going now every child under 13 can be considered to need a babysitter, and every child 13 and over can be a babysitter, and there’s no middle ground. The credit also can be taken for care of a disabled person.

* enable someone to work. Can include situations where one spouse works days, and the other works nights, and the spouse who works nights sleeps during the day.

* minimum necessary. If let’s say someone works 3 days but has a child in day care 5 days, if the center does not offer a 3-day option, and the 5 day is the minimum charge, all is deductible. Similarly, if food, or even some education, is included in the minimum charge, and they are basically incidental, it is all deductible.

============================================

But I don’t think President Obama has any specifics really in mind, if he does, this description of them being “loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans” really can’t be justified.