Subsidized living

Reader comment on: Krugman on the Deficit Commission

Submitted by J.Johnson (United States), Nov 12, 2010 12:43

True to form, it is unsurprising to see Fut. of Cap. support the elimination of the home mortgage interest deduction. I am curious about what tax deductions Fut. of Cap. would support that affect corporations and their already-wealthy executives, or is it OK to keep on deducting the cost of, say, limo services, corp. jets, private dining rooms and scores of other perks that many wealthy executives simply cannot live without? I rarely agree with Krugman on anything and he's been so wrong on so many things that it's almost humorous, but in the matter of wealth and income distribution, he's closer to the truth than those who think that an executive earning millions of dollars a year ought to keep his Bush tax cut even if it means zeroing out tax deductions important to millions of middle class families. IN THE REAL WORLD, taxes are going to be going up whether we like it or not, and, that being the case, the first bite of the apple ought to come from those who can afford it the most and be affected the least and we all know who they are.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

The Future of Capitalism replies:

I think there's a difference between a business expense and borrowing to finance a home. One is a business expense, the other is consumption.

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
⇒ Subsidized living
[w/response] [191 words]
J.JohnsonNov 12, 2010 12:43
J.Johnson replies: [125 words]J.JohnsonNov 12, 2010 14:19
Flat tax rate [83 words]Jose A HernandezNov 23, 2010 12:49

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Subsidized living by J.Johnson

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.