Say "bye bye" to your boat interest deduction.

There is only one reason to have a "progressive" tax code. To keep poor people from ever having the opportunity to be rich people. The more they start to make, the more they have to give. A constant supply of poor people is necessary, or no one would need anybody in Washington to give them anything. Then what would the liberals do? We can't have a whole country full of people that can take care of themselves....

I fall smack in the middle, and my boat interest deduction keeps 6 people employed at my marina, several more employed at the bank, several people at my mechanic's shop employed, and many, many, many folks at the various dock bars and restaurants employed. So who's losing because I get a measly couple of bucks back at the end of the year? No one.

Let's try to refrain from personal attacks this time. If you can't use logic and reason, the discussion is over.
 
Last edited:
skibum said:
There is only one reason to have a "progressive" tax code. To keep poor people from ever having the opportunity to be rich people. The more they start to make, the more they have to give. A constant supply of poor people is necessary, or no one would need anybody in Washington to give them anything. Then what would the liberals do? We can't have a whole country full of people that can take care of themselves....

I fall smack in the middle, and my boat interest deduction keeps 6 people employed at my marina, several more employed at the bank, several people at my mechanic's shop employed, and many, many, many folks at the various dock bars and restaurants employed. So who's losing because I get a measly couple of bucks back at the end of the year? No one.

Let's try to refrain from personal attacks this time. If you can't use logic and reason, the discussion is over.
Click to expand...
Would you have bought your boat if the interest wasn't deductible from income? The $$ would be quite small in your case, would it have made the difference in your decision? Was it even considered when you made the choice to buy your boat?
 
Last edited:
skibum said:
I fall smack in the middle, and my boat interest deduction keeps 6 people employed at my marina, several more employed at the bank, several people at my mechanic's shop employed, and many, many, many folks at the various dock bars and restaurants employed. So who's losing because I get a measly couple of bucks back at the end of the year? No one.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I believe your logic only holds if you disconnect Tax Revenue from Spending. When that is the case (and indeed today it is the case). . the few extra bucks you get back at the end of the year means nothing. If anything, as Scott said earlier, the few extra bucks back helps you buy the boat, pay for gas and pumps money into the economy a dozen different ways. That is the essence Keynsian economics. (BLASPHEMY!)

If you LINK tax revenue to spending (as EVERYONE on this thread suggests), then the money you are refunded for your deduction means that either someone else has to pay more taxes to compensate, or some government services (like a road repair) can't be performed. In that ideal world, the government would not promote "boating" through a tax break, but rather would let *the market* determine if *boating* is really the best way to move the economy.

I for one do not get any tax deductions for boating. And let me tell you. . .between my *$&#^& jet ski and my twin 5.7's, I am sure propping up the NJ economy. (anyone know a good PWC mechanic in my area?)
 
If you believe the tax deduction for a boat is not right, what about for a vacation home on a foundation? People don't seem to want to fight that one. I spend more nights on my boat than probably 80% of the people with vacation homes.
 
comsnark said:
With all due respect, I believe your logic only holds if you disconnect Tax Revenue from Spending. When that is the case (and indeed today it is the case). . the few extra bucks you get back at the end of the year means nothing. If anything, as Scott said earlier, the few extra bucks back helps you buy the boat, pay for gas and pumps money into the economy a dozen different ways. That is the essence Keynsian economics. (BLASPHEMY!)

If you LINK tax revenue to spending (as EVERYONE on this thread suggests), then the money you are refunded for your deduction means that either someone else has to pay more taxes to compensate, or some government services (like a road repair) can't be performed. In that ideal world, the government would not promote "boating" through a tax break, but rather would let *the market* determine if *boating* is really the best way to move the economy.

I for one do not get any tax deductions for boating. And let me tell you. . .between my *$&#^& jet ski and my twin 5.7's, I am sure propping up the NJ economy. (anyone know a good PWC mechanic in my area?)
Click to expand...
I doubt "promoting boating" has anything to do with it. Stimulating business activity yes, whether it be regular housing or boat related.
 
I used my home equity credit line to purchase my first two boats so the interest would be deductible. Then I discovered I could deduct the interest on straight boat loan and was incredulous that Uncle Sam allowed it but was not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. The irony about Chuckie Pooh and his merry band of Bolsheviks is most boats are made here in the US with a higher domestic content on average than an automobile, an industry they bailed out directly. As others have pointed out a good number if not most 30'-50' boat owners use their boats truly as summer homes. And RVs can keep the deduction! Give me a freakin' break. In my heart of hearts boats should never have gotten the tax break but neither should have RVs or vacation homes. But singling out boats over the other two as being "unworthy" is just plain coca! Also, as Gary astutely pointed out, the million dollar deductible debt ceiling is sufficient to limit the deduction for megayachts. Oh, I guess that means Al Gore won't be able to deduct the interest on his mega carbon footprint 100'+ houseboat anymore so even this black cloud has a silver lining!:smt043
 
Woody said:
Would you have bought your boat if the interest wasn't deductible from income? The $$ would be quite small in your case, would it have made the difference in your decision? Was it even considered when you made the choice to buy your boat?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I purchased the boat for one reason, and one reason only. I wanted it. I really didn't have a clue that there was a tax deduction until months after my purchase. The money that I get back is chump change. I was simply pointing out all of the people who reap the benefits of my boat ownership based on the manner in which I enjoy it. Yeah, I make more than the waitresses, bartenders, the mechanics, and most of the people at the bank, but they get some benefit from my ownership of it. Actually, it is proof that "trickle down" works as intended. How many people did it take to build the boat? Folks at Northstar, Raymarine, Norcold, Taylor Made, Snap On Carpet, resin makers, gel coat makers, fastener makers, etc.. Thousands of people all contributed to the components installed in my boat. Shoot, Gary probably fed half of Peoria for a week when he ordered his boat.

The tax aspect was not a factor at all... My point was that I earned the money to buy it, and I did so because I was free to do so. The tax deduction was a just a little "cake". I'm a contributor. I never get anything from the government. Well... aggravation, maybe. I don't believe in (Federal) spending or involvement in anything other than defense, and those responsibilities explicitily given to the government by the Constitution, which aren't many. The states should be responsible for 99% of the things that the federal government has been doing. Corporate jets cause thousands more to be employed. We should be encouraging more companies to buy and operate them. Then even more people would have work. How many people does it take to build just one? Not to mention the number of people that keep them flying.
 
comsnark said:
With all due respect, I believe your logic only holds if you disconnect Tax Revenue from Spending. When that is the case (and indeed today it is the case). . the few extra bucks you get back at the end of the year means nothing. If anything, as Scott said earlier, the few extra bucks back helps you buy the boat, pay for gas and pumps money into the economy a dozen different ways. That is the essence Keynsian economics. (BLASPHEMY!)

If you LINK tax revenue to spending (as EVERYONE on this thread suggests), then the money you are refunded for your deduction means that either someone else has to pay more taxes to compensate, or some government services (like a road repair) can't be performed. In that ideal world, the government would not promote "boating" through a tax break, but rather would let *the market* determine if *boating* is really the best way to move the economy.

I for one do not get any tax deductions for boating. And let me tell you. . .between my *$&#^& jet ski and my twin 5.7's, I am sure propping up the NJ economy. (anyone know a good PWC mechanic in my area?)
Click to expand...

Uh... tax revenues are "disconnected" from spending. We have spent $14T dollars more than the revenue we brought in. If you, I, or a corporation did it, we would be in bankrupcy court.

I don't think anyone on here is linking the two. If I do NOT pay money that I earned in taxes, then there is no need for anyone to make anything up to pay for it. The government did not earn the money, they did not buy the boat, they do not maintain, fuel, or drive the boat. No one else is impacted whether I chose to leave the dock or not. The dang thing could sit shrink wrapped all year, and no government revenue is gained or lost. "Paying" for a tax that is not imposed, nor collected is not logical. By that logic, since I did not buy the New York Yankees, the Steinbrenners HAD to buy them to make up for the fact that I didn't. Clearly, that does not make sense.

Obama has proven that the Keynsian model does not work. He spent over a trillion dollars executing it since he's been in office, and he did nothing but accelerate job loss, slowing of the the economy, and the elimination of prosperity. The definition of insane is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Time to put a bullet in the Kensian model. It simply does not work. Its dead, Jim.
 
skibum said:
Uh... tax revenues are "disconnected" from spending. We have spent $14T dollars more than the revenue we brought in. If you, I, or a corporation did it, we would be in bankrupcy court.

I don't think anyone on here is linking the two. If I do NOT pay money that I earned in taxes, then there is no need for anyone to make anything up to pay for it. The government did not earn the money, they did not buy the boat, they do not maintain, fuel, or drive the boat. No one else is impacted whether I chose to leave the dock or not. The dang thing could sit shrink wrapped all year, and no government revenue is gained or lost. "Paying" for a tax that is not imposed, nor collected is not logical. By that logic, since I did not buy the New York Yankees, the Steinbrenners HAD to buy them to make up for the fact that I didn't. Clearly, that does not make sense.

Obama has proven that the Keynsian model does not work. He spent over a trillion dollars executing it since he's been in office, and he did nothing but accelerate job loss, slowing of the the economy, and the elimination of prosperity. The definition of insane is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Time to put a bullet in the Kensian model. It simply does not work. Its dead, Jim.
Click to expand...

I agree... I just never get this mentality of "If you don't pay that tax, then someone else will have to." How about don't pay for food stamps for people in Peurto Rico if you don't have enough money. It's sorta like the mentality of "If you make a lot of money, then it means someone else can't make money because you took it all."
 
skibum said:
Absolutely. I purchased the boat for one reason, and one reason only. I wanted it. I really didn't have a clue that there was a tax deduction until months after my purchase. The money that I get back is chump change. I was simply pointing out all of the people who reap the benefits of my boat ownership based on the manner in which I enjoy it. Yeah, I make more than the waitresses, bartenders, the mechanics, and most of the people at the bank, but they get some benefit from my ownership of it. Actually, it is proof that "trickle down" works as intended. How many people did it take to build the boat? Folks at Northstar, Raymarine, Norcold, Taylor Made, Snap On Carpet, resin makers, gel coat makers, fastener makers, etc.. Thousands of people all contributed to the components installed in my boat. Shoot, Gary probably fed half of Peoria for a week when he ordered his boat.

The tax aspect was not a factor at all... My point was that I earned the money to buy it, and I did so because I was free to do so. The tax deduction was a just a little "cake". I'm a contributor. I never get anything from the government. Well... aggravation, maybe. I don't believe in (Federal) spending or involvement in anything other than defense, and those responsibilities explicitily given to the government by the Constitution, which aren't many. The states should be responsible for 99% of the things that the federal government has been doing. Corporate jets cause thousands more to be employed. We should be encouraging more companies to buy and operate them. Then even more people would have work. How many people does it take to build just one? Not to mention the number of people that keep them flying.
Click to expand...
Skibum, I should have explained myself, I wasn’t trying to throw any digs. I would guess that most CSR members that have boat loans and deductible interest are at best gaining a couple boat bucks because of it. My point is, does this reasonably small amount of $$ have an actual effect on the decision to buy the boat to start with. If not, then I don’t see the loss of a mortgage interest deduction for boats having much impact on sales and the associated economic activity. Personally if I wanted to take out a 200k loan to buy a boat I don’t think the deal breaker would be the fact that the interest deduction was no longer. If a boat owner is cutting their ability to afford a boat that close they probably shouldn’t be thinking about it to start with.
 
When I purchased my 260 money was alot tighter than it is today. That added deduction was a nice addition to the docking fund every year when I got it.

I think Gary is correct in stating that the big $$ boats will just get registered out of this country and all of the taxes will be lost there. The real impact will be the young people getting their first cabin cruiser and stretching there budgets to do so. They will feel the impact more most likely than the wealthy individual buying the 2 million dollar yacht and up IMHO.
 
skibum said:
Uh... tax revenues are "disconnected" from spending. We have spent $14T dollars more than the revenue we brought in. If you, I, or a corporation did it, we would be in bankrupcy court.

I don't think anyone on here is linking the two. If I do NOT pay money that I earned in taxes, then there is no need for anyone to make anything up to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Four Suns said:
I agree... I just never get this mentality of "If you don't pay that tax, then someone else will have to." How about don't pay for food stamps for people in Peurto Rico if you don't have enough money. It's sorta like the mentality of "If you make a lot of money, then it means someone else can't make money because you took it all."
Click to expand...

And there is the problem in a nut shell.

Why are we having a debt crisis?

Because our elected leaders (of both parties) obviously can no longer perform 5th grade math. These bozos, whom we champion and then vote for, spend money. They enact programs. Democrats do Medicare. Republicans expand it with a perscription drug benefit. Democrats push solar panel credits. Let's not even bring up the matter of Foreign Nation Building. If you want to do all this stuff. . .then someone pays.

In a normal world, if your spending is 20% of GDP, then your taxes should equal 20% of GDP. If you chose to have a bunch of boating related tax deductions, then logically then either (1) some spending needs to be cut, or (2) someone elses taxes need to be higher.

The point both of you distinguished gentlemen are making is that nobody since 2000 (and only by luck in the late 1990's) has felt any real need to link income with spending. Want to cut taxes for boaters? SURE! No problem. We didn't need that revenue anyway. Want to restore cuts to medicare? OF course! Everyone should have full health care when they reach that special age.

Until now. Sort of. Perhaps.

[/rant]
 
Woody said:
I would guess that most CSR members that have boat loans and deductible interest are at best gaining a couple boat bucks because of it. My point is, does this reasonably small amount of $$ have an actual effect on the decision to buy the boat to start with. If not, then I don’t see the loss of a mortgage interest deduction for boats having much impact on sales and the associated economic activity. Personally if I wanted to take out a 200k loan to buy a boat I don’t think the deal breaker would be the fact that the interest deduction was no longer. If a boat owner is cutting their ability to afford a boat that close they probably shouldn’t be thinking about it to start with.
Click to expand...

This is well said. If the little tax savings you would get is the difference between being able to afford a boat or not, you probably should not be buying a boat. Boats are luxury items, not a necessity. You should not put yourself into a financial bind by buying a boat.
 
To subsodise one group and not another goad against the FREEbmarket system. Maybe we should subsodise guys who install TV antennas. What about telephone switchboard operators. Was it fair to allow businesses to build machines to do their work or to invent cable tv and put the above mentioned people out of work? How about no subsodys for anyone and the the market decide as it has since the beginning. Because if not, then why not help your neighborhood blacksmith, wagon builder ect.....
 
jitts3 said:
To subsodise one group and not another goad against the FREEbmarket system....
Click to expand...

I agree... The tax code should not be used to subsidise or penalize ANY behavior. The government's job is to ensure that we are safe, and that we have a chance to live our lives in the manner that WE decide is best for us. All deductions and all penalties (excise taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, etc.) should be removed from the tax code. The government was not created to control or direct our lives. It was created to support our ability to live as free individuals.
 
skibum said:
I agree... The tax code should not be used to subsidise or penalize ANY behavior. The government's job is to ensure that we are safe, and that we have a chance to live our lives in the manner that WE decide is best for us. All deductions and all penalties (excise taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, etc.) should be removed from the tax code. The government was not created to control or direct our lives. It was created to support our ability to live as free individuals.
Click to expand...

Thread winner right there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,247
Messages
1,429,263
Members
61,128
Latest member
greenworld
Back
Top