Good for her. Somehow seniors in 49 other states and the territories are able to subsist. We can't manage to provide any health or dental to thousands and thousands of kids and I'm supposed to be upset because geezers can't deduct their Viagra?

Ok, that's obviously unfair -- but that IS a deduction right now.

Why not eliminate the age bias and recalibrate the thing so that we establish a progressive credit for medical expenses that starts at 100% deductibility for people below the 9% state income tax level and then declines to zero at some annual income percentile (66%? --- whatever, just make it revenue neutral with what the credit is costing now)

for people below the 9% state income tax level

Get a grip, friend. There is next to no one in that category.

"Phasing out" deductions for rich people is just an admission that you don't really believe in the policy underlying the deduction to begin with. It's also a way of lying about the true top rate of tax, which in Oregon is on its face already an enormous 9%.

"The top rate is 9%, but once your income hits a certain level, we take away your deductions." That's just a sneaky additional tax on the income above the threshold.

Income taxes are supposedly based on people's ability to pay. People are not able to pay taxes out of the money they spend on medical care. It's not optional spending -- or at least, it shouldn't be if medical care is properly defined for tax purposes. Therefore, everyone (not just oldies) should get to deduct all of their medical expenses under an income tax.

Actually, "Phasing out" deductions for rich people is a way to restore some progressivity to what you point out is awfully much like a flat tax.

As to whether medical expenses should be deductible (because people can't pay taxes out of money spent on medical care) they also can't pay taxes out of money spent on food and shelter, and I haven't noticed any deductibility there -- oh wait, there's the home mortgage deduction that gives the bulk of its benefits to the wealthiest people!

a way to restore some progressivity

Yes -- a really stupid and underhanded way to do it. Just tell the truth and put in an 11% bracket. What? You'll be voted of office? Uh huh.

I haven't noticed any deductibility there

Because you don't know where to look. For the basics of life, there is an exemption credit that works out to about a $3,000 deduction per person. Maybe that's too low, but its purpose is to exempt the costs of bare necessities.

If you want to repeal the medical expense deduction entirely, go ahead and try. Take on the mortgage interest deduction too. But let me know when you want to talk about something real.

Timely post. Saved me a small bundle. This is the first year I qualify.

Also trying to make sense of first-year retirement-income taxation from several sources and my underwithholding--both willful and erroneous. Challenging and confusing.

Turbo Tax did not advise me or flag this. It's there, but easy to miss.

Had to back some information in manually with the Schedule A form view on the federal because it was under 7.5% of AGI and it sort of dumps you out of the process if you can't claim the federal deduction, and you can't get to it from the state portion.

Thanks, Jack.

The special deduction kicks in at age 62.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Two George's. Opposite ends of political ideology.

They should double the tax on cat food, prune juice, and Depends too. There will be no escape from the Ginny Tax.

Getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction is a great idea -- we've seen the wreckage caused by encouragement of borrowing for real estate, and the deduction actually does nothing worthwhile. The mortgage interest deduction is one of the root causes of the real estate bubble and provides no real benefit -- so of course we should get rid of it.

The Canadians have very similar rates of home ownership and no mortgage deduction. You'd have to do it in steps because it's a steep transition from having the deduction to not having it, but if you reduced the value of the interest deduction 5% a year then in 20-years (3 homes owned in the old pre-crash days, average homes "owned" for 7 years) then we could get it done.

"oh wait, there's the home mortgage deduction that gives the bulk of its benefits to the wealthiest people!"

Keep versifying friend - How do you think 99% of the un-rich people afford houses?

When are we going to get off this shibboleth of the rich people? If the top 5% are paying something like 50%+ of income taxes are we kinda getting to the point of no more blood out of that rock?

I mean we'll tax the cigarette smokers to death (literally and figuratively) until that vanishes, so we really need to look at general taxes and not targeted taxes. We are running out of small groups to pick off one at a time with new taxes.

At least if Burdick gets this thru we have some more money for the soccer stadia.

"Keep versifying friend - How do you think 99% of the un-rich people afford houses?"

Keep falling for homebuilder and Realtor propaganda, friend. If you are so stretched that the mortgage interest deduction is make-or-break for your decision to buy, you're much better off renting. The only thing that the mortage interest deduction does is drive up the price of housing, which is of great benefit to the builders and the commission sales people.

Meanwhile, this from Citizens for Tax Justice:

New CTJ Fact Sheet: Do the Rich Really Pay Over a Third of Their Income in Federal Income Taxes?

"As we approach April 15th, one complaint we often hear is that Americans who work hard and become successful have to pay over a third of their income in federal income taxes. But a recent report from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) shows that this is not remotely true.

As a new CTJ fact sheet explains, the IRS data show that the federal income tax rates paid by the highest-income Americans have dropped substantially since 2000, largely due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends pushed through by the Bush Administration."

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ojXl1PFAesz8NvZYBbAW5YLbamPzZimG

"If you are so stretched that the mortgage interest deduction is make-or-break for your decision to buy, you're much better off renting."

Hey you do know the only way poor people can qualify to buy a house is with the mortgage deduction?

Besides the only control we have over spending is by keeping funds away from teh Legislature, so what is wrong with tax breaks like this?