Who has $1 million in mortgage interest?

TV news is beginning too, at long last, offer some some specifics and comparison between the House and Senate tax reforms.  The Senate will allow deduction of $1 million mortgage interest.  Wow, that' one helova mortgage if the yearly payments run $1 million.  Jeez, I'll bet that would pay the mortgage on the Empire State building.    The House would only allow a half a million.  Either amounts of mortgage interest will pay a mortgage of $20 million or so.  That's one mighty fine house.  I skim the "Mansions" section of the Journal on Fridays.  They show some very fine houses there, but you can get into one of them for maybe $4 million.  Which gives a mortgage payment like $200K.  I'm thinking the only people paying $1 million mortgage interest are professionals in the real estate business, like president Trump used to be.  In short, this is tax loophole for real estate wheeler dealers.  Me, I would kill the mortgage interest deduction completely. 
   I paid mortgage interest on my house for years.  It was like $10K a year.  That was a nice deduction, until I finally paid off the mortgage, and the extra $12K standard deduction proposed in the tax reform will do me more good than a mortgage deduction, now that I don't have a mortgage anymore. 
   Another strange bit of tax reform information.  Somebody, Congressional Budget Office perhaps, claims that killing the "individual mandate" (tax/fine on individuals who don't have health insurance) will SAVE $380 billion over ten years.  How does killing a tax/fine save money??  Taxes raise money, killing them looses money.  Perhaps "they" think huge numbers of people won't buy taxpayer subsidized health insurance without the tax/fine to encourage them, and thus the taxpayers won't have to pay to subsidize them?  And "they" get their numbers from where?  And we believe them.  Right.

King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword 2017

I love the King Arthur legend.  I've read several books, seen all the movies.  So when this one turned up on Netflix, I went for it. 
  Disappointing is the best I can say for it.  Most of the cast, including Arthur, were unknown to me.  The only two actors I had every heard of, Jude Law and Eric Bana, had mere spear carrier parts.  Other than the sword in the stone, the movie lacks any connection with the well known Arthur legend.  No Launcelot, no Gawaine, no Guinevere, no jousting, no Grail, no Round Table, nothing.  The story picks up with a young (looks to be in his 20's) Arthur pulling the sword out of the stone.  And after that nothing much happens.  Arthur does a lot of bitching, and a good deal of whacking and hacking with the sword (Excalibur).  It's never clear just what the enemy has done to justify killing them, but that doesn't interfere with another mediocre sword fight.  If Arthur has a cause, we never hear of it.  He has no love interest.  He never shows up leading his troops.  The Arthur legend is about a great Christian hero-king saving his people from pagan Saxon invaders.  I expected an Arthur movie to show me some heroism.  I was disappointed. 
   Nobody is ever addressed by name, leaving us confused as to who is who.  There is a cute young chick, who works magic with funny facial expressions, who ought to Morgan Le Fay, but all she is ever called is "The Mage".   There is a Merlin character, played by a black man, but he is never, at least not in my hearing, addressed as Merlin.   And other than showing up, he never does anything interesting.
   Camera work was mediocre.  Too many scenes were poorly lit, and they used the color washout technique entirely too much.  Sound work was only fair, but somewhat better than Game of Thrones.  I could hear and understand most of the lines. 
  According to IMDB they spent $175 million making this thing.  It's been out since May, and it's only earned $40 million. 

We ought to repeal the death tax

The death tax is killing small business.  Gas stations, bodegas, family farms, main street stores, barber shops, restaurants, repair shops, etc, are started by individuals, employ people, and are reasonably profitable.  Eventually the owner dies.  His estate is basically the business, there may be a few thousand dollars in the checking account, but essentially the guy's estate is the business.  And upon the owner's death the government now wants that business to cough up 50% of it's assessed value for estate taxes.  That's a lot of money, which most small businesses simply don't have.  Net result, the small business goes out of business, its workers are laid off, a main street store front gets boarded up and customers have to go elsewhere.  Not good.  We would be better off if the owner could will the going business to his heirs (or anyone for that matter) estate tax free.  This way the business stays in business, the workers stay employed,  the main street storefront stays open for business, and customers keep getting served.   And the going business will pay taxes.  Better to collect a reasonable amount of tax every year, than a whopping big estate tax that drives the small business out of business.  

Winter is definitely coming. Photos.

Sunset From my Deck

First Snow of 2017-2018. A half an inch. 

Mount Lafayette in Franconia Notch

Making snow on Cannon Mt.  They have a ways to go before opening for skiing.

More Cannon snow making.

What about this Roy Moore flap?

Far as I know, it's a one source story from the Washington Post.  The Post claims that Moore molested some teen age girls 35 years ago.  Moore, in case you don't remember, won the Alabama primary for US Senator.  There will be a special election in December to fill the Senate seat left empty when the incumbent accepted Trump's appointment as US attorney general.  He is also the judge who was kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments statue from his courthouse.  That gave him pretty good name recognition down in his district. 
   A number of US senators, including John McCain, have called for Moore to resign (if he wins) and if there is any truth in the WaPo's accusation.  The Constitution allows the Senate (and the House for that matter) to expel a member, and "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections,Returns and Qualifications of its own members,"  (Article I section 5).  That ought to mean that the Senate can declare an election rigged, ballot boxes stuffed, or the electee is a scumbag, and refuse to seat that member.
   Question:  Is the Washington Post telling the truth?  How can a story from 35 years ago be checked?   We used to have a statute of limitations, but the lawyers have pretty much repealed it by now. 

Winter is coming.

I got a half and inch of snow up here in the White Mountains.  Enough to make the ground white.  And it's cold, 20F. 

Is it a middle class tax cut? Or a taxcut for "The Rich"???

Who knows?  The Democrats claim it's a tax cut for "The Rich".  Republicans say it's a tax cut for the middle class.  Who to believe?   The bill is still secret, and is probably 1000 pages long and written in deep gobble-de-gook, so even if I found it on the Web, it wouldn't mean anything to me.  I only read English.  I cannot focus on 1000 pages.  The Journal favors the bill, but it prints a chart showing that a few classes of taxpayer will be paying more ten years from now. 
   The Journal says that a lot of its provisions have time limits of less than ten years.  That hurts economic growth.  Lots of projects, even just buying a home, let alone building a new factory, take more than ten years to pay off.  And the payoff always depends upon the tax burden laid on the project.  If we don't know what the tax burden will be ten years out, we are less likely to do the project. 
   
   Living in NH, which fortunately lacks a state income tax and state sales taxes, I'm all in favor of ending the deduction for state and local taxes.  My mortgage is paid off, so the mortgage interest deduction does me no good.  My children are grown up, married, living in their own homes, so child deductions don't do me any good. 

   The Republicans have to pass something or they get voted out of office next year.  They already failed to repeal Obamacare, failure to pass tax reform will confirm voter belief that the Republicans are a bunch of blow hard RINO's, no different from Democrats.   And they deserve payback at the polls for failing to live up to their promises to reform taxes and repeal Obamacare.