The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 617

JWBear · 08-02-2011, 02:17 PM

And the amount of taxes taken in by the government as a percentage of the GDP is the lowest it has been in 50 years - mostly due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

The top 1% also pay far less of a percentage of their income (when you count all forms of income) in taxes than the rest of us.

So yes, they need to start paying their fair share.

I also think that calling the ending tax breaks for private planes and other corporate welfare "tax increases" is patently absurd.

scaeagles · 08-02-2011, 02:59 PM

If they ended to mortgage interest tax deduction, which is simply a tax break, I would certainly consider that a tax increase.

innerSpaceman · 08-02-2011, 04:19 PM

Why? Because you're used to it? If it's a deduction, then eliminating it is not an increase. In the same way that taking a retail item off the sale price is not a price hike. Sheesh.

By the way, Medicare is only 40 years old. So I'm also not quite going along with claims that the program is an inviolate American right. But I'm not happy it's going to be privatized and gutted. Private health insurance companies spend, on average, 31% of their money on non-health-related things. Medicare spends 3%.*

* this efficiency does not extend to the recently-enacted Medicare Part D, which is not administered by the government, but by private, for-profit agencies. Remind me again why a single-payer, Medicare For All system was ruled out as the solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

JWBear · 08-02-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

* this efficiency does not extend to the recently-enacted Medicare Part D, which is not administered by the government, but by private, for-profit agencies. Remind me again why a single-payer, Medicare For All system was ruled out as the solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

Because the insurance industry can't make obscene profits from denying treatment to sick people under a government run single-payer system. Duh!

Ghoulish Delight · 08-02-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Why? Because you're used to it? If it's a deduction, then eliminating it is not an increase. In the same way that taking a retail item off the sale price is not a price hike. Sheesh.

Eh, I agree with scaeagles on this one. Sure, semantically, you're correct. But practically, the effect is identical.

It's like the gas stations that are currently getting away with skirting the "you're not allowed to charge a service fee to people paying with credit card" law by giving a "cash discount." I call total b.s. on that. The end result is identical, just because you call title it the inverse doesn't change the economic nature of what you're doing. In short, yes, because we're used to receiving the deductions, ending those deductions is functionally equivalent to raising taxes. The end result=pay more taxes.

I just happen to not be against raising taxes.

innerSpaceman · 08-02-2011, 05:11 PM

I'm sorry you see it that way, GD. So many tax incentives, subsidies and deductions were granted to temporarily promote certain behaviors. But when the need for such promotion was gone, people raised holy hell about the subsidies and deductions EVER being rescinded. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

Mortgage interest deduction was supposed to promote home ownership. If that's no longer a government goal, it's not an increase in taxes if the deduction is discontinued - although of course, one's overall tax bill may (or may not) go up following that event.

Yes, I understand the human perspective of a deduction or subsidy one thought of as permanent because it's been around for a long, long time. But how is it not a tax raise if private jet purchase deductions are discontinued, and IS a tax raise if mortgage interest deductions are discontinued?

Ghoulish Delight · 08-02-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry you see it that way, GD.

Don't need your pitty about it, thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But how is it not a tax raise if private jet purchase deductions are discontinued, and IS a tax raise if mortgage interest deductions are discontinued?

I don't recall every saying such a thing. I consider those both equivalent to tax increases.

innerSpaceman · 08-02-2011, 06:34 PM

Yeah, I see that now, in re-reading some posts. Sorry, got confused. And I suppose a tax deduction that's been around for - well, what time period would make it qualify for seeming permanence, such that its elimination could reasonably be deemed a tax increase and not merely the removal of a temporary deduction?

I suppose "reasonable" is like the definition of "fair" though.

BarTopDancer · 08-02-2011, 06:57 PM

I think mortgage tax deductions are BS because I'm never going to be able to buy a home and I get jack**** for being a renter. Oh wait, some years I get a measly $30 renters credit. Yay me.

innerSpaceman · 08-02-2011, 08:03 PM

The mortgage interest deduction is perfect for my point. Now that spreading the population out to the suburbs has proven to be bad for energy consumption, there's a growing trend toward more urbanization - and it might be considered a legitimate government interest to promote fleeing the suburbs, just as the mortgage deduction favored fleeing the cities. So because times and circumstances change, taxes cannot?

I understand the complaints of those whom the change doesn't favor, but I t think that's besides the point of behavioral tax policy.

08-02-2011, 02:17 PM	#1
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	And the amount of taxes taken in by the government as a percentage of the GDP is the lowest it has been in 50 years - mostly due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The top 1% also pay far less of a percentage of their income (when you count all forms of income) in taxes than the rest of us. So yes, they need to start paying their fair share. I also think that calling the ending tax breaks for private planes and other corporate welfare "tax increases" is patently absurd. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

08-02-2011, 02:59 PM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	If they ended to mortgage interest tax deduction, which is simply a tax break, I would certainly consider that a tax increase.
	Submit to Quotes

08-02-2011, 04:19 PM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Why? Because you're used to it? If it's a deduction, then eliminating it is not an increase. In the same way that taking a retail item off the sale price is not a price hike. Sheesh. By the way, Medicare is only 40 years old. So I'm also not quite going along with claims that the program is an inviolate American right. But I'm not happy it's going to be privatized and gutted. Private health insurance companies spend, on average, 31% of their money on non-health-related things. Medicare spends 3%.* * this efficiency does not extend to the recently-enacted Medicare Part D, which is not administered by the government, but by private, for-profit agencies. Remind me again why a single-payer, Medicare For All system was ruled out as the solution to skyrocketing health care costs.
	Submit to Quotes

08-02-2011, 05:11 PM	#6
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I'm sorry you see it that way, GD. So many tax incentives, subsidies and deductions were granted to temporarily promote certain behaviors. But when the need for such promotion was gone, people raised holy hell about the subsidies and deductions EVER being rescinded. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Mortgage interest deduction was supposed to promote home ownership. If that's no longer a government goal, it's not an increase in taxes if the deduction is discontinued - although of course, one's overall tax bill may (or may not) go up following that event. Yes, I understand the human perspective of a deduction or subsidy one thought of as permanent because it's been around for a long, long time. But how is it not a tax raise if private jet purchase deductions are discontinued, and IS a tax raise if mortgage interest deductions are discontinued?
	Submit to Quotes

08-02-2011, 06:34 PM	#8
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yeah, I see that now, in re-reading some posts. Sorry, got confused. And I suppose a tax deduction that's been around for - well, what time period would make it qualify for seeming permanence, such that its elimination could reasonably be deemed a tax increase and not merely the removal of a temporary deduction? I suppose "reasonable" is like the definition of "fair" though.
	Submit to Quotes

08-02-2011, 06:57 PM	#9
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	I think mortgage tax deductions are BS because I'm never going to be able to buy a home and I get jack** for being a renter. Oh wait, some years I get a measly $30 renters credit. Yay me. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver** Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

08-02-2011, 08:03 PM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	The mortgage interest deduction is perfect for my point. Now that spreading the population out to the suburbs has proven to be bad for energy consumption, there's a growing trend toward more urbanization - and it might be considered a legitimate government interest to promote fleeing the suburbs, just as the mortgage deduction favored fleeing the cities. So because times and circumstances change, taxes cannot? I understand the complaints of those whom the change doesn't favor, but I t think that's besides the point of behavioral tax policy.
	Submit to Quotes