The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

So because times and circumstances change, taxes cannot?

Again, I don't think anyone here is saying that ending these credits is vorboten on the surface, just that it's dishonest to argue that doing so is somehow substantively different than raising taxes just to make yourself feel more justified in calling for it. You are asking for a change in law that results in people paying more taxes. Whether you call it "ending a tax break" or "raising taxes" is entirely irrelevant.

[Alex]

An entitlement can never be eliminated, quickly becoming entrenched by its special interest.

A tax break can never be eliminated, quickly becoming entrenched by its special interest.

This is the ying and the yang of providing opposite sides something to bitch about without having to be so creative as to actually come up with two different things.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, I'm with you on that. But I think something has to be around for a while to cause its elimination to be a defacto tax raise. The mortgage interest deduction qualifies.

But the payroll tax holiday that is likely to expire in December and has been around for only a year - will that be a tax raise? Personally, I don't think so - even though the effect is my taxes are "higher" than they were for a year.


Alex, Entitlements are just that. Social Security is an entitlement because I'm just going to be getting back (essentially) what I paid into the system. I'm entitled to that money. I paid into the system specifically to get that back later. Same with Medicare.

Tax deductions are not the same. No one is "entitled" to tax deductions. Well, corporations are, of course, but I hope you get my point.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But the payroll tax holiday that is likely to expire in December and has been around for only a year - will that be a tax raise? Personally, I don't think so - even though the effect is my taxes are "higher" than they were for a year.

Still semantics, but if there's a built in expiration date and it's a matter of renewing it or not, then no, I would not necessarily label it a tax raise. But that has more to do, for me, with the existence of a pre-defined expiration rather than duration. I suppose I'd agree that if a tax break with no expiration date was enacted, and then repealed 6 months later I might not consider that a tax raise. But I don't really think that happens.

Regardless, whether it's an end of a break, or a raise of taxes should not be a deciding factor. Whether it's the reasonable course of action should. (I know, I'm not holding my breath)

[Alex]

I'm not saying tax breaks are the same thing as entitlements. I am saying that they become entrenched in the same way (and for the same reasons) as entitlements. As a generalization the right resists creation of new entitlements because they know once it is in place it will be very difficult to remove (though for certain types of entitlement programs the opposition/support switches parties) and the left resists new tax breaks and loopholes because they know that once they are in place they will be very difficult to remove (though for certain types of tax breaks eh opposition/support switches parties).

(Though your definition of an entitlement is somewhat off since it has nothing to do with whether you self fund your return on the program. An entitlement is something you are statutorily required to receive simply by meeting qualifications. Food stamps are an entitlement program. VA benefits are an entitlement program. a lot of crop subsidies are entitlement programs, none of those are programs that the recipients are entitled to because of the money they first put into the program.)

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

Though your definition of an entitlement is somewhat off since it has nothing to do with whether you self fund your return on the program. An entitlement is something you are statutorily required to receive simply by meeting qualifications.

Yes, we are using different definitions. I'm using English, you're using governmental jargon. Sorry for any confusion.

[innerSpaceman]

I guess my big objection is that most people never want temporary tax breaks to end, and they make such a stink about it (farm subsidies come most to mind) that they never end, despite the intent when enacted that they be able to end someday.

Civilian citizens don't have that kind of absurd clout, so I expect the home mortgage interest deduction to come to an end pretty soon. But breaks for farmers and corporations that were never designed to be permanent will be permanent despite obsolescence because the parties affected have too much influence in government. Yes, TOO MUCH, imo.

[Alex]

Your made up definition for what government programs are entitlements would exclude food stamps (as well as most other actual entitlement programs). It is fine if you don't want to call that an entitlement program, but it does render your contribution to a discussion of what should be done with entitlement programs somewhat useless.

[Strangler Lewis]

I would assume that our country's banks have an interest in the maintenance of the home mortgage interest deduction since if it were eliminated, housing values would plummet, more people would walk away and fewer people would buy houses.

Were I Supreme manager of our country's economy, I would give everyone a house so that people's homes were not their principal investment and more money could be spent on Fiddle Faddle, I-Pad2s, text messaging plans and the like, thus boosting our nation's real economy.

[Alex]

Apologies for the post above. While I don't think it is a distinction without meaning it isn't one deserving of that tone or response. Apparently I was touchy this morning.