The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 648

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 But when the need for such promotion was gone, people raised holy hell about the subsidies and deductions EVER being rescinded.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.

Alex · 08-02-2011, 09:09 PM

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.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-03-2011, 06:43 AM

Quote:

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.

innerSpaceman · 08-03-2011, 07:48 AM

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.

Alex · 08-03-2011, 07:58 AM

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.)

08-02-2011, 05:11 PM	#6472
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	#6474
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	#6475
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	#6476
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

08-02-2011, 09:09 PM	#6477
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

08-03-2011, 07:48 AM	#6479
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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.
	Submit to Quotes

08-03-2011, 07:58 AM	#6480
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.)
	Submit to Quotes