re: a classic example of perception vs reality in govt spending

They're only counting Section 8 rentals? I know 3 people who built their own home through a gov't program, with their mortgage payments based on their income. Can't recall the name of the program, but it is/was under the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, and as gov't programs never go away I'm sure it still exists.

This article is dishonest, just another attack on people who pay their own way with their own money, and whose taxes pay for the above-mentioned program, Sec 8, gov't housing complexes/projects, and likely quite a few others.

Can't everyone just agree that differences in opinion here are pretty much political?

Basically a conservative considers an entitlement as a check written to a citizen from the govt for doing nothing but being alive (and sometimes even dead). A conservative doesn't consider a tax deduction, or benefits paid to veterans as "entitlements". These are earned in some way by working and paying taxes or serving their country.

The liberal, on the other hand, in order to staunchly defend the govt giving checks to people for being alive and nothing else, must convince themselves that a tax deduction has zero difference than a welfare check.

quote:

---

was to get you to admit what you have been reluctant to, up until this point, namely that ,in your view, all of your earnings belong to the government and anything they let you keep is a cost to them.

---

Obviously you have been trying to get me to say that- I hope you don't think this hasn't been obvious. As inconvenient as it may be for you, the problem is that I don't actually think that.

quote:

---

I'm not sure why you keep insisting on giving this "neutral code" caveat. We are not discussing 90proofprofessional's hypothetical tax code

---

Why would an evenhanded code NOT be the default? You think some particular preferences should automatically be built in to all tax codes? Let me guess- that list consists of everything CptRusty happens to take advantage of?

quote:

---

Pay close attention to the wording "taxable income"...You are absolutely incorrect that the IRS, at any point, has a claim to my gross income tax liability.

---

That's not what I said. I said the government has a claim to your income. That doesn't make it "theirs", but they absolutely do get to tell you exactly what chunk of your income they will take before you can consider it post-tax.

quote:

---

Sure all fair....but it is not a subsidy (by your own definition of the word!)

---

Huh? It's a subsidy by any common definition of the word. In purpose and in effect.

quote:

---

it is not a "cost" to the government

---

Oh no? What happens to the government's revenue if the preferential policy just goes away?

quote:

---

I especially take issue with the term

---

This is the true heart of your argument.

quote:

---

all of your earnings belong to the government and anything they let you keep is a cost to them.

---

quote:

---

the problem is that I don't actually think that

---

quote:

---

I said the government has a claim to your income

---

claim
noun
a right or title to something.

That sounds an awful lot like ownership to me.

From my perspective, the government only has claim on that portion of your income that the tax code says they do.

So if you really don't think that all income is first the property of the government, then ceded to the citizenry on their terms...would you care to revise your phrasing?

quote:

---

Why would an evenhanded code NOT be the default? You think some particular preferences should automatically be built in to all tax codes?

---

we are not discussing what "should be", are discussing what IS. Tax deductions are built into the code, right wrong or indifferent, and to pretend that those deductions incur some cost to the government is asinine. The money is never owed to them, period. It is not, was never, and never shall be theirs to allocate, so it cannot be "reallocated", as the definition you gave for a subsidy requires.

quote:

---

What happens to the government's revenue if the preferential policy just goes away?

---

The same thing that happens if they increase the income tax brackets. That doesn't mean anything less than a 100% tax rate is a "cost" to the government, nor is it a subsidy to the tax payer.

quote:

---

This is the true heart of your argument.

---

Of course it's the heart of my argument! that's what we're talking about here

By your own admission, the tax code is configured to incentivize certain behaviors. We the citizenry, have an agreement with the government that money spent in a certain way will not be subject to taxation. This inevitably, influences behavior with respect to whatever is being incentivized, and the money people spend on that thing is exempt from taxation. To then come back afterwards and accuse someone, or the policy, of "costing" the government money is ridiculous. (not to say you were doing this, but that was absolutely the tone of the OP)

Look, we just plain disagree. I appreciate the discussion, and I've enjoyed it, although I just don't think we are going to find common ground, as we apparently have mutually exclusive views of how taxes work....and mine just happens to be correct

ETA: this whole topic reminds me of a degenerate gambler who bets $100 all night long, then knocks his bet down to $20 and is upset when he wins because he's "lost" $80 on that hand. Can't lose it if it isn't yours to lose.

quote:

---

They get to tell us how much is truly ours. How does it follow that everything is theirs?

---

This isn't entirely accurate. In a very round about way, we tell them how much to take from us. Now...we don't all agree (I certainly don't) on how much is taken, but ultimately the government's power is derived from the consent of the governed. Our tax structure roughly maintains a balance (or tries to) between what the population demands from the government and how much we are willing to pay for it.

So no, they don't get to tell us what is ours. Through the election process, we tell them what is theirs...or do you think the top marginal rates from the 1960's and 1970's came down because the government thought it was taking in too much money? And yes I know what the laffer curve is, but elections aren't won by telling the population you will maximize gov't revenues, and every once in a while politicians have to make good on promises (like lower taxes) if they want to be reelected....

quote:

---

To say there is no cost is very much the same as saying that nothing is foregone.

---

Correct. And nothing is foregone under the current tax code.

Relative to a time prior to the MID, sure. But that isn't the law today, and hasn't been for some time.

quote:

---

The conditions you describe do not imply that that there is no reallocation relative to the eminently appropriate default of a system that doesn't favor certain taxpayers

---

This is starting to sound a lot like you having an opinion and performing mental gymnastics to justify it.

Our tax system is not neutral. Is that bad? Is it good? I don't know, but it isn't neutral, and your continuing insistence on making comparisons to a tax system that doesn't exist is starting to feel a lot like a deus ex machina for getting you out of acknowledging the fact that gross income and taxable income are not the same.

quote:

---

Which also happens to be the same thing that happens to the government's resources if they don't fund Section 8.

---

You are conflating two very different things here.

Defunding Section 8 would "free up" resources that the government already has. The money is already theirs, no new money needed.

Removing the MID would create more income in the form of tax revenues. This is new money that wasn't previously theirs.

When you get rid of cable, you are lowering your expenses.

When you get a raise at work, you are increasing your income.

Your position takes it one step further and asserts that every check you receive without a raise has incurred a "cost", and that you are subsidizing your employer.