Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
One of the most ridiculous things that I keep hearing is that people 'earn' their money.
Nonsense. Nobody ever got wealthy working for a living.
In our economy, most of the money goes to 'ownership' in the form of profits. It doesn't go to the people that do the work.
All worker, right up to management level, live in an environment where they live beyond their means. So where does the wealth go? It gets funneled up to the wealthiest who only 'own' but do not produce.
Did the black Americans of the early 19th century and before 'earn' nothing thru their labors? They earned plenty, but all the money went to the 'owners'. The same is true, to a lesser extent, today. The people that do the productive work recieve a pittance while ownership recieves the lions share.
Republicans did nothing about Fannie and Freddie. it benefitted their lobbyists to do nothing.
Republicans did nothing about Fannie and Freddie. it benefitted their lobbyists to do nothing.
Did they try?
Republicans did nothing about Fannie and Freddie. it benefitted their lobbyists to do nothing.
Neither did the Democrats, for the same reason.
I mean, seriously, getting a mortgage deduction is also a type of government subsidized housing.
No it isn't, dipstick.
You're immune to facts and logic.
What if, instead of a mortgage interest deduction, the government collected taxes as written, then made an annual payment to homeowners. Would that be a government subsidy? If not, why not?
Not any worse than seeing all those dumb ass teabirthers walking around with signs that say, "Keep government hands off my Medicare".
Where did I say that?That's pretty funny.
But how are tax breaks not government bennies? People that own their homes can pay less in taxes than people that don't.
Do you deduct your state income and sales tax from your federal taxes? Do you really think you should have to pay taxes on taxes?
Unless one assumes that all money belongs to the gov't,
Keeping more of your OWN money from the gov't that you earned on your own is not a subsidy.
Getting money from the gov't that was never earned by you is a true subsidy
It's absolutely a subsidy. I have to pay higher taxes to finance your choice to own a particular class of investment. How is that not a subsidy?
Not at all, you have the same ability to choose the same investment options.
Plus, your money is going to the gov't to finance their needs and uses.
Since the gov't can not create wealth, you are subsidizing them.
If you are saying the tax burden is unfairly and unevenly spread across the tax groups
then I am with you.
It's absolutely a subsidy. I have to pay higher taxes to finance your choice to own a particular class of investment. How is that not a subsidy?
Not at all, you have the same ability to choose the same investment options.
Plus, your money is going to the gov't to finance their needs and uses.
Since the gov't can not create wealth, you are subsidizing them.
If you are saying the tax burden is unfairly and unevenly spread across the tax groups
then I am with you.
Sure, and you can also choose to earn an income low enough to get government tax credits.
That doesn't change the fact that the mortgage deduction is a government subsidy....it is the government "rewarding" you for acting in a certain manner.
Where did I say that?That's pretty funny.
But how are tax breaks not government bennies? People that own their homes can pay less in taxes than people that don't.
Do you deduct your state income and sales tax from your federal taxes? Do you really think you should have to pay taxes on taxes?
That's pretty funny.
But how are tax breaks not government bennies? People that own their homes can pay less in taxes than people that don't.
Tax deductions for state and local taxes are, by your definition, government bennies. That means you think people should be taxed on taxes.
By the way, one reason rich people generally pay a smaller percentage of their income on federal taxes is because the state and local taxes on that same income is generally higher, and they have lawyers and accountants that point out that they do not have to pay taxes on money that other taxing authorities take away from them.
I'd argue that tax breaks aren't government benefits, but there is certainly enough on this list to show that a significant number of recipients of government funds don't know they receive government funds.
Cornell Chronicle: Recipients of federal aid say they're not
We are definitely seeing that here in Florida, where current Governor Rick Scott is polling at all time lows of 29%. Yet Scott is doing exactly what he said he'd do and nothing more.
Just a note
If tax credits are fully refundable, past the point of zero and still refundable, then yes
If tax credits take tax liability to zero but not lower and not refundable- then no
Did you know that even the Earned Income Credit has a limit.
The IRS will compute against your payroll taxes (SS, Medicare) and can not be more than those totals.
In effect, the worse the Gov't can do then is have a zero cash flow with an individual on their taxes.
I think you need to reform your definition of tax credits.
If you get back more than you pay it is a credit. The Earned Income Credit is a credit. SS and Medicare only impact the EIC in your head. You can get up to $5,666 with an income of only $12,550 (3 or more children) which is 45% of your income. I could be way off base here, but I am pretty sure that payroll, SS, and Medicare do not add up to 45% of anyone's income.
Isn't a tax deduction on dependents a government handout to people who breed?
Where did I say that?Do you deduct your state income and sales tax from your federal taxes? Do you really think you should have to pay taxes on taxes?
Right here.
That's pretty funny.
But how are tax breaks not government bennies? People that own their homes can pay less in taxes than people that don't.
Tax deductions for state and local taxes are, by your definition, government bennies. That means you think people should be taxed on taxes.
By the way, one reason rich people generally pay a smaller percentage of their income on federal taxes is because the state and local taxes on that same income is generally higher, and they have lawyers and accountants that point out that they do not have to pay taxes on money that other taxing authorities take away from them.
Deductions are not government bennies. They come from money that you would have normally owed the government. If you want to argue that some of them are unfair use of the tax code to promote social engineering I will be right there with you. Hell, if you just want to say some of them are blatantly discriminatory I will cheer you on.
Tax credits are bennies because they use other people's money to pay you to do things the government likes. Tax credits should all be eliminated, so should subsides. That does cause a small problem because there are things I think the government should do that currently can only be done with government bennies, but I never claimed to have all the answers.
Tax deductions for state and local taxes are, by your definition, government bennies. That means you think people should be taxed on taxes.
That wouldn't be 'taxing on taxes', it would simply be two different taxes - one to the state, and one to the feds. And it would amount to a subsidy. Look at this way. Why should someone get a larger break on their federal taxes because they choose to live in a state with higher taxes? Presumably, they're getting something for the higher state tax rate, and we're asking people from states with lower tax rates to pick up the slack. Sounds like a subsidy to me.
By the way, one reason rich people generally pay a smaller percentage of their income on federal taxes is because the state and local taxes on that same income is generally higher, and they have lawyers and accountants that point out that they do not have to pay taxes on money that other taxing authorities take away from them.
Exactly
Exactly. It really isn't marginally different than welfare.Isn't a tax deduction on dependents a government handout to people who breed?
That wouldn't be 'taxing on taxes', it would simply be two different taxes - one to the state, and one to the feds. And it would amount to a subsidy. Look at this way. Why should someone get a larger break on their federal taxes because they choose to live in a state with higher taxes? Presumably, they're getting something for the higher state tax rate, and we're asking people from states with lower tax rates to pick up the slack. Sounds like a subsidy to me.
Isn't a tax deduction on dependents a government handout to people who breed?
