Many Recipients of Government Funds Don't Know they Receive Government Funds

Where did I say that?

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.

In my opinion those aren't tax breaks.

Nice try.

I see, some things are tax breaks, and some things aren't.

My guess is that your definition is along the lines of "If it helps me it is good."
 
Right here.



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.

In my opinion those aren't tax breaks.

Nice try.

I see, some things are tax breaks, and some things aren't.

My guess is that your definition is along the lines of "If it helps me it is good."

If you read my subsequent post you would have seen that I changed my mind.

Your guess are not very shrewd, but that should be obvious to anyone that reads your posts.
 
In my opinion those aren't tax breaks.

Nice try.

I see, some things are tax breaks, and some things aren't.

My guess is that your definition is along the lines of "If it helps me it is good."

If you read my subsequent post you would have seen that I changed my mind.

Your guess are not very shrewd, but that should be obvious to anyone that reads your posts.

Yep, and I owe you some rep for admitting you were wrong.

Nonetheless, that was essentially your position, and I called you on it.
 
Exactly. It really isn't marginally different than welfare.

Sure the Left should run with one on the next election

Then again, it probably makes people on welfare feel better about themselves
That would be silly because the "right" is too cowardly to admit that they are entitlement junkies.

Hmm

Just like the welfare on the Left who like to think they deserve it

Funny how that works
:eusa_angel:
 
Republicans did nothing about Fannie and Freddie. it benefitted their lobbyists to do nothing.

Did they try?

Some did.

I am pretty sure some Democrats did too.

Republicans did something. They deregulated Wall Street which allowed the mortgage market to move to Wall Street where mortgages were sold for a dime, bundled together as securities and sold overseas to unsuspecting buyers.

They could do it again. Republicans have blocked any reform that could stop this from happening in the future. This is not news.
 
Did they try?

Some did.

I am pretty sure some Democrats did too.

Republicans did something. They deregulated Wall Street which allowed the mortgage market to move to Wall Street where mortgages were sold for a dime, bundled together as securities and sold overseas to unsuspecting buyers.

They could do it again. Republicans have blocked any reform that could stop this from happening in the future. This is not news.

It is good thing Barney Frank got his boyfriend on Fannie Mae's board to help
:eusa_whistle:
 
Sure the Left should run with one on the next election

Then again, it probably makes people on welfare feel better about themselves
That would be silly because the "right" is too cowardly to admit that they are entitlement junkies.

Hmm

Just like the welfare on the Left who like to think they deserve it

Funny how that works
:eusa_angel:
Some do, if they've paid into the system previously.

But no one really "deserves" a mortgage deduction.
 
That would be silly because the "right" is too cowardly to admit that they are entitlement junkies.

Hmm

Just like the welfare on the Left who like to think they deserve it

Funny how that works
:eusa_angel:
Some do, if they've paid into the system previously.

But no one really "deserves" a mortgage deduction.

What about three generations on Welfare, have they paid into the system or
is just them voting for any Democrat good enough for you?
 
Hmm

Just like the welfare on the Left who like to think they deserve it

Funny how that works
:eusa_angel:
Some do, if they've paid into the system previously.

But no one really "deserves" a mortgage deduction.

What about three generations on Welfare, have they paid into the system or
is just them voting for any Democrat good enough for you?
No, they haven't. And they don't vote so your stupid trying to classify them as Democrats or Republicans is just that: stupid.

In many parts of the South it's a way of life among *gasp* white people to live in trailers with a boatload of adults and kids in order to collect welfare.

But none of that changes the fact that no one deserves a mortgage deduction.
 
If you live near a flood zone, you probably buy flood insurance. Something I was surprised to hear was that a while back after a big flood the insurance companies said they could no longer finance flood insurance. Sooooooo...FEMA finances it, which means that we do. I wonder if people who buy flood insurance know this?

FEMA: The National Flood Insurance Program

I'm quite sure that many people actually get some kind of funding from the federal government and have no idea that they do.
 
If you live near a flood zone, you probably buy flood insurance. Something I was surprised to hear was that a while back after a big flood the insurance companies said they could no longer finance flood insurance. Sooooooo...FEMA finances it, which means that we do. I wonder if people who buy flood insurance know this?

FEMA: The National Flood Insurance Program

I'm quite sure that many people actually get some kind of funding from the federal government and have no idea that they do.
Good point. Yes, flood insurance is underwritten by the Federal government. And it's a good program. I'd like to see it changed to catastrophic insurance so it would cover any devastating act of nature. Tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.
 
Some do, if they've paid into the system previously.

But no one really "deserves" a mortgage deduction.

What about three generations on Welfare, have they paid into the system or
is just them voting for any Democrat good enough for you?
No, they haven't. And they don't vote so your stupid trying to classify them as Democrats or Republicans is just that: stupid.

In many parts of the South it's a way of life among *gasp* white people to live in trailers with a boatload of adults and kids in order to collect welfare.

But none of that changes the fact that no one deserves a mortgage deduction.

There has never been three generations on welfare, are you sure about that?
Who said anything about skin colour ?
- so sad, your racist slip is showing
:eusa_angel:
 
What about three generations on Welfare, have they paid into the system or
is just them voting for any Democrat good enough for you?
No, they haven't. And they don't vote so your stupid trying to classify them as Democrats or Republicans is just that: stupid.

In many parts of the South it's a way of life among *gasp* white people to live in trailers with a boatload of adults and kids in order to collect welfare.

But none of that changes the fact that no one deserves a mortgage deduction.

There has never been three generations on welfare, are you sure about that?
Who said anything about skin colour ?
- so sad, your racist slip is showing
:eusa_angel:

Obviously, you can't read.

Try again.
 
No, they haven't. And they don't vote so your stupid trying to classify them as Democrats or Republicans is just that: stupid.

In many parts of the South it's a way of life among *gasp* white people to live in trailers with a boatload of adults and kids in order to collect welfare.

But none of that changes the fact that no one deserves a mortgage deduction.

There has never been three generations on welfare, are you sure about that?
Who said anything about skin colour ?
- so sad, your racist slip is showing
:eusa_angel:

Obviously, you can't read.

Try again.


Obviously, you can't stand the truth,

you thought it important to speak of someone's race on welfare
Why was that? How is it even relevant to what we were saying?

:eusa_whistle:

Truth is hard for the Left, in fact it is there worst enemy
 
Last edited:
There has never been three generations on welfare, are you sure about that?
Who said anything about skin colour ?
- so sad, your racist slip is showing
:eusa_angel:

Obviously, you can't read.

Try again.


Obviously, you thought it important to speak of someone's race on welfare
Why was that?

:eusa_whistle:

Truth is hard for the Left, in fact it is there worst enemy

I've read your posts before.

I answered your question but you purposely misunderstood my answer. Then again, maybe you're just stupid?
 
Obviously, you can't read.

Try again.


Obviously, you thought it important to speak of someone's race on welfare
Why was that?

:eusa_whistle:

Truth is hard for the Left, in fact it is there worst enemy

I've read your posts before.

I answered your question but you purposely misunderstood my answer. Then again, maybe you're just stupid?


Perhaps, but maybe you are just being dishonest

But it still does not answer the question

Race had nothing to do with what we were discussing, why bring it up?
What would it matter if they are black, white or purple for that matter.

What point were you trying to make? Why even bring up race?
:doubt:
 
Last edited:
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.

Subsidies are the government paying you out of someone else's money. Adjusted gross income is figured by deducting allowed expenses before figuring taxes.

To simplify it to the point of being ridiculous, deductions happen before taxes are applied, credits are after taxes are applied. One results in less taxes owed the government, and the other results in the government owing you money.

Why should someone who pays 90% on income at a local level have to cough up another 35% to the federal government? How are they supposed to pay 125% in taxes in the first place?

That is why I say that people would end up paying taxes on taxes. It is hyperbole, but it actually makes a point. The theory behind reducing federal taxes is that the government, in its entirety, is only supposed to get so much money from a single person. Local government supplies local needs, state government provides higher level needs, and the federal government supplies more.

It doesn't work that way in practice, because federal monies go back to state and local needs, but the theory is still sound. Getting a lower federal rate should mean that fewer federal funds go to those localities, but that is, again, not what really happens.

The answer to this is not to eliminate the deduction for local taxes, it is to fix the tax code and reform spending at the federal level so it goes to federal needs.

tax rebates, subsidies et al are also counted by the gov. as tax reductions, when in fact they are spending.....unreal.
 

Forum List

Back
Top