Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, EARN LESS MONEY

[boedicca]

So would you argue that the mortgage interest deduction is a tax on renters?

It's not punitive. No one is being punished. People are, in effect, being given a tax break for having insurance. It's no different from that tax breaks given to homeowners or investors.

Again, I believe you're right that there's no difference. But in both cases, it's wrong and equally punitive. In either case you're presented with a mandate - do as you're told, or you'll have to pay more taxes. You can play games with the psychology of it by calling it a 'break' for those who comply, rather than a 'punishment' for those who don't. But the dynamic is exactly the same.

No, they are not the same, unless somehow renting is more expensive than owning. In this environment it's not.

I'd still rather see the mortgage deduction phased out and a low flat tax with no deductions in its place. But it's not accurate to call mortgage deductions for owners a tax on renters.

 

[boedicca]

No, I don't care that he lied about it. Politicians make crazy promises to get elected. It's part of the process.

and you wonder why the country is fucked up??? Folks here be your answer!


Holy Shit!

So if John McCain had been elected, do you really think he would have balanced the budget?

I don't think he would have increased the size of government relative to GDP by 25% in two years.

 

[Polk]

So would you argue that the mortgage interest deduction is a tax on renters?

It's not punitive. No one is being punished. People are, in effect, being given a tax break for having insurance. It's no different from that tax breaks given to homeowners or investors.

Again, I believe you're right that there's no difference. But in both cases, it's wrong and equally punitive. In either case you're presented with a mandate - do as you're told, or you'll have to pay more taxes. You can play games with the psychology of it by calling it a 'break' for those who comply, rather than a 'punishment' for those who don't. But the dynamic is exactly the same.

No, they are not the same, unless somehow renting is more expensive than owning. In this environment it's not.

I'd still rather see the mortgage deduction phased out and a low flat tax with no deductions in its place. But it's not accurate to call mortgage deductions for owners a tax on renters.

The mechanism is the same, which is what was being compared. I'd also note owning a home is more expensive because the the subsidy is baked in to the price of housing (which is also a reason why, even though I find eliminating said subsidy desirable, it would need to be done in a very controlled fashion).

 

[Polk]

and you wonder why the country is fucked up??? Folks here be your answer!


Holy Shit!

So if John McCain had been elected, do you really think he would have balanced the budget?

I don't think he would have increased the size of government relative to GDP by 25% in two years.

Yes, he would have. The growth in spending is due to the recession. If GDP had grown from 2007 to 2010 at the same rate it grew from 2000 to 2007, would be about 21% of GDP today (instead of the 23% it actually is). But what is the increase made of? Rising Medicare costs due to Baby Boomers retiring and a large increase in need for social safety net programs (unemployment, food stamps, etc.). Spending outside of those two areas is actually growing at a smaller rate than it did during the Bush years?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You may want to read that decision more closely. It doesn't say what you think it says.

What do you think I think it says?

You think the difference between railroad and other firms in that case is analogous to the difference between those who have insurance and those who don't have insurance. The problem is that analogy doesn't add up. There is a pretty clear difference between the two cases. Namely, Alabama's taxation of railroads at a different rate from its competitors is discriminating against railroads for an inherent property they possess. There is nothing inherent about an individual not having health insurance.

I do not.

I know that SCOTUS rarely allows taxpayers to challenge the basis of their taxation. I understand that the only way they allow this is if that taxation is discriminatory or unconstitutional. This decision specifically allowed one business to challenge the taxes that were placed on it that were not placed on other businesses specifically because they allege that the government wanted to engineer social policy through taxation. That specifically proves that your belief that it is permissible is wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Deceive them in what sense? Do you really think there was some sizable group that supported the bill, but would have opposed it if they considered the mandate a tax? It's not like we had a plebiscite on the issue.

Do you really think there isn't?

No. The views of the public aren't that nuanced. People like to talk about how deliberate and well-informed swing voters are. It couldn't be further from the truth. The more informed members of the electorate, by and large, are the groups within the core of each party. Independents blow with the wind.

In other words, people are stupid. Believe it or not, all that proves is that you are arrogant. You think that you can be well informed and deliberate, but that others cannot. I will remember this the next time you try to argue anything, because you have just categorically proven that every bad thing anyone thinks about you is completely true.

 

[dblack]

But it's not accurate to call mortgage deductions for owners a tax on renters.

Yeah, I wouldn't call it a 'tax' on renters, but is a mandate - very much like the ACA's individual mandate. And, in the same way that the individual mandate pretends to promote health care, and instead just pushes into health insurance, the mortgage deduction pretends to promote home ownership, when all it really does is push us into debt.

 

[The Rabbi]

You guys do realize this argument could be made about any tax on income, right?

No. The Constitution, as amended, allows for a tax on income. No one challenges the constitutionality of the income tax. The wisdom of it, maybe.

The mandate is a tax on income, so where exactly are you going with this?

No it is not. Whether I earn $75k a year or 300k a year I still must pay it. That isn't a tax on income.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, I believe you're right that there's no difference. But in both cases, it's wrong and equally punitive. In either case you're presented with a mandate - do as you're told, or you'll have to pay more taxes. You can play games with the psychology of it by calling it a 'break' for those who comply, rather than a 'punishment' for those who don't. But the dynamic is exactly the same.

No, they are not the same, unless somehow renting is more expensive than owning. In this environment it's not.

I'd still rather see the mortgage deduction phased out and a low flat tax with no deductions in its place. But it's not accurate to call mortgage deductions for owners a tax on renters.

The mechanism is the same, which is what was being compared. I'd also note owning a home is more expensive because the the subsidy is baked in to the price of housing (which is also a reason why, even though I find eliminating said subsidy desirable, it would need to be done in a very controlled fashion).

They are not comparable in any way shape or form.
If I live in my parents' home I am not paying anything. BUt I still have to pay the health insurance penalty.

There is no argument to be made that this is a tax. It is not a tax. It does not apply across classes of people and is not triggered by any event. Ergo it cannot be a tax. Arguments that it is are simply specious and sophistic because the alternative is to make the legislation unconstitional (which it is).

 

[Polk]

But it's not accurate to call mortgage deductions for owners a tax on renters.

Yeah, I wouldn't call it a 'tax' on renters, but is a mandate - very much like the ACA's individual mandate. And, in the same way that the individual mandate pretends to promote health care, and instead just pushes into health insurance, the mortgage deduction pretends to promote home ownership, when all it really does is push us into debt.

This guy gets it.

 

[Polk]

What do you think I think it says?

You think the difference between railroad and other firms in that case is analogous to the difference between those who have insurance and those who don't have insurance. The problem is that analogy doesn't add up. There is a pretty clear difference between the two cases. Namely, Alabama's taxation of railroads at a different rate from its competitors is discriminating against railroads for an inherent property they possess. There is nothing inherent about an individual not having health insurance.

I do not.

I know that SCOTUS rarely allows taxpayers to challenge the basis of their taxation. I understand that the only way they allow this is if that taxation is discriminatory or unconstitutional. This decision specifically allowed one business to challenge the taxes that were placed on it that were not placed on other businesses specifically because they allege that the government wanted to engineer social policy through taxation. That specifically proves that your belief that it is permissible is wrong.

You claim that's not what you're doing, then run around and immediately state that's what you're doing. And it still runs into the same problem: inherent properties are substantively different.

 

[Polk]

No, they are not the same, unless somehow renting is more expensive than owning. In this environment it's not.

I'd still rather see the mortgage deduction phased out and a low flat tax with no deductions in its place. But it's not accurate to call mortgage deductions for owners a tax on renters.

The mechanism is the same, which is what was being compared. I'd also note owning a home is more expensive because the the subsidy is baked in to the price of housing (which is also a reason why, even though I find eliminating said subsidy desirable, it would need to be done in a very controlled fashion).

They are not comparable in any way shape or form.
If I live in my parents' home I am not paying anything. BUt I still have to pay the health insurance penalty.

There is no argument to be made that this is a tax. It is not a tax. It does not apply across classes of people and is not triggered by any event. Ergo it cannot be a tax. Arguments that it is are simply specious and sophistic because the alternative is to make the legislation unconstitional (which it is).

You are paying something you live in your parent's home. You're being taxed at a higher effective rate that someone who owns their own home.

 

[The Rabbi]

The mechanism is the same, which is what was being compared. I'd also note owning a home is more expensive because the the subsidy is baked in to the price of housing (which is also a reason why, even though I find eliminating said subsidy desirable, it would need to be done in a very controlled fashion).

They are not comparable in any way shape or form.
If I live in my parents' home I am not paying anything. BUt I still have to pay the health insurance penalty.

There is no argument to be made that this is a tax. It is not a tax. It does not apply across classes of people and is not triggered by any event. Ergo it cannot be a tax. Arguments that it is are simply specious and sophistic because the alternative is to make the legislation unconstitional (which it is).

You are paying something you live in your parent's home. You're being taxed at a higher effective rate that someone who owns their own home.

Not if I live for free.
No, someone with a house can deduct some part of the cost of that house. Someone who rents cannot. One does not subsidize the other.

 

[Polk]

They are not comparable in any way shape or form.
If I live in my parents' home I am not paying anything. BUt I still have to pay the health insurance penalty.

There is no argument to be made that this is a tax. It is not a tax. It does not apply across classes of people and is not triggered by any event. Ergo it cannot be a tax. Arguments that it is are simply specious and sophistic because the alternative is to make the legislation unconstitional (which it is).

You are paying something you live in your parent's home. You're being taxed at a higher effective rate that someone who owns their own home.

Not if I live for free.
No, someone with a house can deduct some part of the cost of that house. Someone who rents cannot. One does not subsidize the other.

You're still being taxed at a higher effective rate, even if the action makes you better off.

And yes, the person who rents is subsidizing the home purchase of the person taking the deduction.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are paying something you live in your parent's home. You're being taxed at a higher effective rate that someone who owns their own home.

Not if I live for free.
No, someone with a house can deduct some part of the cost of that house. Someone who rents cannot. One does not subsidize the other.

You're still being taxed at a higher effective rate, even if the action makes you better off.

And yes, the person who rents is subsidizing the home purchase of the person taking the deduction.

You are taxed at exactly the same rate whether you rent or own a house. There is no difference in rates paid. None.
Don't even bother responding because you are wrong.

 

[Polk]

Not if I live for free.
No, someone with a house can deduct some part of the cost of that house. Someone who rents cannot. One does not subsidize the other.

You're still being taxed at a higher effective rate, even if the action makes you better off.

And yes, the person who rents is subsidizing the home purchase of the person taking the deduction.

You are taxed at exactly the same rate whether you rent or own a house. There is no difference in rates paid. None.
Don't even bother responding because you are wrong.

Key phrase: effective rate.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're still being taxed at a higher effective rate, even if the action makes you better off.

And yes, the person who rents is subsidizing the home purchase of the person taking the deduction.

You are taxed at exactly the same rate whether you rent or own a house. There is no difference in rates paid. None.
Don't even bother responding because you are wrong.

Key phrase: effective rate.

The rate is exactly the same.
Some people can deduct some things others can't. By that logic you could say that people with 4 children are being subsidized by people with 3 children, etc. Or that people who lost money in the stock market subsidize people who made money.
It is a stupid way to look at deductions.

 

[Toronado3800]

Lol. This is great.

Just to throw in my cents.

The life of the renter is made better by the deduction for folks making house payments. Or so us the theory. Because ppl who are making payments towards ownership are more stable and better for the country.

Statistical analysis of this one is tricky. Home ownership does seem to force folks into keeping a job. A rental seems easier to walk away from.

 

[smartdonkey]

Washington Examiner? What, no Newsmax?

 

[dblack]

By that logic you could say that people with 4 children are being subsidized by people with 3 children, etc.

And they are. Nothing stupid about recognizing that. Deductions that aren't legitimate business expenses are about manipulating our behavior. We selectively implement them to encourage some activities and punish others. It's high time this practice was recognized as an end-run around constitutional limitations on the government's power over us.