Biggest moochers of tax expenditure spending are

[fromderinside]

Someone who pays in $100 elsewhere in the tax code and gets $5 back on this is not a moocher. Someone who pays $5 somewhere in the tax code and gets $100 somewhere else is a moocher.

To see who the moochers are we need to look at who are the overall takers and overall payers.

Somebody who arranges to make $100 while another can only make $5 is the moocher.

To see who are the moochers are we need to look at the overall outcomes (net incomes) are. Those who get are the the slugs, the moochers on the rest of us. Ford was right about one thing. Investors contribute only money based on their perceptive greed and expect to get returns on the backs of those who produce.

 

[jonatha]

To a first approximation, the overall takers are the people in the red states and the overall payers are the people in the blue states.

[/pedant]

Sorry about calling you on your ill-considered bullshit.

Unless you really are trying to argue that if my neighbor is paying taxes while I'm taking money from the government I'm a tax payer too.

Did you miss the "To a first approximatoin" at the beginning of the sentence?

 

[Bomb#20]

Biggest moochers of tax expenditure spending are the wealthy!

Biggest stereotyper is ksen!

"www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/economy/taxes-take-away-but-also-give-back-mostly-to-the-very-rich.html?_r=1"

So now the NY Times is getting "All the news that's fit to print" from its department of Duh? When the IRS gives money to someone other than the exact person the IRS previously took it away from, it does not count as giving it back.

“Every year, the federal government spends billions of dollars on these tax programs primarily to support the highest-income households that need support the least,” lied Ezra Levin, associate director of government affairs for the group, which is based in Washington.

FIFY.

Relentless pressure in recent years, particularly by conservatives, to reduce program spending has meant that the tax code has increasingly become the primary driver of social policy when it comes to education, retirement and housing.

The amount of spending in those areas channeled through taxes is on the rise, topping $620 billion in 2014, up from $540 billion in 2013, according to Mr. Levin’s fraudulent analysis.

FIFY.

“This is not a liberal position or a conservative position,” he said. "This is a creative accounting position."

FIFY.

Those at the tippy-top of the income scale — the top 0.1 percent, with an average annual income of $7.6 million — received an average of $33,391 in federal tax payouts analyzed by the group, because we at the NYTimes will believe whatever we're told.

FIFY.

Those in the bottom 60 percent, who earn less than $65,000, got less than $1,000 on average, altogether about 12 percent of the billions handed out, whereas those in the bottom 60 percent got 100% of the magical loaves and fishes Jesus handed out.

FIFY.

A 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office that fantasized about the 10 largest tax subsidies, invented a total of $900 billion, and falsely claimed that more than half went to households in the top fifth on the income scale.

FIFY.

... moochers

On topic enough for you?

 

[ksen]

u mad bro?

 

[fromderinside]

The purpose of government taxation to defend us, to keep us safe from ourselves, and to assure social systems produce the largest benefit overall.

So why are we talking about moochers? Wouldn't that be counterproductive to both keeping us safe from ourselves and ensuring maximum social benefits overall?

I'm not sure we can go into such discussions without first affirming the presumption about the sanctity of money once taxed still remains with the one taxed. If its taxed isn't it the people's money? Why the hell should anyone who is taxed consider their taxation to be subject to their use in some sort of trade off?

There's been so much piety about one's money here that it would be nice if someone, me, posted a view other than theirs. You've been taxed. You met your obligation. Shut the fuck up.

 

[ksen]

@Bomb#20

Tax expenditures are a method of spending through tax policy rather than the budget.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650371.pdf

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax+expenditure

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tax-expenditure.html

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/shelters/expenditures.cfm

And the biggest recipients of tax policy spending are the wealthy.

 

[dismal]

Tax expenditures are a method of spending through tax policy rather than the budget.

And the biggest recipients of tax policy spending are the wealthy.

These points as far as they go seem pretty accurate, but as I have already pointed out they do not go far enough to allow us to determine who is and isn't mooching in the aggregate.

Also I have had a lot of big government leftist types argue strenuously with me about the first one.

Here you can see some of that "leftists not quite getting that tax expenditures are spending" in action in a fairly recent thread.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...hike/page5&highlight=republicans+middle+class

Note the confusion of some unnamed leftist on this very topic in post #49:

What spending increase?

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...cut-a-tax-hike&p=110413&viewfull=1#post110413

 

[coloradoatheist]

@Bomb#20

Tax expenditures are a method of spending through tax policy rather than the budget.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650371.pdf

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax+expenditure

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tax-expenditure.html

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/shelters/expenditures.cfm

And the biggest recipients of tax policy spending are the wealthy.

It's an issue with taxes in general. If a person makes $50K a year and pays $10K in taxes, are they getting a 40K a year subsidy from the government?

 

[ksen]

These points as far as they go seem pretty accurate, but as I have already pointed out they do not go far enough to allow us to determine who is and isn't mooching in the aggregate.

Also I have had a lot of big government leftist types argue strenuously with me about the first one.

Here you can see some of that "leftists not quite getting that tax expenditures are spending" in action in a fairly recent thread.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...hike/page5&highlight=republicans+middle+class

Note the confusion of some unnamed leftist on this very topic in post #49:

What spending increase?

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...cut-a-tax-hike&p=110413&viewfull=1#post110413

I was pretty sure you were fluent in sarcasm. Maybe not?

 

[dismal]

These points as far as they go seem pretty accurate, but as I have already pointed out they do not go far enough to allow us to determine who is and isn't mooching in the aggregate.

Also I have had a lot of big government leftist types argue strenuously with me about the first one.

Here you can see some of that "leftists not quite getting that tax expenditures are spending" in action in a fairly recent thread.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...hike/page5&highlight=republicans+middle+class

Note the confusion of some unnamed leftist on this very topic in post #49:



http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...cut-a-tax-hike&p=110413&viewfull=1#post110413

I was pretty sure you were fluent in sarcasm. Maybe not?

So the when you said something reasonable and intelligent about tax expenditures in this thread, indicating you may have actually learned something since the last one, it was sarcasm?

*glimmer of hope for the world fades*

 

[jonatha]

It's an issue with taxes in general. If a person makes $50K a year and pays $10K in taxes, are they getting a 40K a year subsidy from the government?

No.

But if in the absence of the deduction for mortgage interest they would have paid $12K in taxes, they are in some sense getting a $2K a year subsidy from the government.

 

[dismal]

It's an issue with taxes in general. If a person makes $50K a year and pays $10K in taxes, are they getting a 40K a year subsidy from the government?

No.

But if in the absence of the deduction for mortgage interest they would have paid $12K in taxes, they are in some sense getting a $2K a year subsidy from the government.

They are also getting a 40,000 subsidy versus the government taking it all. And a $15,000 subsidy versus the government taking half. And a $999,990,000 subsidy versus the government taxing them a $billion. Or a $10,000 penalty versus the government taking nothing.

You see, once I have picked some arbitrary point as a baseline the rest is simple math.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's an issue with taxes in general. If a person makes $50K a year and pays $10K in taxes, are they getting a 40K a year subsidy from the government?

No.

But if in the absence of the deduction for mortgage interest they would have paid $12K in taxes, they are in some sense getting a $2K a year subsidy from the government.

But the whole issue is the what is the quote "right rate" for a tax. Congress could lower the tax rates by 1% for everyone and get rid of the mortgage deduction. So the problem I have is someone saying, I pay 14% in taxes is mooching when you think they should pay 15%.

 

[ksen]

I was pretty sure you were fluent in sarcasm. Maybe not?

So the when you said something reasonable and intelligent about tax expenditures in this thread, indicating you may have actually learned something since the last one, it was sarcasm?

*glimmer of hope for the world fades*

well, that thread was about republicans adopting lefty language when it comes to middle class tax cuts.

this one is not.

*glimmer restored*

 

[dismal]

So the when you said something reasonable and intelligent about tax expenditures in this thread, indicating you may have actually learned something since the last one, it was sarcasm?

*glimmer of hope for the world fades*

well, that thread was about republicans adopting lefty language when it comes to middle class tax cuts.

this one is not.

*glimmer restored*

In that thread you do not appear willing to engage on the concept that expending money in the tax code is spending. In this thread you are preaching it.

So, now if the government gives everyone a $1000 tax credit just for existing isn't it the exact same thing? Spending?

Not according to the last 20 or 30 years of conservative rhetoric.

Unfortunately for my glimmer of hope it appears you may be swaying back and forth based on the direction you feel the partisan winds are blowing.

I guess we'll see where you stand next time it comes up.

 

[ksen]

well, that thread was about republicans adopting lefty language when it comes to middle class tax cuts.

this one is not.

*glimmer restored*

In that thread you do not appear willing to engage on the concept that expending money in the tax code is spending. In this thread you are preaching it.

So, now if the government gives everyone a $1000 tax credit just for existing isn't it the exact same thing? Spending?

Not according to the last 20 or 30 years of conservative rhetoric.

Unfortunately for my glimmer of hope it appears you may be swaying back and forth based on the direction you feel the partisan winds are blowing.

I guess we'll see where you stand next time it comes up.

Which part of:

Not according to the last 20 or 30 years of conservative rhetoric.

didn't you understand?

what was it about that that made you think that I disagreed with your statement that tax credits are spending?

 

[jonatha]

No.

But if in the absence of the deduction for mortgage interest they would have paid $12K in taxes, they are in some sense getting a $2K a year subsidy from the government.

But the whole issue is the what is the quote "right rate" for a tax. Congress could lower the tax rates by 1% for everyone and get rid of the mortgage deduction. So the problem I have is someone saying, I pay 14% in taxes is mooching when you think they should pay 15%.

The issue is that those things that are favored by being allowed as deductions and not being taxed benefit the better off disproportionately.

Paying 14% in taxes when someone with the same income but not eligible for the deduction pays 15% is not necessarily mooching, but the difference does represent a subsidy and it is disingenuous to claim it does not.

 

[dismal]

In that thread you do not appear willing to engage on the concept that expending money in the tax code is spending. In this thread you are preaching it.

So, now if the government gives everyone a $1000 tax credit just for existing isn't it the exact same thing? Spending?

Not according to the last 20 or 30 years of conservative rhetoric.

Unfortunately for my glimmer of hope it appears you may be swaying back and forth based on the direction you feel the partisan winds are blowing.

I guess we'll see where you stand next time it comes up.

Which part of:

Not according to the last 20 or 30 years of conservative rhetoric.

didn't you understand?

what was it about that that made you think that I disagreed with your statement that tax credits are spending?

You know I am capable of reading through your performance in that entire thread. You should try it. I linked a particular post already in which you specifically argued against or refused to process the idea that tax credits were spending.

Here are multiple examples of you doing it for your scrap book so you can remember back when you weren't as enlightened about tax expenditures are you are now:

That would be incorrect - it's a tax increase to pay for additional spending, and will have effects on the economy as a result.

What additional spending?

Over the last 20 years I've heard right wing radio and pundits and politicians make it absolutely clear that tax cuts are not additional spending.

These are $1,000 and $2,000 checks to every household that makes under $100k or $200k. Just because the checks are paid by increasing one's tax refund or reducing one's tax liability doesn't make a difference.

No, they're $1,000 and $2,000 tax credits.

And again, for the last 20 years conservatives have gone on ad nauseum about how tax cuts are not additional spending. You should call Rush and have him update that to "tax cuts are not additional spending unless democrats propose them."

A tax cut would actually cut the taxes - meaning that the amount owed before any credits (i.e., checks that the government has tasked the IRS with distributing) is reduced.

Oh, I see. You're using a ridiculously narrow definition of "tax cut".

If you didn't want to seriously discuss this you should have just said so.

- you seem to have some emotional need to call it a tax cut, which I can't help you with.

I'm not being emotional about it at all. I'm fascinated watching your gyrations to make a reduction in tax liability not a tax cut.

Well, the point of the OP was to discuss how when a plan is proposed that lowers the tax liability for millions of americans while simultaneously raising the tax liability on a few thousand the GOP decides to characterize it as a "massive tax increase" as if the only people that matter are those thousands instead of those millions.

Just like social security benefits reduce the tax liability of retirees, am I right? Would increasing social security taxes and increasing the social security benefits be a tax cut for retirees? Would it be wrong to call such a proposal a "tax increase and spending increase" in the context of a press release? In ksen's world, it would be.

What spending increase?

It does as long as the credit remains more than the total taxes paid.

You are taxing group A to give a check to group B. Taxing group A increases revenue and giving a check to group B is spending.

I think I've shown that this is a nonsensical issue of semantics. One could say they cut revenue from one source and increased it elsewhere to cover the shortfall. Cut the price of burgers but increase the price of fries in order to have the same final revenue.

Would you use the same argument for social security taxes and payments? That the payments really just reduce revenue and that the payments are a tax cut for retirees?

I'm having trouble seeing the parallel there. The payment is an actual outlay.

If the government sends everyone a check for $1000 just for existing that's spending, right?

I mean, no one seemed to be able to answer this question when I first asked it for some reason. But I think it was a more of a "must not answer" than a "can not answer" sort of mass evasion.

It was probably more of a "wtf is dismal talking about since the article doesn't say anything about sending people a $1,000 check" thing.

So, now if the government gives everyone a $1000 tax credit just for existing isn't it the exact same thing? Spending?

Not according to the last 20 or 30 years of conservative rhetoric.

It certainly appears some people were arguing tax expenditures were spending but you weren't one of them.

And now I come here and find you lecturing others about tax expenditures being spending with the zeal of a convert.

Like you may have actually learned something. *sniff*

 

[dismal]

But the whole issue is the what is the quote "right rate" for a tax. Congress could lower the tax rates by 1% for everyone and get rid of the mortgage deduction. So the problem I have is someone saying, I pay 14% in taxes is mooching when you think they should pay 15%.

The issue is that those things that are favored by being allowed as deductions and not being taxed benefit the better off disproportionately.

Paying 14% in taxes when someone with the same income but not eligible for the deduction pays 15% is not necessarily mooching, but the difference does represent a subsidy and it is disingenuous to claim it does not.

You mean like the 35% tax rate penalizes rich people disproportionally versus the 10% rate? Or does the 10% tax rate subsidize the poor people because they benefit from it disproportionally to the rich?

 

[ksen]

do you also dream about me while you sleep?