Biggest moochers of tax expenditure spending are

[ksen]

the wealthy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/b...o-give-back-mostly-to-the-very-rich.html?_r=1

“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,” said Ezra Levin, associate director of government affairs for the group, which is based in Washington.

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 analysis. By comparison, federal discretionary spending by 14 of the 15 cabinet agencies, including housing, transportation, labor, commerce, education, Treasury and health and human services totaled $464 billion.

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

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. 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.

A 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office that looked at the 10 largest tax subsidies, worth a total of $900 billion, found that more than half went to households in the top fifth on the income scale.

fucking moochers

 

[Valjean]

Undeserving rich.

 

[Axulus]

And why isn't Obama and the other Dems shouting this from the rooftops? Why do his budget proposals not attempt to remove them?

 

[ksen]

probably because he's not really a muslim, socialist-leftist radical from kenya

 

[Valjean]

When has Obama, or anyone on the left, ever thrown countervailing facts back at a critic?
All the left ever seems to do is turn the other cheek.

 

[Axulus]

When has Obama, or anyone on the left, ever thrown countervailing facts back at a critic?
All the left ever seems to do is turn the other cheek.

Obama and the Dems did raise tax rates to a top rate from 35% to 43.4% (when one adds in the Obamacare Medicare tax surcharge). However, fiscal conservatives in general favor closing these kind of tax code handouts instead of raising the top marginal tax rate. Things could be less polarized if the Dems would try to move to a more middle position by closing these handouts but at the same time agreeing to not let top rates rise as much.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Isn't there a risk that passing that kind of law would lead to less rich people giving the Dem politicians money?

 

[dismal]

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.

 

[ksen]

Feel free to start a thread about that.

This one's about tax expenditures and who gets them.

 

[dismal]

You made this thread about moochers. Now suck it up and deal with who the moochers really are.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You made this thread about moochers. Now suck it up and deal with who the moochers really are.

 

[jonatha]

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.

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

Cue Loren to explain why FICA taxes collected in Connecticut and paid in Tennessee shouldn't count....

 

[dismal]

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.

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

Cue Loren to explain why FICA taxes collected in Connecticut and paid in Tennessee shouldn't count....

I thought individuals paid taxes. It's states now?

 

[jonatha]

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

Cue Loren to explain why FICA taxes collected in Connecticut and paid in Tennessee shouldn't count....

I thought individuals paid taxes. It's states now?

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]

 

[dismal]

I thought individuals paid taxes. It's states now?

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.

 

[laughing dog]

You made this thread about moochers. Now suck it up and deal with who the moochers really are.

No, the thread is about tax moochers. I know it is hard for you, but try to stay on topic.

 

[ksen]

You made this thread about moochers. Now suck it up and deal with who the moochers really are.

Biggest moochers of tax expenditure spending are

of

/əv/

preposition

preposition: of

1. expressing the relationship between a part and a whole.
"the sleeve of his coat"

2. expressing the relationship between a scale or measure and a value.
"an increase of 5 percent"

 

[dismal]

You made this thread about moochers. Now suck it up and deal with who the moochers really are.

Biggest moochers of tax expenditure spending are

of

/əv/

preposition

preposition: of

1. expressing the relationship between a part and a whole.
"the sleeve of his coat"

2. expressing the relationship between a scale or measure and a value.
"an increase of 5 percent"

Why should I care more about who the biggest "moochers of tax expenditures" are if they are not moochers at all in the aggregate?

If mooching is so bad and outrages you so much, surely we want to focus our outrage on the people who are actually mooching.

Can you explain to me why you are outraged more by someone who pays $10,000 in other taxes and receives $500 in tax expenditures (a net payer of $9500) than someone who pays $5 in taxes and receives a $10,000 check from the government through some other program (a net moocher of $9995)?

 

[marc]

Probably a clarification on what is meant by 'moocher' is needed for this discussion.

IMO it is based on need. For example, a person who cannot work due to disability, and receives disability support is receiving more than they are paying out in taxes. But they are not a 'moocher' because they have needs that they cannot fulfill for themselves. Someone who does not have any disability, but receives disability support (besides being a fraud) has no need, and is therefore mooching.

That some Red states take in more taxes than they give out is not necessarily a sign of mooching, as some of these states have high poverty rates. (that some of the same people denounce government assistance to others that they themselves make use of makes them hypocrites, not moochers)

When an oil company, some of the most profitable businesses in history, gets subsidies to basically do what they already have to do to stay in business, that is mooching. They do not need the extra money from the subsidy. They have plenty of their own, and are fully capable of going about their business without government help. The amount they pay in taxes vs how much aid they get is irrelevant, as the issue (as I see it) is about getting handouts that one does not need.

 

[ksen]

Why should I care more about who the biggest "moochers of tax expenditures" are if they are not moochers at all in the aggregate?

You can care about whatever you want. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.