The hypocrisy is stunning

[billvon 1,946]

48 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Spending money is a very poor description of what it is.  Its a taxable deduction.

I agree.  That is a better way to describe it.

Quote

The tax acts create tens of thousands of deductions in taxable income for individuals and corporations. If was a fair deduction it would include rents and mortgage interest up to the first $1000. Thus poor renters would get the same breaks that homeowners do.

Also agreed.  The MID was intended to encourage home ownership, but I don't see a compelling reason to do that.

[wmw999 1,721]

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

I agree.  That is a better way to describe it.

Also agreed.  The MID was intended to encourage home ownership, but I don't see a compelling reason to do that.

Back in the days of the "gang of 8" that were trying to come up with a way to balance the budget (no one wants to hurt their constituents -- only other people's), that was one of the first targets. It distorts the shelter market in general.

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 691]

19 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Back in the days of the "gang of 8" that were trying to come up with a way to balance the budget (no one wants to hurt their constituents -- only other people's), that was one of the first targets. It distorts the shelter market in general.

Wendy P.

Several studies show that it increased the demand for "Mega mansions" and increases home costs in general.

5 Reasons Why Economists Dislike the Mortgage Interest Deduction  From the Fed Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

It encourages larger houses

It’s regressive

It actually reduced the homeownership rate

It increases the likelihood of mortgage defaults

It’s inefficient

[kallend 1,345]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

I have an issue with the claim that by not taxing something, the government is "spending money" on something.

I mean, by that logic, you could claim tht the government is spending hundreds of billions on not taxing washing machines.  It's an OUTRAGE!

A rose by any other name...

Last time I checked, -(-1) = 1  

 

[JoeWeber 1,869]

26 minutes ago, billvon said:

I have an issue with the claim that by not taxing something, the government is "spending money" on something.

I mean, by that logic, you could claim tht the government is spending hundreds of billions on not taxing washing machines.  It's an OUTRAGE!

Certainly the sympathy you feel towards washing machines is completely understandable. I feel the same way about 8 Ball Tables. Surely not taxing isn't directly equatable to spending. But not taxing one thing and taxing another, within a complex taxing system, to get the spending money for another thing does sort of makes thing cloudy. 

[billvon 1,946]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

A rose by any other name...

Last time I checked, -(-1) = 1  

OK then.  The government spends billions subsidizing the remote control aircraft industry.  So let's not hear any more complaining from you about military spending!

[kallend 1,345]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

OK then.  The government spends billions subsidizing the remote control aircraft industry.  So let's not hear any more complaining from you about military spending!

We're subsidizing China?  Oh the humanity!

[brenthutch 356]

22 hours ago, billvon said:

I have an issue with the claim that by not taxing something, the government is "spending money" on something.

I mean, by that logic, you could claim tht the government is spending hundreds of billions on not taxing washing machines.  It's an OUTRAGE!

That is exactly what the Ds say about Trump’s tax cuts.

[SkyDekker 905]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That is exactly what the Ds say about Trump’s tax cuts.

No what the Ds say about Trump's Tax cuts is that they lowered revenues and increased the deficit and that only absolute morons would believe in "trickle down economics."

 

Edited March 15 by SkyDekker

[billvon 1,946]

6 hours ago, kallend said:

We're subsidizing China?  Oh the humanity!

No, we're subsidizing RC enthusiasts, to the tune of billions a year.

[normiss 424]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

No, we're subsidizing RC enthusiasts, to the tune of billions a year.

Remote and radio controlled aircraft are 2 different things from my understanding.

But I've never flown an F-14 via radio control halfway around the globe from a top secret research facility.

[JoeWeber 1,869]

Just now, normiss said:

Remote and radio controlled aircraft are 2 different things from my understanding

A difference without a distinction, in my opinion. We need to quit subsidizing peoples toy airplanes to the tune of billions. So, is Kallend getting the money in cash or Chinese airplanes? Is he trading US math to the Chinese on the side? The whole thing seems a bit smarmy, I think.

[billvon 1,946]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

So, is Kallend getting the money in cash or Chinese airplanes?

I think he's getting it in cash.  He's not paying thousands in taxes he COULD be paying for flying his aircraft and using up public airspace.  Multiply that by a few million RC aircraft flyers, and that's billions in taxes these people are stealing from other people's pockets.

[brenthutch 356]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

No what the Ds say about Trump's Tax cuts is that they lowered revenues and increased the deficit and that only absolute morons would believe in "trickle down economics."

 

That’s funny because only the Democrats believe there is such a thing as “trickle down economics”  

BTW tax revenues went UP during the Trump administration even with his tax cuts and the pandemic. $3.27 trillion when he came in $3.42 trillion when he left.

(awaiting a demonstration in linguistic contortions)

[SkyDekker 905]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

BTW tax revenues went UP during the Trump administration even with his tax cuts and the pandemic. $3.27 trillion when he came in $3.42 trillion when he left.

The thing is, you think this disputes what I wrote, which makes it so abundantly clear that you either lied about your MBA or didn't get it from a reputable institution.

[JoeWeber 1,869]

Just now, billvon said:

I think he's getting it in cash.  He's not paying thousands in taxes he COULD be paying for flying his aircraft and using up public airspace.  Multiply that by a few million RC aircraft flyers, and that's billions in taxes these people are stealing from other people's pockets.

I told Theresa about this as soon as you broke the story. Since that very moment she's been sewing shut my pockets. When will it all ever stop?

[kallend 1,345]

11 minutes ago, billvon said:

I think he's getting it in cash.  He's not paying thousands in taxes he COULD be paying for flying his aircraft and using up public airspace.  Multiply that by a few million RC aircraft flyers, and that's billions in taxes these people are stealing from other people's pockets.

You have no clue.  You are trying too hard  to be clever.

[billvon 1,946]

1 minute ago, kallend said:

You have no clue.  You are trying too hard  to be clever.

Fact - you are NOT paying taxes that you could.   So you are getting subsidies.  A rose by any other name . . .

[brenthutch 356]

53 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The thing is, you think this disputes what I wrote, which makes it so abundantly clear that you either lied about your MBA or didn't get it from a reputable institution.

Anyone who uses the term “trickle down” in a discussion about economics has no credibility. 

 

[wmw999 1,721]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Anyone who uses the term “trickle down” in a discussion about economics has no credibility. 

Is that like using “woke?”

Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 905]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Anyone who uses the term “trickle down” in a discussion about economics has no credibility. 

 

Are you trying to argue that there is no concept that suggests prosperity in upper classes flows down to lower classes?

[billvon 1,946]

7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Are you trying to argue that there is no concept that suggests prosperity in upper classes flows down to lower classes?

I'm sure he is, and is trying to use that to claim that you have no credibility. 

Some people with no credibility according to BH:

"As House Republicans turned a sharp focus on inflation, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla) asserted that trickle-down economic theory, which asserts that policies that benefit the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else, does work despite sharp criticism of the policy."

David Stockman, a Reagan appointee and one of the architects of Reaganomics:  "Give the tax cuts to the top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects trickle down through the economy to reach everyone else. Supply-side is trickle-down theory.”

So looks like BH is saying that supply-side economics has no credibility - nor do the people who created it.

[wmw999 1,721]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

I'm sure he is, and is trying to use that to claim that you have no credibility. 

Some people with no credibility according to BH:

"As House Republicans turned a sharp focus on inflation, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla) asserted that trickle-down economic theory, which asserts that policies that benefit the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else, does work despite sharp criticism of the policy."

David Stockman, a Reagan appointee and one of the architects of Reaganomics:  "Give the tax cuts to the top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects trickle down through the economy to reach everyone else. Supply-side is trickle-down theory.”

So looks like BH is saying that supply-side economics has no credibility - nor do the people who created it.

Apparently it’s used now more by its critics. Again, kind of like woke

I’m wondering, through, what happened to Islamofascism? Remember when that was a big dog whistle?

Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 905]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Apparently it’s used now more by its critics. Again, kind of like woke

I’m wondering, through, what happened to Islamofascism? Remember when that was a big dog whistle?

Wendy P. 

Oh so the term isn't politically correct enough and BH objects to that?

Edited March 15 by SkyDekker

[JoeWeber 1,869]

Just now, kallend said:

You have no clue.  You are trying too hard  to be clever.

Probably no RC people are receiving direct subsidies from the government. But is a direct connection necessary? Maybe the money is being spent in one place and affecting RC flyers somewhere else. Possible, I suppose.