Low income US households get $0.08/month in Fed housing subsidy; 0.1%ers get $1,236


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Less tax collected (keeping your own money) is not the same thing as a subsidy (taking someone else’s money).


#3

How does this stuff actually survive?!

The only way all the wealthy could possibly care about this is if there are many, many other types of tax dodge / cheat!

Mind you - $14k a year back buys steak and fuel for the Ferrari!


#4

But it does increase my taxes because I don’t have a mortgage.


#5

Fungible. F-u-n-g-i-b-l-e. Repeat the word a few times. Now look up the meaning.

Tax break = subsidy. It doesn’t matter how you pay less net taxes, you are paying less. You pay less, more has to be collected from other people.

Fungible.


#6

[others’ tax deduction] does increase my taxes

The government increases your taxes. If you don’t want them taking so much from you, join the club in agitating for less spending & smaller government.


#7

It’s odd how those tax breaks end up like the ones described here.


#8

This article is good context for the Housing First school of thought that disproportionately allocates scant Continuum of Care resources to permanent supportive housing development projects for “chronically homeless” people while too often neglecting emergency support services, affordable housing, debt relief and rent control.


#9

#10

Really, we ought to change this. If you are making a million/year, or have a mortgage over a million dollars, you ought to really just deal with your interest payments and property taxes on your own, without a deduction.


#11

If the people who have more money are paying less, then it makes perfect sense that the government should do less for the people who have less money to make up the difference!


#12

Does the next pass involve the richly dressed fellow pointing at a darker-skinned fellow, and, while the other two are distracted looking at the Other, grabbing the tablecloth and the crumbs on it?

Comment on xenophobia for fun and profit aside, that’s pretty much dead-on. Where did you find that?


#13

it makes perfect sense that the government should do less for the people who have less money

Have you ever challenged the presumption that all the things governments do are to the net benefit of those who have less money?


#14

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Not all the things governments do are a net benefit to those with less money. However, since you seem to think a subsidy is defined as “taking someone else’s money”, I really don’t trust your idea of “less spending & smaller government” to be anything that improves the situation for those groups.


#15

Yeah… okay.


#16

So true!

Some other important distinctions:
Sleeping in vs. getting up late.
Spending money vs. paying off your credit card.
Having your cake vs. eating it too.

It’s hard hitting comments like yours that keep us all honest!


#17

… since …

If you like your non sequitur, you can keep it, period.


#18

There’s been no “net gain” to working households from 30 years of deregulating and subsidizing wealthy corporations — just accelerating inequality.

It’s better to democratically regulate and tax large, investment banks, private equity firms, unproductive charitable foundations, large 501©4s and private insurance companies.

Also helping: Rent control, debt relief, speculation tax, private rights of action and criminal investigation of corporate activity that fails to adequately protect the public interest.

Tolerating large piles of privately accumulated capital just puts everyone at risk from the antics of loafing, entitled, xenophobic sociopaths — like the current GOP nominee for POTUS.


#19


#20

Inconceivable!