Which part? The response to your question about something I didn’t say, or my bringing up something you actually did say?
That you made with significant assistance from taxpayer-funded infrastructure and programs. You’re type always loves to leave that out.
with significant assistance from taxpayer-funded infrastructure and programs
Yeah, “you didn’t build that” makes an appearance, as it always must with y’all. Tell me, just how much tax do you think a normal taxpayer would need to pay, in order pay for the share of all those “infrastructure and programs” they’re actually using? Are you of the opinion that a significant fraction of one’s tax payment goes toward the maintenance of directly self-benefiting infrastructure?
It sure makes it easier when you can ignore things like the much larger amount of infrastructure that indirectly benefits oneself, doesn’t it.
Is this how confirmation bias works?
The US spends $51B on all rent subsidies
while the rental subsidy delivers $0.08/month per household to the nation’s low-income renters
Does this imply there are 53 billion low-income American households? Never mind the math, it feels right.
If you need to rely on indirect benefits to make your numbers, you’re evading. Anything can be “indirect”. We’re supposed to take your word that it’s “assistance from taxpayer-funded infrastructure and programs” we’re paying for instead of non-assistance.
Yep, here we go. Anything that doesn’t directly assist you, personally, doesn’t do anything at all for you and can’t be called assistance, huh? You’re the one evading.
When you must drag it away from tangible connection to my life, don’t expect me to be grateful for that indirect “assistance” that has very direct costs indeed.
Oh, don’t worry. There’s no way I’d expect you to be grateful for all the things that indirectly make your life better on a daily basis.
Why argue or be confused?
I think we can all agree that them as has gets.
And since you failed so hard in quantifying said “you didn’t build that” benefits, let’s not even get started on all the governmental things that make one’s life worse on a daily basis (isn’t there a bouncy bouncy forum that lists those sometimes?). That kind of makes the overall net benefit a wee speculative.
Someone would have to agree to attempt to do so under your selfish, insignificant definition of a “benefit” before you can declare that they have failed. You, however, have “failed so hard” in convincing me that your definition of “assistance” has merit.
This article has a pretty idiotic slant on so-called ‘inequality’.
The tax rate is higher on people with higher income. Ordinary income earners pay up to 40% marginal Federal (not including state) tax rate on their income. This is called “progressive” taxation. So If someone is getting a tax deduction on mortgage interest, they are still likely paying a higher tax rate on their income than a low income person, and this tax deduction reduces that higher tax rate a little, but it doesn’t make it a lower tax rate than the low income person. Sure if you look at the absolute amount of money the tax deduction is worth, it’s more for the rich person, but they’re paying a lot more tax in absolute dollars than the poor person.
at least this should be the case, but this is not true for all cases
I don’t know if this happens rarely or often, but imo even one example is too many
His argument is in absolute values, not in percentages, so if you argue that then yeah, the 1% absolutely contribute more per person, but percentages are the important part.
Personally (as someone in a household with more than 100k a year in income), I feel that those with more money are morally and ethically obliged to pay more than those without. Doesn’t make that some sort of universal truth, but it’s my view on the situation.
but percentages are the important part.
Why on earth are they important? Do you buy things at the store by prices set by percentage-of-your-income?
Yet another story illustrating the idea that any internet post using the word ‘subsidy’ is worth ignoring.
'Not taxing someone as much you could" is not a subsidy.
Clue for the clueless:
“Subsidizing me” involves putting money in my pocket - NOT neglecting to remove money from my pocket.
If anyone tells you that a tax break — available to anyone who fulfills its conditions, like the mortgage-interest deduction, f’rex — is a “subsidy”, it means they’re probably trying to sell you something.
And what they’re selling is likely bullshit.
Hey, you were the one bringing up the “you didn’t build that” benefits we supposedly owe an indefinably indefinite amount of taxes for. If you don’t even have a measurable notion of “assistance”, why even bring it up? Is your guilt for being born into a civilized country assuaged when berating others for being “selfish”?
yeah, the linked nation article actually says:
On average, low-income households get about 8 cents per month from these two [ the mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction ] homeownership tax programs.
looks like cory confused the rental and the ownership subsidy… none of which is to say the inversion of low income subsidies and high income subsidies is in question.
hopefully he can correct the wording and numbers in his summary.