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

[Nonentity]

@fche

Hey, you were the one bringing up the “you didn’t build that” benefits

I was? You read about as well as you argue.

[fche]

oh close enough

[Nonentity]

[Brainspore]

@glenblank

“Subsidizing me” involves putting money in my pocket - NOT neglecting to remove money from my pocket.

Scenario 1:
Person A, B, and C pay an equal amount of taxes, but the government grants Person C a refund of X dollars.

Scenario 2:
Person A and B pay an equal amount of taxes, while Person C pays X dollars less.

Do you really feel there is a meaningful difference between these two scenarios?

[glenblank]

Yes, maybe Cory will correct an error in his post that makes his headline sound way more sensational than the actual facts would warrant.

And maybe unicorns will fly of out of my butt when he does it.

Based on past performance, both seem about equally likely.

[gatto]

@fche

but percentages are the important part.

Why on earth are they important?

for the simple reason that the more money one has, the less money one needs to meet the basics of life.

most of the money for low income folks goes to food and housing ( as cory pointed out, “1 in 3 households spending more than 30% of their income on mortgage or rent payments” ) because of this it is difficult for low income people to improve their situation.

– you can search for links about the lack of social mobility in the us if you need.

at any rate, progressive taxation is meant – in part – to rectify the very real curve of the value of money in people’s lives.

[gatto]

@glenblank

Yes, maybe Cory will correct an error in his post that makes his headline sound way more sensational than the actual facts would warrant.

well, if his point is to draw attention to real issues people face – it seems to work. ( though even i think getting the facts right helps. in this case, i think we can give him the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest error as he skimmed over the article. )

@glenblank

And maybe unicorns will fly of out of my butt when he does it.

if you are disappointed in boingboing, maybe this will help. ( also from cory. )

This Unicorn Changed the Way I Poop - #SquattyPotty

[glenblank]

Actually, I think having hypothetical multiple-scenario angels-on-pinheads debates with people who are determined to use the word ‘subsidy’ to condemn tax exemptions they dislike is rather pointless.

[anon26940528]

@fche

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?

You’re right. Society doesn’t exist.

[glenblank]

@gatto

if you are disappointed in boingboing

I am never disappointed in BoingBoing. They always deliver exactly what I expect from them, and this is no exception.

(I am, however, already on the “Disappointed in BoingBoing” bully-list, apparently because one of the bullies reads disappointment into comments where none exists, so I’m not in need of that particular honor, thanks.)

@gatto

, if his point is to draw attention to real issues people face – it seems to work.

Ah, yes, the “falsehoods, exaggerations, and sensationalism are fine if they’re for a good cause” school of thinking. (-:

Now, personally, I think that when error or exaggeration or ‘truthiness’ is used to sensationalize real issues, it’s detrimental to those causes, because it makes it easy for opponents to discredit and dismiss anyone pushing those issues — and to dismiss or trivialize more accurate reportage, as well

So I think it’s a bad idea, generally.

But that’s just me. It’s not my blog. Cory can do whatever floats his boat, (or his balloon).

I was just observing that correcting errors that make for sensationalist headlines doesn’t seem to be one of those things.

[gatto]

@glenblank

Actually, I think having hypothetical multiple-scenario angels-on-pinheads debates with people who are determined to use the word ‘subsidy’ to condemn tax exemptions they dislike is rather pointless.

so let’s take the word “subsidy” out of it entirely.

reframe the question simply as: should the us forgo taxing wealthy homeowners when so many people have trouble affording – even having – housing?

the nytimes has a 2006 article on the history of the credit, basically: when the federal tax code was created all interest was deductible, this is the part which sticks around till today.

by all appearances, the deduction has no meaningful policy goal, and has no positive effect on the overall economy. ( interesting to note not every country has this deduction, canada for instance. )

so maybe we have two questions:

• is the deduction sound policy? ( tldr: not really, no. )

• would it be worth ending the deduction, and using the surplus money towards improving the situation of low income renters and those without housing? ( tldr; yes: freeing up money spent by low income people on housing so those people can spend more elsewhere would definitely help the american economy. )

edited to add:

I was just observing that correcting errors that make for sensationalist headlines doesn’t seem to be one of those things.

just a note to make sure it doesn’t get lost in the noise. the headline is correct. it’s just the body text @Boundegar pointed out which was incorrect.

[OverTheRiver]

The poor pay a higher percentage of their income on a loaf of bread than a wealthy person. But the loaf costs the same for either of them. How can this be? This is called using statistics in an effort to make wealthy people look bad.

[falcon2001]

Because the rich are also making more money from society, and so are getting more benefit.

If you own a business in a stable part of the world you have a huge number of benefits from that stability, as opposed to a warzone or an economically distraught area. That stability is paid for largely by the infrastructure provided by a healthy nation. Even fiscal stability is a huge thing for business owners as it lets them forecast, which means they can take risks.

[falcon2001]

For what it’s worth, I agree with you. Error, exaggeration and the like have no place in discussion of major world issues and even though I agree with Cory’s basic points, misrepresenting your points is a disservice to your argument.

[stinkinbadgers]

@doctorow

It’s no accident—it’s how the programs are designed. Most low-income families don’t even qualify, because they don’t itemize deductions.

I didn’t think it was particularly a secret that the mortgage interest deduction is mainly a middle/upper middle class entitlement program. And I doubt it’s very effective- I’d wager the number of people who are in a position to buy a house but could only afford it because of that deduction are minuscule. I’d be very happy to see it go… except I don’t want my taxes to go up!. But that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make on principle. It’s not hard to find support for getting rid of it… except that it’s been in effect so long, the effects are baked into every homeowner’s budget, and in a way it’s not terribly fair to say “remember 10 years ago when you bought your house based on being able to afford a certain amount? well, we changed our minds, throw those out and find $1000 to cut from your budget”. That’s why it never goes anywhere even though it keeps coming up from time to time.

[glenblank]

@gatto

so let’s take the word “subsidy” out of it entirely.

But then I would have nothing to say. (-:

My point was that when people use the word ‘subsidy’ in an internet post it’s a fairly reliable indicator that the content is worthless, since the word ‘subsidy’ is constantly used and abused in contentious internet posts and their attached comments to mean so many disparate things (often two or three different and incommensurate things in the same paragraph), selected to make whatever point is on the poster’s agenda.

(Which is usually that somebody-or-other is being ‘unfairly subsidized’, of course. Which is usually bullshit.)

OTOH, the question of what would make for the best and most humane public policy around housing is an interesting and important one, but it’s not one I’m especially interested in discussing in blog comments. (I have much better connections for that in other venues, and it’s a pleasant holiday afternoon.)

I was just here to point out the value of ‘subsidy’ as a time-saving “skip this one” indicator when reading internet blog posts. (-:

[gatto]

@glenblank

OTOH, the question of what would make for the best and most humane public policy around housing is an interesting and important one, but it’s not one I’m especially interested in discussing in blog comments.

but that would be great!!! ( and i mean that. i like the comments here because people manage to have relatively civil discussions. fwiw: i didn’t mean to be as rude as it probably seemed with the unicorn video, you said unicorns out of butts and it sprung to mind. )

@glenblank

Which is usually bullshit

in this case, my two cents would be: the content isn’t bullshit.

the us does in fact have a housing subsidy which primarily benefits relatively well-off folks, and the us does in fact have a housing problem involving less well-off folks.

connecting the two issues – suggesting changing one facet to help fix the other – it makes a lot of sense. and, nobody here has yet to post a reason it doesn’t.

as to the semantics: i think this is important because this is used time and again to confound discussion.

on the one hand, word police suck. people in every case should give the speaker ( or, author ) some credit to try to understand the content underneath the chosen words.

on the other hand, authors should probably try to avoid dog whistles to help foster more meaningful dialog.

it’s true people of all political stripes play with these terms to make it sound better or worse to their base as need be. and, i think it’s this kind of word-play that makes people tune out of politics. ( or blog content :} )

[hmclachlan]

@stinkinbadgers

I_'d be very happy to see it go… except I don’t want my taxes to go up!. But that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make on principle. It’s not hard to find support for getting rid of it… except that it’s been in effect so long, the effects are baked into every homeowner’s budget, and in a way it’s not terribly fair to say "remember 10 years ago when you bought your house based on being able to afford a certain amount? well, we changed our minds,_

I rent, a detached SF house in a ‘nice’ area, so it looks like I own the place. My monthly layout is distinctly larger than it would be if I had a mortgage on a similar dwelling (yes, even counting taxes and insurance). I pay more, but I do not get reimbursed for it by the feds. I live in a low property tax state, and I am materially damaged by the federal mortgage deduction. My federal income taxes – per dollar earned or ROIed – are higher than those of the people around me who are otherwise in the same bracket. This disadvantage has nothing to do with the stinginess of Section 8, or public housing funds – something that seems to have escaped the commentariat. All income levels of non-mortgage holders are subject to an income tax disadvantage on this basis. The mortgage interest deduction is a bad piece of social engineering that should have been done away with years ago.

There are many perfectly acceptable ways to phase out it out. It could be reduced over ~7 years as a percentage of deductible expenses. It could be grandfathered in as is for those who have already purchased a primary dwelling under the existing code. There is no federal mortgage interest deduction in Canada, a nation with a nearly identical distribution of incomes and housing (a large percentage of suburban & rural single family homes & a large middle class). They do not appear to suffer in the slightest from its absence.

The death of this tax break can’t come too soon. Despite the housing crash in 2008, we still have too many people paying too much for housing, taking on massive loans that prop up bubble-esque real estate valuations. The federal tax break is obviously not the main reason for this, but it helps drive over-pricing of real estate.

It’s a piece of crap all on it’s own, irrespective of what it indicates about social priorities.

[gatto]

@stinkinbadgers

That’s why it never goes anywhere even though it keeps coming up from time to time.

i’ve got to quote form that 2006 nytimes article i found:

And so, last November, [ president bush’s ] panel… proposed a simplified tax code with fewer deductions… the U.S. should scrap the mortgage-interest deduction and replace it with a smaller tax credit, available to every homeowner.

The maximum break would be several thousand dollars a year, and only principal residences – not ski condos – would qualify.

Donald Trump, who knows everything, said that eliminating the deduction would result in “a total catastrophe” for the U.S. economy. “It will lead to a major recession, if not a depression.”

[fche]

You’ve bought into the fiction that society == government.