Completely Irresponsible

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

I just called a local apartment complex for their rates. A two-bedroom runs $1,150/month. If the average Dunwoody homeowner pays $4,500 in property taxes and deducts the average $12,000 mortgage interest deduction, he will get a tax benefit of around $4,800 (30% bracket), which equals $400/month. Adding the $400 to the $1,150 rent payment for a total mortgage payment of $1,550 means you can buy a pretty good sized house vs. renting a two-bedroom apartment. The homeowner builds wealth and will have his living expenses drastically reduced upon retirement. The renter will have $400 to invest initially, but that will decrease as his rent goes up. He will continue to pay high rent until he takes the big dirt nap, or he has to move in with his in-laws. Even if he earns 6% on his stocks, the owner's house will probably be worth much more than the portfolio in 30 years.

 

You see them both as subsidies, but I see the interest deduction as letting me keep money I earned. The EIC is taking money other people earned and giving it to someone who didn't - a big difference. BTW, the government is encouraging single parenthood - why can't it also encourage marriage?

[packsaddle]

Beavah, if you had grown up when I did in the South, you would recognize that 'social stability' is NOT a phrase that was used by 'liberals'.

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

I'll be glad to give up my subsidies, if everyone else will, as well. Keep Social Security and Medicare, if you want, but sure, let's do away with all the others. What do you say? Deal?

[scoutingagain]

1. The mortgage interest deduction is so entrenched I doubt it would be eliminated completely. At best it might be limited in some way.

 

2. I doubt even further congress will pass legislation that say BAs of Dunwoody, GA will not be allowed to take his mortgage interest deduction but everyone else can. Such a law would have limited effect on deficit reduction. Any changes would likely apply to a much broader population, and yes I'm ready to give up that deduction if it improves the likelyhood of future economic stability for my kids.

 

3. My preference would be to go to a flat tax on all income, no deductions, for anyone for anything. The down side to that is it would increase the unemployment rate among lobbyists, accountants and tax lawyers as well as IRS staff. Consequently our bought and paid for congress folks that legislate based on the needs and wants of all those special interests will never adopt a flat tax.

 

SA

 

 

 

[Beavah]

I'll be glad to give up my subsidies, if everyone else will, as well. Keep Social Security and Medicare, if you want, but sure, let's do away with all the others. What do you say? Deal?

 

Yah, sure! But don't know why yeh want to exempt SS and Medicare. Us old folks have had plenty of time to save for retirement, why should we be subsidized? Makes no sense. If we're goin' to provide health care at all, it should be to kids and workers. That at least is an investment, because they're still contributing to economic growth.

 

To my mind, da government role should be limited and small, to those things that are best done collectively. Defense, so long as it doesn't get too big in peacetime so that it's driving the economy and can control da populace (think Egypt). Infrastructure. Emergency and disaster response. Policing and regulation. That sort of stuff. Happy to pay for that with as much tax as it requires. Consider it my civic duty in fact. Don't mind public investment at da basic level either. Basic research, education (as vouchers for all), exploration, so long as the work product enters the public domain for all to use. No good if it's public risk and investment for private gain.

 

Only place I think there's room for debate is with how we choose to spread risk through insurance, whether private or public. We all have risk of catastrophic events, eh? Gettin' cancer, losin' control of our car, having our house burn down, the 500 year flood, loss of work through no fault of our own, etc. Those risks can be so severe that they could leave us destitute and reliant on public charity. And da rule should always be no public risk for private gain, eh? It's not fair to make da rest of us pay for your risk taking. Especially in health areas where your not vaccinating your kid to save a few bucks can put others at risk.

 

Sometimes we view da risk as common, and just tax everybody to distribute da risk. Like defense and disaster response and fire and police protection. Sometimes da risk is personal and we figure the group that has the risk should distribute it by private insurance. Like owning a boat. In between those two there's room for debate and experimentation and collecting evidence on what works best for protecting the public. Maybe auto insurance should be required for anyone who owns a car, or should be provided by da state and taxed as part of registration fees. Is da societal cost for uninsured motorists or MVA litigation too high? Is an individual choice to save a few bucks on insurance resulting in those dollars being stolen from others who are injured?

 

Those are da questions we are facing now, and they're good questions that merit careful thought and discussion.

 

But yah, definitely eliminate all the market-distorting subsidies and da public risk for private gain stuff like Fannie and Freddie.

 

B

[BrentAllen]

OK, so no more Section 8 housing, no more WIC, AFDC - just do away with welfare offices. Do away with public housing. Do away with Food Stamps, free school lunch. My taxes will be much lower without all that than they are now, even with my mortgage interest deduction. That's an interesting scenario you propose.

[scoutingagain]

"My taxes will be much lower without all that than they are now, "

 

Not if you really want a balanced budget.

 

SA

[Beavah]

Nah, your taxes won't be any lower, eh? Yeh can cut all those programs and still not come anywhere near fixing the deficit. Now, if yeh are willing to axe defense, veterans benefits, social security and Medicare, that's a different story!

 

Of course, I expect you'll find that cuttin' all the social support programs increases expenses for police, fire, prisons and the like, as well as da risks to private persons and businesses. Just look at da riots in Britain. So yeh have to be thoughtful about what falls under the "investment" and "distributing risk" categories, eh? Proper nutrition for kids might fall under the investment category, because that yields economic growth and reduced long term health costs. Subsistence housing might fall under distributing risk, as there's some risk of any of us becoming homeless. But one need only look at da completely corrupt and dysfunctional governments in many poor urban areas to recognize that we do the same sort of damage with aid here in da U.S. that we do with foreign aid in places like Somalia.

 

B

[BrentAllen]

Wait, you said those were all subsidies - you know, my interest deduction, and the EIC. Your words - they are all subsidies. So I said let's get rid of all subsidies and you said, "Yah, sure!" It didn't take long for you to start backpeddling.

 

As for Britain, they are looking at their moral decline as the result of decades of liberal policies. I wonder if this is what B-P saw when he decided to start Scouting.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8702412/Mother-of-13-year-old-who-smashed-up-shop-blames-government.html

 

Watch that video. "She is on benefits, does not live with the boy's father and has 10 other children, the court heard."

Have more kids, get a bigger check, and a bigger council house! (paid by the taxpayers)

 

Or this story:

Modelling in her underwear at 12 and pregnant at 15... and schoolgirl's proud mother can't wait for a new council house

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026575/Soya-Keaveney-Modelling-underwear-12-pregnant-15.html

 

'It was a shock at first but now I'm really excited,' Soya, who is 16-weeks pregnant, told The Sun.

 

'I'm the first of my friends to have a baby - but I don't think I've grown up too fast.'

 

And her unemployed mother, Janis, 48, is delighted at the prospect that the new addition will mean a larger council home for the family including her other children Coco, Ritzy, Tarot and Jake.

She hopes that the council will upgrade them from a three-bedroom house to a five-bedroom home.

She said: 'I'm sure she'll make a wonderful mum and will teach her children discipline like I have.'

 

Yep, subsidies do encourage certain behavior. We are doing the same thing hear in the USA. How many kids are born out of wedlock? 41%! How many young single moms raising their kids? They don't have marketable skills or education to get a decent job, so they go on welfare. We are seeing an entire generation growing that will be counting on our tax dollars for their food, housing, clothing - everything. How will we ever get our budget under control with these types of costs continuing to multiply?

[BadenP]

Brent

 

In your ongoing debate with Beavah I think you are missing the point entirely.

 

It is not "liberal politics" causing the moral decline in society it is the political system as a whole which has broken down and has been broken since at least the 1960's. Our political election process and political machine in DC has become so corrupted by outside special interests that NOTHING can or does get done anymore. Before we as a country can do anything about the debt crisis or take any broadbrush strokes to cut any program we need to first fix our own corrupted political process. It is like being in a sinking boat in shark infested waters, you can keep shooting at the sharks but eventually your boat will sink and you will be totally at the sharks mercy, that is the situation in DC today.

[Beavah]

Yah, BA, I agree with yeh. Can the subsidies. Like I said, it's hard to distinguish between the destruction caused by ill-considered foreign aid in Somalia and da destruction caused by ill-considered welfare in da U.S. There's a reason why some of our big city mayors look a lot like 3rd world presidents in terms of cronyism and corruption.

 

Rethink government, too. Limit it to da sorts of things I'm talkin' about. I'm all for that. Debate where the edges lie. Mortgage interest is out, roads and bridges are in, but now is basic health care for children and workers an infrastructure cost, because everyone needs it and benefits from it, and it reduces the burden on business and commerce? Maybe. Put that way, it sounds a lot like a road. But perhaps only basic care, eh? I don't necessarily agree with that, but I'm open to da argument. We can debate these things responsibly as citizens thinkin' about what's best for the nation.

 

But like BadenP says, not if da point is "I want to get mine!". My subsidy, my special interest (but don't make me pay!), otherwise I'm goin' to throw the whole nation into default and wreck everything. That's just irresponsible and petty.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Gunny2862]

And let's stop flying the Veterans benefits canard.

While I grant that it is an expense, a large portion of it (Retiree pay and benefits, I.E. retiree health care) are contractual obligations for people who fulfilled their obligations in a contract.

Disclosure, I am a"Gray area" retired Reservists, I do not draw any of those benefits yet but plan to and consider them an Government obligation to my contracted service, not an "entitlement" as we are considering the handouts to people who haven't done anything to earn their entitlement.

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Shucks Baden P, the tea party seems like a case study of how a minority in one house of Congress can call the tune for the country.

 

Quite a lot is being done from what I see.

[Beavah]

Yah, Gunny, I agree veterans benefits are an obligation we should honor.

 

That doesn't mean they're an obligation we have to honor, eh? Remember, da tea partiers in congress were willing to default on all of our "contractual obligations", no matter who they hurt. "Starve the beast" means all of the entitlement programs are goin' to get hammered, including veterans benefits, which is our 4th biggest expense after Social Security, Medicare, and defense. Yeh remember what VA hospitals were like back in the day, eh? Or maybe you're younger than that, but I remember. Some of da most decrepit, inept, and awful of federal "services.". And that was when taxes were higher than they are now.

 

It's like any contracted pension or retirement benefit, eh? There's no guarantee, if the company goes bankrupt. Just talk to da workers who put in 30 years with GM, the biggest car company in the world, and saw their pensions decimated in bankruptcy.

 

Yah, sure, yeh trusted in da faith and credit of the United States. But as we saw just recently, a controlling portion of da current majority in the House are willing to break that faith just for politics. I find it reprehensible, and can't fathom how they call themselves Christians and conservatives. But it is what it is, eh? And no sooner had they done it than they promised to behave da same way in two years. Taxes, after all, are naught but armed robbery, and yeh should appeal to private charity rather than "inefficient" public service programs.

 

Beavah

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

You are so dramatic! Need I remind you - again - that more DEMOCRATS voted against raising the debt ceiling than did Republicans? Also, I don't remember you getting so upset when Obama was in favor of default back when he was a Senator.