Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Were you not talking about subsidies? The bottom 99% gets HUGE subsidies, according to the definition you posted, so why are Hillary and Bernie claiming exactly the opposite... that higher-income earners aren't paying their fair share when the REALITY is that the top 1% is PAYING for the subsidies the bottom 99% are getting?
And my point is that the Boston economy is booming and more people are coming than we have housing for, pushing the cost of living up and resulting people turning their front yards into condos to meet the demand - 8 feet of snow in a month or not. On a smaller scale, Buffalo and Pittsburgh are on the upswing, too.
Weather doesn't outweigh the economy.
I've heard about Boston and NYC along with DC being high dollar to live in. I'm guessing because those places have a lot of college educated people and "likes attract likes". Tho Austin IS growing like a weed for the same "college people" reasons plus it's still cheaper and MUCH warmer in the winter.
No people keeping their own money is not a subsidy. govt's need to stop deficit spending.
I specifically cited state and local government because they cannot do deficit spending.
Since state and local governments cannot do deficit spending, and since state and local governments do not voluntarily reduce spending, allowing some taxpayers to "keep more of their earned money" typically entails allowing other taxpayers to keep less of their earned money.
i.e. government allows A to keep more of A's own money only by increasing its take of B's money. government is using B's money to transfer to A.
Were you not talking about subsidies? The bottom 99% gets HUGE subsidies, according to the definition you posted, so why are Hillary and Bernie claiming exactly the opposite... that higher-income earners aren't paying their fair share when the REALITY is that the top 1% is PAYING for the subsidies the bottom 99% are getting?
Are Hillary and Bernie STUPID? Or are they LIARS?
The issue is housing subsidies. Particularly housing subsides to those making 150k to 250k a year. I just pointed out that tax deductible mortgage interest (by definition of a subsidy) is a subsidy; ie the US already has a long history of providing housing subsidies to those making significant incomes. Some including you disputed whether or not a tax deduction is a subsidy. My definition it is a subsidy.
For the record, I have no problem with a tax deduction for mortgage interest. I also have no problem with Palo Alto providing a subsidy, depending of course on how they do it. I happen to live in a community where many every day workers are being priced out of the community, including teachers. Firefighters and Police happen to be paid significantly more in my community than teachers. Anecdotally, I have seen many more help wanted signs out side of more businesses in my community. In part this shortage of workers is likely caused by the high cost of housing.
I specifically cited state and local government because they cannot do deficit spending.
Since state and local governments cannot do deficit spending, and since state and local governments do not voluntarily reduce spending, allowing some taxpayers to "keep more of their earned money" typically entails allowing other taxpayers to keep less of their earned money.
i.e. government allows A to keep more of A's own money only by increasing its take of B's money. government is using B's money to transfer to A.
Are you going to whine about Michigan again? I already told you... Michigan gives tax credits for property taxes to both homeowners AND renters.
The issue is housing subsidies. Particularly housing subsides to those making 150k to 250k a year. I just pointed out that tax deductible mortgage interest (by definition of a subsidy) is a subsidy; ie the US already has a long history of providing housing subsidies to those making significant incomes.
If that were actually true, why do we see such a HUGE disparity in effective total federal tax rates? Why are the top 1% paying an effective total federal tax rate of 33.4%, but the effective rate of the top 95-99% takes a HUGE drop to 23.8%?
Quote:
For the record, I have no problem with a tax deduction for mortgage interest. I also have no problem with Palo Alto providing a subsidy, depending of course on how they do it. I happen to live in a community where many every day workers are being priced out of the community, including teachers. Firefighters and Police happen to be paid significantly more in my community than teachers. Anecdotally, I have seen many more help wanted signs out side of more businesses in my community. In part this shortage of workers is likely caused by the high cost of housing.
Commute. Many people who live in large metropolitan areas do so.
Everyone asking inane questions about how public employees will be able to afford to reside in that area are not considering privatizing those services.
What is wrong with a private police force?
The following link gives an example of a Texas town that did this and decreased crime by 61%
If the people can truly afford to live there, they shouldn't have any issues hiring private entities to take control of services that are often funded with public money.
No tax payer shouldn't be subsidizing anyone making over $150K a year. That's absurd.
If that were actually true, why do we see such a HUGE disparity in effective total federal tax rates? Why are the top 1% paying an effective total federal tax rate of 33.4%, but the effective rate of the top 95-99% takes a HUGE drop to 23.8%?
Commute. Many people who live in large metropolitan areas do so.
At the same time, 77 percent of the benefits from the mortgage interest deduction went to homeowners with incomes above $100,000, almost none of whom face severe housing cost burdens. Some 35 percent of the benefits went to homeowners with incomes above $200,000; taxpayers in this income group who claimed the deduction received an average subsidy of about $5,000.
That's not a subsidy. It's a reduction in taxes. There is a huge difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bottom 99% gets HUGE subsidies, according to the definition you posted, so why are Hillary and Bernie claiming exactly the opposite... that higher-income earners aren't paying their fair share when the REALITY is that the top 1% is PAYING for the subsidies the bottom 99% are getting? 
I already told you... Michigan gives tax credits for property taxes to both homeowners AND renters.
