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.
Again, just because the other 318 million US residents didn't pay me $20 each does not mean I spent $6.36 billion.
Come on... use some rational thinking and common sense. Stop letting the Federal Government play you for a fool.
What doesn't make sense about it? I think anyone who's familiar with numbers can instantly get it.
Say Bob owns you $50. You say to Bob, "Hey, I want to donate to XYZ Charity anyway. Why don't you send $20 to XYZ and just pay me back $30." That $20 you didn't collect is expenditures. Even though you didn't collect it, it's money that you could have collected but decided to use on something else.
Another example is, say you own a house and rented it out to a couple for $1,000 a month. The plumbing get clogged one day and you say to your tenants, "You guys find a plumber to fix it and just deduct the repair cost from next month's rent." The cost turns out to be $200. Next month the tenants pay you $800 for rent. That $200 you didn't collect is expenditures. Those are money you should have collected under normal circumstance but it was used at your directive.
When Feds use tax deductions for charities and other programs, what they are really doing is they want to subsidize those programs but they decide it is more efficient if you do the legwork for them. Say they want to subsidize XYZ, instead of paying money directly to XYZ they just let anyone who contributes to XYZ take a deduction. The money that they didn't collect was spend on XYZ subsidies. That's expenditures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That's laughably absurd.
Again, just because the other 318 million US residents didn't pay me $20 each does not mean I spent $6.36 billion.
Yes, you did spend those money. You told people, "If you pay money to XYZ, you can pay me $20 less." That $20 less is money you indirectly paid to XYZ.
What doesn't make sense about it? I think anyone who's familiar with numbers can instantly get it.
Say Bob owns you $50. You say to Bob, "Hey, I want to donate to XYZ Charity anyway. Why don't you send $20 to XYZ and just pay me back $30." That $20 you didn't collect is expenditures. Even though you didn't collect it, it's money that you could have collected but decided to use on something else.
That's just it... you CAN'T count taxes that aren't owed as a debt.
Just like the other 318 million US residents don't owe me $20 each. Therefore it's patently absurd to say that I spent $3.63 billion because the other 318 million US residents didn't pay me $20 each.
And I hope you understand that a tax deduction is not a dollar for dollar reduction in the taxes one owes. For example, let's take a theoretical effective federal income tax rate of 10% (that's what the middle class pays, on average). A tax deduction of $2,000 reduces one's tax bill by only $200, 10% of that $2,000 deduction.
- The city is allocating $241 millions this fiscal year on homeless service.
- A giant homeless shelter has been set up in Pier 80.
- Other services and more shelters have either been setup or soon to be.
- The city is loaning funds to non-profit programs to purchase housing in danger of evicting poor long-term tenants and keeping them in there - to prevent people from being homeless before it happens.
While I think homelessness is an issue that has been overblown, but we do have to do something about it, and we are.
.
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
It's good to provide housing to people on the street... but nothing is free. So the taxpayers are on the hook for it. For now, I assume SF is OK with it.
What about help in getting these people back to self sustainability? Will the burden of paying for housing for others become too large? This is when regulations that effects business operations and hiring come into play. If it's too expensive for business owners to pay people to work, you are going to have more homeless people.
It's good to provide housing to people on the street... but nothing is free. So the taxpayers are on the hook for it. For now, I assume SF is OK with it.
What about help in getting these people back to self sustainability? Will the burden of paying for housing for others become too large? This is when regulations that effects business operations and hiring come into play. If it's too expensive for business owners to pay people to work, you are going to have more homeless people.
Do you see that as a problem down the road?
??? ??? Is the burden of paying for homeowner tax breaks NOT too large?
It's hilarious to argue over "millions" spent on the homeless while ignoring the elephant in the budget with tens of "billions" for homeowners.
The Fed definition is a scam. It's the way our corrupt elected politicians justify reaching even deeper into taxpayers' pockets so they can spend egregiously to buy votes. It's just their way of saying well, you didn't pay us "this" that so that means we "spent" it. Everyone KNOWS that's a joke.
As I said, that's like me saying that because the rest of the 318 million US residents didn't pay me $20 each, that means I "spent" $6.36 billion. It's ludicrous. /SMH
A tax expenditure is government spending Taxpayer A's money to redistribute to Taxpayer B in the form of a tax break.
So, just raise taxes on the residents to provide more shelters and services.
That will solve the problem!
Except word gets around that you get more stuff and the weather etc. there is nice....and then you get more.
Compassion and Realism often butt heads on this topic.
Most cities operate programs to help the people on the margins that just need some help....while making it as tough as possible on those that cannot realistically be helped and commit crimes etc. These are the ones that can't be in shelters anyway because they won't follow the substance guidelines. Can't just lump all homeless into one neat category.
??? ??? Is the burden of paying for homeowner tax breaks NOT too large?
It's hilarious to argue over "millions" spent on the homeless while ignoring the elephant in the budget with tens of "billions" for homeowners.
1- I am not in favor of any behavioral tax policy - which includes the mortgage deduction.
2- Homeowners pay taxes, and contribute to the economy, and do not burden others to sustain themselves. Tax breaks are not a burden. You do understand the distinction...
My question - is there a point where the burden of sustaining people who are not contributing to society become too great?
1- I am not in favor of any behavioral tax policy - which includes the mortgage deduction.
2- Homeowners pay taxes, and contribute to the economy, and do not burden others to sustain themselves. Tax breaks are not a burden. You do understand the distinction...
My question - is there a point where the burden of sustaining people who are not contributing to society become too great?
Actually, homeowner tax breaks DO burden others to sustain themselves. The average Michigan homeowner enjoys an annual four-figure property tax break paid for by higher rates on rental property, and that is one reason the rent is too damn high.
So, just raise taxes on the residents to provide more shelters and services.
That will solve the problem!
Except word gets around that you get more stuff and the weather etc. there is nice....and then you get more.
Compassion and Realism often butt heads on this topic.
Most cities operate programs to help the people on the margins that just need some help....while making it as tough as possible on those that cannot realistically be helped and commit crimes etc. These are the ones that can't be in shelters anyway because they won't follow the substance guidelines. Can't just lump all homeless into one neat category.
"Build it and they shall come"
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.
