Current Events > good article about upper middle class entitlement in 'murica

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-pretending-youre-not-rich.html

The upper middle class is also doing lots right, not least when it comes to creating a stable family environment and being engaged parents. These are behaviors we want to spread, not stop. Nobody should feel bad for working hard to raise their kids well.

Things turn ugly, however, when the upper middle class starts to rig markets in its own favor, to the detriment of others. Take housing, perhaps the most significant example. Exclusionary zoning practices allow the upper middle class to live in enclaves. Gated communities, in effect, even if the gates are not visible. Since schools typically draw from their surrounding area, the physical separation of upper-middle-class neighborhoods is replicated in the classroom. Good schools make the area more desirable, further inflating the value of our houses. The federal tax system gives us a handout, through the mortgage-interest deduction, to help us purchase these pricey homes. For the upper middle classes, regardless of their professed political preferences, zoning, wealth, tax deductions and educational opportunity reinforce one another in a virtuous cycle.

It takes a brave politician to question the privileges enjoyed by the upper middle class. Recently, there have been failed attempts to make zoning laws more inclusive in supposedly liberal cities like Seattle and states like California and Massachusetts. The handout on mortgage interest appears to be an indestructible deduction (unlike in Britain, where the equivalent tax break was phased out under both Conservative and Labour governments by 2000).

Or look at 529 college savings plans, another boondoggle. These are tax-exempt vehicles for putting money aside for educational expenses. Thanks to legislation signed by George W. Bush in 2001, any capital gains in these plans are free of all federal taxes. Most states also allow savings up to a certain level to be deducted from state income tax. Almost all the benefits of 529 plans go to upper-middle-class families. But when President Obama proposed to end the federal tax break in 2015, uproar ensued, and not just from Republicans. Liberal democrats representing affluent districts killed the idea stone dead.

Progressive policies, whether on zoning or school admissions or tax reform, all too often run into the wall of upper-middle-class opposition. Self-interest is natural enough. But the people who make up the American upper middle class don’t just want to keep their advantages; armed with their faith in a classless, meritocratic society, they think they deserve them. The strong whiff of entitlement coming from the top 20 percent has not been lost on everyone else.
---

We're sorry, we are not able to log you in

In order to access our website, your browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com. More information on cookie settings »

Strange that electric cars get no mention. That's a quite obnoxious upper-middle-class subsidy. Let's give away free money to help buy something only the fairly-well-off can still afford afterwords anyway.
(yes, i [temporarily] enabled cookies)

Balrog0 posted...

Recently, there have been failed attempts to make zoning laws more inclusive in supposedly liberal cities like Seattle and states like California and Massachusetts.

If someone can figure how to do so without mandating set-asides, go for it.

eat the rich @Flexible_Bullet
---

What a bizarre position you've adopted as of late, dude. Specifically the entire angle against the mortgage interest deduction. It's a trivial deduction, not sure why you and those articles you have been sharing are really treating it as a big deal. Holy fuck that's strange.

And what would you have the upper middle class do? Not live in areas they like? Not invest in their own communities by building schools? Would you force them to live in shady and violent parts of town? Should there be a law that requires everyone making over $100,000 a year to live next to at least one person who is making $20,000 a year?

Most of the top 20% has earned its position, and a lot of the middle class is shrinking into the upper middle class. There's no reason for you to parrot these talking points over and over, unless you're trying to lead to a point where you start asking that "changes" be made. So what changes are fair and moral?

AlephZero posted...

eat the rich @Flexible_Bullet

Being upper middle class is not rich. Those people still have mortgages, car loans, personal debt, 9 to 5 jobs, etc.

Seems like a good time to point out that school integration failed in cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc. because upper middle class whites were bitterly opposed to it.
And, speaking of Detroit, one reason for its struggles is that it hasn't been allowed to annex neighboring municipalities. Most of which just so happen to be enclaves populated primarily by upper class and rich whites.

QuantumScript posted...

It's a trivial deduction

fwiw vs the standard deduction it reduced my 2016 tax bill by around $5,000 since i was able to roll in state tax also
---

QuantumScript posted...

What a bizarre position you've adopted as of late, dude. Specifically the entire angle against the mortgage interest deduction. It's a trivial deduction, not sure why you and those articles you have been sharing are really treating it as a big deal. Holy fuck that's strange.

he's probably bringing it up because it is one of the more obvious regressive tax breaks.
---

Why are people mad that rich people don't want to bring poor people who typically have a lot of baggage into their neighborhood or local schools? As someone who has lived lower-middle class my whole life even I realize that people in my situation tend to have a lot of:

Alcoholics, Domestic Violence, Drug Addiction, And Broken Families--more so than our richer counterparts. If you were well off and kept a neat yard, would you want someone to live near you that has a yard littered with kids toys or trash?
---

lmao it's so easy to shit on the upper middle class and the upper (wealthy, but not uber-rich) class.

You want to hear about rigging? Crying wolf about a fake STEM shortage to oversupply the labor market. Bringing super-cheap labor from overseas to undercut wages . Lobbying to change laws as its suits them (e.g. so toxic pesticides can be used, public health be damned), stupid ass monopolistic practices, and shit like what airlines can get away with ("oh hai! I will sell u a ticket, then beat the fuck out of you while you're sitting on your assigned seat, drag you off the plane and not offer an apologies or refunds unless public outrage forces me to"), that's far worse.

Billionaires rig things in much, much worse ways, but hey, let's bully the upper-middle class and wealthier individuals, they're the perfect escape goats.
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Seems like a good time to point out that school integration failed in cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc. because upper middle class whites were bitterly opposed to it.
And, speaking of Detroit, one reason for its struggles is that it hasn't been allowed to annex neighboring municipalities. Most of which just so happen to be enclaves populated primarily by upper class and rich whites.

that's more racial than something else
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

And, speaking of Detroit, one reason for its struggles is that it hasn't been allowed to annex neighboring municipalities.

Annexation generally requires permission from the annexed.
This isn't the 1920's anymore, when most of the land surrounding Detroit was unincorporated and populated by cattle, or pop-up worker villages that wanted a bus ride to work.

http://www.drawingdetroit.com/detroit-annexation-1806-1926/

Perascamin posted...

Why are people mad that rich people don't want to bring poor people who typically have a lot of baggage into their neighborhood or local schools? As someone who has lived lower-middle class my whole life even I realize that people in my situation tend to have a lot of:

Alcoholics, Domestic Violence, Drug Addiction, And Broken Families--more so than our richer counterparts. If you were well off and kept a neat yard, would you want someone to live near you that has a yard littered with kids toys or trash?

sucking off the rich won't make them like you any more, have some respect for yourself goodness.
---

Perascamin posted...

Why are people mad that rich people don't want to bring poor people who typically have a lot of baggage into their neighborhood or local schools? As someone who has lived lower-middle class my whole life even I realize that people in my situation tend to have a lot of:

Alcoholics, Domestic Violence, Drug Addiction, And Broken Families--more so than our richer counterparts. If you were well off and kept a neat yard, would you want someone to live near you that has a yard littered with kids toys or trash?

Yeah, I went to a Chicago Public School growing up and it was full of violence and even drugs. Pretty shitty place. No surprise that better off people aren't going to want to "integrate" or whatever bullshit feel-good word the left wants to use now. Who in their right mind would send one of their kids to a shitty school like that when they can send them somewhere better?

KILBOTz posted...

QuantumScript posted...

What a bizarre position you've adopted as of late, dude. Specifically the entire angle against the mortgage interest deduction. It's a trivial deduction, not sure why you and those articles you have been sharing are really treating it as a big deal. Holy fuck that's strange.

he's probably bringing it up because it is one of the more obvious regressive tax breaks.

It is in the country's best interests to keep it, because it helps prop up the housing market which drives the economy.

QuantumScript posted...

the housing market which drives the economy.

i dont know that this is really true

what we saw in 2008 is that every market is interconnected and a severe shock to one is a severe shock to all
---

Darkman124 posted...

QuantumScript posted...

the housing market which drives the economy.

i dont know that this is really true

what we saw in 2008 is that every market is interconnected and a severe shock to one is a severe shock to all

but i think a gradual scaleback to it would prevent a crash in other markets even as housing deflates

What we saw in 2008 is that when the housing market grinds to a halt, a shit ton of people lose work and lose their income. That's why it's a severe shock to all the areas of the economy. When enough people are unemployed or bleeding their savings and going through foreclosure, everything else suffers because less people are spending money elsewhere.

QuantumScript posted...

What a bizarre position you've adopted as of late, dude. Specifically the entire angle against the mortgage interest deduction. It's a trivial deduction, not sure why you and those articles you have been sharing are really treating it as a big deal. Holy fuck that's strange.

And what would you have the upper middle class do? Not live in areas they like? Not invest in their own communities by building schools? Would you force them to live in shady and violent parts of town? Should there be a law that requires everyone making over $100,000 a year to live next to at least one person who is making $20,000 a year?

Most of the top 20% has earned its position, and a lot of the middle class is shrinking into the upper middle class. There's no reason for you to parrot these talking points over and over, unless you're trying to lead to a point where you start asking that "changes" be made. So what changes are fair and moral?

you are exactly who I thought of when I read this article and decided to post it here, and you did not fail to deliver at all haha

The mortgage interest deduction is one of our most costly subsidies, roughly $70 billion a year, not trivial at all. On top of that, the rich get to deduct property taxes generally, making the cost to the gubmint for general housing assistance more like $130 billion yearly. This all mainly helps the wealthy.

I would say that ending the mortgage interest deduction, or increasing the amount we spend on helping low-income households to at least match what we do to help those who are better off. We currently only spend maybe $50 billion on housing assistance for low-income households. And that includes stuff like LIHTC which actually help developers as much as poor people.

I wouldn't force rich people to live close to poor people or anything like that. I would just liberalize zoning so that it was less exclusive. Many aspects of our zoning codes are grandfathered in from explicitly racist times (e.g. redlining) but even if they weren't there are absurd FAR, setback, minimum lot sizes and parking requirements that do not benefit public health or safety and are simply there to increase the costs of purchasing a home because of that previously mentioned racist legacy, or because these people want to prop up home prices because they have their wealth tied up in it, or both

For instance an easy first step would be to make accessory dwelling units permissible every where, as a byright development. Why do you think the government should be able to tell me I can't build a mother in law suite, proudclad?
---

QuantumScript posted...

What we saw in 2008 is that when the housing market grinds to a halt, a s*** ton of people lose work and lose their income. That's why it's a severe shock to all the areas of the economy. When enough people are unemployed or bleeding their savings and going through foreclosure, everything else suffers because less people are spending money elsewhere.

that is an oversimplification that ignores all the 'why' of what happened.

when your mortgage system is built around selling junk bonds as investment-grade bonds, you cripple every institutional investor out there when you take down the junk bonds.

we don't do that anymore.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

If someone can figure how to do so without mandating set-asides, go for it.

I think set asides are bad, but I would agree to some to liberalize zoning. If the set aside requirements are small they're shown to simply not do anything at all really, which I'm okay with if we can pass something good along side it

ROD posted...

lmao it's so easy to shit on the upper middle class and the upper (wealthy, but not uber-rich) class.

You want to hear about rigging? Crying wolf about a fake STEM shortage to oversupply the labor market. Bringing super-cheap labor from overseas to undercut wages . Lobbying to change laws as its suits them (e.g. so toxic pesticides can be used, public health be damned), stupid ass monopolistic practices, and shit like what airlines can get away with ("oh hai! I will sell u a ticket, then beat the fuck out of you while you're sitting on your assigned seat, drag you off the plane and not offer an apologies or refunds unless public outrage forces me to"), that's far worse.

Billionaires rig things in much, much worse ways, but hey, let's bully the upper-middle class and wealthier individuals, they're the perfect escape goats.

Plenty of people are already mad at billionares though
---

Darkman124 posted...

that is an oversimplification that ignores all the 'why' of what happened.

if anything it proves that subsidizing something creates an oversupply of a good that will, sooner or later, be crunched by a dearth of demand

that's what ron paul taught me anyway
---

Balrog0 posted...

The mortgage interest deduction is one of our most costly subsidies, roughly $70 billion a year, not trivial at all. On top of that, the rich get to deduct property taxes generally, making the cost to the gubmint for general housing assistance more like $130 billion yearly. This all mainly helps the wealthy.

And if those things didn't exist, how many of them would downsize their homes to avoid paying massive property taxes? Property taxes are already insanely high. The cost of home ownership is also high. The deductions are a little icing on the cake to help incentivize people to do it. That's why the incentives exist in the first place. And anyone can benefit from deducting those things.

Balrog0 posted...

increasing the amount we spend on helping low-income households to at least match what we do to help those who are better off.

We've been increasing spending on low-income households for decades. It doesn't always work. You need some Milton Friedman in your life.

Balrog0 posted...

I wouldn't force rich people to live close to poor people or anything like that. I would just liberalize zoning so that it was less exclusive.

You know what's really fucking hilarious? How you aren't realizing that YOUR views are what is causing poor people to not have access to rich people areas. Guess what? High property taxes makes it impossible for some people to live in some areas. If you don't allow mortgage and property tax deductions, home owners will have to pay the full brunt of the cost of home ownership. It'd make it a much more privileged position, which means that the lower and middle class will have a harder time getting into better areas. Because Darkman can afford more property tax. You cannot.

It's mind boggling that you don't realize this, and that you're instead parroting bullshit you read online.

Balrog0 posted...

minimum lot sizes and parking requirements that do not benefit public health or safety and are simply there to increase the costs of purchasing a home because of that previously mentioned racist legacy, or because these people want to prop up home prices because they have their wealth tied up in it, or both

Or the more realistic option that you refused to acknowledge because you'd rather parrot feel-good social justice bullshit: Minimum lot sizes ensure that the areas that have them won't be as congested and full of traffic and violence as the areas that don't have them. The intrinsic beauty of those areas will also be higher, due to larger living spaces and parks and recreational areas. Pretty fucking simple.

Balrog0 posted...

For instance an easy first step would be to make accessory dwelling units permissible every where, as a byright development. Why do you think the government should be able to tell me I can't build a mother in law suite, proudclad?

Tell your mother in law to stop meddling in your fucking business. She can live on her own.

But in all seriousness, that's a problem you need to take up with your city or town hall. That has nothing to do with anything.

Balrog0 posted...

if anything it proves that subsidizing something creates an oversupply of a good that will, sooner or later, be crunched by a dearth of demand

that is also an oversimplification and you know it

i will say that the general principle does hold to some extent, and it worries me considering the amount of quantitative easing that has been used as the cure to that problem.
---

Darkman124 posted...

QuantumScript posted...

What we saw in 2008 is that when the housing market grinds to a halt, a s*** ton of people lose work and lose their income. That's why it's a severe shock to all the areas of the economy. When enough people are unemployed or bleeding their savings and going through foreclosure, everything else suffers because less people are spending money elsewhere.

that is an oversimplification that ignores all the 'why' of what happened.

when your mortgage system is built around selling junk bonds as investment-grade bonds, you cripple every institutional investor out there when you take down the junk bonds.

we don't do that anymore.

It happened because of, not even fucking kidding, leftist policies - specifically ones centered around "helping" people to get into a home. Home ownership became so hyped up and everyone had access to easy money regardless of bank reserves or stable income. This became a bubble and once it started popping, it popped hard.

The housing market can still crash if unreliable people are given massive loans under the pretense of "wanting to help the poor" like how the left is bound to think. Notice how leftist policies that are supposed to "help the poor" end up just hurting everyone especially the poor?

Balrog0 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

that is an oversimplification that ignores all the 'why' of what happened.

if anything it proves that subsidizing something creates an oversupply of a good that will, sooner or later, be crunched by a dearth of demand

that's what ron paul taught me anyway

Tax deductions are not subsidies. They are the government meddling less in your business and taking less of the fruit of your labor.

Balrog0 posted...

I would agree to some to liberalize zoning

What does that even mean?
Chickens in the back yard?

QuantumScript posted...

Tax deductions are not subsidies. They are the government meddling less in your business and taking less of the fruit of your labor.

"Do what I want, and I'll bludgeon you slightly less!"

QuantumScript posted...

It happened because of, not even f***ing kidding, leftist policies - specifically ones centered around "helping" people to get into a home. Home ownership became so hyped up and everyone had access to easy money regardless of bank reserves or stable income. This became a bubble and once it started popping, it popped hard.

The housing market can still crash if unreliable people are given massive loans under the pretense of "wanting to help the poor" like how the left is bound to think. Notice how leftist policies that are supposed to "help the poor" end up just hurting everyone especially the poor?

you are very poorly versed on this subject

that was one of the, not the only, cause of the problem. the kinds of mortgages available to those buyers through such programs were extremely undesirable. the marketing process used to sell them to these people was dishonest and questionable at best and predatory at worst.

equally significant was the removal of barriers between commercial banks (who can give loans by selling them packaged as MBS) and investment banks (who can take out leveraged positions against those very same MBS once they've been sold)

equally significant was the utter failure of credit rating agencies to properly rate junk bonds, instead rating them as AAA investment grade, allowing the buyers of the MBS market--pension funds, mostly--to be misled.
---

QuantumScript posted...

And anyone can benefit from deducting those things.

http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/4-4-13hous-f1.jpg

QuantumScript posted...

We've been increasing spending on low-income households for decades. It doesn't always work. You need some Milton Friedman in your life.

No, we haven't.

Do you think Milton Friedman would support subsidizing the wealthy but not the poor? I think you haven't read him.

QuantumScript posted...

You know what's really fucking hilarious? How you aren't realizing that YOUR views are what is causing poor people to not have access to rich people areas. Guess what? High property taxes makes it impossible for some people to live in some areas. If you don't allow mortgage and property tax deductions, home owners will have to pay the full brunt of the cost of home ownership. It'd make it a much more privileged position, which means that the lower and middle class will have a harder time getting into better areas. Because Darkman can afford more property tax. You cannot.

It's mind boggling that you don't realize this, and that you're instead parroting bullshit you read online.

I've actually studied this topic academically and professionally, broheim. You're only focusing on one end of the solutions, and you honestly have no idea what you're talking about next.

QuantumScript posted...

Or the more realistic option that you refused to acknowledge because you'd rather parrot feel-good social justice bullshit: Minimum lot sizes ensure that the areas that have them won't be as congested and full of traffic and violence as the areas that don't have them. The intrinsic beauty of those areas will also be higher, due to larger living spaces and parks and recreational areas. Pretty fucking simple.

I don't understand why my genuinely held opinion that is backed up by facts makes you so angry. There's no connection between minimum lot sizes and safety. Parking requirements actually subsidize car ownership and increase development costs which are then passed onto the consumer. I don't think the government should be in the business of regulating "intrinsic beauty," do you? Maybe you need Friedman in your life?

QuantumScript posted...

Tell your mother in law to stop meddling in your fucking business. She can live on her own.

But in all seriousness, that's a problem you need to take up with your city or town hall. That has nothing to do with anything.

wtf are you talking about, those things are literally part of the zoning code. its just as relevant as the rest of the zoning stuff you were happy to defend...
---

Darkman124 posted...

QuantumScript posted...

It happened because of, not even f***ing kidding, leftist policies - specifically ones centered around "helping" people to get into a home. Home ownership became so hyped up and everyone had access to easy money regardless of bank reserves or stable income. This became a bubble and once it started popping, it popped hard.

The housing market can still crash if unreliable people are given massive loans under the pretense of "wanting to help the poor" like how the left is bound to think. Notice how leftist policies that are supposed to "help the poor" end up just hurting everyone especially the poor?

you are very poorly versed on this subject

that was one of the, not the only, cause of the problem. the kinds of mortgages available to those buyers through such programs were extremely undesirable. the marketing process used to sell them to these people was dishonest and questionable at best and predatory at worst.

equally significant was the removal of barriers between commercial banks (who can give loans by selling them packaged as MBS) and investment banks (who can take out leveraged positions against those very same MBS once they've been sold)

equally significant was the utter failure of credit rating agencies to properly rate junk bonds, instead rating them as AAA investment grade, allowing the buyers of the MBS market--pension funds, mostly--to be misled.

> says i'm poorly versed

> literally agrees with me that there was too much easy access to money

Yeah, the mortgage conditions were really shitty and predatory. No one disputed that. But at the end of the day, it was caused by access to easy money without care to lend only to people who have a good chance of paying it back on time. Take away the predatory nature of those mortgages and you'd still have had a crash once enough people start foreclosing.

Questionmarktarius posted...

What does that even mean?
Chickens in the back yard?

Are you serious?

I mean, it means different things in different places. For instance, Houston has no formal zoning code so it would mean changing other land-use regulations.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=837244

I can link you to more articles if you'd like.



Darkman124 posted...

that is also an oversimplification and you know it

i will say that the general principle does hold to some extent, and it worries me considering the amount of quantitative easing that has been used as the cure to that problem.

I was being a bit facetious, but I'm pointing it out because I think it shows that produclad is being inconsistent in applying this free market logic to housing
---

you are presenting a multifaceted problem with numerous drivers as driven by a single one--and not even the most influential one

because it serves the ideology you wanted to believe before you started thinking about the subject

you're poorly versed, doesn't mean you haven't come across any of the evidence. just means you've selected one piece and assumed that was 100% of the story, because it is easy for you to think about it that way

mislabeling of junk mortgage bonds and banks being free to participate in self-destructive credit default swaps on their good mortgages (often to raise money for their bets against those junk mortgage bonds which lasted a lot longer than they expected!) were far more devastating to broad markets. without these factors, pension funds and the like wouldn't have been damaged, and thus the broad markets wouldn't have been as impacted by the crunch of the housing market.
---

QuantumScript posted...

it was caused by access to easy money without care to lend only to people who have a good chance of paying it back on time.

What do you think was the cause of this?
---

Balrog0 posted...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=837244

That suggests that "sprawl" is just inevitable.
I'm gonna give the full pdf a read when I get a chance.

Are you complaining about height restrictions and multifamily prohibitions and such?
If so, I'll agree.

Balrog0 posted...

http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/4-4-13hous-f1.jpg

Dishonest. If you have an income under 10k a year, no fucking duh you're going to have a larger housing burden than someone making more money. You should be arguing for a larger mortgage deduction if you want that to change. Or we can target the root causes of poverty, which are violence, unstable families, drugs, stupid decisions with money, etc.


Balrog0 posted...

No, we haven't.

Do you think Milton Friedman would support subsidizing the wealthy but not the poor? I think you haven't read him.

Dishonest. You're repeatedly calling tax deductions subsidies, and we both know that you know that you're doing this on purpose. You're not a stupid person. You're just being a fucking politician right now, like Elizabeth Warren. Tax deductions are not subsidies, and they're definitely not subsidies for the wealthy.


Balrog0 posted...

I've actually studied this topic academically and professionally, broheim. You're only focusing on one end of the solutions, and you honestly have no idea what you're talking about next.

You didn't even address the point. No one cares what you've studied. You're arguing for eliminating tax deductions, and also at the same time you're arguing for increasing spending on the poor to help the poor. What the fuck? Getting rid of the tax deductions makes it harder for the lower and income tax people to move up. Darkman can afford more property tax, you cannot. All you're doing is making the privileged more privileged, under some pretense of wanting to help the poor.

Balrog0 posted...

I don't understand why my genuinely held opinion that is backed up by facts makes you so angry. There's no connection between minimum lot sizes and safety. Parking requirements actually subsidize car ownership and increase development costs which are then passed onto the consumer. I don't think the government should be in the business of regulating "intrinsic beauty," do you? Maybe you need Friedman in your life?

Parking requirements subsidize car ownership? Laughing my fucking ass off right now.

Don't want to pay for development costs of a parking space? Don't buy a home that has a parking space. Or live exclusively in cities. Don't want to live in an area where larger lot sizes means less traffic? Go live in a city. Don't want to live in an area where there's more open space and thus more intrinsic beauty? Live in a congested city.

Even if a government didn't mandate minimum lot sizes, people would gravitate towards them. And note that the residents of a community or a neighborhood have the right to decide rules like that. I don't really like home owner associations but they have a right to decide minimum lot size requirements.

QuantumScript posted...

Dishonest. If you have an income under 10k a year, no f***ing duh you're going to have a larger housing burden than someone making more money. You should be arguing for a larger mortgage deduction if you want that to change. Or we can target the root causes of poverty, which are violence, unstable families, drugs, stupid decisions with money, etc.

people with income under 10k a year don't benefit from tax deductions at all

they benefit from tax credits
---

QuantumScript posted...

You didn't even address the point. No one cares what you've studied. You're arguing for eliminating tax deductions, and also at the same time you're arguing for increasing spending on the poor to help the poor. What the fuck? Getting rid of the tax deductions makes it harder for the lower and income tax people to move up. Darkman can afford more property tax, you cannot. All you're doing is making the privileged more privileged, under some pretense of wanting to help the poor.

this is literally incoherent

QuantumScript posted...

Don't want to pay for development costs of a parking space? Don't buy a home that has a parking space. Or live exclusively in cities. Don't want to live in an area where larger lot sizes means less traffic? Go live in a city. Don't want to live in an area where there's more open space and thus more intrinsic beauty? Live in a congested city.

you've clearly never looked at a zoning code in your life, nor have you thought much about this except in a kneejerk reactionary sense

go take a breather and read something brother
---

Darkman124 posted...

QuantumScript posted...

Dishonest. If you have an income under 10k a year, no f***ing duh you're going to have a larger housing burden than someone making more money. You should be arguing for a larger mortgage deduction if you want that to change. Or we can target the root causes of poverty, which are violence, unstable families, drugs, stupid decisions with money, etc.

people with income under 10k a year don't benefit from tax deductions at all

they benefit from tax credits

yeah, so it's even more laughable to share that graph as if it's meaningful. people at under 10k a year are going to have more financial burden over all. that's simple math. it doesn't say anything at all about whether or not tax deductions for people making a lot are good or bad. it just says that being at that low bracket is bad.

Balrog0 posted...

this is literally incoherent

i think he believes that poor families use itemized deductions

QuantumScript posted...

yeah, so it's even more laughable to share that graph as if it's meaningful. people at under 10k a year are going to have more financial burden over all. that's simple math. it doesn't say anything at all about whether or not tax deductions for people making a lot are good or bad. it just says that being at that low bracket is bad.

you completely missed my point

schedule A tax deductions pretty much are never used by poor families because the standard deduction is usually much bigger, and likely covers nearly all of their tax bill, esp if they have children and can also take deductions/credits for that.
---

QuantumScript posted...

Dishonest. You're repeatedly calling tax deductions subsidies, and we both know that you know that you're doing this on purpose. You're not a stupid person. You're just being a fucking politician right now, like Elizabeth Warren. Tax deductions are not subsidies, and they're definitely not subsidies for the wealthy.

They can be subsidies for State and Local taxes.

A simple example: In Minnesota, when you pay your yearly license fee, there's a base fee of $35 for every road-ready vehicle that isn't a motorcycle. Then there is an additional fee on top of the $35 based on the value of your vehicle. Now, on your federal tax return, you can deduct that additional fee on your itemized deductions. This is an example of the federal gov't subsidizing state taxes.
---

fwiw this is useful reading for the subject

http://www.urban.org/research/publication/who-itemizes-deductions/view/full_report
---

Someone makes 50k a year and is positioned to move out of rent and into their first home. That's a great vehicle for building wealth.

But here comes Balrog, who wants to help those people have a better life! He wants to help reduce the burden of home ownership, because we need to help the lower and middle class, right?

So he vilifies tax deductions, most notably mortgage and property tax deductions. You know, those very things that can help that family to reasonably afford the property they're looking to buy.

So now they have to pay more in property taxes and more in general, and suddenly it's not looking as they can afford it anymore. But it's okay, Balrog got rid of the tax deductions for the rich and privileged who can continue to own their shit anyway!

Tell me at which point in this example I'm misunderstanding your position.

QuantumScript posted...

Tell me at which point in this example I'm misunderstanding your position.

your asinine assumption that supply and demand aren't impacted by federal subsidies and regulations, mainly

if you assume nothing will change when you change the rules and incentives in housing markets, what you're saying is true

also plausible -- massive lots with huge FAR will be turned into 8 or 12 parcels, all of which will be more affordable to low and middle class people than the 1 lot was
---

btw I dont want to reduce the burden of home ownership

I think that it should be up to the market

homes are only a good investment vehicle because of subsidies, so I don't particularly think we should prop it up as such
---

QuantumScript posted...

Someone makes 50k a year and is positioned to move out of rent and into their first home. That's a great vehicle for building wealth.

you might want to actually look at what kinds of homes this theoretical 50k household can afford to buy

then see how much interest and property tax they'd be paying and sum that with their state tax to see if they'd even be using the itemized deduction at all

also remember that the 'median' household is a married couple making 50k, not one person making 50k
---

QuantumScript posted...

So he vilifies tax deductions, most notably mortgage and property tax deductions. You know, those very things that can help that family to reasonably afford the property they're looking to buy.

Ending the interest deduction could very well spawn the building of actually affordable (not made "affordable" by mandate or subsidy) units. The $65000 house no longer exists (at least outside of flyover country). It's all either overpriced rentals you can't really afford, gigantic mcmansions you shouldn't think you afford, or heavy subsidized housing you can't qualify for.
Allowing the interest deduction to be tacked onto the standard deduction (like how student loan interest works) would be even better. As is, you've got to buy a gigantic house with a gigantic mortgage, to get the interest to even matter at tax time.

The middle class isn't merely disappearing, it's being cleaved in twain right down the center.

Balrog0 posted...

homes are only a good investment vehicle because of subsidies

This is blatantly false. They are very low risk, which is a huge draw to a lot of the middle class.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

QuantumScript posted...

So he vilifies tax deductions, most notably mortgage and property tax deductions. You know, those very things that can help that family to reasonably afford the property they're looking to buy.

Ending the interest deduction could very well spawn the building of actually affordable (not made "affordable" by mandate or subsidy) units. The $65000 house no longer exists (at least outside of flyover country). It's all either overpriced rentals you can't really afford, gigantic mcmansions you shouldn't think you afford, or heavy subsidized housing you can't qualify for.
Allowing the interest deduction to be tacked onto the standard deduction (like how student loan interest works) would be even better. As is, you've got to buy a gigantic house with a gigantic mortgage, to get the interest to even matter at tax time.

The middle class isn't merely disappearing, it's being cleaved in twain right down the center.

this post is quite accurate

middle class has shrunk by around 20% since the 60s. of that group, about 60% joined upper class, 40% fell to lower class
---

Drpooplol posted...

This is blatantly false. They are very low risk, which is a huge draw to a lot of the middle class.

look up the history of the billion year mortgage

it isn't a product of free market forces
---

Darkman124 posted...

you might want to actually look at what kinds of homes this theoretical 50k household can afford to buy

then see how much interest and property tax they'd be paying and sum that with their state tax to see if they'd even be using the itemized deduction at all

by a very crude estimate, it would be around $4,500 for a $150,000 home. But this doesn't account for interest amortization of the loan. So if it were a single person, they would be $1,800 short of being able to itemize. Which isn't too unlikely but even then, you have to think of the opportunity cost of not being able to deduct that, which for a single person making that much money, isn't large at all.
---

it'd be more than that i think. use provident.com to calculate and refer to the amort table. good to assume around 1.5% property tax on top of the interest tab in that table

https://www.provident.com/QuickRatesCalculator

you also have to add in state tax, thats where itemizing becomes a good deal. i think avg state tax is like 4%?
---