Obamancare "tax"

[Darth Wong]

Esquire, don't get in the way of our anti-american circle-jerk please.

"Anti-American" is what stupid people say when they can't think of a real rebuttal.

[Simon_Jester]

No, I don't think so. Even the "good half" of the American populace just wants taxes raised on the other half of Americans. Very few people say "people like me can afford to pay more tax".

This is not true of other countries? Do the majority of other people not think like this? I'd be surprised to hear most Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Brazilians, or Germans say "taxes should be higher on me, personally."

[Darth Wong]

No, I don't think so. Even the "good half" of the American populace just wants taxes raised on the other half of Americans. Very few people say "people like me can afford to pay more tax".

This is not true of other countries? Do the majority of other people not think like this? I'd be surprised to hear most Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Brazilians, or Germans say "taxes should be higher on me, personally."

Not "me personally", but it's much more common for people in other countries to accept that taxes need to be higher in general, not just for some distant class of people they don't plan to interact with. As I said, America has some uniquely ridiculous tax breaks, like the home mortgage interest deduction, which in no way meets the criteria for a deduction and was created in order to subsidize the McMansion industry and let middle-class Americans buy huge homes.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... home mortgage interest was always deductible in the US.

All personal loan interest was deductible until 1986, when the exemption was canceled for everything but home mortgages. Long before the McMansion trend was notable, home mortgage payments were deductible and Americans were buying relatively reasonable-sized homes with them. By the time the general end to interest deductions became an issue, there were so many Americans with mortgages that abruptly ending the deduction would have been spectacularly unpopular. Would have been good for the treasury, yes- but by and large it would be a considerable increase in tax receipts from the middle class, which wasn't exactly desirable at the time.

Now, you may think that deducting interest never made sense at all, which I could understand though I think it's kind of short-sighted from a historical point of view. And you may think that anything that amounts to federal subsidy of individual homeownership is "uniquely ridiculous," which I could understand.

But it's not simply something we invented in the '90s to make the McMansion boom possible. It came to have that effect, but that's not why it was put in there in the first place.

For reference see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magaz ... nted=print

Which supports your view that the deduction is 'ridiculous,' but goes into more depth about where it came from.

(edited for tone)

[Bakustra]

Not "me personally", but it's much more common for people in other countries to accept that taxes need to be higher in general, not just for some distant class of people they don't plan to interact with. As I said, America has some uniquely ridiculous tax breaks, like the home mortgage interest deduction, which in no way meets the criteria for a deduction and was created in order to subsidize the McMansion industry and let middle-class Americans buy huge homes.

Quite apart from the simple matter of historical origins, the home mortgage interest deduction has done nothing of the sort. What has created the bloat of housing size is the expansion of credit and the glorification of excess starting in the 1980s. The home mortgage interest deduction has merely made things somewhat easier. For the majority of the home mortgage interest deduction's life, it has been neutral to arguably positive (serving to increase the rate of ownership in the 1940s through 1970s and thus the amount of wealth in the hands of the middle and working class), and only in the last thirty years has it been even arguably negative in effect.

As for whether Americans are uniquely anti-tax or not, I doubt that that holds up historically, considering the significant popularity of the income tax and estate tax when they were first introduced. If anything, the current anti-tax ideology has come from the Republican adoption of supply-side economics and the consequent insistence on never raising taxes to counterbalance the Democratic party's popular positions on social spending, which has significantly contributed to an environment of utter insanity in American politics.

[Blayne]

Part of the sad thing is that due to regulatory capture you have people on the left as well who don't trust the government either who prefer local solutions due to the perceived issues with lobbyists.

Making government not work seems to have bipartisan support one could say, sadly.

Though most of the current gridlock I can blame of Newt Gingrich, back during his term as Speaker of the House pioneering the current strategy of deliberate gridlock; since congress doesn't work people keep electing republicans with the goal of making it worse because clearly government doesn't work anyway's right?

That and the slow erosion of the Left and Progressives as political forces, they now no longer exist as an organized political force in the united states, with a platform or agenda to present to the public or government.

[Zinegata]

While I would disagree that individual people in other countries don't grumble about the taxes they pay (we do it all the time in the Philippines), I'd say what's unique about the American situation is that taxation is a central issue driving its political parties and its politicians - whereas the political parties and the politicians here barely ever mention the taxation issue at all.

[mr friendly guy]

Uh... home mortgage interest was always deductible in the US.

All personal loan interest was deductible until 1986, when the exemption was canceled for everything but home mortgages. Long before the McMansion trend was notable, home mortgage payments were deductible and Americans were buying relatively reasonable-sized homes with them. By the time the general end to interest deductions became an issue, there were so many Americans with mortgages that abruptly ending the deduction would have been spectacularly unpopular. Would have been good for the treasury, yes- but by and large it would be a considerable increase in tax receipts from the middle class, which wasn't exactly desirable at the time.

Now, you may think that deducting interest never made sense at all, which I could understand though I think it's kind of short-sighted from a historical point of view. And you may think that anything that amounts to federal subsidy of individual homeownership is "uniquely ridiculous," which I could understand.

Wow, you guys can claim your home mortgage as a tax deduction. It may not have caused the housing boom, but it certainly does support the contention that Americans seem more oppose to taxation than say, other mature economies.

[Alphawolf55]

Wait why is a Home Mortgage Interest Deduction a big sign that the US is anti-tax. I mean I understand that you can look at our relatively low income tax, or our political environment. But why does a tax deduction designed to encourage home ownership that existed when taxes are far higher, suggest by itself that Americans hate taxes?

[Simon_Jester]

Again, for most of the 20th century ALL interest was tax deductible, because when the US instituted income taxes, most people only took out loans for business-related purposes. Credit cards were an economic footnote until the '60s and '70s.

So when the automobile and the postwar boom set off a growing habit of single-family home ownership, mortgages were basically the only thing that people were deducting from their income taxes, and the houses were relatively cheap, so it didn't impact the treasury much. The all-purpose deduction for interest payments only became a problem when people started putting credit card bills on it... and then when they revised the tax code to get rid of that loophole, they just decided to specifically NOT end the loophole for home mortgages.

[Darth Wong]

I find it hard to believe that anyone can honestly find it a contentious accusation that Americans are unusually anti-tax. Where else in the developed world do you have cities where people refuse to pay taxes for firefighters? Yes, I know, not every city in America does this. But you had to know that if any first-world city did, it would be in America.

[Grumman]

Americans are ridiculous. They would rather pay $2000 to be ripped off by an insurance company than pay $1000 in taxes to get the same services publicly.

I agree that he was playing games with semantics, but he had to do that because you people are fucking morons who think that "government" means "evil".

But he was doing it to advance the former, not the latter. He wasn't advancing single-payer health care under a misleading name, he was trying to justify forcing people to do business with the same insurance companies that have been ripping everyone off.

[PainRack]

Maybe there's some cultural differences going on here.....

There's a tax debate going on in the UK regarding tax avoidance right now. The difference in the tone is interesting. In the US, its loud rheoteric by lobbyists about tax increases, in the UK, its politicians and the media harranging citizens to pay its fair share in taxes.

From the reports as well as numbers of cases reported, it seems that many citizens of the UK just chose not to engage in the political process to lobby for lower taxes, but rather, just chose to use "legal" means to avoid paying higher one. The threat to close tax loopholes has had the Channel island Jersey threatening succession and we have commentators berating the PM for condeming tax Carr using tax loopholes as morally wrong.....

I don't know, any Brits mind offering more context?

[PainRack]

But he was doing it to advance the former, not the latter. He wasn't advancing single-payer health care under a misleading name, he was trying to justify forcing people to do business with the same insurance companies that have been ripping everyone off.

I hate to do this, but the polls DO suggest that a huge segment of Americans don't want a UHC. With 56% of Americans liking their insurance policies and the ACA closing some of the abuses/quality gap of insurance, one could argue that it is the "democratic" choice.

[Blayne]

But he was doing it to advance the former, not the latter. He wasn't advancing single-payer health care under a misleading name, he was trying to justify forcing people to do business with the same insurance companies that have been ripping everyone off.

While at the same time introducing regulations and reforms to lower medical costs across the country and expand coverage, lets not lose track that accelerationism aside is a net positive for Americans here. It's a private sector based solution sure, it isn't anywhere nearly as good as it could be yes, but this is better than the alternative of no reform whatsoever. Worse still, reforms at the cost of something else, like social security.

Actually I think a majority of Americans would support what is for all practical purposes is UHC, they just don't want ~socialism~. Polling Americans for things that UHC would provide without calling it that and you get a overwhelming positive response, problem is the Propaganda Press (PP) would insure that Americans would think it wrong to get what they actually want.

[mr friendly guy]

Wait why is a Home Mortgage Interest Deduction a big sign that the US is anti-tax.

DW listed it as just one of many. Its designed to minimise the amount of tax you pay. Alone that may not necessarily mean much, however if most countries do not do it, it does suggest a pattern combine with other things. which you yourself have mentioned.

I mean I understand that you can look at our relatively low income tax, or our political environment. But why does a tax deduction designed to encourage home ownership that existed when taxes are far higher, suggest by itself that Americans hate taxes?

Presumably because its continued when taxes are no longer "far higher," and there are numerous other ways to encourage home ownership without minimising tax. For example a country could regulate how much deposit a prospective home owner needs to put down before the banks are allowed to lend (eg China), or make it easier for developers to get land to subdivide and build on, hence increasing supply and putting less pressure on house prices to appreciate (what has been proposed in Australia, but doesn't seem to get done), cheap credit (parts of Europe, USA etc).

Now you might say, well how do you know its not because they want to encourage home ownership as opposed to simply because they dislike taxes as a rule? But that assumes an either / or situation, and they may very well want both.

[TheHammer]

Americans are ridiculous. They would rather pay $2000 to be ripped off by an insurance company than pay $1000 in taxes to get the same services publicly.

Don't lump us all in the same group . But I agree there are far too many stupid and uninformed in a position to affect the direction of this country.

[TheHammer]

But he was doing it to advance the former, not the latter. He wasn't advancing single-payer health care under a misleading name, he was trying to justify forcing people to do business with the same insurance companies that have been ripping everyone off.

While at the same time introducing regulations and reforms to lower medical costs across the country and expand coverage, lets not lose track that accelerationism aside is a net positive for Americans here. It's a private sector based solution sure, it isn't anywhere nearly as good as it could be yes, but this is better than the alternative of no reform whatsoever. Worse still, reforms at the cost of something else, like social security.

Actually I think a majority of Americans would support what is for all practical purposes is UHC, they just don't want ~socialism~. Polling Americans for things that UHC would provide without calling it that and you get a overwhelming positive response, problem is the Propaganda Press (PP) would insure that Americans would think it wrong to get what they actually want.

That's basically what I've been trying to get through to people who bitch that the HCR didn't go far enough. I think they misinterpreted it as a final solution, rather than as I see it, a nice step in the right direction that can be built upon in later years.