***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[boris]

Ironically, you probably could've killed it faster by participating in it, like an elementary school teacher playing with fidget spinners.

This is hilarious.

 

[flyeed]

Then we can subsidize people at the bottom.

And how about be as a country actually try to tackle income inequality, strengthen labor, and build a robust social insurance infrastructure before we dismiss this as a lost cause.

We can tackle these issues with stronger family values and people having the right MINDSET. Instead of having kids young and spending money on jordans, get a mortgage so that your kids can inherit an estate. Don't go making mistakes enjoying your life when you're young while my family is earning our black lung in the coal mines, then go asking for communist handouts that go against our values.

 

[RustyShackleford]

We can tackle these issues with stronger family values and people having the right MINDSET. Instead of having kids young and spending money on jordans, get a mortgage so that your kids can inherit an estate. Don't go making mistakes enjoying your life when you're young while my family is earning our black lung in the coal mines, then go asking for communist handouts that go against our values.

Brah I legit thought you turned conservative on me until I got to the black lung

 

[flyeed]

Seriously though, the "future" is here and now, and it's pathetic how we have all these new challenges we need to face to create a better world for our children, but we have these old geezers that are out of touch polarizing the country on the same old divisive issues i.e. LBGT rights, abortion, immigration, and overseas bogeymen, all for the wealthy to get tax breaks.

 

[americangenius]

I am actually with Trump on getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction. It disproportionately helps the rich by a great deal.

But he wants to get rid of it to give those same rich folk more tax breaks, I would would use the extra revenue to fund some like a EITC expansion.

Except for the fact the deduction works only under $1 million in mortgage debt, which is pretty much only middle class real estate. This is transferring breaks from the poor to the rich, once again.

 

[flyeed]

Conservatives need to get past this **** and accept the inevitable, that progress and equality in the long run win out, so that we can look ahead to problems of the future.

We were talking about how South Park and the Simpsons are on point, but the most real **** will be game of thrones. While aristocrats are out here fighting the same battles over and over, winter is coming for our asses and we won't be ready for it because in 2020 we'll still be talking about gays, Mexicans, Muslims, and black people.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Except for the fact the deduction works only under $1 million in mortgage debt, which is pretty much only middle class real estate. This is transferring breaks from the poor to the rich, once again.

-Unless I am wrong, the deduction is up to 1 million (1.1 I believe if you have home equity debt). Having mortgage debt of 3 million doesn't disqualify you.

-The middle class is not a monolith first off. I have much more sympathy for someone with a 300K house as opposed to a 950K house. We could trim the upper limit gradually until we can roll borrowers off it completely in the future. And that will avoid any shocks to the housing market

-America, especially affluent liberals need to accept to help the poor and lower middle class, the welfare state for the upper middle class needs to be rolled back as well.

-At this point renters, which are mainly middle class and poor people are subsidizing the upper classes which get most of the benefit from the deduction. Instead of getting rid of it completely, we could lower the ceiling, cut the deduction, and offer a bigger rental payment deduction.

-Second the deduction incentivized people to the buy bigger homes, take out bigger mortgages, so the bank benefits there.

Economist all over the political spectrum believe this should happen for numerous reasons. And like I said, we can use the addition revenue on something like the negative tax rate, which is a solid anti poverty measure. So a tax benefit that greatly helps the affluent can be flipped to help the poor and lower middle class.

 

[whywesteppin]

Сработанные снежинки здесь должны понять одно: наш президент был довольно красив в юности. И Бибер спас деспацито от посредственности.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[northoaklandfc]

Then we can subsidize people at the bottom.

And how about be as a country actually try to tackle income inequality, strengthen labor, and build a robust social insurance infrastructure before we dismiss this as a lost cause.

Seriously though, the "future" is here and now, and it's pathetic how we have all these new challenges we need to face to create a better world for our children, but we have these old geezers that are out of touch polarizing the country on the same old divisive issues i.e. LBGT rights, abortion, immigration, and overseas bogeymen, all for the wealthy to get tax breaks.

Conservatives need to get past this **** and accept the inevitable, that progress and equality in the long run win out, so that we can look ahead to problems of the future.

We were talking about how South Park and the Simpsons are on point, but the most real **** will be game of thrones. While aristocrats are out here fighting the same battles over and over, winter is coming for our asses and we won't be ready for it because in 2020 we'll still be talking about gays, Mexicans, Muslims, and black people.

Slightly tangential but parts of this exchange made me think of something rexanglorum said in the past 12 months or so that I will probably never forget.

Essentially the idea was that white conservatives can't imagine equality on a fundamental level. It's a zero-sum game to them whereby anything gained or achieved by minorities or marginalized groups in American society inherently takes away from white males. A viewpoint of subjugate others or be subjugated, impartiality is literally perceived to be a threat.

I had never thought about things with that perspective in mind before and I still find that the theory brings clarity when I find myself wondering, what the **** is wrong with these people.

 

[americangenius]

-Unless I am wrong, the deduction is up to 1 million (1.1 I believe if you have home equity debt). Having mortgage debt of 3 million doesn't disqualify you.

-The middle class is not a monolith first off. I have much more sympathy for someone with a 300K house as opposed to a 950K house. We could trim the upper limit gradually until we can roll borrowers off it completely in the future. And that will avoid any shocks to the housing market

-America, especially affluent liberals need to accept to help the poor and lower middle class, the welfare state for the upper middle class needs to be rolled back as well.

-At this point renters, which are mainly middle class and poor people are subsidizing the upper classes which get most of the benefit from the deduction. Instead of getting rid of it completely, we could lower the ceiling, cut the deduction, and offer a bigger rental payment deduction.

-Second the deduction incentivized people to the buy bigger homes, take out bigger mortgages, so the bank benefits there.

Economist all over the political spectrum believe this should happen for numerous reasons. And like I said, we can use the addition revenue on something like the negative tax rate, which is a solid anti poverty measure. So a tax benefit that greatly helps the affluent can be flipped to help the poor and lower middle class.

It doesn't disqualify you, but you don't receive a deduction on interest of the remaining amount of debt. In major metropolitan cities, LA/SF/DC/NYC, avg home prices in regular middle class neighborhoods can exceed 600K+ and 800k+ in a decent one. This deduction was mainly for middle class homeowners. I do agree banks are the ones benefitting from this, but the super low interest rates are the real reason. Raising the rent deduction would have the opposite effect, keeping the lower class renting while raising home prices for owners.

 

[deleted]

Another champion of Christian values who turns out to be a degenerate behind closed doors

Fox News certainly has a type

 

[boris]

Another champion of Christian values who turns out to be a degenerate behind closed doors

Fox News certainly has a type

It's interesting because if you actually read the Bible, Jesus is the exact opposite of what the GOP preaches.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It doesn't disqualify you, but you don't receive a deduction on interest of the remaining amount of debt. In major metropolitan cities, LA/SF/DC/NYC, avg home prices in regular middle class neighborhoods can exceed 600K+ and 800k+ in a decent one. This deduction was mainly for middle class homeowners. I do agree banks are the ones benefitting from this, but the super low interest rates are the real reason. Raising the rent deduction would have the opposite effect, keeping the lower class renting while raising home prices for owners.

So what if you don't get the deduction on debt over 1 million. Most people that own homes that get them the highest deductions are upper middle class and rich. Not your run of the mill middle class home buyer. The median home sale price is $317,200. You are using the margin to dictate policy instead of the average. LINK

And what if some people keep renting? Sure owning a home might be good for building wealth but there will always be renters and I could make an economic argument to the advantages of renting. You seem to have a problem with that being incentivized, yet you have none with people buying more house than they should? And then being indirectly subsidized by renters.

I could be wrong again but Canada doesn't have the deduction, and homeownerships are about the same. Except homes in Canada are generally smaller, and people pay off mortgages faster.

So once again you are treating the middle class like they are all the same. Which they are clearly not

The deduction greatly disproportionately help the upper middle class and rich, not the middle middle class and lower middle class

In the long run, house prices will decrease, because housing demand will decrease. Also different types of homes will be built.

 

[kdawg]

It's interesting because if you actually read the Bible, Jesus is the exact opposite of what the GOP preaches.

And he railed against the leaders of the time who were more about appearance - "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

Plus ça change.

 

[kdawg]

The disconnect and the doubling down on little donny is just incredible.

 

[rexanglorum]

Urban economics is my personal favorite subfield of economics. It's interesting to see a discussion about it develop here.

I, personally, would convert the Mortgage Interest Deduction into a modest but refundable tax credit that would be worth about one third of the US median wage. Then Municipalities could apply for Federal money that would pay for a supplemental housing tax credit that could be as much as 100% of my Federal refundable housing refund. The conditions that cities would have to meet to get this Federal money would be to zone most new housing developments as high density, small units.

All incorporated municipalities in America could be eligible to participate and their conditions for getting that money would be set by HUD as would the amount that the supplemental funding, per capita, would be. So very highly impacted cities like San Francisco would be able to get a 100% supplemental credit for all eligible residents but in exchange for that money, their city government would have to approve a certain number of new units and 90% or more would have to be high density and low cost.

No matter where you live, this refundable deduction gets phased out as your income rises and/or if you live in a low cost of living area.


Ultimately, a program like this could take into account local differences and induce a greater demand and supply of affordable housing. It would also create a good type of distortion in major cities, it would cool the real estate market which is the vast majority of residents of major cities need right now.

 

[trueprada]

 

[Pede]

Then we can subsidize people at the bottom.

And how about be as a country actually try to tackle income inequality, strengthen labor, and build a robust social insurance infrastructure before we dismiss this as a lost cause.

We already do. It's called welfare as well as other safety nets and programs for the poor. Income inequality will always exist because we are not an egalitarian/socialist country. Ask Venezuela et al, how egalitarianism/socialism worked for them.

 

[gry60]

We already do. It's called welfare as well as other safety nets and programs for the poor. Income inequality will always exist because we are not an egalitarian/socialist country. Ask Venezuela et al, how egalitarianism/socialism worked for them.

Keywords you missed: robust and strengthen.

The US social safety net is the weakest among developed nations: it actively disincentivizes climbing the economic ladder because of its draconian assistance policies and an education system mostly accessible through debt. No need to get into healthcare, we all know what it is.

On the professional side of things, workers by and large get the short end of the stick: they are less productive than their counterparts in other similar economies, they work more hours, and they have less benefits. These are areas where there is plenty of room for improvement, and acting as if everything is fine just doesn't cut it anymore.

As to the topic of socialism, communism, and Venezuela: both economic systems are distinct (despite the need from the cold war era people to conflate the two); Venezuela's situation is mostly the result of mismanagement of their oil revenue coupled with a lack of investment in diversifying their economy. Also, for every socialist country one can point to as a failure, we can point to one or more countries that failed to successfully apply capitalist principles and one or more countries that build a successful society on socialist principles.

The last I want to say about economic systems is that they should be looked at as tools to apply to particular circumstances instead of dogmatic beliefs. Using them as the latter impedes our ability to recognize when they are failing and gets us stuck in situations that can be difficult to get out of.

 

[gry60]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...onor-sues-gop-for-fraud-over-obamacare-repeal

Coming for da refund

 

[trueprada]

 

[AEA18]

Heghmann’s suit alleges that both the national and state GOP raised millions of dollars from 2009 to 2016 by promising to repeal ObamaCare, but that Republicans knew they would be unable to repeal the law when former President Obama won reelection in 2012.

 

[deuce king]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...onor-sues-gop-for-fraud-over-obamacare-repeal

Coming for da refund

LOL. Folks got played and now they are upset about it. They got what they deserved. Hope they kept their receipts.

 

[AEA18]

Even though the donor has now come to the realization that the GOP are frauds, he will still vote for them in 2018 and beyond.