President's Budget Eliminates Donation Expense for Tix

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I rent.

I'm still waiting to hear why it's the government's job to subsidize the housing market. The housing market can't do well enough on it's own? How many times do I have to ask this?

[Lennys Tap]

From the little bit of reading I have done regarding this budget, it appears that it is basically a gigantic F.U. to the Republican Congress.  It has tons of stuff The President knows will never get through on both the spending and the revenue sides.

My favorite part is that it is $3.99 trillion.  Why not make it an even 4?  I guess a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money.

Free college, free health care, free money for sick workers, free beer...coalition building 101.

[warriorchick]

The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they far and away pay the lowest effective tax rate.

Are you kidding me? Cite your source, or just admit that you are simply repeating class-envy talking points.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I actually agree with this concept, as do most logical people across the political spectrum.

The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they currently far and away pay the lowest effective tax rate, and have the least incentive to support this change. Unfortunately, these are the people who hold the marionette strings of our politicians.

Agree. And it will never happen. Look at the squealing on this thread for proof.

[reinko]

Are you kidding me? Cite your source, or just admit that you are simply repeating class-envy talking points.

Pretty simple.  While the top tax bracket for income is 35%, over 40% of the top 1% incomes comes from capital gains, interest and dividends (edit, which is taxed @ 15%).  Added to that, payroll tax is only on the first $110K, so they reap a huge benefit there too.

[Coleman]

Are you kidding me? Cite your source, or just admit that you are simply repeating class-envy talking points.

Nope, not kidding.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

http://www.ibtimes.com/poor-families-pay-double-state-local-tax-rate-rich-study-1782956


I probably misspoke when I said 1%, its more like the .1%, but these people don't have to pay payroll taxes on >90% of their income, pay a low capital gains tax rate on their income, and have access to instruments such as offshore accounts to shield their wealth from the taxman that average Americans simply don't have access to.

[warriorchick]

So, is the proposed tax change just on the required donations for certain tickets, or is it any type of seating-related benefit for donations?

If it is only the former, I would think that they would just manipulate the priority points system in a way that the end result would be about the same.

[Lennys Tap]

I'm still waiting to hear why it's the government's job to subsidize the housing market. The housing market can't do well enough on it's own? How many times do I have to ask this?

As I've previously stated, I prefer a simple flat tax plan with no deductions. That said, the answer to your question is simple. Governments subsidize behavior they want to encourage. Home ownership is one such behavior. Why? People who own homes are stakeholders. Stakeholders defend the system which leads to a more stable society. More order, less chaos.

[warriorchick]

Nope, not kidding.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

Read the articles.  There is a big difference between "paying a lower effective rate than they did before" and "having the lowest effective tax rate".  There are tens of millions of people who pay no income taxes whatsoever.

[reinko]

Read the articles.  There is a big difference between "paying a lower effective rate than they did before" and "having the lowest effective tax rate".  There are tens of millions of people who pay no income taxes whatsoever.

While technically true, the the majority of these folks pay a big share in Medicare taxes, SS taxes, state income taxes, the gas tax, sales tax and so on and so on.  A very small % of Americans pay NO taxes, as many have claimed over the years.  Of those who do not, the vast majority are low income elderly who have little to no income, and just get SS.

[jsglow]

As I've previously stated, I prefer a simple flat tax plan with no deductions. That said, the answer to your question is simple. Governments subsidize behavior they want to encourage. Home ownership is one such behavior. Why? People who own homes are stakeholders. Stakeholders defend the system which leads to a more stable society. More order, less chaos.

That's the key.  I'm not going to defend any particular policy but I will say that abrupt change is generally a poor idea.

[GGGG]

I'm still waiting to hear why it's the government's job to subsidize the housing market. The housing market can't do well enough on it's own? How many times do I have to ask this?

Because society feels that having a broad base of home ownership is a good idea, and therefore provides tax incentives for that to occur.

Really is it that hard to figure out?

[mu03eng]

Taxes and fees from government entities serve two purposes:  revenue generation and driving societal behavior.  Changing a tax structure changes the incentive for society.

Take the housing deduction.  If you remove the tax deduction, more people will want to rent(short term) because it will be "cheaper" than owning....but you know who else won't want to own?  People who own rental properties because they won't get the incentive either.  The relative gain for a rental property would go down, so to obtain the same profit(needed to justify being in that "job") the owner would have to increase rent.  That increased rent would make the rental less attractive or make the tenant less invested in the property as a stakeholder since it's not a good deal.  This doesn't even count the impact on market pricing and the financial market as you would see housing in the hands of fewer people, larger conglomerates which everyone complains about.

Again, I'm not making an argument either way, but ignoring behavior implications of the change proposed is just dumb.  Government impacts how it's citizen's behave whether we like it or not, otherwise we could obsolete government.

[g0lden3agle]

Agree. And it will never happen. Look at the squealing on this thread for proof.

The "squealing" comes from the reaction to your pot shots at random deductions that didn't really demonstrate any understanding of the concepts at hand.

If you're pro getting rid of ALL deductions, just say that.  Don't say the deduction on donations from season ticket sales is stupid because _______.  Say it's stupid because you think all deductions are stupid.

[mu03eng]

I'm still waiting to hear why it's the government's job to subsidize the housing market. The housing market can't do well enough on it's own? How many times do I have to ask this?

See my last post.  Or think of the gas tax.  Government has decided two things A) it wants revenue generated from gas sales B) they want to tax gas to increase cost to decrease the demand for gas, encouraging citizens to take different forms of transportation that likely have a smaller impact on infrastructure and/or environment.

Who made that the governments business?

Goverments are created to form a stable environment for the general growth and prosperity of all (assuming a non-totalitarianistic government).  The governments role is to establish and maintain this stable environment.  You can argue about how they achieve that, but you can't argue with that it is exactly what a government is suppose to do.

Changing the seat deduction changes behavior, the question is, is that new behavior good or bad for the stable environment currently in place.

[warriorchick]

While technically true, the the majority of these folks pay a big share in Medicare taxes, SS taxes, state income taxes, the gas tax, sales tax and so on and so on.  A very small % of Americans pay NO taxes, as many have claimed over the years.  Of those who do not, the vast majority are low income elderly who have little to no income, and just get SS.

This conversation was about the Federal budget.  The Federal government has no say over state and local taxes. I agree that in many places, state and local taxes (especially sales taxes) are horribly regressive. Secondly, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to lump Social Security taxes in with other taxes in terms of fairness.  One could argue that it is the most equitable tax there is.  One could also argue that you really shouldn't even call it a tax. If it works the way it was designed (a completely different conversation, but let's stick to the topic on hand), you get out what you put in. There is a limit to the amount of annual benefits, which is why there is a limit to the contribution.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I actually agree with this concept, as do most logical people across the political spectrum.

The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they currently pay far and away the lowest effective tax rate, and have the least incentive to support this change. Unfortunately, these are the people who hold the marionette strings of our politicians.

That's not true.  A true flat tax is opposed by many on the lower level because today they don't pay a dime and now would.   A true flat tax means everyone pays.

Now, if you want to argue a flat tax for only the 53% that pay now, that's a different story and fits more of your situation. 

[WarhawkWarrior]

I started this thread and I gladly pay more for my seats because of the Blue & Gold cause -- benefiting student athletes, not just those who play in the BC.  I never attend other MU sporting events but do know that B&G funds many scholarships and partial scholarships across the sports spectrum at MU.  Would I just write a check to the B&G if I didn't have my 6 season tickets.  Maybe but it would be quite a bit smaller due to the non-deductibility of the payment.  Most major universities tie the donation to the ticket.  Good marketing.

I think I can understand why someone takes a socialistic view of society but without wealth building and incentives for wealth giving we would have few Arts, Museums, National Parks and tens of thousands of charities.  Unfortunately the left continues to pursue a model that has proven to fail in every country that has tried it.

[Aughnanure]

Are you kidding me? Cite your source, or just admit that you are simply repeating class-envy talking points.

They do. It's called capital gains, which is where the rich actually make their money.

[Aughnanure]

See my last post.  Or think of the gas tax.  Government has decided two things A) it wants revenue generated from gas sales B) they want to tax gas to increase cost to decrease the demand for gas, encouraging citizens to take different forms of transportation that likely have a smaller impact on infrastructure and/or environment.

Who made that the governments business?

Dude, the gas tax is used to pay for our create/update our driving infrastructure and desperately needs to be raised.

[Spotcheck Billy]

did some one mention free beer?

[Aughnanure]

I actually agree with this concept, as do most logical people across the political spectrum.

The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they currently pay far and away the lowest effective tax rate, and have the least incentive to support this change. Unfortunately, these are the people who hold the marionette strings of our politicians.

No. A flat tax is not logical (not saying the current one is) and nor do most people across the political spectrum agree with it.

[mu03eng]

Dude, the gas tax is used to pay for our create/update our driving infrastructure and desperately needs to be raised.

You missed my point, and what you are talking about is the revenue generation side(create monies to pay for infrastructure).  There is also a behavioral component.

Same exact reason we have a subsidy on ethanol.

[Aughnanure]

You missed my point, and what you are talking about is the revenue generation side(create monies to pay for infrastructure).  There is also a behavioral component.

Same exact reason we have a subsidy on ethanol.

That I agree with. But come on. The amount of the gas tax is no way shape or form high enough to be a deterrent to driving (maybe at some point 25 years ago it was). Americans complaining about gas prices is freaking hilarious. We need to raise it because our transportation infrastructure is falling apart.

[jficke13]

You missed my point, and what you are talking about is the revenue generation side(create monies to pay for infrastructure).  There is also a behavioral component.

Same exact reason we have a subsidy on ethanol.

The reason we have a subsidy on ethanol is because for some unknown reason the country has gifted Iowa with the first primary in the presidential primary race and thus an outsized impact on our national politics. Want to be president or lay the groundwork to receive support from those corn farmers? Get your bribes ready, e.g. massive ethanol subsidies that make no sense to accomplish anything besides paying off Iowans.