S&P: United States of America 'AAA/A-1+' Ratings Placed On CreditWatch Negative On Rising Risk Of Policy Stalemate

[^_^ 5,021]

An increase in life expectancy at 65 from 13 to 18 years, that's almost a 40% increase. I don't see how that does not justify raising the eligibility age.

i'm more focused on the people who need this the most, the people who tend to show lesser increases in their life expectancy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i'm more focused on the people who need this the most, the people who tend to show lesser increases in their life expectancy.

BHL

[mawilson 2,133]

"tax spending" is a ridiculous expression. i know the wh likes it but i'm surprised you do. let's call it what it is.. raising taxes. that's what you do when you remove deductions, you increase total tax liability, you don't reduce tax spending

I don't even know what "tax spending" means.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"tax spending" is a ridiculous expression. i know the wh likes it but i'm surprised you do. let's call it what it is.. raising taxes. that's what you do when you remove deductions, you increase total tax liability, you don't reduce tax spending

Call it deductions, loopholes, tax expenditures or "spending through the tax code". Of course you increase tax liabilities if you remove deductions. Aside from raising revenues. you also create more fairness in the tax code if you remove them.

[^_^ 5,021]

Call it deductions, loopholes, tax expenditures or "spending through the tax code". Of course you increase tax liabilities if you remove deductions. Aside from raising revenues. you also create more fairness in the tax code if you remove them.

"spending through the tax code" is a bullshit expression intended to mislead.

[mawilson 2,133]

"spending through the tax code" is a bullshit expression intended to mislead.

Why even call it "spending"? Deductions just let people keep more of their money.

[^_^ 5,021]

Why even call it "spending"? Deductions just let people keep more of their money.

because some genius thought it fits the "let's reduce spending" frame.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"spending through the tax code" is a bullshit expression intended to mislead.

Why get so hung up over terminology? So call it tax loopholes or deductions. Whatever you call it, the sum of these provisions reduce federal revenue by well over a trillion dollars a year. Surely, we can find deductions or other special provisions that we can do without. We'd have a simpler tax code, a fairer tax code and additional revenue on top of that.

[^_^ 5,021]

Why get so hung up over terminology?

because the words you use tell us how little you think of us.

i have no objection to addressing deductions.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

because some genius thought it fits the "let's reduce spending" frame.

Funny you mention that. It's exactly how these tax code provisions came about. And it's exactly why they're called tax expenditures.

[^_^ 5,021]

Funny you mention that. It's exactly how these tax code provisions came about. And it's exactly why they're called tax expenditures.

it's not an expenditure.

[Ban Hammer 12,837]

Funny you mention that. It's exactly how these tax code provisions came about. And it's exactly why they're called tax expenditures.

it's an expenditure when the person who worked for the money gets to keep more of their money?

[^_^ 5,021]

it's an expenditure when the person who worked for the money gets to keep more of their money?

Say I have you build me a laptop to spec and instead of charging me $50 for it you only chargee $45. Did I spend $45 or did you spend $5 or both?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

it's not an expenditure.

Virtually any spending program the federal government has could be transformed into a tax expenditure. The low-income housing credit enacted in 1986, for example, did nothing but transform HUD programs that subsidized construction of affordable housing from grant programs to tax credits. Spending was reduced but so was revenue - the subsidies for affordable housing continue all the same. Only now they're not visible in the budget anymore.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

it's an expenditure when the person who worked for the money gets to keep more of their money?

It's an expenditure because policy makers pick and choose which person gets to keep what money under which circumstances. As I just said in the other post, almost any government spending could be transformed into a tax expenditure where it would no longer show as an expense in the budget and where it would no longer be subject to annual appropriations, etc.