Huston55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
There are many threads, or portions of them, here which discuss (support or deride) subsidies, often with accompanying arguments for one side or the other, and also frequently with very informative links where many of us learn something new. I’d like to see if we can have a thread discussing “Subsidies” that we see/experience without getting into politics or vitriol....or Porky. I think it would be informative and (at least for me) educational.
Let’s start with a definition: A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy. (Wikipedia)
How we view ‘subsidies’ of one kind or another seems to usually depend on whether we’re on the paying or receiving end or, although less frequently, whether we think the subsidy is fair and/or provides more good than harm. After all, we’re not all completely selfish. ;-)
So, what subsidies are significant in your view, and what do you think we should do about them? When describing particular subsidy(s), please try to include the following information so we can understand your position, learn something and, maybe even be swayed toward your line of thinking: (1) Description, (2) Whether you agree/or not with the subsidy & why, (3) What you would do instead (modify, eliminate, etc.) and, (4) References and/or links to more in depth material.
I’ll start with a few on my list:
* We all subsidize middle class suburbia:
1. Largely through tax and insurance incentives via the FHA, FNMA & FHLMC
2. I agree with the overarching policy to incentivize home ownership because I believe it benefits communities and families, which support a stable society.
3. What I’d change: I would continue the policy of tax and insurance incentives but, would ensure that urban & suburban areas are treated equitably. I would also incorporate incentives for sustainable, environmentally friendly development into future policies.
4. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-subsidized-suburbia/
* Childless couples subsidize couples with children, and singles subsidize them both; largely through SS, Income tax, property tax but, also in commerce & employment.
1. The tax code is the primary vehicle which financially subsidizes/encourages marriage but, companies & employers also discriminate against singles. The income tax burden for married couples is significantly lower than for singles; married couples also receive substantial Social Security (OASDI) benefits that are not available to singles (spousal benefits, survivor benefits & divorcee benefits); One of the largest consumers of property taxes is public schools which benefit families with children but, those without children pay the same property tax.
2. I agree with the concept of encouraging & subsidizing the development and education of children because they’re essential to our future; I agree that marriage (including same sex couples) should be encouraged because I think it is beneficial to a society (call me old fashioned). But, I think there’s currently an imbalance to the detriment of single people (especially) & childless couples, which needs to be fixed
3. What I’d change: Spousal SS benefits for non-working spouses (50% of PIA) are overly generous & should be reduced; divorcee SS benefits should be limited to one ex-spouse; there should be more equity in the ‘total benefits’ packages of employees, regardless of marriage or parental status; single/married tax brackets should be adjusted to narrow the gap/benefit to married couples.
4. https://money.usnews.com/money/blog...ed-couples-need-to-know-about-social-security.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a666b0d00d0ef29038b490f-960-662.jpg
https://www.thedailybeast.com/singled-out-are-unmarried-people-discriminated-against
* The non-religious subsidize the religious & everyone subsidizes religious organizations to which they do not belong.
1. Religious organizations enjoy tremendous financial benefit through their treatment as non-profit organizations and via the tax code.
2. I disagree with this and believe that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. (Note that this is my personal opinion and, while I might currently be in the minority, I have good company from some of the most respected Supreme Court Justices in history.) Subsidies to religion in the US total >$80 Billion in lost tax revenue annually, which the rest of us have to make up.
3. What I’d change: I would revoke the tax-exempt status of all religious organizations, and force them to establish clearly separate entities to perform their charitable work, for which they would be treated the same as all other charitable organizations.
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-82-5-billion-a-year/?utm_term=.8281c6f50347
https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org
Looking forward to reading & learning about various views on this frequently discussed topic and, remember, “you can keep your polite hat on.”
Let’s start with a definition: A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy. (Wikipedia)
How we view ‘subsidies’ of one kind or another seems to usually depend on whether we’re on the paying or receiving end or, although less frequently, whether we think the subsidy is fair and/or provides more good than harm. After all, we’re not all completely selfish. ;-)
So, what subsidies are significant in your view, and what do you think we should do about them? When describing particular subsidy(s), please try to include the following information so we can understand your position, learn something and, maybe even be swayed toward your line of thinking: (1) Description, (2) Whether you agree/or not with the subsidy & why, (3) What you would do instead (modify, eliminate, etc.) and, (4) References and/or links to more in depth material.
I’ll start with a few on my list:
* We all subsidize middle class suburbia:
1. Largely through tax and insurance incentives via the FHA, FNMA & FHLMC
2. I agree with the overarching policy to incentivize home ownership because I believe it benefits communities and families, which support a stable society.
3. What I’d change: I would continue the policy of tax and insurance incentives but, would ensure that urban & suburban areas are treated equitably. I would also incorporate incentives for sustainable, environmentally friendly development into future policies.
4. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-subsidized-suburbia/
* Childless couples subsidize couples with children, and singles subsidize them both; largely through SS, Income tax, property tax but, also in commerce & employment.
1. The tax code is the primary vehicle which financially subsidizes/encourages marriage but, companies & employers also discriminate against singles. The income tax burden for married couples is significantly lower than for singles; married couples also receive substantial Social Security (OASDI) benefits that are not available to singles (spousal benefits, survivor benefits & divorcee benefits); One of the largest consumers of property taxes is public schools which benefit families with children but, those without children pay the same property tax.
2. I agree with the concept of encouraging & subsidizing the development and education of children because they’re essential to our future; I agree that marriage (including same sex couples) should be encouraged because I think it is beneficial to a society (call me old fashioned). But, I think there’s currently an imbalance to the detriment of single people (especially) & childless couples, which needs to be fixed
3. What I’d change: Spousal SS benefits for non-working spouses (50% of PIA) are overly generous & should be reduced; divorcee SS benefits should be limited to one ex-spouse; there should be more equity in the ‘total benefits’ packages of employees, regardless of marriage or parental status; single/married tax brackets should be adjusted to narrow the gap/benefit to married couples.
4. https://money.usnews.com/money/blog...ed-couples-need-to-know-about-social-security.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a666b0d00d0ef29038b490f-960-662.jpg
https://www.thedailybeast.com/singled-out-are-unmarried-people-discriminated-against
* The non-religious subsidize the religious & everyone subsidizes religious organizations to which they do not belong.
1. Religious organizations enjoy tremendous financial benefit through their treatment as non-profit organizations and via the tax code.
2. I disagree with this and believe that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. (Note that this is my personal opinion and, while I might currently be in the minority, I have good company from some of the most respected Supreme Court Justices in history.) Subsidies to religion in the US total >$80 Billion in lost tax revenue annually, which the rest of us have to make up.
3. What I’d change: I would revoke the tax-exempt status of all religious organizations, and force them to establish clearly separate entities to perform their charitable work, for which they would be treated the same as all other charitable organizations.
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-82-5-billion-a-year/?utm_term=.8281c6f50347
https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org
Looking forward to reading & learning about various views on this frequently discussed topic and, remember, “you can keep your polite hat on.”
Last edited:
