Subsidies - What Do You Think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
However, the CD interest the is income to me is also expense to a bank. And the bank loaned my money to a business that pays the bank interest. And the business used the loan to buy inventory that sits for a while before it gets sold.

If we're going to CPI adjust investment income, does any of that need to be adjusted for consistency?
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. In your CD example the businesses deduct the nominal value of the interest. I think we're in agreement.

In the case of capital gains, it is complicated by the double taxation due to the corporate income tax. IMO, there should be no corporate income tax and all income (including capital gains and dividends) should be taxed the same (as ordinary income) - goodbye class warfare!
 
Yep. And, what if that person remarries from 40 to 50, and one ex is dead and the other is alive? Or what if the first marriage were from 20 to 28 and the second from 40 to 48?

I think I proposed a simpler rule here: http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f52/subsidies-what-do-you-think-93469-3.html#post2099279
Then neither x gets to draw on the person's account. Must stay married 10 yrs b4 divorce
The ‘pleasant’ one...oh, wait. :facepalm:

BOOM, just solved the SS solvency problem; there are no ‘pleasant’ EXs. [emoji23]
Ya met mine? He finally had to go to work
 
Last edited:
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. In your CD example the businesses deduct the nominal value of the interest. I think we're in agreement.

In the case of capital gains, it is complicated by the double taxation due to the corporate income tax. IMO, there should be no corporate income tax and all income (including capital gains and dividends) should be taxed the same (as ordinary income) - goodbye class warfare!
IMO, there should be no double taxation. But, income should be taxed when it is earned, as much as possible.

That gets me to this earlier post: http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f52/subsidies-what-do-you-think-93469-3.html#post2099317
 
Then neither x gets to draw on the person's account. Must stay married 10 yrs b4 divorce
Yes, that was my point. There's a cliff at 10 years. A little more, and you get full spousal benefits on the ex's lifetime earnings. A little less, and you get nothing from that marriage. I was proposing an alternative which provides a smooth transition.
 
NWB, the ex claiming on his or her ex-spouse is not hurting the person. They still give the person their full SS but the ex gets a amount equal to half.

Yes, I know. But that money has to come from somewhere. And the common pot of money is depleting.
 
...I don't understand how this is an "actionable" thread. Perhaps I'm missing something.

This isn't bogleheads, AFAIK there is no requirement for an actionable thread here. We're just talkin...

That's why this forum is more fun, as long as people refrain from calling names, or doing something that causes Porky to appear. :)

Bogleheads forum is boring. I learned about them from this forum, went there to see what it was about, surfed for 1/2 hour, and never went back. It was like going to a place of worship, and hearing the same sermon day-in-day-out. Boring. Didn't think I would learn much sticking around there.
 
Last edited:
That's why this forum is more fun, as long as people refrain from calling names, or doing something that causes Porky to appear. :)

Bogleheads forum is boring. I learned about them from this forum, went there to see what it was about, surfed for 1/2 hour, and never went back. It was like going to a place of worship, and hearing the same sermon day-in-day-out. Boring. Didn't think I would learn much sticking around there.

I am interested in some postings at BG, but clearly prefer the overall theme and conversations here.
 
Unfortunately, ‘Taste on Ellis’ is closed. BUT, you can still [-]subsidize[/-] treat me at 5A5 Steak House. ;)

Oh, you want me to buy you dinner?

I would, but I don't know you and my wife might not like it. Besides, I only order wagyu off the internet and cook it at home.

Sorry.
 
NWB, the ex claiming on his or her ex-spouse is not hurting the person. They still give the person their full SS but the ex gets a amount equal to half.

Yes, I know. But that money has to come from somewhere. And the common pot of money is depleting.

Let me expound on it a bit.

I knew a guy who had to split his assets with his ex when he went through a divorce. It was not simple, because how could he split his 401k when he was still young and working and could not access it anyway? And then, the value of his 401k was known, but it was before tax, so how much after-tax money should he give his ex now? The lawyers worked it out somehow.

With SS, a guy could go through a serial marriage/divorce, and it did not hurt his retirement SS money at all. His multiple ex's all get 1/2 each. Well, I say that it should cost him something.

And as another poster already said, a marriage lasting 40 years and one lasting 10 years are the same: 1/2 the benefit.

There is no rationale to it, and they say it does not matter because people think of it as "free money". But it is not. The money comes from the workers.
 
Last edited:
Oh, you want me to buy you dinner?

I would, but I don't know you and my wife might not like it. Besides, I only order wagyu off the internet and cook it at home.

Sorry.

Curses! :(

Back to ‘Beyond Meat’ burgers.
 
NW, half of his 401k gets transferred to the ex’s retirement account or the ex can cash out her half. The ex doesn’t have to wait until she retires to receive it. It’s called a Quadro if I am remembering correctly.
 
NW, half of his 401k gets transferred to the ex’s retirement account or the ex can cash out her half. The ex doesn’t have to wait until she retires to receive it. It’s called a Quadro if I am remembering correctly.

Thanks. I do not know about this, as I have no need :), but out of curiosity may check it out to understand how the IRS allows splitting of retirement fund. The I in IRA means "individual", but it is not really, is it?


Unfortunately, ‘Taste on Ellis’ is closed. BUT, you can still [-]subsidize[/-] treat me at 5A5 Steak House. ;)

Oh, you want me to buy you dinner?

I would, but I don't know you and my wife might not like it. Besides, I only order wagyu off the internet and cook it at home.

Sorry.

Well, it could be a guy's night out without the women. After sharing a pound or two of Wagyu beef, followed by some XO Cognac, you will know each other well.

I can see that Huston was just trying to help Robbie blow some dough, which he had problems doing as he said in a recent post.
 
Well, it could be a guy's night out without the women. After sharing a pound or two of Wagyu beef, followed by some XO Cognac, you will know each other well.

I can see that Huston was just trying to help Robbie blow some dough, which he had problems doing as he said in a recent post.

Robbie's married now....he's becoming one of "us".:LOL:

Damn! Too slow again. :facepalm:
 
When my ex and I split I kept what I had in my retirement accounts but he had much more because I paid more bills so he could put more in his. After what I had was subtracted we split it and I rolled it over to mine . So in effect it was then 50/50.
 
As a former social worker there is real poverty and hunger in this country. Please don’t make light of it.

Since you didn't quote anyone, it's hard to know which post bothered you.

But since I used an extreme example to illustrate the problem (asking if choosing $8.99 steak over $18.99 steak qualifies as 'food insecure'), I'll reply in case you or anyone else felt I was making light of an important issue.

My goal was just the opposite - I used that example to show how these definitions and bad statistics make light of an important problem. Crying "Wolf", ends up desensitizing people to the issue. Proper facts figures should be used, so we understand just how bad the issue really is. And can prioritize properly, as there are other problems that need our attention as well. Should the "squeaky wheel" get the grease, over a more serious issue that didn't exaggerate their plight, but chose truth and honesty instead?

I've heard that 'food insecure household' figure used in a PSA to supposedly back up a statement that 1 in 6 kids "don't know where their next meal is coming from". But the 'food insecure' definition says no such thing. Once someone starts making up numbers, I lose interest in helping them. Give it to me straight, if you can't do that, then obviously the problem isn't as bad as you say, and why should I continue to listen to you after you lied to me? I'll find another cause to support - one that doesn't lie to me.

-ERD50
 
Since you didn't quote anyone, it's hard to know which post bothered you.

But since I used an extreme example to illustrate the problem (asking if choosing $8.99 steak over $18.99 steak qualifies as 'food insecure'), I'll reply in case you or anyone else felt I was making light of an important issue.

My goal was just the opposite - I used that example to show how these definitions and bad statistics make light of an important problem. Crying "Wolf", ends up desensitizing people to the issue. Proper facts figures should be used, so we understand just how bad the issue really is. And can prioritize properly, as there are other problems that need our attention as well. Should the "squeaky wheel" get the grease, over a more serious issue that didn't exaggerate their plight, but chose truth and honesty instead?

I've heard that 'food insecure household' figure used in a PSA to supposedly back up a statement that 1 in 6 kids "don't know where their next meal is coming from". But the 'food insecure' definition says no such thing. Once someone starts making up numbers, I lose interest in helping them. Give it to me straight, if you can't do that, then obviously the problem isn't as bad as you say, and why should I continue to listen to you after you lied to me? I'll find another cause to support - one that doesn't lie to me.

-ERD50


Define "lie"
 
NW, half of his 401k gets transferred to the ex’s retirement account or the ex can cash out her half. The ex doesn’t have to wait until she retires to receive it. It’s called a Quadro if I am remembering correctly.

Yes- Qualified Domestic Relations Order. It's a way to transfer a portion of an IRA to an IRA in the name of the ex-spouse with no tax consequences to the original owner. (The ex-spouse can choose to liquidate it but that's his/her decision and he/she will owe the applicable taxes.)

I'm in favor of the Spousal SS payable to divorced spouses after 10 years (but maybe with a phase-in); being the daughter of a stay-at-home mother and the mother-in law of one, they DO work. They just don't get paid for it. I've told my DIL many times I couldn't have done what she does, let alone my dear mother, may she rest in peace, who had 5 kids in 7 years. My parents' marriage lasted till Mom died 2 years ago and I expect my son and DIL are also in it for life, but it would be cruel to leave someone who devoted their adult life to raising kids and maintaining the home with no SS after divorce from a long marriage. And, to be practical, we'd probably end up supporting most of them through other social programs.
 
In an attempt to quantity some of the ‘subsidies’ listed by various posters, and to encourage our discourse to be as fact based as possible, I’ve updated the previous table. Pls feel free to update/correct any of the data below with additional sources.

List & cost of Subsidies: Note that I’ve provided a link for each figure (hopefully somewhat accurate), and have tried to quantify ‘direct’ subsidies because, doing otherwise makes it less meaningful and less accurate IMO.

1. Agriculture: $20B/yr. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
2. Corporate: $110B/yr https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/
3. Religious: $80B/yr. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-82-5-billion-a-year/?utm_term=.8cdaa03e9d19
4. Energy: $20B/yr. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies
5. Transportation: I have no idea & it seems very difficult to quantify.
6. Housing: ~$240B/yr. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015...es-than-it-does-on-affordable-housing/390666/
7. Arts & Culture: ~$8.5B/yr (including tax deductions for charitable donations). https://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/how_0.pdf
8. Education: $183B/yr. https://bigandsmall.org/college-101-government-subsidies-and-college-price-inflation-part-3-of-5/
9. Health/Health Care: $685B/yr (FY2018) but, it depends on what you count. Only ~$49B/yr is actual “ACA Subsidies.” The vast majority is: (1) tax exclusion of employee health benefits ($266B/yr) and, (2) Medicaid/CHIP ($237B/yr) [Table 3]. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-06/51298-2018-05-healthinsurance.pdf
 
Last edited:
You really should include "tax expenditures" in this. Only one has been mentioned, the deduction for employer provided health care insurance. There are many more, and they are much bigger than the subsidies. From the CBO (chapter 3, here), just in 2017 they amounted to $1.7T.

Tax expenditures have a major impact on the federal budget. CBO estimates that in fiscal year 2017, before the 2017 tax act and subsequent legislation took effect, the more than 200 tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems totaled almost $1.7 trillion—or 8.9 percent of GDP—if their effects on payroll taxes as well as on income taxes are included. That amount equaled more than half of all federal revenues received in 2017 and exceeded spending on Social Security, defense, or Medicare
From the CBO report, the largest 10 items follow. Note, the first two,. together, represent 2.7% of GDP, or $500B this year.

•The exclusion of employers’ health insurance contributions is the single largest tax expenditure in the tax code; including effects on payroll taxes, that exclusion is estimated to have equaled 1.5 percent of GDP in 2017.
• The exclusion of pension plan contributions and earnings has the next largest impact, resulting in tax expenditures that are estimated to have totaled 1.2 percent of GDP last year, including effects on payroll taxes.
• Tax expenditures for the deferral of corporate profits earned abroad are estimated to have equaled 0.6 percent of GDP in 2017.
• Tax expenditures for deductions for state and local taxes (on nonbusiness income, sales, real estate, and personal property) are estimated to have equaled 0.5 percent of GDP in 2017.
• Tax expenditures for interest paid on mortgages for owner-occupied residences are estimated to have been 0.3 percent of GDP last year.
• Tax expenditures for charitable contributions are also estimated to have equaled 0.3 percent of GDP in 2017.
• Tax expenditures for the preferential tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains are estimated to have totaled 0.7 percent of GDP in 2017.12
• The Affordable Care Act provides a refundable tax credit, called the premium tax credit, to help low-and moderate-income people purchase health insurance through exchanges. Tax expenditures for those credits are estimated to have totaled 0.3 percent of GDP in 2017.
• The tax expenditure for the earned income tax credit is estimated to have been 0.4 percent of GDP last year.
• The tax expenditure for the child tax credit was also estimated to have been 0.3 percent of GDP in 2017.
 
Thank MB. Great reference.

I think this chart is a good illustration of the ‘big picture.’
 

Attachments

  • C1BCD2B7-1C7B-4C30-9200-4FD00B579CC8.jpg
    C1BCD2B7-1C7B-4C30-9200-4FD00B579CC8.jpg
    398.4 KB · Views: 52
You can get all the gruesome detail in a pdf file here: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5095

Down on page 52, we see that more than half the dollar value of the mortgage interest deduction goes to taxpayers with incomes above $200,000.

The White house budget office has them sorted by size, page 145 here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/ap_13_expenditures.pdf

Note that they have "step up in basis at death" to be about the same size a "deductability of charitable contributions (other than education and health)".
 
Last edited:
For some reason that I can't explain, the only one that really bothers me is Medicaid planning where people structure their finances so that taxpayers pay for their long-term care while subsantial assets get transferred to their children rather than having those assets used to pay for their long term care.

I agree on the issue of abuse. I have saved for my care and will use my funds to pay what ever expenses occur. If I outlive me assets, I'll do what I can to not take any Medicaid support. Just the way I was raised I guess. My sister wants to drain mom's accounts so Medicaid will have to pay for her care. I'm happy that mom trusted me with her finances so that won't happen.

Too many programs are full of abuses and fraud so that the ones that really need them are derided along with the abusers. The feds should really clean up the abuses and fraud and the increased budget needed to clean them out of the system would be paid for by the savings.
 
The CBO & JCT links are great reference material for describing the big picture of ‘subsidies.’ However, it seems somewhat ironic to me that CBO/JCT call them “Tax Expenditures”, when what they are is taxes not (yet?) taken from us. So, the chart in post #121 illustrates that the government could take half as much more (50% more) than they currently take.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom