Baby boomers complaining about paying capital gains tax......

[Perd Hapley]

---

Eh…. For many Californians I think it’d still be more than enough of a positive benefit.

All my kin I mentioned previously lived in the Bay Area before going out of state and they’ve all said that moving out of California was an easy decision for them to make.

Also don’t forget that moving expenses can be tax deductible.

Well of course it varies case by case what people’s preferences will be and how much its worth to them to move out of state. The point is that homeowners in a given area should not be pigeon-holed into either of two fairly extreme options (move hundreds of miles away, or don’t EVER move).

And this is not just a California problem. Its certainly already happening or soon to be developing in Miami, NYC, Nashville, Austin, DFW, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, DC, etc.

Let’s say a middle class empty nest couple (or individual) in some area that’s experienced exponential home value appreciation wants to sell their home that they own outright, and buy another home with the proceeds from the sale. They want to stay in the same general area, because its where their kids / grandkids are. Very common situation. It’s already guaranteed that the next home will not as big (or not in the great school district, or as updated, or have as much land, or whatever). A reasonable trade-off must almost always be made to account for the fact that the surrounding market appreciation combined with realtor fees will not let you “trade up”. And sellers are generally willing to make this trade-off, particularly when downsizing. But nobody in the middle class can do this AND absorb a tax bill in the hundreds of thousands. Its untenable.

 

[HRMSU]

This isn’t true either. Owners may pass less as a percentage of revenue but not income.

if I have a business that makes $200,000 profit I’m gonna pay more taxes than an employee who makes $200,000 in w2 wages. Unless you have it set up in some type of corporation.

No if you are a business owner you are likely running a lot of personal expenses through as business expenses and that helps for sure.

Legal creative deductions and tax vehicles. Trust me if you knew what they knew you would be sick and that's the point. Unless you are in their position you don't have the money, deduction qualifications or accounting/legal talent.

 

[HRMSU]

You know who wanted to eliminate those loop holes?

Orange man bad!!

Only Republican President in my adult lifetime that increased my taxes. The limit on property and interest deductions cost me quite a bit.

 

[HRMSU]

Wait til they tax UNREALIZED capital gains which has been discussed.

Can't see it happening....follow the money. People will stop investing because of the uncertainty of tax obligations/cash flow. Wall Street will never let that happen.

Now, a wealth tax that is what scares me. Say, they go after anybody with $1M in their 401k. That sounds like a lot but not if someone saves all their life and then the government comes and takes x% just cause they can't run their S the right way.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

---

Well of course it varies case by case what people’s preferences will be and how much its worth to them to move out of state. The point is that homeowners in a given area should not be pigeon-holed into either of two fairly extreme options (move hundreds of miles away, or don’t EVER move).

And this is not just a California problem. Its certainly already happening or soon to be developing in Miami, NYC, Nashville, Austin, DFW, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, DC, etc.

Let’s say a middle class empty nest couple (or individual) in some area that’s experienced exponential home value appreciation wants to sell their home that they own outright, and buy another home with the proceeds from the sale. They want to stay in the same general area, because its where their kids / grandkids are. Very common situation. It’s already guaranteed that the next home will not as big (or not in the great school district, or as updated, or have as much land, or whatever). A reasonable trade-off must almost always be made to account for the fact that the surrounding market appreciation combined with realtor fees will not let you “trade up”. And sellers are generally willing to make this trade-off, particularly when downsizing. But nobody in the middle class can do this AND absorb a tax bill in the hundreds of thousands. Its untenable.

Rising tides lift all boats... Equally.

If you are in the same area, your home should be valued (or over valued depending on how you look at it) equally to another close by in a like for like per SF/Acreage basis. For those with paid off mortgages should be able to downsize no problemo.

Let's say I'm 65, married and looking to retire with $150k in hh income. My 2850 SF house in a DFW suburb is paid for and now worth $800k or $280/SF. When I sell I lose +/-5% to the realtor ($40k) Then I pay cap gains taxes of 15% on the gains over $500k which amounts to a tax burden of $40k. My net is $720k.

With that $720k, I can now go buy myself a 2200 SF house that has a $295 per SF price tag and still have $75,000 left over to build out a bad *** sex dungeon.

Sell This




Buy This


Build This

 

[HRMSU]

- each time I hear that theory, the one about the same winners and losers after 3 years, I wonder why it appeals to some people so strongly. I mean, it isn't actually true- it's a totally made up guess that's said with authority. Yet it continues to be repeated because it is so appealing to some that they want it to be true.
Would some who are poor now become poor later? Of course.
Would some who are wealthy now become wealthy later? Of course.
But for the vast rest?...yeah I am not so sure everyone would be back to where they were in 3 years or even 10 years.

My skepticism is especially true for a situation where everyone starts with the same money and wealth. So many who are wealthy simply due to inheritance would find themselves without wealth or ability to regain it.

- Bro, you really just asked what the middle class has done in this country? It has consistently produced leaders of industry. It has consistently produced innovation. It has pushed for increased protections on worker safety, increased retirement protections, and increased educational opportunities.

I agree it's a guess.

Both anecdotal so I admit I don't have stats or proof. Maybe there is some media bias who knows BUT....

How many news stories have you heard about poor lottery winners pissing away their winnings? Also, a long time saying is the first generation created the wealth, the second takes it for granted and doesn't learn how it was created and the third generation has no clue and doesn't care pissing it away.

So I think it cuts both ways. I know people who grew up poor and are killing it and I know rich people who obviously grew up with everything and are just drifting in the wind and on the verge of bankruptcy.

I still believe that in this country if you have enough grit you will be better than fine. Do some start out with more than others? Yes, but as I stated above that doesn't guarantee success. Give me someone with grit and I'll bet on them all day every day.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Rising tides lift all boats... Equally.

If you are in the same area, your home should be valued (or over valued depending on how you look at it) equally to another close by in a like for like per SF/Acreage basis. For those with paid off mortgages should be able to downsize no problemo.

Let's say I'm 65, married and looking to retire with $150k in hh income. My 2850 SF house in a DFW suburb is now worth $800k or $280/SF. When I sell I lose +/-5% to the realtor ($40k) Then I pay cap gains taxes of 15% on the gains over $500k which amounts to a tax burden of $40k. My net is $720k.

With that $720k, I can now go buy myself a 2200 SF house that has a $295 per SF price tag and still have $75,000 left over to build out a bad *** sex dungeon.

Sell This
View attachment 520984



Buy This
View attachment 520986

Build This
View attachment 520987

But but but MUH INTRUST RAYT

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Also don’t forget that moving expenses can be tax deductible.

Not anymore - Trump got rid of that

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

But but but MUH INTRUST RAYT

Touche'. Cash buyers will be fine. If you're a regular Joe that makes a monthly mortgage payment, you're SOL. 2-4 years ago was the greatest opportunity to purchase and/or refinance a home in US history. If you didn't/weren't able to take advantage that sucks.

If I were to try to buy my house today that I bought in 2021 with the same amount of money down, my monthly mortgage payment would be double what it is. These are the golden handcuffs.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Touche'. Cash buyers will be fine. If you're a regular Joe that makes a monthly mortgage payment, you're SOL. 2-4 years ago was the greatest opportunity to purchase and/or refinance a home in US history. If you didn't/weren't able to take advantage that sucks.

If I were to try to buy my house today that I bought in 2021 with the same amount of money down, my monthly mortgage payment would be double what it is. These are the golden handcuffs.

Oh I was joking, punch line was that those buyers in question should definitely have their houses paid off.

 

[ckDOG]

Can't see it happening....follow the money. People will stop investing because of the uncertainty of tax obligations/cash flow. Wall Street will never let that happen.

Now, a wealth tax that is what scares me. Say, they go after anybody with $1M in their 401k. That sounds like a lot but not if someone saves all their life and then the government comes and takes x% just cause they can't run their S the right way.

If it came to this, you'd find citizens finally compelled to vote their comfy incumbent representation out of office and possibly tarred and feathered.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Only Republican President in my adult lifetime that increased my taxes. The limit on property and interest deductions cost me quite a bit.

It's a killer for a lot of folks.

 

[johnson86-1]

This isn’t true either. Owners may pass less as a percentage of revenue but not income.

if I have a business that makes $200,000 profit I’m gonna pay more taxes than an employee who makes $200,000 in w2 wages. Unless you have it set up in some type of corporation.

No if you are a business owner you are likely running a lot of personal expenses through as business expenses and that helps for sure.

You have this backwards. If you have a business and are running it as a sole proprietorship or LLC, you are coming out way ahead on income taxes unless you are just doing something incredibly stupid. Before the qualified business income deduction, if you actually did everything to the letter and didn't run personal expenses through the business (which I would say applies to approximately .000001% of small businesses), at worst you end up in roughly the same place.

If you have it set up as a corporation, it's going to depend on how much income you have and how much corporate income tax you pay. If you are in a capital intensive business, accelerated depreciation should keep you ahead as long as you are growing. If you sell before you stop growing, you should still come out ahead.

 

[johnson86-1]

Not necessarily true with the 20% deduction most business owners get these days. That pretty much offsets the increase in SS/Medicare taxes. And, as you say there’s a LOT more deductions available to business owners.

There is no increase in SS/Medicare taxes for small business owners. They just don't get the privilege of being able to pretend they're only getting hit for 7.65%. The employer side is deducted from income just like it is for employees.

 

[johnson86-1]

Only Republican President in my adult lifetime that increased my taxes. The limit on property and interest deductions cost me quite a bit.

The MID can be argued either way, but the limit on state and local taxes should have been dropped to zero. I roughly ended up in the same place when it was all said and done, but the only indefensible parts of that tax bill were the QBI deduction and the idiocy of having a $10k SALT cap for individuals and for married filing jointly. I get that the QBI was basically a combination of rent seeking and vote buying, but what in the 17 was the constituency looking for a marriage penalty on the SALT cap?

 

[patdog]

There is no increase in SS/Medicare taxes for small business owners. They just don't get the privilege of being able to pretend they're only getting hit for 7.65%. The employer side is deducted from income just like it is for employees.

True. It just seems that way to them because they see both halves of the tax.

 

[mstateglfr]

I think after 5.5 pages worth of discussion, its worth pointing out that the Yahoo article never actually gives the specific financials of the couple that is featured.

- The article says they have lived for 33 years in their residence and moving would cost them bigly due to taxes.
- The article then goes into two hypothetical scenarios that highlight the difference between if a couple buys a house 37 years ago and it is worth $550K now, and if that same couple and house is worth $2MM now.

There have been a lot of comments that are specific to the couple in the article and how they cant move elsewhere in their neighborhood/town/metro because of housing costs, but we have no idea what they paid, what their house is worth, what they still owe, what their property taxes are, etc etc.
...if this has been discussed in detail already, Germans, my bad. It sure seems like a lot have used incorrect info or misunderstood info to draw conclusions though.

 

[johnson86-1]

Rising tides lift all boats... Equally.

If you are in the same area, your home should be valued (or over valued depending on how you look at it) equally to another close by in a like for like per SF/Acreage basis. For those with paid off mortgages should be able to downsize no problemo.

I think that's incorrect for housing. Because of the artificial constraints we've put on housing, the lower end seems to get bid up much faster than the higher end (ignoring the housing of the truly wealthy). Income in our market just hasn't kept up with house price appreciation (which I think is true for pretty much any area that's not dying off). Take a home that's 4,000 sq ft and was built 30 years ago when the couple had kids in jr high or high school and compare it to the 2,200 sq ft home built 30 years ago, and the per sq ft runup on the 2,200 sq ft home has been massive compared to the 4,000, just because generally the income in the area will support paying the high price and remodeling the 2,200 sq ft home where as the number of people that can buy and remodel the 4,000 sq ft home is much smaller.

Obviously you've always had a premium in per sq ft for smaller homes, but it wasn't anything like now on a percentage or absolute basis 10 years ago.

 

[mstateglfr]

I agree it's a guess.

Both anecdotal so I admit I don't have stats or proof. Maybe there is some media bias who knows BUT....

How many news stories have you heard about poor lottery winners pissing away their winnings?

I see a lot more news stories about lottery winners going broke vs lottery winners staying in the black.
...but I chalk that up to the reality that nobody cares about a story where a lottery winner doesnt go broke.

Same for athletes- yeah stories about athletes declaring bankruptcy are way more frequent than stories about athletes keeping their money and not losing it all on drugs/women/entourage/cars.
...I chalk that up to the reality that no news outlet is going to seek out retired athletes in their 40s and 50s to do profile pieces on how they are living securely. Thats boring and wont draw interest from readers.

 

[HRMSU]

I see a lot more news stories about lottery winners going broke vs lottery winners staying in the black.
...but I chalk that up to the reality that nobody cares about a story where a lottery winner doesnt go broke.

Same for athletes- yeah stories about athletes declaring bankruptcy are way more frequent than stories about athletes keeping their money and not losing it all on drugs/women/entourage/cars.
...I chalk that up to the reality that no news outlet is going to seek out retired athletes in their 40s and 50s to do profile pieces on how they are living securely. Thats boring and wont draw interest from readers.

Perhaps. That's the bias I was suggesting. I know it's not recency bias but I don't know what that label is.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Rising tides lift all boats... Equally.

If you are in the same area, your home should be valued (or over valued depending on how you look at it) equally to another close by in a like for like per SF/Acreage basis. For those with paid off mortgages should be able to downsize no problemo.

Let's say I'm 65, married and looking to retire with $150k in hh income. My 2850 SF house in a DFW suburb is paid for and now worth $800k or $280/SF. When I sell I lose +/-5% to the realtor ($40k) Then I pay cap gains taxes of 15% on the gains over $500k which amounts to a tax burden of $40k. My net is $720k.

With that $720k, I can now go buy myself a 2200 SF house that has a $295 per SF price tag and still have $75,000 left over to build out a bad *** sex dungeon.

Sell This
View attachment 520984



Buy This
View attachment 520986

Build This
View attachment 520987

First off, math is off in that calculation. If you paid $200k for that 2850sf house in, let’s say, 1998 or so, your net gain is only $600k over 25 years. You only get taxed on the profit from the sale. Which would be like $15k total that you pay out of the $100k that is taxable. In your DFW example, the value of the home would have increased 4-fold over 25 years. It’s not really comparable to the areas of CA where instead of a 4-fold increase, values have increased 10-fold or so over the same period, or 20-30 fold in some cases since they bought the home. However, it’s getting there. If current market trends continue, those who bought in the DFW suburbs around 2017-2018 and have stayed put could easily be in the same boat by 2030 or so.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Not anymore - Trump got rid of that

That was a stupid move

If incentives are given to businesses to move and create jobs, then the same should be done for individuals who move for reasons of their own.

Did individuals receive a different spoonful of sugar for this medicine to go down?

#DonniePoppinsAnyone?**

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

I think that's incorrect for housing. Because of the artificial constraints we've put on housing, the lower end seems to get bid up much faster than the higher end (ignoring the housing of the truly wealthy). Income in our market just hasn't kept up with house price appreciation (which I think is true for pretty much any area that's not dying off). Take a home that's 4,000 sq ft and was built 30 years ago when the couple had kids in jr high or high school and compare it to the 2,200 sq ft home built 30 years ago, and the per sq ft runup on the 2,200 sq ft home has been massive compared to the 4,000, just because generally the income in the area will support paying the high price and remodeling the 2,200 sq ft home where as the number of people that can buy and remodel the 4,000 sq ft home is much smaller.

Obviously you've always had a premium in per sq ft for smaller homes, but it wasn't anything like now on a percentage or absolute basis 10 years ago.

Per SF is always a terrible way to look at home costs. Smaller houses are considerably more expensive to build on a per SF basis when you add the cost of land, infrastructure, and permitting into the per SF price. Every year this gets more and more exacerbated by building codes that add to these costs.


As for the bidding up of lower cost houses, it's all dependent on location and timing. Right now with higher than normal interest rates and tighter economic conditions there's more heat on lower priced homes in most areas as most demand is from people that really need a home (first time homeowners for example.) From 2013-2022 demand was for larger more expensive "move up" houses as interest rates were lower than normal and the economy was expanding.

That may not be the case where you are, say in Mississippi where income and growth overall is weak and has been for a while.. But in lots of other places where income and growth are robust, there has been a lot of pressure on larger homes for many years. My old stomping grounds of Frisco TX is an example. Nothing has been built under 3000SF in 20 years in that place. You can find lots of homes built in the 80's and 90's under 2000 SF though. I lived in a neighborhood there where my house was 2500 SF and the 3 neighbors I shared a fence with had 3500, 4500, and 6,000 SF houses respectively. Looking at Zillow estimate right now all 4 houses are valued between $370 -$400 per SF. They have all risen in lock stop since I bought that house years ago.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I'm fascinated by the conservative hivemind's views on holding everything and everyone accountable, except when it comes to paying taxes.

And I also agree that the liberal's side comes from a 'well, you have it, I don't, so pay up' mentality.

I tend to side with the liberals on this one. I see nothing, absolutely nothing, that makes me feel sorry for people who have been extremely fortunate with their money or investments. Good for them, I say, but I better not hear you bltching about it. They get excited because they think they are about to cash in on some poor sap, then they find out there is a penalty and now they've been screwed over.

I read the article as an older couple trying to make contingencies for funding themselves until they die without working until they die. I didn't get a sense that they were complaining. If anything the writer's perspective did more to make it sound "entitled" than any direct quote that I read from them. End of/late life decisions are hard. That's what I took from it.

 

[dickiedawg]

That's not the liberal view.

I know this post is ancient history in terms of this thread but I’m curious what you mean by this.
Is it a distinction between “liberal” and “progressive”? Because that view is in fact quite illiberal.
Or are you using liberal as a shorthand for the political left (as it often is) and saying they don’t actually believe that?
Or maybe it’s something else entirely.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I'd say taxation by governments is out of control.
Seems like there was a revolt over that somewhere one time.
Oh, and don't buy/build in high tax areas. Plus, interest rates in the 6-7% range arent historically high by the way.

There are a lot of issues at play. One key one is that most of us depend on federal welfare but don't like our tax burden. There's a fair amount of dissonance in just that fact. I don't have an easy answer, nor does anyone else.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

 

[johnson86-1]

There are a lot of issues at play. One key one is that most of us depend on federal welfare but don't like our tax burden. There's a fair amount of dissonance in just that fact. I don't have an easy answer, nor does anyone else.

There is a huge difference between depending and being dependent. You have a lot of people on disability, Medicare, medicaid, TANF, SNAP, and/or receiving social security, but that's not most of the population and certainly not "most of us."

Yes, because the federal spending is so outsized, rightsizing it would certainly cause a lot of adjustments, but that doesn't mean that people that participate in the economy are suddenly going to be destitute, particularly if changes were gradual (which they would be if we weren't insistent on waiting until a crisis to do anything about spending). It's the people that depend on the current pattern of government spending that have the most to gain by the federal government spending being controlled, because they are going to be the ones that have the most to lose if the changes are sudden and large instead of responsibly making changes now.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I read the article as an older couple trying to make contingencies for funding themselves until they die without working until they die. I didn't get a sense that they were complaining. If anything the writer's perspective did more to make it sound "entitled" than any direct quote that I read from them. End of/late life decisions are hard. That's what I took from it.

Yeah, it's probably not as bad as it appears in the article. And of course the Chris McDaniel crowd thinks I'm trying to lobby to take all their money, and I'm not. But nobody anticipated home values going up like they have, so you can't convince me that value was counted on as a retirement strategy. Nobody wants to pay taxes, I get it. But most people also don't get this incredible windfall of money either, just by living in a place.

 

[johnson86-1]

Per SF is always a terrible way to look at home costs. Smaller houses are considerably more expensive to build on a per SF basis when you add the cost of land, infrastructure, and permitting into the per SF price. Every year this gets more and more exacerbated by building codes that add to these costs.

I'm not suggesting they should be the same price per sq ft. As I said, there has always been a premium, but the change has been beyond what would be dictated by things like land cost and permitting.

As for the bidding up of lower cost houses, it's all dependent on location and timing. Right now with higher than normal interest rates and tighter economic conditions there's more heat on lower priced homes in most areas as most demand is from people that really need a home (first time homeowners for example.) From 2013-2022 demand was for larger more expensive "move up" houses as interest rates were lower than normal and the economy was expanding.That may not be the case where you are, say in Mississippi where income and growth overall is weak and has been for a while.. But in lots of other places where income and growth are robust, there has been a lot of pressure on larger homes for many years.

I was guessing that with the amount of underbuilding generally since the great recession, the number of places where lower end houses were getting bid up because of people trying to get any house they could afford would dominate compared to the places where income has grown fast enough for houses to appreciate in lockstep. But I certainly haven't looked at any data on it.

My old stomping grounds of Frisco TX is an example. Nothing has been built under 3000SF in 20 years in that place. You can find lots of homes built in the 80's and 90's under 2000 SF though. I lived in a neighborhood there where my house was 2500 SF and the 3 neighbors I shared a fence with had 3500, 4500, and 6,000 SF houses respectively. Looking at Zillow estimate right now all 4 houses are valued between $370 -$400 per SF. They have all risen in lock stop since I bought that house years ago.

View attachment 521111

 

[Boom Boom]

I

There is a huge difference between depending and being dependent. You have a lot of people on disability, Medicare, medicaid, TANF, SNAP, and/or receiving social security, but that's not most of the population and certainly not "most of us."

Yes, because the federal spending is so outsized, rightsizing it would certainly cause a lot of adjustments, but that doesn't mean that people that participate in the economy are suddenly going to be destitute, particularly if changes were gradual (which they would be if we weren't insistent on waiting until a crisis to do anything about spending). It's the people that depend on the current pattern of government spending that have the most to gain by the federal government spending being controlled, because they are going to be the ones that have the most to lose if the changes are sudden and large instead of responsibly making changes now.

Neglecting that I don't agree with that premise, it's not actually hard at all to cut government. Start with spending your side favors. Show that you actually mean what you say for once, and aren't just disingenuously attacking overall spending because what you really want is to cut spending you don't like, and keep the spending you do. Electoral success will follow, enabling overall cuts.

But of course, overall spending cuts is not what the right actually wants.

 

[mstateglfr]

Perhaps. That's the bias I was suggesting. I know it's not recency bias but I don't know what that label is.

Hm, yeah I dont know what it is called. I guess 'trainwreck bias'?...or maybe 'schadenfreude bias'? Basically, whatever the term is for why so many like to watch reality TV shows that make your life seem better...thatd be the term for this.

 

[Mr. Cook]

Not anymore - Trump got rid of that

So did some of the "red states"

 

[Boom Boom]

I know this post is ancient history in terms of this thread but I’m curious what you mean by this.
Is it a distinction between “liberal” and “progressive”? Because that view is in fact quite illiberal.
Or are you using liberal as a shorthand for the political left (as it often is) and saying they don’t actually believe that?
Or maybe it’s something else entirely.

"
And I also agree that the liberal's side comes from a 'well, you have it, I don't, so pay up' mentality."

Who actually thinks this? Maybe the dumbest lefties you can find, but why should the dumbest define the whole for any group?

I think the liberal view is everyone should pay taxes, that those who benefit the most should pay the most, and that the rich are proportionally paying less than the poor, thus the rich should be paying more.

I think that this is even in question is the deliberate result of decades of propaganda including the intended neutering (at best, often cooperation) of our media and educational entities.

 

[Mr. Cook]

There are a lot of issues at play. One key one is that most of us depend on federal welfare but don't like our tax burden. There's a fair amount of dissonance in just that fact. I don't have an easy answer, nor does anyone else.

By extension, we also want well-maintained highways, good educational systems, social security, and strong national defense but don't like the tax burden.

You're a right - there are no easy answers. Simply put - the next generation is going to have it worse (overall) than the current one. And that's something we haven't seen in this country in quite some time.

 

[Podgy]

I think the liberal view is everyone should pay taxes, that those who benefit the most should pay the most, and that the rich are proportionally paying less than the poor, thus the rich should be paying more.

That's the classical liberal view, the view of Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

There is a huge difference between depending and being dependent. You have a lot of people on disability, Medicare, medicaid, TANF, SNAP, and/or receiving social security, but that's not most of the population and certainly not "most of us."

Yes, because the federal spending is so outsized, rightsizing it would certainly cause a lot of adjustments, but that doesn't mean that people that participate in the economy are suddenly going to be destitute, particularly if changes were gradual (which they would be if we weren't insistent on waiting until a crisis to do anything about spending). It's the people that depend on the current pattern of government spending that have the most to gain by the federal government spending being controlled, because they are going to be the ones that have the most to lose if the changes are sudden and large instead of responsibly making changes now.

Somewhat semantics to make the more fortunate feel better about themselves. Mississippi does not have the standard of living, roads, etc. without federal money, of which we receive way more than we pay in and we all make use of that.

Another example. Mortgage interest deduction, a federal subsidy for those wealthy enough to "own" a home. The federal government spends 3x on mortgage interest tax forgiveness than it spends on all direct subsidized housing. We just don't like to consider that there isn't a ton of difference in the two things other than our pride.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Don't forget about the step-up basis if their children inherit the property instead. The kids could sell it and not pay capital gains tax.

 

[Mr. Cook]

That's the classical liberal view, the view of Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

But is that true?

 

[Boom Boom]

By extension, we also want well-maintained highways, good educational systems, social security, and strong national defense but don't like the tax burden.

You're a right - there are no easy answers. Simply put - the next generation is going to have it worse (overall) than the current one. And that's something we haven't seen in this country in quite some time.

I don't think as a nation we ever decided we didn't want to pay for those things. There was never anywhere near a large enough base of support for a libertarian dream low-spend, low-tax state. There was, however, large support for the idea of tax cuts paying for themselves. As that clown idea has rightfully hit the trashcan, we are moving back to a liberal view of tax and spend.