DoobieBrotherhood t1_jeb2kru wrote

Because logic is out the window when it comes to hypocrisy nowadays. If you think we should limit GHG emissions, you can’t use any form of energy. If you think Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine and commit genocide, then you cannot be a citizen of any country that has ever been in a war.


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it9vl7j wrote

If you work as an independent contractor and dig a ditch with your own shovel and wheelbarrow, those expenses are deductible on your taxes. If you work for a ditch digging company and use their shovel and wheelbarrow, those expenses are not deductible.

Speaking of digging oneself a hole, I am sorry that you dis that in this discussion and also that you lack the humility to admit when you are wrong. No doubt, that will ensure that you never learn while others surpass your knowledge. I cannot imagine how difficult that must be for your fragile ego.


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it9idd7 wrote

Terms have definitions. The reason we distinguish is because they are no equivalent. You cannot just say “blah blah nihilism” and pretend you don’t need to make a solid claim for equivalency.

I’ve already explained the differences. Repeating yourself and ignoring those explanations does not help your case.


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it9hs0s wrote

The building of the home, marketing of the home, selling of the home — hell, every expense of every business that touches the home is tax deductible.

The deductibility of business expenses is not a subsidy, although that is a point worth arguing in a different conversation (it involves looking at whether we should encourage or discourage vertical integration and mergers in general).

This is just about homeowners versus renters. They are equivalent. If you walk down any residential street, some residents are owners and some are renters. They receive the same product just with a different method. And they do not receive the same tax benefits.

We are subsidizing the ones who have more capital and not subsidizing the ones with less capital. The effect of the subsidy is to increase the annual income of the wealthier families to the detriment of the less wealthy families (in general).


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it9h1so wrote

It’s not an accounting distinction. When you earn salary/wages, the company is expending all of the deductible expenses you would be if you owned the business. You are approaching this like a high school student who took one philosophy class and dropped it halfway through. We are on the science sub. You know that “labor” is not a deductible business expense.

I never said ownership was a higher form of economic participation. Don’t straw man me.


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it9fnuc wrote

You seem insistent on comparing apples and oranges when the original distinction was very clearly and obviously apples for apples.

I’m happy to discuss more nebulous concepts for subsidies after we put the nail in the coffin of this one. Homeowners and renters are equivalent other than the method they use to pay for housing.


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it9co5f wrote

>Revenue gained from an investment of time and labor.

It’s not though. As an employee, you are paid a salary or wages, which are fundamentally different from investment income. You can always be an independent contractor and deduct your home office expenses against your contract revenues.

Neither of these things are corporate taxes though.


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it97xgv wrote

>if the tax is unjust…

checks sub

shakes head

“Unjust” has no scientific interpretation. A net positive financial benefit to a group that is accompanied dollar for dollar by a net negative financial impact to the government is a subsidy in every way that matters.


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it95syy wrote


DoobieBrotherhood t1_it95cen wrote


DoobieBrotherhood t1_isdedqo wrote

I mean, if you draw a line of best fit for the data, then it definitely shows a correlation. Just because it doesn’t form a perfect curve doesn’t negate the correlation.