More "unexpected" bad economic newsFollow

Well, at least it's no longer an assumption.


ETA: I suppose if you buy a steak for $7.00 on sale today and go back 1 week later to find it's no longer on sale and now costs $10.00, they must have raised the price on steaks, yeah?

Edited, Jun 14th 2010 2:16pm by BrownDuck

It's neither, really. The cuts were created with a set expiration date. Saying it's a tax increase is like saying it's a "price increase" when a promotion at McDonald's ends.

So you don't think paying more taxes is a tax increase?

I don't think you're an idiot, I just think you're holding on to a certain perspective that is functionally incorrect. Yes, people are going to pay more taxes. No, it's not a tax increase. Feel free to argue that the tax cuts should be extended or whatever, because people need that extra money, but calling an expiring tax cut raising taxes is disingenuous and misrepresents the issue. If they were supposed to be permanent why put an expiry date on them?

This is a terrible analogy, since they aren't analogous at all.

In your example, the landlord is providing a discount because of market (or probably more likely submarket) pressures on rents. The landlord is offering a special to either entice new renters by giving a break on the first month's rent, or trying to minimize their vacancy rate by offering a special to existing residents so other, cheaper properties don't lure them away.

In either case, there is a discount being given to a set market rent, which if you know multifamily real estate anyways you realize isn't very "set" since a variety of micro- and macro-economic factors provide some volatility to this "set rent". Therefore, your conclusion is that the rent is just reverting back to the norm after the discount period expires.

In the case of taxes, there is no set market tax rate, so saying it is just going back up to the norm is meaningless since there is no norm. What is the "correct" tax rate for everyone? The answer: no one knows. Some people believe the current taxes (with the Bush cuts) are still too high, while others will argue that even after the cuts expire the tax rates are still too low. Obviously there's no correlation to tax rates and the federal budget, since we continue to run a deficit.

What is the market for tax rates? Is the American government afraid that tenants will move over to paying taxes to another country, so they offered a discount to keep their citizens? Ummm, no.

Essentially your analogy is based on an assumption that doesn't hold water.

TLDR: Bad analogy is bad.

See? That's all that was needed. You don't think it's a tax increase. Was that so hard?

Where, precisely? All I get is "It's neither, really."

The awesome thing about having two clear options is you can tell if someone is obfuscating by how many of those options are included in the response.

you don't say. It's not exactly the same situation? wow.

Arguing what taxes should be is a different situation. It's perfectly analogous because the point I was making is when you have a temporary situation that returns to normal, it's disingenuous to pretend the temporary state was in anyway a standard that you can compare to.

His eventual answer that you shouldn't call it that?

No, this one...

No. Your question was "are you in the camp that believes this is not a tax increase or...." and he replied, "it's neither."

"Is this a tax increase?" "No."

It's consistent.

Which was not accurate, as his answer to question #2 clearly shows.

See? Perfection.

His reaction to Varus indicated a predisposition to the broader question, my disambiguation has cleared the air on what that predisposition is.

Gbaji,

Not just that these are the same Democrats that will swear that not increasing spending is cutting spending accomanied by the msm movement showinb us starving american children to drive home the point.