Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Smooth_Imagination t1_it8r0ag wrote

>Moreover, the absence of a tax on imputed rent represents a subsidy, which does not discriminate between the newly built and existing housing. Thus, everyone occupying one’s own dwelling can benefit from it.

So if I don't tax something, I've subsidised it?

Not sure if I am following the logic here. Not everything is entitled to be taxed, that's just the perspective of a government. The mafia thinks you owe them protection money, but we don't normalise that mentality.

If anyone can explain imputed rent to me on your own home I'd be grateful.

0

DoobieBrotherhood t1_it95k8x wrote

If you offer one group a tax break that other groups do not get, you are subsidizing that group.

5

Smooth_Imagination t1_it97dko wrote

No you are not. You are, if the tax is unjust, simply discriminating against the other group.

There is no natural state of taxation. Each tax needs to be justified in terms of what it does and be applied fairly, but arguing it as a benefit is like punching one person and then claiming the unpunched person was the beneficiary of not being punched.

I'm pro-tax, but I don't believe a situation can be described as subsidy because you didn't tax it.

Its funny really because whilst this kind of discussion goes on, no one did anything about the tax loopholes in offshore accounts, which the truly rich benefit from.

−3

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.

3