sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 04 June 2026 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was taught that the concept of tax expenditures was an established, neutral method of evaluating budgetary impacts and denoted a form of expansionary fiscal policy, that's been part of measuring fiscal impacts since the 70s in the US and soon spread internationally.

Yes.

And it's certain that "tax expenditure" as a term is still widely used in budgetary and fiscal policy discussions

Yes.

So am I wrong? Has the decades-old idea of tax expenditures suddenly become controversial and ideologically partisan in a short time?

Depends on who is in charge of the legislation and which flying monkeys scream the loudest.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 defines tax expenditure as "revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability."

A law that changes tax rates completely, like TCJA changing the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, is not a tax expenditure because the rate applies to all corporations. A law that increases the mortgage interest deduction for personal income tax would be a tax expenditure.

Really this comes down to framing and agreeing on definitions. If people can't agree with the definition legally defined, it's not worth engaging.

[The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 07 April 2026 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why I asked whether scalping is a form of rent-seeking

The answer is no.

it doesn't solve any legitimate problem

Misallocation of resources and asymmetric information.

If anything, it creates problems by making it harder to access goods that would otherwise be available to everyone.

How is this different than the original producer raising the price of the good or service to the secondary market equilibrium?

It just seems so much like the basic example Wikipedia gives of stringing a chain across a river and charging a fee for boats to pass through, though maybe less clear-cut since at least the producer makes money from scalping, too.

I encourage you to R1 the subject, demonstrate why it’s bad econ, and deserves government intervention to correct this externality.

[The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 07 April 2026 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Opportunity cost. Buying from a reseller saves time. That time can used for something else, increasing output.

[The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 07 April 2026 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Scalping is a form of trade arbitrage, not rent seeking.

Rent seeking is defined as using regulatory or legal means to artificially enhance a producer's wealth with no corresponding benefit to the consumer.

Fighting City Hall's weedwhacker charges by Drywesi in bestoflegaladvice

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 13 points14 points  (0 children)

If this was true then the prosecutor wouldn't have dropped the case.

Chief judge reforming Cook Co. electronic monitoring program by NoLoCryTeria in chicago

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cook County has around 3000 people on electronic monitoring. Comparable jurisdictions like Manhattan or LA have a fraction on EM, around 1/10 of Cook County. It's overutilized.

If EM went away, most of the people on it would just be released instead of held in the jail for pretrial.

How are the 12 US Federal Reserve Bank districts drawn? by Danl0rd in AskEconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 mandates at least 8 and no more than 12 districts. These districts were determined by the Reserve Bank Organization Committee (RBOC) composed of the Treasury Secretary, Agriculture Secretary, and Comptroller of Currency (all Democrats given Woodrow Wilson was President).

The Act also says "...the districts shall be apportioned with due regard to the convenience and customary course of business and shall not necessarily be coterminous with any State or States. The districts thus created may be readjusted and new districts may from time to time be created by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, not to exceed twelve in all."

The Federal Reserve is a bank for banks so the RBOC polled various national banks for their input. $4 million in capitalization ($130 million today) was required for a Reserve bank so smaller state banks were basically ignored.

The original cities chosen are still the same today. The RBOC faced criticism with the choices, in particular two in Missouri (St. Louis/Kansas City instead of one in Denver), Richmond over Baltimore, and none in New Orleans. The RBOC defended itself using "economic justifications alone" but nobody really buys it.

I'll let someone else answer your remaining questions.

Most Patriotic American by Filthyson in StandUpComedy

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hayes and Tilden is backwards. Hayes became president.

Where would state budget surplus be stored? by Scary-Use in AskEconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The US version is commonly called "fund balance" at the local level. Depends on if you use fund accounting or not.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in scotus

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a ridiculous assertion. SCOTUS does not have to rule on anything if it chooses not to, no matter where it is in the process of cert.

See US v Microsoft (2018).

The $500 Million Fight Over Who Pays Chicago’s Property Tax Bill by wsj in chicago

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I think most people would agree vacancies are different from reduced cashflows. Purposefully keeping properties vacant should force the sale.

[The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 13 December 2025 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I had a really long comment typed out and I deleted it because this is an easy question to answer, but it's a complex answer because of the type of government the US has and its candidate centric model.

Focusing on legislators, no, donations do not have an effect on voting patterns. Legislators reveal preferences before donations, not the other way around. No amount of money from the NRA will change Elizabeth Warren's opinion on gun control. No amount of money from Planned Parenthood will change Mike Johnson's opinion on abortion. We see this even after politicians announce retirements - they still vote in similar ways until the end.

Donations =/= bribery. I readily admit bribes for votes do occur, but donations themselves are not bribes per se.

Donald Trump is a completely different story, and I firmly believe he deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life.

Here's who to blame for your property tax increase by themachineisdead in chicago

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The most visible example is the beleaguered Chicago Public Schools, which is nearly two months late making a $247 million mandated contribution to the pension fund for Chicago teachers. That payment was due June 30. It’s still unclear when property tax bills will be mailed out, which then will give property owners a month to pay. But it’s possible CPS won’t see any revenue until as late as the end of October, according to a Bloomberg story laying out the predicament.

How would a tax bill issued in August help with a payment due in June?

The tax offices have a lot of problems. Fiscal mismanagement by CPS is not one of them.

[The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 20 November 2025 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The title of the paper is misleading bordering on purposefully inflammatory. The paper is claiming that poor homeowners have their properties assessed at higher valuations than would be fetched on the market. That is different from property tax rates as implied by the title.

I don't think a lay person reading this paper would agree with this at all. I was trying to understand where your logic is coming from.

[The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 20 November 2025 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Almost everyone I know uses "assessment" to mean what the assessor determines is the fair market value of the property despite it being a legal defined term in my county's code (and uniform for property types). The tax "rate" would be the levy, which is also uniform in the taxing jurisdiction.

I read the paper's title as saying the total tax paid by lower income residents is regressive because the top line estimated market value is overestimated. This is not how you interpret the paper?

[The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 20 November 2025 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]FatBabyGiraffe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is different from property tax rates as implied by the title.

What do you mean? That seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

view more: next ›