Slashdot Mirror
Israeli Spies 'Watched Russian Agents Breach Kaspersky Software' (bbc.com)
Israeli spies looked on as Russian hackers breached Kaspersky cyber-security software two years ago, according to reports. From a report: The Russians were allegedly attempting to gather data on US intelligence programs, according to the New York Times and Washington Post. Israeli agents made the discovery after breaching the software themselves. Kaspersky has said it was neither involved in nor aware of the situation and denies collusion with authorities. Last month, the US government decided to stop using the Russian firm's software on its computers. The Israelis are said to have notified the US, which led to the ban on Kaspersky programs. The New York Times said that the situation had been described by "multiple people who have been briefed on the matter."
So Israel was spying on the US and saw that Russia was spying on the US.
Great. Wish they'd both die in a fire.
If Kaspersky did not know. Its not like Russia has a free press to investigate those things. Oh crap.
Part of the reason I've always felt nervous installing AV or anything else that wanted to run at or near kernel is exactly this: at least one third party is "in" my system...and if that third party goes sideways then the rest of my defenses aren't worth much. (e.g. is your IDS really going to flag a 10% traffic increase to your AV vendor from your AV software?)
Here's an old story you might find apolitically interesting. We knew way before the election that Kaspersky was KGB trained and a Putin loyalist. You can read my comment history of you're an actual skeptic rather than a Russian botnik. But I also recommend anyone who doubts Putin's viciousness to hear the story of how he murdered his way into office from this PBS Documentary.
As a sidenote, I'm a slashdot reader from more than a decade ago, and I've been really disappointed to see the amount of denialism present on this issue. I remember this as a place for pragmatic, intelligent, realistic people. And here's the reality: Putin is at war with you, he doesn't give a shit about you or your family or even his own citizens' families, and he actively hopes that you are confused about what he is doing, or denying it entirely.
Seriously, if something like this came up in a cheesy 80s action show I'd switch channel.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Kaspersky's AV solutions scan files, and transmit data back to their servers if found to be malware. If nothing else, they can send back lists of files on machines that are scanned, etc.
The transmission is done thru TLS-encrypted channels.
The Russian Government, like most major governments, do their best to monitor all of the traffic they can. See the recent Wikileaks documents on "Peter-Service" for some details.
If the Russian gov't has obtained, one way or another, copies of Kaspersky's TLS keys, then they really don't need cooperation to see everything that's coming down the pipe. They can also probably MITM the connection and take control of the AV application, without Kaspersky's knowledge.
It is called "plausible deniability" for Kaspersky and fairly trivial in a country where the use of strong encryption requires a license from the gov't.
There are numerous current news articles about our (American) Justice Department is salivating over the possibility of that being possible in the U.S.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I trust(ed) Kaspersky more than the Senators bad-mouthing them. They look pretty bad in this light, though. Not because of collusion with the KGB but because their software can't, apparently, protect their own systems. So who can we trust, then? Symantec? McAfee? Windows Defender? Please. It looks like we either have to swallow the fact we're going to be entertaining uninvited guests or we'll have to try to live without our security blankets. It isn't so bad for /. readers but what about those friends and family who are more-and-more at risk? What a stinkhole we've made of the Internet.
No matter how you spin this there is no way for Kapersky to come out of this whole mess OK.
The best way to be protected is to ignore the problems... so says the Symantec CEO https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
If it is breached, that means that they are not working together with them. It means it NEEDS to be breached to be available to them.
Why are they not caught breaching the others? My guess is because they found the loophole the NSA put in there. and everybody is using that already.
It also shows that the Israelis where looking to breach it (most likely while working with/for the NSA) and that means they where not yet able to breach it either.
Of all of them, the safest bet is still them. Worst case is that only the Russians read your things. Best case is that a new version makes it that nobody has hacked them.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Are you sure it wasnâ(TM)t Israeli agents? Easy to watch them if youâ(TM)re standing in the same room.
It isn't so bad for /. readers but what about those friends and family who are more-and-more at risk?
This comment is just bizarre and completely backwards. The only people who care about this stuff are people on places like Slashdot. Friends and family who don't work in IT are not losing any sleep over this at all. I can give you my complete guarantee on that. The people who actually do care are few in number.
NPR does admit that Kapersky is an underwriter in their stories... They were also early to bring up the connection between them and the Russian government. It seems NPR is respectable enough to not let Kapersky money get in the way of good reporting.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
What will you guys do, now that this shoots holes in your "AMERIKKKA IS EBIL" schtick?
Hi Neighbor. As I was breaking into your house to "borrow" a few beers, I noticed someone had already broken in. You might wanna get that lock fixed. You're welcome.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Have gnu, will travel.
Are you seriously asking if any of the spies are not a spy?
And you just missed the fact that all of the Vault7 tools for Linux and BSD required exploits to work and that they where not exploits themselves?
I disagree.
Only Briebart and Fox is unbiased if you ask any Trump supporter. If any news outlet talks about Russia it is a lie by the libtards and part of the fake news if it doesn't agree with their ideology.
http://saveie6.com/
If you rely on one news source that conforms to your ideology then it doesn't matter if you watch; Fox, Brietbart, CNN, MSNBC, or NPR. You will be in an echo chamber and are susceptible to fake news and lies.
The right uses fake news; the left uses baked news.
It's true that watching only news that conforms to your ideology makes you susceptible to being misinformed.
What is also plain as day to anyone who is not in an echo chamber is that not all news sources are equally ideological/fake.
It's not impossible for NPR to become a propaganda network in the future, and I would hope as many NPR consumers as possible would notice such a shift and repudiate it, a blind NPR consumer is probably going to be pretty well informed compared to a blind Fox News consumer at the moment.
This doesn't make the blind NPR consumer epistemologically superior to the blind Fox consumer, or any other blind consumer, but it does make them very lucky to have blindly consumed something that for the moment is good for them rather than toxic.
Fox news/Breitbart is fucking poison, and the people consuming it without knowing what it is are seriously harming themselves.
Maybe CNN / MSNBC are McDonalds, but NPR is vegetables.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/israel-hacked-kaspersky-then-tipped-the-nsa-that-its-tools-had-been-breached/2017/10/10/d48ce774-aa95-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html
This creimer fixation is terrible. So many butthurt ACs. Sad.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My laptop is AMD based, you insensitive clod.
It's true that you should listen to multiple sources from multiple viewpoints, but you also need to keep in mind that not all subjects have a "both sides." If Media Outlet A had a report saying "Many scientific studies show evolution is real" and Media Outlet B had "Scientists Wrong; World Created 5,000 Years Ago", there wouldn't be a comparison. You couldn't simply say "well, that's a difference of opinion and both are equally valid." One has mounds of scientific evidence on their side and the other is based off of adding ages in a very old book that some claim was written by a deity.
So listen to multiple sources, but also weight the evidence on each side. And if a source constantly gives patently false information (not talking opinions you disagree with, but something provably false), cut it out and find another to read (keeping the balance as much as possible to prevent the echo chamber effect).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This issue is not immune to the scientific method. Much of the approbation for Fox, and kudos for NPR, comes from the Knowledge Networks study almost 15 years ago:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineRepo...
It IS possible for everybody to agree on a few simple facts, no really. Then you can survey news consumers for whether they are right on those really simple facts, and find which consumers have the best score. In this 2003 poll, you actually had the amazing stat that people who watched a lot of Fox had lower scores than the Fox fans who watched a little - a lot of watching actually subtracted from your factual knowledge. And NPR listeners had the highest score.
This study should be repeated yearly, about multiple news stories, and the results should be common knowledge. News sources should be competing on whether their viewers get 80% of 90%, not whether they get 90% or 25%.
Man, if you`re a nation of 350 million people who invented the Internet and have a larger security budget than the rest of the world put together, it must totally burn you to be hacked by a half-starved, half-drunk nation of 150 million.
But not as much as being told about it by a nation of 8 million.
Guys, we don`t agree with all your foreign adventurism and neo-colonialism, but if you`re going to run around the planet just making enemies hand-over-mailed-fist, you really need to up your cybersecurity game. You have WAY too many of your human IT resources trying to figure out how to out-snapchat SnapChat.
And hire Snowden back. That guy could run a computer.
Meaning they're so easy to come by they didn't need to repackage the exploit as well?
You can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.
I don't think Fox News can... If they can, they aren't. They seem to resort to normal lying quite regularly.
NPR is only slightly better but not much. It's nauseating to listen to them. What they report on and how they report on it is very one sided. Too much emotional manipulation. Too many loaded questions. Too many attempts for "gotcha moments" instead of understanding any position. Too many one sided arguments and token opponents. Too many fallacious arguments; strawmen and appeals are the norm.
It doesn't seem like you are defending Fox, so I won't bother pointing out all the BS on their side. But I honestly don't see any of what you are talking about with NPR. Can you cite any of the stuff you are describing from NPR?
If you think they are fair and balanced then perhaps you are already in an echo chamber. When I listen to them I don't feel like I am becoming better informed but rather learning talking points from a emotionally manipulative propagandist with an agenda.
It's possible. But I think I would have to only consume NPR and sources like it to be really be in an echo chamber. And honestly I think the term "fair and balanced" is basically meaningless after Fox News claiming this as their slogan for so long. It means different things to different people. To some people, being fair and balanced means being equally critical of "both" sides of an argument regardless of merit or how many sides there even are.
What I will say about NPR is that it is not often (I can't even remember the last time) when they reported something as fact that turned out to be false. Yes, the media can be deceptive with which facts they decide to report and which to omit. But omitting facts does not prevent those facts from being reported by other media outlets. What relevant facts did NPR omit? I haven't seen any.
So easy to come by that CIA didn't have any while there where dozens for Windows, macOS, IOS, Android, IoT devices and SmartTVs? Now you are just painting yourself into a smaller and smaller corner.
Yes, listen to multiple sources. There are always two sides if there wasn't it wouldn't be controversial, would it?
Sometimes it's a difference in narrative. "AGW is real and backed by science" vs. "The political solutions to combat any environmental impact of humans and the costs involved". There will always be loudmouth idiots on both sides and using only the idiots to represent a position is as much a strawman as lighting hay effigies on fire.
For your example, media outlet A reports "many scientific studies show evolution is real". That is not the issue because you wouldn't care if some idiot has a dumb opinion. Someone is taking the position that media B reports "scientists wrong, world 5000 years old" and trying to enact policy based on that opinion. Media outlet A is having an argument with B about person X using B's statement to justify policy. What policy, why and how is it being implemented is the issue. The issue is 1) creationism taught in schools because 2) religious belief of people 3) being forced into schools by the government 4) instead of using science to inform science curricula in schools 5) because religious people feel that evolution is being taught as "fact"** and also 6) parents should be able to decide what education their children receive. In your example, media outlet A and B are both disingenuous to the core issue and making the argument "science vs science deniers" or "the faithful vs the heathen" which makes the whole conversation more toxic because it becomes an Us vs Them. Now, in Us vs Them there is no way to compromise. There is no problem teaching creationism in school so long as it is not in the science classroom. People should be able to influence the education their children receive.
** Fact in science is different than a fact for a laymen. The terms being used to argue the positions are even different.
If you can't adequately explain both sides of any controversial issue then you have probably been in an echo chamber.
Do you have a more recent study?
Forgive me, but getting a few simple facts right or wrong does not address the issue of fake news and susceptibility of lies to both viewers and organizations. Again, you can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.
I think you are trying to have a different conversation.
They seem to resort to normal lying quite regularly.
A lot of media orgs do but normal lying isn't as effective these days.
Can you cite any of the stuff you are describing from NPR?
I listen to them most days to and from work. NPR does a better job than some and they don't always do a bad job. TBH, I am too lazy to find you specifics for something I don't care enough about to try and convince someone on /.. You can disregard my opinion if you like.
What relevant facts did NPR omit?
You can tell lies with the truth. Propaganda, manipulation, and deception are more effective with the truth. It reminds me of conspiracy theories; there is always a grain of truth to them which makes them powerful and long lasting. Knowing the fact that "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" doesn't help you understand why that fact is irrelevant or why the towers fell. Someone doesn't have to be malicious to spread that lie built entirely of facts.
A lot of media orgs do but normal lying isn't as effective these days.
It seems to be much more effective than what I would have imagined looking at polling data. When I saw the data of percentages of Fox News viewers that actually believe various false claims they make (many of which are already widely debunked and quietly redacted on Fox News e.g. pizza gate, etc), my takeaway is that most of those viewers just believe whatever they are told by Fox News.
I listen to them most days to and from work. NPR does a better job than some and they don't always do a bad job. TBH, I am too lazy to find you specifics for something I don't care enough about to try and convince someone on /.. You can disregard my opinion if you like.
I'm open to being convinced. I don't need a comprehensive list or anything. How about just the most egregious example of propaganda you can recall?
You can tell lies with the truth. Propaganda, manipulation, and deception are more effective with the truth.
I'm not disagreeing with this.
It reminds me of conspiracy theories; there is always a grain of truth to them which makes them powerful and long lasting.
I'm not disagreeing with this either. But with most conspiracy theories, you can point to a grain of truth and an avalanche of unsubstantiated or provable false claims. I can't even recall a single bit of misinformation disseminated by NPR (intentional or otherwise), though I'm sure they must make mistakes occasionally.
Knowing the fact that "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" doesn't help you understand why that fact is irrelevant or why the towers fell. Someone doesn't have to be malicious to spread that lie built entirely of facts.
Sure, but when someone repeats this, it's easy to point out that the omitted fact that steal beams don't have to melt to become structurally unstable.
To me this is like saying "Many people don't realize, but the Beatles have some really bad songs too. Musicians are all the same, they all have bad songs. I can't remember any of their bad songs, but trust me they are there. I remember not liking some of their songs, but I can't remember which ones." Even if this is all true, the fact that you can't even remember *any* of the bad examples would imply that the quality of beatles music (albeit imperfect) is much better than Nickleback, where I would struggle to even name a single song I could maybe argue is not so bad. I realize music is subjective, but this is just an analogy.
This seems like a textbook case of false equivalence. Even if it were true that NPR was intentionally trying to shape its consumers views to a particular ideology through selective truth reporting and truth omission, at least what they are saying is true. I don't recommend anybody to treat any news source as unbiased (even NPR). But at minimum we should expect and demand that any news source reliably present facts correctly to even be worthy of consideration, and *then* have the conversation of what their bias might be. Presenting falsehoods more than occasionally should disqualify any news source from being trusted by anyone.
Thank you for reiterating that snowden "fled to russia" even though everyone here knows that's a lie. It's good to know that this place is still considered worth trolling by the lying powers that be.
Not the OP, but it's probably Tom Ashbrook's On Point, or the Diane Rehm Show that he is thinking of. Don't listen much to the latter, but Tom Ashbrook has a clear bias for most of the stories he covers. That doesn't (usually) stop him from trying to challenge his guest(s), but it does often set the frame of the discussion. So if you are sensitive to that, you might come away thinking it was fairly one-sided. For example, listen to this one,
http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/20...
His guest is attempting a thoughtful argument, which is definitely one of the strengths of the show (it's never a Sean Hannity yell fest), but it is fairly one-sided coverage of the issue. And he doesn't have another guest presenting a counterview in this case, either.
That said, the "actual news" to quote Chris Wallace, which is "All Things Considered", is a pretty dry run-down of the facts 99% of the time. And there are a lot of other shows, like Planet Money and Marketplace, that don't have any discernible bias (to me at least). So I agree with your main point, which is that NPR is miles above the likes of CNN or MSNBC.
Sometimes it's a difference in narrative. "AGW is real and backed by science" vs. "The political solutions to combat any environmental impact of humans and the costs involved". There will always be loudmouth idiots on both sides and using only the idiots to represent a position is as much a strawman as lighting hay effigies on fire.
Agreed. Some (or a lot) of this has to do with the headline-grabbing nature needed to advertise a news story. But I think the real issue is that every policy decision, at least in the short-term, creates winners and losers, even if the winners become less so over time and the losers eventually recover. Nobody wants to be the loser. Everybody wants to be the winner. So those that stand to "lose" by the establishment of some kind of energy policy will argue either that AGW is not a significant problem, or if it is, there is nothing we can really do about it. Those that "lose" by letting things be will argue that the costs to individual companies might hurt in the short-term, but the costs to society will be devastating in the long-term. These two viewpoints are destined to be stonewalled, because nobody wants to be the loser. Compromise is not possible if you are not willing to take a hit some of the time.
There is no problem teaching creationism in school so long as it is not in the science classroom.
Agreed. However, in the cases where this has been brought up (like a challenge in court, for example), it is usually the opposite situation. It is the Creationists that don't want evolution taught "as a fact" in biology classes, not the Evolutionists opposing Creationism being taught in a religion or philosophy class.
People should be able to influence the education their children receive.
And they do. They usually send them to a private religious school.
NPR reporters are very impartial and go to pains to maintain that, sometimes it's irritating to see how they don't call people out. There are also entertainment shows on NPR that do some of what you mention, these shows are often coming from a particular viewpoing, however it should be obvious to the informed listener. Many of their entertainment shows maintain an impartial perspective, but sometimes the interviewers are fooled, I listened to this interview, and was really disgusted at how the interviewer allowed herself to be led and assume certain fallacies.
Cheap storage VM.
A good 75% of any given news day is given over to propaganda and press releases. There was a story about how they candy you like identifies the type of person you are, on my local station. It was all vague astrology type answers. I told my wife that someone from some candy lobby got paid; and she said I ruined her whimsy.
I'm trying to teach my kids to notice things like this, think about why something is being talked about, not just what they are saying.
Cheap storage VM.
LOL!!! The Left does state theirs is the "True" Fake News. How funny! Great/Wonderful comment -- Bravo!
A more recent story? Not being tasked as your research assistant, no, I've only got the story I came in with. Google is your friend.
And, by the way, did you have some reason for anybody to imagine that the editorial direction or fact-checking standards of Fox news have changed since 2003? I don't recall any major changes of senior staff in that time until Ailes was forced out in disgrace - he set ALL the standards around there, nobody crossed him. WHY would he have changed any standards in his late 60s while the old ones were making money hand-over-fist?
Getting a few simple facts right or wrong absolutely addresses the issue. If a school cannot successfully teach that, say, the British Queen is Head of State but not Head of Government and thus has only ceremonial power*, then it's pointless to discuss whether it has accurate stories about Theresa May having low-polling with professional women in the Midland Counties.
Perhaps you did not read the study, but those simple facts that heavy Fox viewers got wrong were 1) whether the rest of the world was generally in support of the American invasion of Iraq, 2) Were there links between AQ and Saddam (Bush explicitly denied it on TV) and 3) Had WMDs been found in 2003 [Infamously not]. 80% of Fox viewers had more than one misperception out of the three. And really, "The rest of the world supports the invasion", "WMDs have been found" and "Saddam is working with AQ" are the very genesis of what we are currently calling "Fake News".
(*Example chosen because Sarah Palin did not know that.)
I've actually never heard this show. I don't actually get this show on my local NPR affiliate station (KPBS in San Diego). I'm honestly not sure if NPR affiliates are (or should be) considered "official NPR media" or not. I know I considered some of the "local" shows to be representative of NPR (e.g. "To the point" (KCRW), "Here and Now" (WBUR)), but I honestly don't know how widespread these shows are on other NPR affiliates across the country. We may be judging the merits of "NPR" based on completely different subject matter.
I was also unconsciously lumping in PBS programming (Frontline, Newshour, etc) without realizing I did not make this explicit, because these are aired on my local KPBS television station, which I associate with NPR. But I think those shows are really good too.
But, in any case, I will certainly listen to this, and see if I notice any bias or not. Thanks for the link.
Alright I listened to the show.
A little background for me: I have been arguing the point that the guest was making for years (especially about the mortgage interest deduction and school districts being unfair and keeping people poor), and I did read an article about this book already and found myself basically agreeing with it.
I think both forms of presentation (i.e. a debate between "equal" sides, vs. a host interviewing a proponent of something, and offering some challenges) have their merits. I feel like debates often get bogged down in tangents, and in these sorts of interviews sometimes dubious claims can go unchallenged. So I think it's important to have both.
I do like this format better than shows where guests are just given a platform to speak with no push-back at all. I feel like even when a guest is completely right about everything, having some challenges helps to strengthen their case, and it also weeds out some guests with very poor arguments.
I didn't really notice a bias. It sounds like you are describing a pattern of bias which may not be easy to see by listening to only one interview.
But I'm kind of curious if there are any notable people with specific thoughtful counterarguments to this authors claims (e.g. an author that has challenged him). If there is, I'm not aware of them.
Also I think this claim is sort of unique in that it doesn't really seem like a typical left or right wing position. It's advocating for social justice which seems sort of lefty, but it is also kind of undermining the whole 99% vs. 1% paradigm pushed by the left. I personally find these sorts of claims that aren't clearly partisan to be more interesting, but I think it makes it harder to determine what *the* counterpoint is.
I didn't really notice a bias. It sounds like you are describing a pattern of bias which may not be easy to see by listening to only one interview.
It's hard to pick out a single representative show. Like I say, overall Tom Ashbrook tries to do a thoughtful show, so in that way he is very good. He doesn't just yell into the mic the way Rush Limbaugh does, but there is a bias there. I think I noticed it more over the last year because he was having more political shows for a while. The bias is subtle, because it is more in the ways he asks questions and directs the conversation, or in how he responds to comments by viewers than it is in the subject matter itself. Sometimes it is a show like this one,
http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/20...
where he is not saying anything explicit to indicate bias, but you can tell the subject was picked to pull on liberal heart strings and draw listeners to the show. But I guess most shows that cover politics are that way. When he stays away from politics, he is generally quite good.
But I'm kind of curious if there are any notable people with specific thoughtful counterarguments to this authors claims (e.g. an author that has challenged him). If there is, I'm not aware of them.
Yes, this is true. Tom Ashbrook, usually, only invites guests to debate a subject if they have written about it in some thoughtful way. In this case there isn't another guest because there isn't an opponent, which is fine. My objection is mostly that he doesn't really challenge his guest. He just kind of accepts what his guest is saying.
A little background for me: I have been arguing the point that the guest was making for years (especially about the mortgage interest deduction and school districts being unfair and keeping people poor), and I did read an article about this book already and found myself basically agreeing with it.
Also I think this claim is sort of unique in that it doesn't really seem like a typical left or right wing position. It's advocating for social justice which seems sort of lefty, but it is also kind of undermining the whole 99% vs. 1% paradigm pushed by the left. I personally find these sorts of claims that aren't clearly partisan to be more interesting, but I think it makes it harder to determine what *the* counterpoint is.
Well, I do agree that it is not a typical partisan talking point, which is good. But I disagree with the characterization of people seeking good communities for their families as being "hoarders". It's easy to bin people into groups like "the 20%" without recognizing that they have their own struggles. I live in a community with very good schools. I know quite a few families who are only just able to afford to live here. They (and we) do it for the schools. Making housing even more unaffordable for us, just because we happen to be in the top 20% income bracket nationally, is not social justice.
I certainly welcome people from other less well-off communities sending their kids to school here, even if it means I have to pay more in property taxes for that. But the more broad-reaching and sustainable solution is to work toward improving all schools, so you don't have to live in a top 5% or 10% neighborhood to be able to send your kids to good schools. Unfortunately, while the pattern is that good schools correlate with property values, the underlying causes are more systemic. The easy policy decision is to just infuse cash, but real social justice requires much more than that.
Well, I do agree that it is not a typical partisan talking point, which is good. But I disagree with the characterization of people seeking good communities for their families as being "hoarders".
This is getting into a different debate, which I am happy to get into. I don't think people in the 20% are hoarders for trying to be more successful for themselves and their families, and I don't think the Richard Reeves is saying that either. I think what makes them "hoarders" is supporting policies which disproportionately benefit them. People in the top 20% are reliable voters. They have a lot of power to decide tax laws, etc.
It's easy to bin people into groups like "the 20%" without recognizing that they have their own struggles.
It is easy to do that, but I think he actually did specifically recognize that they have their own struggles. I think everyone has struggles. But the struggles you experience are different depending on your wealth.
I live in a community with very good schools. I know quite a few families who are only just able to afford to live here.
I do as well, and the price of my house is largely a result of the schools in this neighborhood.
They (and we) do it for the schools.
Yep. I didn't do it for the schools, but my parents bought a house in an affluent neighborhood just to be able to get my siblings and I into a very good school district with 1 high school in it, rather than going to the L.A. unified school system. I am very fortunate.
Making housing even more unaffordable for us, just because we happen to be in the top 20% income bracket nationally, is not social justice.
I don't think he wants housing to be more expensive. I know I certainly don't. The policy of having a mortgage interest deduction is actually artificially raising housing prices.
Here is the real solution as far as I can see it. Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Either eliminate the restrictions that force kids to only be able to attend their local public schools, or ensure that every public school has equal resources. This will severely reduce house values, so I think the people who scrimped and saved to get those houses should be reimbursed for that loss of value. But once this happens, it will hopefully be possible to send your kids to a good school without being required to purchase a very expensive house.
I really don't see a good reason to support a policy that only benefits the top 20%. I think many people in the top 20% do this because they worked so hard to get there, that they want to protect what they've worked so hard to get. But this is not fair to everyone. Top 0.1%ers managed to get a tax break on private jets. This is not in the interest of anyone but the ultra wealthy. They used their power (i.e. campaign contributions) to buy political power to get this law passed. The mortgage interest deduction is the top 20% version of this exact same thing.
Many wealthy people do not even care about politics. Those people still benefit. That's fine. That doesn't make you a hoarder. If you are actively working to keep the system the way it is rather than being open to making it more fair, simply because it benefits you, then you are a hoarder.
I certainly welcome people from other less well-off communities sending their kids to school here, even if it means I have to pay more in property taxes for that. But the more broad-reaching and sustainable solution is to work toward improving all schools, so you don't have to live in a top 5% or 10% neighborhood to be able to send your kids to good schools. Unfortunately, while the pattern is that good schools correlate with property values, the underlying causes are more systemic. The easy policy decision is to just infuse cash, but real social justice requires much more than that.
I don't think the Richard
I don't think he wants housing to be more expensive. I know I certainly don't. The policy of having a mortgage interest deduction is actually artificially raising housing prices.
That is very debatable.
Either eliminate the restrictions that force kids to only be able to attend their local public schools, or ensure that every public school has equal resources.
Two points:
1) Busing kids around is expensive, and impractical on a large scale. Schools need to be local for a lot of other reasons too, such as integration into the community and to facilitate interactions with parents.
2) If you had said "ensure every public school is of comparable caliber", I would agree, but you are assuming money is the only issue. It isn't.
I really don't see a good reason to support a policy that only benefits the top 20%.
Every policy benefits only a fraction of people. You need to consider each policy individually, not just the fraction of people it benefits. The progressive income tax benefits the bottom tax brackets who definitely need that extra income, so I don't have a problem with that.
I think many people in the top 20% do this because they worked so hard to get there, that they want to protect what they've worked so hard to get. But this is not fair to everyone.
The problem is correlation, but not causation. The mortgage interest deduction benefits everybody who owns a house, who are more than just the top 20%. The disparity is not because it is a benefit for only the top 20%, but because the top 20% own more expensive houses and therefore get a higher deduction than those who own less expensive houses. The problem with aggregated national averages is that the majority of our everyday living is enabled by transactions within local markets, and different local markets often present very different real world circumstances. A $100k/yr gross income puts you in the top 20% nationally. In Houston, housing prices are low enough that you can buy a very nice house in a very nice neighborhood with good schools for $300k, which is just above the median house price for the area. The top 20% can afford that easily, and probably don't need the mortgage interest deduction. The top 40% can probably still afford it, but those lower in the income bracket will struggle a bit and the mortgage interest deduction helps them out a lot. In Boston, a much smaller house in a good neighborhood will cost you at least $800k, which is much less than the median house price in many of those neighborhoods. For these the top 20% can barely afford the house, if at all, and those who can definitely need the mortgage interest deduction.
Top 0.1%ers managed to get a tax break on private jets. This is not in the interest of anyone but the ultra wealthy.
A private jet is a very different thing from a house, unless it is an investment property. I agree that the mortgage interest deduction should not go to somebody who already owns a primary residence.
If you are actively working to keep the system the way it is rather than being open to making it more fair, simply because it benefits you, then you are a hoarder.
Fairness is tricky to define objectively. Disparities exist and probably always will. I think it is hazardous to judge fairness on the basis of oversimplified metrics, such as income tax brackets. Affordable healthcare and good schools in affordable neighborhoods should be accessible to everyone and they ultimately benefit everyone regardless of income status. How do we get there? Maybe we do have to increase the tax base in some cases, but these are complex problems that require careful thought.
but all I'm talking about is not having a bunch of loopholes for the people who do attain some level of wealth whether it's 20%, 1%, 0.1%, etc.
One person calls
That is very debatable.
The ability to pay lower taxes by owning a home is something that's valuable. Adding this value to every house makes them more desirable. If we took away the mortgage interest deduction, it makes less financial sense to own a home (at current prices), which will lower demand and cause house prices to fall to a new equilibrium point.
I'm open to debate on this topic. I don't have an economics degree or anything.
Two points: 1) Busing kids around is expensive, and impractical on a large scale. Schools need to be local for a lot of other reasons too, such as integration into the community and to facilitate interactions with parents.
I'm not saying we should bus kids around. All I am claiming is that the current system of only allowing students to go to their local schools *AND* having the resources of every school be based on local property taxes is causing unequal access to quality education based on income level.
I would prefer everyone to be able to go to their closest school and have every school be of adequate quality. In the past busing was an attempt at a limited solution as improving the quality of all schools was not seen as a realistic possibility.
2) If you had said "ensure every public school is of comparable caliber", I would agree, but you are assuming money is the only issue. It isn't.
I didn't actually assume or say money is the only issue, but I do think it *is* by far the most important factor at this point. Schools with more money to spend on teacher salaries get to have the best teachers, in addition to teachers generally preferring to work in more affluent areas already. You might even need to pay teachers working in low income areas more to get the same quality of teachers everywhere.
We may one day come to the point where the biggest issue is not money, but that seems to be the case right now. I think we could certainly eliminate some waste, and maybe a low income school if they were very efficient with their money could afford to pay teachers as much or more than affluent schools do, but placing this burden on lower income schools to be much more efficient to be equally successful is not fair or realistic.
Every policy benefits only a fraction of people. You need to consider each policy individually, not just the fraction of people it benefits. The progressive income tax benefits the bottom tax brackets who definitely need that extra income, so I don't have a problem with that.
That's my point. In general, we shouldn't have policies that benefit tiny fractions of people. And if we do, it should be for people that really need it (i.e. poor people). And yes the progressive income tax does benefit those at the bottom at the expense of those higher up. If we imagine a graph showing how much people benefit from the tax code based on income, what I am saying is that there shouldn't be a bunch of bumps in this curve that reward and protecting people for achieving specific levels of wealth and hindering/punishing people just below those thresholds.
The problem is correlation, but not causation. The mortgage interest deduction benefits everybody who owns a house, who are more than just the top 20%.....
I did nto mean to specifically endorse the 20% figure. I think there is probably a large variation in what this number would be, and how stark the actual disparity is in different parts of the country. I just used this number, because that's what the author cites as being the average in his research. I don't think the actual number matters as much as the concept of these glass floors/ceilings at whatever levels they happen at (20% 40% 1% or 0.1%).
Having more wealth is already a huge benefit in achieving more wealth even without having extra laws that reinforce it.
A private jet is a very different thing from a house, un