OT: Talk me out of my anti-partisian views.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]But the French and American revolutions retarded economic growth and caused suffering for a couple generations. Those who fought and died or those who suffered war deprivations didn’t have a swell time, did they?

Of course, revolutions influenced world events and brought about positive changes across national borders. But you don’t want to be one of those fighting the revolutions.

But that kind of social advancement was more evolution rather than revolution in America.

I would submit that, in the twentieth century, social advancement in America was a result of revolutions going on around the world. Working class Americans benefited from foreign revolutions. American capitalists gave workers more pay and benefits for the sake of peace and continuity. The corporations then realized that’ with a growing middle class, they could grow their markets and sell more products.

We prospered because we didn’t experience the wars and revolutions in other parts of the world.

Yes, American workers died demanding change. But our small “revolutions” did not result in the overthrow of government.
[/quote]

Brian: Boy, you don’t simply throw out one red herring, you deploy an entire school of them.

Okay, we weren’t discussing whether or not anyone had a swell time fighting in the French or American Revolutions, we were discussing the efficacy of the revolutions themselves. Two very, very different things and I don’t think the individual revolutionary’s “feelings” are germane to the discussion.

As far as advancement being evolutionary, instead of revolutionary, there are too many examples that refute this, including the massive Civil Rights protest marches, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and the Watts and Detroit riots. That’s just in the 1960s.

And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.[/quote]

The argument that was made was that the tax code is one of the main tools of power. Nothing in the tax code is relevant in issues like abortion, gay marraige, immigration, right to work, military service. It has limited influence in education, municipal services and many other areas of our lives. It may be a significant tool in economic decisions for many of us.

But the argument that a flat tax would solve that problem (if it is a problem at all) ignores the real complexity in the tax code. The complexity is not the rates, it’s in the definition of income. At the individual level, personal deductions like medical expenses, interest, charitable contributions, personal exemptions. At the business level, which expenses are deductible, when must income be recognized, how are fixed assets depreciated. And that’s just the basics. The tax code is incredibly complex. Switching to a flat tax would only result in a miniscule reduction in that complexity. If there is any truth to the argument that the government wields power through the tax code (and I don’t dispute that there is truth in that, I only dispute that it one of the main tools.), and that reduction of that power is a desirable outcome, a flat tax is not a solution.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.[/quote]

The argument that was made was that the tax code is one of the main tools of power. Nothing in the tax code is relevant in issues like abortion, gay marraige, immigration, right to work, military service. It has limited influence in education, municipal services and many other areas of our lives. It may be a significant tool in economic decisions for many of us.

But the argument that a flat tax would solve that problem (if it is a problem at all) ignores the real complexity in the tax code. The complexity is not the rates, it’s in the definition of income. At the individual level, personal deductions like medical expenses, interest, charitable contributions, personal exemptions. At the business level, which expenses are deductible, when must income be recognized, how are fixed assets depreciated. And that’s just the basics. The tax code is incredibly complex. Switching to a flat tax would only result in a miniscule reduction in that complexity. If there is any truth to the argument that the government wields power through the tax code (and I don’t dispute that there is truth in that, I only dispute that it one of the main tools.), and that reduction of that power is a desirable outcome, a flat tax is not a solution.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.[/quote]

The argument that was made was that the tax code is one of the main tools of power. Nothing in the tax code is relevant in issues like abortion, gay marraige, immigration, right to work, military service. It has limited influence in education, municipal services and many other areas of our lives. It may be a significant tool in economic decisions for many of us.

But the argument that a flat tax would solve that problem (if it is a problem at all) ignores the real complexity in the tax code. The complexity is not the rates, it’s in the definition of income. At the individual level, personal deductions like medical expenses, interest, charitable contributions, personal exemptions. At the business level, which expenses are deductible, when must income be recognized, how are fixed assets depreciated. And that’s just the basics. The tax code is incredibly complex. Switching to a flat tax would only result in a miniscule reduction in that complexity. If there is any truth to the argument that the government wields power through the tax code (and I don’t dispute that there is truth in that, I only dispute that it one of the main tools.), and that reduction of that power is a desirable outcome, a flat tax is not a solution.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.[/quote]

The argument that was made was that the tax code is one of the main tools of power. Nothing in the tax code is relevant in issues like abortion, gay marraige, immigration, right to work, military service. It has limited influence in education, municipal services and many other areas of our lives. It may be a significant tool in economic decisions for many of us.

But the argument that a flat tax would solve that problem (if it is a problem at all) ignores the real complexity in the tax code. The complexity is not the rates, it’s in the definition of income. At the individual level, personal deductions like medical expenses, interest, charitable contributions, personal exemptions. At the business level, which expenses are deductible, when must income be recognized, how are fixed assets depreciated. And that’s just the basics. The tax code is incredibly complex. Switching to a flat tax would only result in a miniscule reduction in that complexity. If there is any truth to the argument that the government wields power through the tax code (and I don’t dispute that there is truth in that, I only dispute that it one of the main tools.), and that reduction of that power is a desirable outcome, a flat tax is not a solution.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]

Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.[/quote]

The argument that was made was that the tax code is one of the main tools of power. Nothing in the tax code is relevant in issues like abortion, gay marraige, immigration, right to work, military service. It has limited influence in education, municipal services and many other areas of our lives. It may be a significant tool in economic decisions for many of us.

But the argument that a flat tax would solve that problem (if it is a problem at all) ignores the real complexity in the tax code. The complexity is not the rates, it’s in the definition of income. At the individual level, personal deductions like medical expenses, interest, charitable contributions, personal exemptions. At the business level, which expenses are deductible, when must income be recognized, how are fixed assets depreciated. And that’s just the basics. The tax code is incredibly complex. Switching to a flat tax would only result in a miniscule reduction in that complexity. If there is any truth to the argument that the government wields power through the tax code (and I don’t dispute that there is truth in that, I only dispute that it one of the main tools.), and that reduction of that power is a desirable outcome, a flat tax is not a solution.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.[/quote]

We shall see… but I don’t think so.

Let’s see in 2011. Mass protests can’t be good for the real estate market.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.[/quote]

We shall see… but I don’t think so.

Let’s see in 2011. Mass protests can’t be good for the real estate market.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.[/quote]

We shall see… but I don’t think so.

Let’s see in 2011. Mass protests can’t be good for the real estate market.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.[/quote]

We shall see… but I don’t think so.

Let’s see in 2011. Mass protests can’t be good for the real estate market.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And I’m not saying this to be facetious, but I think more massive protests are in our immediate future, and probably shortly after the mid-terms.[/quote]

We shall see… but I don’t think so.

Let’s see in 2011. Mass protests can’t be good for the real estate market.

[sd_matt]

What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.

[sd_matt]

What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.

[sd_matt]

What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.

[sd_matt]

What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.

[Author]

Posts