[SK in CV]

Dodd’s comments were misdirected at best. It really doesn’t have anything to do (in most cases) families losing their homes to sloppy bureaucratic mismanagement or fraud. It’s about making the lenders follow the rules the same way the lenders insist that borrowers follow the rules. Credit card companies jack up interest rates when a borrower is late on a payment on a different credit card. They close HELOCs because they “think” equity has eroded. They do these things because, to the letter of the law, and their written agreements, they’re allowed to. Lenders and loan servicers SHOULD be held to these same kinds of standards in the foreclosure process.

The parties that should really be outraged by this is the investors in those loans. The banks, investment houses, the MBS holders. For those that are happy every time a house gets foreclosed, because another cause of the bubble gets their just reward, should be just as elated at this. The lenders and packagers were just as responsible. Now they get theirs. It will take time, but eventually all the dirty laundry will be cleaned from the system.

Patience.

As an aside, it’s a bit unclear to me why the moratorium include california and other states with non-judicial foreclosure, and rather lax document substition rules. Are loan servicers so dumb that they can’t figure out in which states these fuck-ups are important?

Answered my own question. Nevermind.

[SK in CV]

Dodd’s comments were misdirected at best. It really doesn’t have anything to do (in most cases) families losing their homes to sloppy bureaucratic mismanagement or fraud. It’s about making the lenders follow the rules the same way the lenders insist that borrowers follow the rules. Credit card companies jack up interest rates when a borrower is late on a payment on a different credit card. They close HELOCs because they “think” equity has eroded. They do these things because, to the letter of the law, and their written agreements, they’re allowed to. Lenders and loan servicers SHOULD be held to these same kinds of standards in the foreclosure process.

The parties that should really be outraged by this is the investors in those loans. The banks, investment houses, the MBS holders. For those that are happy every time a house gets foreclosed, because another cause of the bubble gets their just reward, should be just as elated at this. The lenders and packagers were just as responsible. Now they get theirs. It will take time, but eventually all the dirty laundry will be cleaned from the system.

Patience.

As an aside, it’s a bit unclear to me why the moratorium include california and other states with non-judicial foreclosure, and rather lax document substition rules. Are loan servicers so dumb that they can’t figure out in which states these fuck-ups are important?

Answered my own question. Nevermind.

[SK in CV]

Dodd’s comments were misdirected at best. It really doesn’t have anything to do (in most cases) families losing their homes to sloppy bureaucratic mismanagement or fraud. It’s about making the lenders follow the rules the same way the lenders insist that borrowers follow the rules. Credit card companies jack up interest rates when a borrower is late on a payment on a different credit card. They close HELOCs because they “think” equity has eroded. They do these things because, to the letter of the law, and their written agreements, they’re allowed to. Lenders and loan servicers SHOULD be held to these same kinds of standards in the foreclosure process.

The parties that should really be outraged by this is the investors in those loans. The banks, investment houses, the MBS holders. For those that are happy every time a house gets foreclosed, because another cause of the bubble gets their just reward, should be just as elated at this. The lenders and packagers were just as responsible. Now they get theirs. It will take time, but eventually all the dirty laundry will be cleaned from the system.

Patience.

As an aside, it’s a bit unclear to me why the moratorium include california and other states with non-judicial foreclosure, and rather lax document substition rules. Are loan servicers so dumb that they can’t figure out in which states these fuck-ups are important?

Answered my own question. Nevermind.

[SK in CV]

Dodd’s comments were misdirected at best. It really doesn’t have anything to do (in most cases) families losing their homes to sloppy bureaucratic mismanagement or fraud. It’s about making the lenders follow the rules the same way the lenders insist that borrowers follow the rules. Credit card companies jack up interest rates when a borrower is late on a payment on a different credit card. They close HELOCs because they “think” equity has eroded. They do these things because, to the letter of the law, and their written agreements, they’re allowed to. Lenders and loan servicers SHOULD be held to these same kinds of standards in the foreclosure process.

The parties that should really be outraged by this is the investors in those loans. The banks, investment houses, the MBS holders. For those that are happy every time a house gets foreclosed, because another cause of the bubble gets their just reward, should be just as elated at this. The lenders and packagers were just as responsible. Now they get theirs. It will take time, but eventually all the dirty laundry will be cleaned from the system.

Patience.

As an aside, it’s a bit unclear to me why the moratorium include california and other states with non-judicial foreclosure, and rather lax document substition rules. Are loan servicers so dumb that they can’t figure out in which states these fuck-ups are important?

Answered my own question. Nevermind.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons.[/quote]

Harsh but true.

The challenge with income tax is defining exactly “income” is.[/quote]

I think I said almost those exact words earlier in this thread. The tax rate schedules for both individuals and corporations have about 5 or 6 different rates. There were some years in the past, when I was preparing hundreds of returns, I practically had them memorized. It’s a calculation that takes literally a few seconds with a calculator. It is less than 1% of the complexity of the tax code. There are plenty of ways to make the tax code simpler. (And most all of those would have economic and political ramifications.) A flat tax isn’t one of them.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons.[/quote]

Harsh but true.

The challenge with income tax is defining exactly “income” is.[/quote]

I think I said almost those exact words earlier in this thread. The tax rate schedules for both individuals and corporations have about 5 or 6 different rates. There were some years in the past, when I was preparing hundreds of returns, I practically had them memorized. It’s a calculation that takes literally a few seconds with a calculator. It is less than 1% of the complexity of the tax code. There are plenty of ways to make the tax code simpler. (And most all of those would have economic and political ramifications.) A flat tax isn’t one of them.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons.[/quote]

Harsh but true.

The challenge with income tax is defining exactly “income” is.[/quote]

I think I said almost those exact words earlier in this thread. The tax rate schedules for both individuals and corporations have about 5 or 6 different rates. There were some years in the past, when I was preparing hundreds of returns, I practically had them memorized. It’s a calculation that takes literally a few seconds with a calculator. It is less than 1% of the complexity of the tax code. There are plenty of ways to make the tax code simpler. (And most all of those would have economic and political ramifications.) A flat tax isn’t one of them.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons.[/quote]

Harsh but true.

The challenge with income tax is defining exactly “income” is.[/quote]

I think I said almost those exact words earlier in this thread. The tax rate schedules for both individuals and corporations have about 5 or 6 different rates. There were some years in the past, when I was preparing hundreds of returns, I practically had them memorized. It’s a calculation that takes literally a few seconds with a calculator. It is less than 1% of the complexity of the tax code. There are plenty of ways to make the tax code simpler. (And most all of those would have economic and political ramifications.) A flat tax isn’t one of them.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote]Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons.[/quote]

Harsh but true.

The challenge with income tax is defining exactly “income” is.[/quote]

I think I said almost those exact words earlier in this thread. The tax rate schedules for both individuals and corporations have about 5 or 6 different rates. There were some years in the past, when I was preparing hundreds of returns, I practically had them memorized. It’s a calculation that takes literally a few seconds with a calculator. It is less than 1% of the complexity of the tax code. There are plenty of ways to make the tax code simpler. (And most all of those would have economic and political ramifications.) A flat tax isn’t one of them.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[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.

[Author]

Posts