Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[quote=Hobie]
The tax code is one of the main tools they have to exercise control. If we were ever able to convert to a simple flat tax that would be a great step in removing the power they wield.[/quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.
Participant[quote=Hobie]
The tax code is one of the main tools they have to exercise control. If we were ever able to convert to a simple flat tax that would be a great step in removing the power they wield.[/quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.
Participant[quote=Hobie]
The tax code is one of the main tools they have to exercise control. If we were ever able to convert to a simple flat tax that would be a great step in removing the power they wield.[/quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.
Participant[quote=Hobie]
The tax code is one of the main tools they have to exercise control. If we were ever able to convert to a simple flat tax that would be a great step in removing the power they wield.[/quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.
Participant[quote=Hobie]
The tax code is one of the main tools they have to exercise control. If we were ever able to convert to a simple flat tax that would be a great step in removing the power they wield.[/quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Your argument is invalid because you’re cherry picking your starting and ending points. As the graph below shows, government spending as a percentage of GDP has generally increased over time regardless of which party was in office. (That big spike is WWII.) This isn’t a partisan observation – it’s just a fact. As a supporter of Big Government, you should be thrilled. And very upset with Mr. Clinton that he was so stingy during his reign.While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Investor: BigGubment isn’t falling for the propaganda at all, he’s spreading it. If you haven’t noticed, he hasn’t responded to a single post attacking his lack of facts, or his clear Leftist slant.This has nothing to do with Whitman and everything to do with a pre-planned smear on a GOP candidate.[/quote]
This might be propaganda. Though I suspect that the timing has more to do with something Gloria Allred wants, and is only peripherally related to the election. Allred is partisan. But more than that, she’s an attention whore. So there’s little chance the timing is for Jerry Brown. The timing is for Gloria Allred. And if this woman had worked for Jerry Brown, I doubt the timing would be any different.
It doesn’t appear it has any resemblance to a smear. The swiftboating of John Kerry? Now that was a smear. The birthers? That’s a smear. Claims with absolutely no factual basis and no relation to the election. This appears to be based on pretty good facts, even acknowledged facts. I don’t happen to think those facts are material.
But this is politics. Little nothings, like this should be, become big news. Anyone who is suprised that there’s politics in politics just hasn’t been paying attention.
-
AuthorPosts
