How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

[Bombur]

The first thing to look at when considering changes to the tax code are the winners and losers of the change.

This sort of response is maddening. That's EXACTLY the problem with the tax code as it exists - it was designed as a tool to reward some and punish others. That is not the purpose of the taxation. It's to fund government, not a tool for implementing backdoor legislation or otherwise manipulating society. The very LAST thing we should be concerned with when formulating tax policy is who the winners and losers are.

We've seem to have completely lost touch with the concept of blind justice, and why it's important.

"Blind" justice? More like blind injustice.

You are right that taxes are meant to fund government. Taxes can also create some very destructive market forces. For example property taxes that are used to fund schools can create large incentives to segregate based on economic status creating downward spirals in cities which cause numerous problems in the economy, with city planning, and in education.

Make decisions with as much information as possible. It is madness to suggest we should make decisions blind.

 

[dblack]

The first thing to look at when considering changes to the tax code are the winners and losers of the change.

This sort of response is maddening. That's EXACTLY the problem with the tax code as it exists - it was designed as a tool to reward some and punish others. That is not the purpose of the taxation. It's to fund government, not a tool for implementing backdoor legislation or otherwise manipulating society. The very LAST thing we should be concerned with when formulating tax policy is who the winners and losers are.

We've seem to have completely lost touch with the concept of blind justice, and why it's important.

"Blind" justice? More like blind injustice.

You are right that taxes are meant to fund government. Taxes can also create some very destructive market forces. For example property taxes that are used to fund schools can create large incentives to segregate based on economic status creating downward spirals in cities which cause numerous problems in the economy, with city planning, and in education.

Make decisions with as much information as possible. It is madness to suggest we should make decisions blind.

Sigh.. that's what I'm talking about. That's not what 'blind justice' means. It doesn't mean making decisions blind. It's about equal protection of the law; applying it equally to all regardless of who they are, regardless of their wealth or political influence, regardless of which class or special interest group they belong to. This is the founding principle of our government that is most under attack today, and most of us aren't even noticing. We're embracing government that dismisses with the idea of equal protection and blind justice altogether, in favor of cutting special deals with everyone and their lobbyist, depending on how much political influence they can bring to bear.

 

[jasonnfree]

I shake my head everytime I see a "Doctor" give someone crutches for the broken leg. I scream at them "You are creating dependency! You "Doctors" seek to empower yourselves by taking away someones will to walk again! HOW DARE YOU!!"

Then I take away their crutches and they will usually thank me while they are crawling to their car

Only a conservative can have this kind of compassion!!!

 

[Bombur]

This sort of response is maddening. That's EXACTLY the problem with the tax code as it exists - it was designed as a tool to reward some and punish others. That is not the purpose of the taxation. It's to fund government, not a tool for implementing backdoor legislation or otherwise manipulating society. The very LAST thing we should be concerned with when formulating tax policy is who the winners and losers are.

We've seem to have completely lost touch with the concept of blind justice, and why it's important.

"Blind" justice? More like blind injustice.

You are right that taxes are meant to fund government. Taxes can also create some very destructive market forces. For example property taxes that are used to fund schools can create large incentives to segregate based on economic status creating downward spirals in cities which cause numerous problems in the economy, with city planning, and in education.

Make decisions with as much information as possible. It is madness to suggest we should make decisions blind.

Sigh.. that's what I'm talking about. That's not what 'blind justice' means. It doesn't mean making decisions blind. It's about equal protection of the law; applying it equally to all regardless of who they are, regardless of their wealth or political influence, regardless of which class or special interest group they belong to. This is the founding principle of our government that is most under attack today, and most of us aren't even noticing. We're embracing government that dismisses with the idea of equal protection and blind justice altogether, in favor of cutting special deals with everyone and their lobbyist, depending on how much political influence they can bring to bear.

So then the first thing you should do is look who the winners and losers are and look at who is pushing for the change.

Glad we could clear that up.

 

[dblack]

The first thing to look at when considering changes to the tax code are the winners and losers of the change.

This sort of response is maddening. That's EXACTLY the problem with the tax code as it exists - it was designed as a tool to reward some and punish others. That is not the purpose of granting the taxation power to Congress. It's to fund government, not a tool for implementing backdoor legislation or otherwise manipulating society. The very LAST thing we should be concerned with when formulating tax policy is who the winners and losers are.

We've seem to have completely lost touch with the concept of blind justice, and why it's important.

What tax system wont reward and punish?

The extent to which tax systems can be used to discriminate, to reward and punish at the pleasure of those in charge, is exactly what we should be talking about. We should devise taxation that has the minimum impact in that regard. Income tax sure as hell doesn't fit that description.

 

[natstew]

Liberals hate anything that infringes on their ability to use taxes to buy votes.

 

[Bombur]

This sort of response is maddening. That's EXACTLY the problem with the tax code as it exists - it was designed as a tool to reward some and punish others. That is not the purpose of granting the taxation power to Congress. It's to fund government, not a tool for implementing backdoor legislation or otherwise manipulating society. The very LAST thing we should be concerned with when formulating tax policy is who the winners and losers are.

We've seem to have completely lost touch with the concept of blind justice, and why it's important.

What tax system wont reward and punish?

The extent to which tax systems can be used to discriminate, to reward and punish at the pleasure of those in charge, is exactly what we should be talking about. We should devise taxation that has the minimum impact in that regard. Income tax sure as hell doesn't fit that description.

Yes it does because it is one of the easiest and most effective ways to tax disposable income.

The income tax is not a punishment tax like a tax on cigs or alcohol is.

 

[Erand7899]

Why did Reagan keep raising taxes after his tax cuts?

Deflection noted.

Now you're running away from your claims? lol

In 1980 revenues were 19% of GDP. By 1988 revenues had fallen to 18.2% of GDP. If the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues,

why were they producing LESS revenue relative to GDP??

Because GDP was growing faster than tax revenue generated by that GDP growth. See how easy that was to figger out?

So, which would you prefer, faster GDP growth, or faster tax revenue growth? Both were growing because of the tax cuts.

 

[elektra]

Liberals will hate this because they don't want wealthy people to stay wealthy (unless they are Dems). We need to do something to save the middle class. Even if the far left wants to eliminate middle class, we know that our country can't survive without us.

How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System
How to Fix the Absurd U.S. Tax System

Attaboy, great thread, keep at it.

 

[Bombur]

Deflection noted.

Now you're running away from your claims? lol

In 1980 revenues were 19% of GDP. By 1988 revenues had fallen to 18.2% of GDP. If the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues,

why were they producing LESS revenue relative to GDP??

Because GDP was growing faster than tax revenue generated by that GDP growth. See how easy that was to figger out?

So, which would you prefer, faster GDP growth, or faster tax revenue growth? Both were growing because of the tax cuts.

Why do conservatives always ignore the debt increase under Reagan and the increase in military spending?

 

[ClosedCaption]

This sort of response is maddening. That's EXACTLY the problem with the tax code as it exists - it was designed as a tool to reward some and punish others. That is not the purpose of granting the taxation power to Congress. It's to fund government, not a tool for implementing backdoor legislation or otherwise manipulating society. The very LAST thing we should be concerned with when formulating tax policy is who the winners and losers are.

We've seem to have completely lost touch with the concept of blind justice, and why it's important.

What tax system wont reward and punish?

The extent to which tax systems can be used to discriminate, to reward and punish at the pleasure of those in charge, is exactly what we should be talking about. We should devise taxation that has the minimum impact in that regard. Income tax sure as hell doesn't fit that description.

What tax system was that? The one that wont reward and or punish?

 

[dblack]

What tax system wont reward and punish?

The extent to which tax systems can be used to discriminate, to reward and punish at the pleasure of those in charge, is exactly what we should be talking about. We should devise taxation that has the minimum impact in that regard. Income tax sure as hell doesn't fit that description.

Yes it does because it is one of the easiest and most effective ways to tax disposable income.

The income tax is not a punishment tax like a tax on cigs or alcohol is.

"Easy and effective" doesn't address whether it can be used to discriminate. Certainly 'sin' taxes like those you mention are punishments, and should be abolished as well, buy the very act of defining 'income' is subjective and lends itself to politicking.

Income tax wouldn't be so bad if we simplified it and got rid of all the political deductions (tax incentives). But there's the rub, because calculating net income requires allowing deductions for costs of doing business, and the decision of which deductions are legitimate costs and which aren't is highly subjective. It leaves a wide window for shenanigans.

But at least clarifying intent, and banning the overt use of tax incentives for social engineering, would be a meaningful start.

 

[natstew]

Reagan sold missiles to terrorists. How did that help the middle class?

What do yiu care? You werent born then.

First off, Reagan didn't sell missiles to terrorists, unless you consdier freedom fighters in Iran to be terrorists. Which I suppose most libturds do.

Secondly, Bill the rapist Clinton gave Nuclear Secrets away to the Red Chinese when they refused to honor the Nuclear Test Ban authored by the rapist and his crew of imbeciles.


They tested a nuke just days after the Test Ban Treaty as an "In Your Face" action.

So what did the rapist do? He secretly gave them our nuclear secrets as long as they promised not to test any more missiles or nukes. They agreed. They didn't need to test anything because they were brought up to speed by the rapist.

The icing on the cake was when the Red Chinese funneled MILLIONS of dollars to the rapist's campaign coffers.

Remember the Chinese Nuns in California? Remember all the Chinese guys involved....?? Charlie Trie, Johnny HuangTed Sioang, MarieHsia...? Remember Algore's (aka: ManBearPig) "No controlling Legal Authority" bullshit.

dimocrap scum accuse Republicans of doing what dimocrap scum actually do.

Never fails.

If you ever want to know what dimocrap scum are up to, just listen to what they're accusing Republicans of

And don't forget the Missile guidance technology Clinton gave them to show his gratitude for the 100,000 dollar donation to his campaign fund. the technology that allowed the Chinese to pin-point our Cities with the nuclear weapons Clinton gave them technology to produce.

 

[dblack]

What tax system wont reward and punish?

The extent to which tax systems can be used to discriminate, to reward and punish at the pleasure of those in charge, is exactly what we should be talking about. We should devise taxation that has the minimum impact in that regard. Income tax sure as hell doesn't fit that description.

What tax system was that? The one that wont reward and or punish?

What? What are you getting at? Is this the "it can't be perfect so we shouldn't even try" argument?

Or is it the "But we really want to use the taxation power to manipulate people" argument?

 

[Erand7899]

The only way to fix our federal tax system is to shift to the FAIR tax. Under a sales tax system, everyone has skin in the game, there is no way to rig the system in favor of any economic group, and politicians have a huge stake in keeping the economy growing at a healthy rate.

The price of our exports would immediately drop by the amount of the federal sales tax, and that would make up one hell of a lot for the higher labor and environmental costs of manufacturing in the USA.

The argument that consumers would be paying all of the taxes is bogus, because the consumers already pay all the taxes.

 

[natstew]

The Left didn't write the tax code. It was written by rich lobbyists and approved by rich Senators.

Say what?

You really do just make shit up as you go along, don't you?

Anybody that uses the idiotic terms of "Left' and "right' when referring to politics is suspect anyway.

What is 'left'? What is 'right'?

Was Woodhead Wilson left or was he right? He was a dimocrap but he was a racist.

Was FDR left or right? He was a redistributionist but he stopped the immigration of Jews into America on racial quota grounds. He also interred tens of thousands of Japanese for the sole crime of being Japanese.

So he was a racist, too.

Was Lenin a rightie or a leftie? He was a redistributionist but he was also a murdering thug.

How about Stalin? ANother redistributionist who murdered MILLIONS?

Pol Pot? A redistributionist (BTW, being a redistributionist is a REQUIREMENT for being considered a leftist) and a genocidal mad man.

What about Abraham Lincoln? He was a Republican so he had to be a Right-Winger, right? But yet he fought our costliest War (against dimocrap scum, BTW) to free Black People from Slavery.

What about Castro? Is he left or right?

What about Chavez and his toadie, Maduro? Left or right?

You know what I think?

I think you people are dishonest scumbags.

I think you assign the term 'left' to anything and anybody you like and/or approve of, and assign the term 'right' to those you dont' approve of.

Is Kim Jong Un a leftie or a rightie? He's got your worker's paradise in full operation.

Which is he? left or right.

You people.... You libturds.... You are the most dishonest, deceptive scumbags to ever walk the earth.

Everything you do is dishonest and everything you say is a lie couched in a half-truth.

Everything.

You don't know what you believe.

And don't forget Hugo Chavez, the Leftist in America loved him, now we're seeing th results of his 'wealth redistribution'.

 

[Erand7899]

Now you're running away from your claims? lol

In 1980 revenues were 19% of GDP. By 1988 revenues had fallen to 18.2% of GDP. If the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to increase revenues,

why were they producing LESS revenue relative to GDP??

Because GDP was growing faster than tax revenue generated by that GDP growth. See how easy that was to figger out?

So, which would you prefer, faster GDP growth, or faster tax revenue growth? Both were growing because of the tax cuts.

Why do conservatives always ignore the debt increase under Reagan and the increase in military spending?

Why do you continually change the subject? Perhaps for the same reason that you ignore the massive debt increase under Obama. partisan politics.

However, you seem to forget that Reagan took over an economy in stagflation with double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, and high inflation. Stagflation was cured by the Fed deliberately creating a recession, and the recession was cured by tax cuts.

Under Carter, the military was completely hollowed out. We didn't have enough money to fuel the aircraft carriers and still fly the airplanes. Reagan knew that we needed to refit the military and he did so.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The extent to which tax systems can be used to discriminate, to reward and punish at the pleasure of those in charge, is exactly what we should be talking about. We should devise taxation that has the minimum impact in that regard. Income tax sure as hell doesn't fit that description.

What tax system was that? The one that wont reward and or punish?

What? What are you getting at? Is this the "it can't be perfect so we shouldn't even try" argument?

Or is it the "But we really want to use the taxation power to manipulate people" argument?

Ok follow me. YOU said we should have a system that doesnt punish or reward. YOU said that. I asked what system is that and you reply angry

 

[Bombur]

The extent to which tax systems can be used to discriminate, to reward and punish at the pleasure of those in charge, is exactly what we should be talking about. We should devise taxation that has the minimum impact in that regard. Income tax sure as hell doesn't fit that description.

Yes it does because it is one of the easiest and most effective ways to tax disposable income.

The income tax is not a punishment tax like a tax on cigs or alcohol is.

"Easy and effective" doesn't address whether it can be used to discriminate. Certainly 'sin' taxes like those you mention are punishments, and should be abolished as well, buy the very act of defining 'income' is subjective and lends itself to politicking.

Income tax wouldn't be so bad if we simplified it and got rid of all the political deductions (tax incentives). But there's the rub, because calculating net income requires allowing deductions for costs of doing business, and the decision of which deductions are legitimate costs and which aren't is highly subjective. It leaves a wide window for shenanigans.

But at least clarifying intent, and banning the overt use of tax incentives for social engineering, would be a meaningful start.

I have no problem with cig or alcohol taxes whether they are based on the idea that we are recouping societal costs associated with the product or we are just trying to discourage behavior.

I agree that the tax code should not be up for sale where politicians have an economic incentive to help those who benefit from the tax change.

The income tax is not a great way to tax the poor and the middle/working class. Any tax they pay should be on consumption IMO. The only real point of the income tax is to make the tax code progressive in an attempt to get at that disposable income.

I am not for shenanigans either.

 

[dblack]

Yes it does because it is one of the easiest and most effective ways to tax disposable income.

The income tax is not a punishment tax like a tax on cigs or alcohol is.

"Easy and effective" doesn't address whether it can be used to discriminate. Certainly 'sin' taxes like those you mention are punishments, and should be abolished as well, buy the very act of defining 'income' is subjective and lends itself to politicking.

Income tax wouldn't be so bad if we simplified it and got rid of all the political deductions (tax incentives). But there's the rub, because calculating net income requires allowing deductions for costs of doing business, and the decision of which deductions are legitimate costs and which aren't is highly subjective. It leaves a wide window for shenanigans.

But at least clarifying intent, and banning the overt use of tax incentives for social engineering, would be a meaningful start.

I have no problem with cig or alcohol taxes whether they are based on the idea that we are recouping societal costs associated with the product or we are just trying to discourage behavior.

Then you are missing my point entirely. We should use real laws to punish behavior that is unacceptable. Not abuse the taxation power to slide crap under that table that might not pass Constitutional muster as a real legislation.