Political Roundtable Part XXIV

[Zonkerbl]

I am trying to figure out if we are trying to make things more fair or if we are just trying to punish a certain type of individual (say Warren Buffet).

If we want to make things more fair - then we should be looking at effective tax rates after government subsidies. We should be looking at a fairer tax code with little to no wiggle room on carveouts. And of course, we know those government services are key to a better life, so we should want to consistently improve those social services.

Instead, we have been misdirected toward the evil 1% (call him Warren) that isn't paying his fair share. When actually, Warren wants to pay his fair share but no more than the next guy in his group (one doesn't want to be perceived as a dunce). He wants to know that his tax dollars are going to go to an ever improving government (lest he thinks he is just wasting his time and treasure).

If we just want to vilify the wealthy - that should be fun - but probably not that productive.

I think it's pretty clear here that we are all talking about getting the wealthy to pay their fair share, that the US government could and should collect more revenue and it is the absurdly wealthy, who just gave themselves a $1.5 trillion tax break, who need to go first.

It's not about fair treatment (which would result in the wealthy paying much less than they pay now). It's about getting the wealthy to contribute their share.

It's not about punishing people. It's about getting the wealthy to contribute their share.

It's not about vilifying people. It's about getting the wealthy to contribute their share.

It almost feels like you think you can't win an argument about getting the wealthy to contribute their share, and feel you need to change the argument to something else that you think you can win. Maybe the real problem is that asking the wealthy to contribute more is the right thing to do.

First, I don't think it is fair to lump in all super rich - lots of the most wealthy did not support the recent tax cuts (I would say a majority).

Second, contribute their share is nebulous. What is that share? Its easy to say share without a definition. And what is the goal for the additional revenue? Its easy to say, pay more until I say when vs. here is where we will spend the receipts.

I know you are only talking about the super rich but... it isn't like we aren't doing anything. We just aren't doing anything very efficiently. Or to put it another way, our social services are very inefficient and aren't getting the receipts we take in to those that need them.

Billionaires aren't bad people. Well, they almost certainly are, but that's not the point. Every billionaire is a policy failure.

The plutocrat class just stole $1.5 trillion from the poor, so before you even get to talk about fairness, they have to give that money back. Then we need to match revenues to expenditures. Given the bad faith with which the plutocrats behaved recently, given the criminal income and wealth inequality in this country, it would be insane to consider anything other than making the plutocrats pay more.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[I_Like_Dirt]

I am trying to figure out if we are trying to make things more fair or if we are just trying to punish a certain type of individual (say Warren Buffet).

If we want to make things more fair - then we should be looking at effective tax rates after government subsidies. We should be looking at a fairer tax code with little to no wiggle room on carveouts. And of course, we know those government services are key to a better life, so we should want to consistently improve those social services.

Instead, we have been misdirected toward the evil 1% (call him Warren) that isn't paying his fair share. When actually, Warren wants to pay his fair share but no more than the next guy in his group (one doesn't want to be perceived as a dunce). He wants to know that his tax dollars are going to go to an ever improving government (lest he thinks he is just wasting his time and treasure).

If we just want to vilify the wealthy - that should be fun - but probably not that productive.

Not vilify, necessarily, but vilifying the practices that largely allowed them to become super wealthy is probably something that needs to be done at this point.

I do think it pays to overhaul the tax code dramatically. I don't think taxes alone are going to solve the issue, though. The larger issue of where revenues created from productivity increases are going is a massive issue that continues to get worse and won't get better without some rather drastic measures. And if it turns out society is alright with those kinds of practices, then we had better be ready for the potential to have a situation where effectively only those particular individuals are taxed because the disparity will just continue. I don't particularly like that kind of end-game, though, because it becomes a massive power shift when governments suddenly need billionaires and not the other way around. At least for now they need each other.

[dckingsfan]

I am trying to figure out if we are trying to make things more fair or if we are just trying to punish a certain type of individual (say Warren Buffet).

If we want to make things more fair - then we should be looking at effective tax rates after government subsidies. We should be looking at a fairer tax code with little to no wiggle room on carveouts. And of course, we know those government services are key to a better life, so we should want to consistently improve those social services.

Instead, we have been misdirected toward the evil 1% (call him Warren) that isn't paying his fair share. When actually, Warren wants to pay his fair share but no more than the next guy in his group (one doesn't want to be perceived as a dunce). He wants to know that his tax dollars are going to go to an ever improving government (lest he thinks he is just wasting his time and treasure).

If we just want to vilify the wealthy - that should be fun - but probably not that productive.

Not vilify, necessarily, but vilifying the practices that largely allowed them to become super wealthy is probably something that needs to be done at this point.

I do think it pays to overhaul the tax code dramatically. I don't think taxes alone are going to solve the issue, though. The larger issue of where revenues created from productivity increases are going is a massive issue that continues to get worse and won't get better without some rather drastic measures. And if it turns out society is alright with those kinds of practices, then we had better be ready for the potential to have a situation where effectively only those particular individuals are taxed because the disparity will just continue. I don't particularly like that kind of end-game, though, because it becomes a massive power shift when governments suddenly need billionaires and not the other way around. At least for now they need each other.

This was exactly the argument in Detroit - we need drastic measures and tax increases.

The answer - like you state - is to revise the tax code first. Second, if you are going to do a wealth tax - you need to make sure it doesn't impact your working capital. Otherwise revenues will tank.

The problem right now is that demagoguing the rich will allow them to pass legislation that won't work well. Remember when Warren demagogued the banks? How did that legislation turn out?

Look, the problem with both the GND folks and Warren's proposals is that they are bad. They aren't going after the root cause which is a broken tax code. And they aren't doing it because they would have to take on their base (which loves those carveouts).

Kind of like the Germans talking about global warming but not being able to slow down the autobahn or the French not being able to implement a carbon tax.

[dckingsfan]

The plutocrat class just stole $1.5 trillion from the poor, so before you even get to talk about fairness, they have to give that money back. Then we need to match revenues to expenditures. Given the bad faith with which the plutocrats behaved recently, given the criminal income and wealth inequality in this country, it would be insane to consider anything other than making the plutocrats pay more.

I am disappointed that you aren't seeing the point. The point is the tax code needs to be fixed first and foremost to fix the "billionaire" problem. These other proposals are really bad and will just make the problem worse.

Patient: Doctor, I have an infection on my leg.
Doctor: Nurse, prepare to remove his arm.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The problem right now is that demagoguing the rich will allow them to pass legislation that won't work well. Remember when Warren demagogued the banks? How did that legislation turn out?

Look, the problem with both the GND folks and Warren's proposals is that they are bad. They aren't going after the root cause which is a broken tax code. And they aren't doing it because they would have to take on their base (which loves those carveouts).

Kind of like the Germans talking about global warming but not being able to slow down the autobahn or the French not being able to implement a carbon tax.

I mean, sure. I don't think this whole issue of "demagoguing" that you keep coming back to is the issue, though. Unlike immigrants, the regulations that allow the wealthy to become uber-wealthy are waaay more significant issues. They should be dealt with first and to do that there needs to be a certain social attention paid to the issue. Whether or not those issues are addressed competently or not is largely independent of that, but yes, dealing with them competently is crucially important.

But yes, I do think the core of the issue is fundamentally different than it's presented. I think the effective tax rates of the rich need to be raised but I also think that's true for some of the lower income parts of the economy. The catch is I feel that the earning power of some of the lower and middle income parts of the economy needs to be raised to increase that tax potential and that needs to come at the expense of the wealthy, too. And I don't think that simply adjusting the tax code is going to fix that and I'm not at all a believer in the idea of simply fixing the tax code and then seeing what else can be done afterwards because the way politics works the public attention will be gone and then nothing will be done. Enforcement is absolutely crucial to whatever is done. A rather strong investment on that front needs to be made. Enough with loophole exploitation and such. There was once a judge who got caught stealing steak from a grocery a couple decades ago who argued in court that it wasn't wrong to steal but rather the job of the justice system to enforce. It was a ridiculous argument but he did have a misdirected point there in the sense that allowing people to do whatever they want is invariably going to create a massively imbalanced system. Enforcement is crucial and the enforcement right now is focused on far different issues.

[dckingsfan]

Goal: Sustainable government (don't let debt squeeze programs)
Goal: Move bottom two quintiles up in income after government transfers

On the receipt side:
Tactic 1: Remove all carveouts
Tactic 2: All income is the same (working and investment)
Tactic 3: SS payroll tax increase, M4A payroll tax (no limit)
Tactic 4: Three tier income tax
Tactic 5: Adjust income tax rates (above) to bring in x% of GDP

On the outlay side:
Tactic 1: Remove all pensions (unfunded liabilities are killing us)
Tactic 2: Pay down the debt to a serviceable level
Tactic 3: Then, make sure debt does not get above x% of GDP
Tactic 4: Continual evaluation of government services and kill those that aren't performing
Tactic 5: Reduce our military expenditures

Instead, what are we discussing? Poorly formed wealth transfers and marginal rate increases that don't touch the investment class or that limit working capital that will reduce federal receipts.

[dckingsfan]

The problem right now is that demagoguing the rich will allow them to pass legislation that won't work well. Remember when Warren demagogued the banks? How did that legislation turn out?

Look, the problem with both the GND folks and Warren's proposals is that they are bad. They aren't going after the root cause which is a broken tax code. And they aren't doing it because they would have to take on their base (which loves those carveouts).

Kind of like the Germans talking about global warming but not being able to slow down the autobahn or the French not being able to implement a carbon tax.

I mean, sure. I don't think this whole issue of "demagoguing" that you keep coming back to is the issue, though. Unlike immigrants, the regulations that allow the wealthy to become uber-wealthy are waaay more significant issues. They should be dealt with first and to do that there needs to be a certain social attention paid to the issue. Whether or not those issues are addressed competently or not is largely independent of that, but yes, dealing with them competently is crucially important.

But yes, I do think the core of the issue is fundamentally different than it's presented. I think the effective tax rates of the rich need to be raised but I also think that's true for some of the lower income parts of the economy. The catch is I feel that the earning power of some of the lower and middle income parts of the economy needs to be raised to increase that tax potential and that needs to come at the expense of the wealthy, too. And I don't think that simply adjusting the tax code is going to fix that and I'm not at all a believer in the idea of simply fixing the tax code and then seeing what else can be done afterwards because the way politics works the public attention will be gone and then nothing will be done. Enforcement is absolutely crucial to whatever is done. A rather strong investment on that front needs to be made. Enough with loophole exploitation and such. There was once a judge who got caught stealing steak from a grocery a couple decades ago who argued in court that it wasn't wrong to steal but rather the job of the justice system to enforce. It was a ridiculous argument but he did have a misdirected point there in the sense that allowing people to do whatever they want is invariably going to create a massively imbalanced system. Enforcement is crucial and the enforcement right now is focused on far different issues.

You can't enforce a broken tax code. The complexity makes it difficult and costly to enforce. Simple as that - don't fix the tax code and you can't fix the rest. Period. When politicians redirect, well...

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Zonkerbl]

The tax code is broken because the world is complicated. Valuing assets is tricky. Lobbyists are constitutionally permitted to represent their clients' interests, and forbidding that from happening would just push the influence peddling underground, which isn't an improvement.

Holding good tax policy hostage to fixing the tax system is disingenuous. They are two completely separate things.

[dckingsfan]

Disagree - the tax code and tax policy are inextricably linked. If you have a tax policy that wants to tax the top quintile more but you have carveouts that make that impossible - well, you are just talking into the wind.

[I_Like_Dirt]

You can't enforce a broken tax code. The complexity makes it difficult and costly to enforce. Simple as that - don't fix the tax code and you can't fix the rest. Period. When politicians redirect, well...

And you can't fix a broken tax code if you have an economic power imbalance to the degree that exists today. That needs to be addressed somehow before the tax code will ever have a realistic chance at being fixed. Monopolies are a big issue but it goes beyond them towards unethical business practices in general. Monopolies are just the end result of practices that allow for paid access to political influence and legal supports. We talk specifically about the US in here for the most part but around the world it's much worse.

There are national governments who won't even attempt to enact any restrictions on tobacco because they can't afford to compete with tobacco companies to enforce their own legislation in their own legal system (just using tobacco as an example, it's true pretty much everywhere). What causes problems in the US causes even bigger fallout problems elsewhere and it gives forewarnings of where this heads if left unchecked. And yes, these issues can be made worse if the actual power imbalance is not used competently and enforced; there are dangers to using any particular tool for any particular task.

[closg00]

1/2 million dollar deposits before and after the Trump Tower meeting, nothing suspicious at all about that

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

You can't enforce a broken tax code. The complexity makes it difficult and costly to enforce. Simple as that - don't fix the tax code and you can't fix the rest. Period. When politicians redirect, well...

And you can't fix a broken tax code if you have an economic power imbalance to the degree that exists today. That needs to be addressed somehow before the tax code will ever have a realistic chance at being fixed. Monopolies are a big issue but it goes beyond them towards unethical business practices in general. Monopolies are just the end result of practices that allow for paid access to political influence and legal supports. We talk specifically about the US in here for the most part but around the world it's much worse.

There are national governments who won't even attempt to enact any restrictions on tobacco because they can't afford to compete with tobacco companies to enforce their own legislation in their own legal system (just using tobacco as an example, it's true pretty much everywhere). What causes problems in the US causes even bigger fallout problems elsewhere and it gives forewarnings of where this heads if left unchecked. And yes, these issues can be made worse if the actual power imbalance is not used competently and enforced; there are dangers to using any particular tool for any particular task.

monolpolies exist because the current and all past tax codes have allowed wealthy to offset income far too easily with:

debt, interest, SALT, special zoning, special financing, TIF, and most importantly, research and development and expansion.

In short, The wealthy elites "billz" are paid, so they dont need to realize income...instead of realizing income (AKA paying taxes on income) they are allowed to reinvest their income in the expansion of their businesses or other businesses while skating free on their taxes. The "costs" to expand offsets their income. Their equity in real estate, stocks, and business ownership grows...AND even appreciates over time. All while paying almost no taxes on current income.

This is further execrated exponentially by abuse of personal tax and inheritance tax by way of trusts, foundations, and non-profits.

It would take 15 minutes to write all of these corporate loop holes out of the current tax code. 20 more minutes to vote on it in the house, 15 minutes in the Senate, and 30 seconds for Trump to sign it.

This aint hrard. it aint rocket science. Markets WONT crumble. The only thing that would happen is about 10,000 people on the entire planet would lose half of their wealth if they were taxed in s similar fashion as the upper middle and middle middle class. And its as Simple as making them pay their tax on their current income pre-expansion, pre-research and development, and making them pay taxes on the annual appreciation of their current wealth. if their Stock portfolio goes up 20%?? ____% (depending on income tier) of that stock GOES to the US government who can then sell the stock to convert it to USD to pay the tax. rental Real estate appreciates ? pay your taxes on that appreciation annually. Your NBA sports franchise goes from $20 million to $5 billion over 30 years? Pay your damn taxes annually on that appreciation!!!!!! (instead...under our current codes...jerry reinsdorf and donald sterling were allowed to borrow hundreds of millions against the equity in their NBA teams while paying NO tax on the appreciation and both of them used the money they borrowed agaisnt their frnachises to buy billions in real estate. The interest on loans they took against their franchises offset income as well as the depreciation on the real estate reinsdorf owns half the UC and parking lots. <--Thats why we have monopolies!!! These types of carveouts and loop holes allow for compound writing off of liabilities to offset income and avoiding taxes which is allowing for massive expansion. Reinsdorf also used this (completely untaxed) "income" to make his own cable TV channel for his 2 sports teams. The value of that TV channel and mixed media platforms are now worth over 800 million by itself. JR and his team bought the bulls in 1884 for 20 million. The team, the real estate, and the media platforms are now worth over $5 billion!! Do the math! They are clearly not paying their fair share of taxes. Not even close!!

whats worse is reisnsdorf and sterling can sell the entire NBA portfolio, its real estate, and media platforms to his trust. And then assign and distribute that trust to his heirs...and pay no tax on all of that appreciaiton!!!! NOTHING!!! NADA!! ZIP!! Zilch!!! <--that's the biggest problem with out tax codes!! right there!!

[JWizmentality]

My god, there's corruption in every orifice.

[JWizmentality]

Watch on YouTube

Thoughts and Prayers indeed.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Watch on YouTube

Thoughts and Prayers indeed.

so 5 people are paying more in taxes lol? anecdotal spam posting is a waste of everyone's time. and ...just...well...spam.

How about let's wait until april 20th and compare the year over year total tax and combined federal revenue (including tariffs) and compare 2016 to 2017 to 2018. and then we will see exactly how much money we "lost" on trumps tax and tariff and trade policies.

Spoiler alert: total federal tax and tariff revenue went up in 2018 to its highest amount ever in recorded history.

[TGW]

Drump's cult is mad because they got duped by the trump tax scam

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter