US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2009

On May 29 2015 06:23 cLutZ wrote:
I agree with much of that. Just saying that an honest answer to someone complaining about the tax code is not, " model your life around the tax code. "

On May 29 2015 06:43 zlefin wrote:
Simplifying the tax code would also make it easier for people to be aware of such programs. Having programs that achieve social policy through tax breaks and deductions doesn't work well if most people aren't aware of them. And with a huge tax code, there's lots of things people just aren't aware of.

the tax code is just tldr for most people.

On May 29 2015 06:43 zlefin wrote:
Simplifying the tax code would also make it easier for people to be aware of such programs. Having programs that achieve social policy through tax breaks and deductions doesn't work well if most people aren't aware of them. And with a huge tax code, there's lots of things people just aren't aware of.

the tax code is just tldr for most people.

Any change proposed for the benefit of any disadvantaged group will primarily be exploited by those who need it least

On May 29 2015 06:27 KwarK wrote:

It's not so much modelling your life around it as understanding that deals like "we'll give you back a dollar in tax for every dollar you spend on education" or "we'll match 50 cents on every dollar you put into a retirement accounts" are the kind of deals you should be taking.

Washington has tried pretty hard to make life better for Americans using the tax code and it's important to understand the options these things make available, even if you don't use them.

I max them but I'm that kind of guy. And it just so happens that the things they're incentivising, saving for retirement, continuing education, taking time off work to be with my kids and so forth and the things I'd quite like to be doing anyway. These are not great hardships.

Furthermore in his case it was mostly that his withholding was set way too high. That one is on him.

On May 29 2015 06:29 Chocolate wrote:
The tax code allows the government to encourage certain spending by incentivizing it

Problem: The government thinks it would in the best interest of everyone (or maybe just government) to raise the birth rate
Solution: Most ways of manipulating the birth rate are pretty unethical. However, offering more tax breaks and deductions for extra kids isn't so bad.

Problem: The government thinks the general population isn't educated enough for the economy to reach its full potential.
Solution: The government gives tax breaks for people to get educated.

Simplifying the tax code takes away a very flexible and useful tool to effect change in society. Most efforts to change it usually hurt the poor and favor the rich.

On May 29 2015 07:29 cLutZ wrote:


I disagree its not modeling your life, or at least greatly influencing it. From your life its not getting a car so you can invest in retirement, at another part of your life it may be picking a condo over an apartment because of the mortgage interest deduction, and then later on you will choose again to buy instead of rent because if you sold your condo you'd lose a bunch in capital gains tax (unless you make an in-kind purchase), and maybe you end up along the way crunching numbers with your spouse over whether or not to get married, or have kids. Its very influential, if you aren't an idiot.



What I think most people with my POV would say is:
Problem: The government doesn't actually know what the problems are.
Solution: Stop pretending you do.

On May 29 2015 07:34 KwarK wrote:

By that argument if someone started leaving ten dollar bills on the ground outside my house they'd be modelling my life into a more stooped and grasping posture.

On May 29 2015 07:29 cLutZ wrote:


I disagree its not modeling your life, or at least greatly influencing it. From your life its not getting a car so you can invest in retirement, at another part of your life it may be picking a condo over an apartment because of the mortgage interest deduction, and then later on you will choose again to buy instead of rent because if you sold your condo you'd lose a bunch in capital gains tax (unless you make an in-kind purchase), and maybe you end up along the way crunching numbers with your spouse over whether or not to get married, or have kids. Its very influential, if you aren't an idiot.



What I think most people with my POV would say is:
Problem: The government doesn't actually know what the problems are.
Solution: Stop pretending you do.

On May 29 2015 08:12 Chocolate wrote:

Are you kidding me? Yes, there are things that may or may not be problems that the government does not accurately identify. There are also many things that are very easily identifiable, such as the cost of raising children and the beneficial effects of having an educated populace. I don't even know what your point is... Do you actually want to take away the tax break for having kids?

Or is this just "government is bad 100% of the time"?

On May 29 2015 08:37 cLutZ wrote:
Child tax breaks are probably a good, or at worst neutral idea. But they certainly have screwed up the education system, particularly higher ed, and low-income K-12. But those things are like a shiny bauble on the top of a rotting Christmas tree when you look at the inner workings of the tax breaks and subsidies carved out and doled out by the Federal and State governments.

On May 29 2015 08:37 cLutZ wrote:
Child tax breaks are probably a good, or at worst neutral idea. But they certainly have screwed up the education system, particularly higher ed, and low-income K-12. But those things are like a shiny bauble on the top of a rotting Christmas tree when you look at the inner workings of the tax breaks and subsidies carved out and doled out by the Federal and State governments.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wednesday assured Texans that the state would receive federal relief following major flooding, even though the senator opposed federal funding following Hurricane Sandy.

"There are a series of federal statutory thresholds that have to be satisfied. Initially, it appears those thresholds are likely to be satisfied by the magnitude of the damage we're seeing," Cruz said while touring the flooding in Wimberley, Texas, according to Texas television station KSAT. "Democrats and Republicans in the congressional delegation will stand as one in support of the federal government meeting its statutory obligations to provide the relief to help the Texans who are hurting."

At least 15 people have died due to widespread flooding in Texas, and officials have warned that the flooding may worsen in certain parts of the state.

On May 29 2015 08:42 Gorsameth wrote:

And who would you let decide education? The states so that a quarter of the country believes god made the earth in 6 days?
Schools themselves so that its an ever bigger roulette of what school you happen to be born near that decided your fate in life aswell as the non-science and whatever other BS they think of?

On May 29 2015 08:37 cLutZ wrote:
Child tax breaks are probably a good, or at worst neutral idea. But they certainly have screwed up the education system, particularly higher ed, and low-income K-12. But those things are like a shiny bauble on the top of a rotting Christmas tree when you look at the inner workings of the tax breaks and subsidies carved out and doled out by the Federal and State governments.

On May 29 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:

Because, lets say I assume Kwark's estimation of the graph is correct.



Then lets say every person is the same, and earns the same, saves the same % of income (no interest), works from 20-65, retires, and dies at 80 with $0. We know all these things are untrue in the real world, and all those assumptions, if untrue, would make wealth distribution more uneven than that "ideal" graph.

Here is that society's wealth distribution:

http://s18.postimg.org/ovk82b4e1/Robot.png

Top 20: 36%
21-40: 28%
41-60: 20%
61-80: 12%
81-100: 4%

On May 29 2015 09:10 IgnE wrote:


What are you talking about? What is a more sensical graph according to you? I think your hypothetical is meaningless.