|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 08 2012 04:24 oneofthem wrote:
eh, the tax code is also complicated when it comes to dealing with nonwage income. that's why you have the EZ form when you don't have investment/capital income.
revenue loss from the top end kind of tax code complexity, particularly vague valuation of appreciating asset transfers and such, is significant in that the lost revenue has to be made up from somewhere else, at least politically speaking.
On the low end I don't think you can 1040EZ if you get the EITC either. Middle income taxpayers face a mixed bag, most will file a schedule D every year and most will take advantage of miscellaneous deductions and credits many times.
|
On December 08 2012 02:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 01:39 sam!zdat wrote:
I just feel like if you are going to go around pretending that markets reflect some sort of rational utility calculus for civilization, you have got to input cost data into the system. Right now the market doesn't get any information about costs of carbon emissions, so even if I believed in this hidden hand stuff, I wouldn't believe that it was working in this case.
I think the US is going to have to lead the way on stuff like this, I don't think we can just sit around going "Well China's not doing it! no fair!!"
I say start the carbon tax and fix whatever other things as they shake out. Or do you want a tax code that someone with a college degree can sort of comprehend? We keep on this pace much longer and you'll require a tax lawyer to do your taxes... It's one or the other. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
I really don't get it.
Negative and positive externalities are pretty much the only thing in economics that both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge to be free market distortions. And here you're saying that the cost of taxing one of the largest negative externalities currently in existence outweighs any possible way of writing this into the tax code.
I mean, seriously. As a comparison, the gains from correcting carbon prices are anywhere from 100 to 150 billion dollars a year. You could fix a ridiculous amount of market distortion by passing a corrective tax and reducing regular taxes.
Edit: corrected to appropriate number.
|
On December 08 2012 05:19 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 02:44 BluePanther wrote:On December 08 2012 01:39 sam!zdat wrote:
I just feel like if you are going to go around pretending that markets reflect some sort of rational utility calculus for civilization, you have got to input cost data into the system. Right now the market doesn't get any information about costs of carbon emissions, so even if I believed in this hidden hand stuff, I wouldn't believe that it was working in this case.
I think the US is going to have to lead the way on stuff like this, I don't think we can just sit around going "Well China's not doing it! no fair!!"
I say start the carbon tax and fix whatever other things as they shake out. Or do you want a tax code that someone with a college degree can sort of comprehend? We keep on this pace much longer and you'll require a tax lawyer to do your taxes... It's one or the other. You can't have the cake and eat it too. I really don't get it. Negative and positive externalities are pretty much the only thing in economics that both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge to be free market distortions. And here you're saying that the cost of taxing one of the largest negative externalities currently in existence outweighs any possible way of writing this into the tax code. I mean, seriously. As a comparison, the gains from correcting carbon prices are large enough to virtually eliminate the payroll tax. You could fix a ridiculous amount of market distortion by passing a corrective tax and reducing regular taxes.
I'll make it simple for you: The more you tinker with a tax code, the more difficult it becomes for the average person to work with it.
It's pretty simple logic.
|
On December 08 2012 05:27 BluePanther wrote:
I'll make it simple for you: The more you tinker with a tax code, the more difficult it becomes for the average person to work with it.
It's pretty simple logic.
I'll make it even simpler for you: you can't think of any way to implement a carbon tax so benefits exceed costs?
|
On December 08 2012 05:19 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 02:44 BluePanther wrote:On December 08 2012 01:39 sam!zdat wrote:
I just feel like if you are going to go around pretending that markets reflect some sort of rational utility calculus for civilization, you have got to input cost data into the system. Right now the market doesn't get any information about costs of carbon emissions, so even if I believed in this hidden hand stuff, I wouldn't believe that it was working in this case.
I think the US is going to have to lead the way on stuff like this, I don't think we can just sit around going "Well China's not doing it! no fair!!"
I say start the carbon tax and fix whatever other things as they shake out. Or do you want a tax code that someone with a college degree can sort of comprehend? We keep on this pace much longer and you'll require a tax lawyer to do your taxes... It's one or the other. You can't have the cake and eat it too. I really don't get it. Negative and positive externalities are pretty much the only thing in economics that both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge to be free market distortions. And here you're saying that the cost of taxing one of the largest negative externalities currently in existence outweighs any possible way of writing this into the tax code. I mean, seriously. The gains from correcting carbon prices are large enough to virtually eliminate the payroll tax. And a carbon tax straightens the market instead of distorting it, which sets it apart from almost every other tax out there.
I can't imagine a carbon tax being that high. I've heard $20 / ton being a rational number but that would come no where close enough to eliminate payroll taxes.
|
Yeah, that struck me as weird. I corrected the post for actual numbers for carbon taxes between 15 and 20 dollars per ton before you posted, your post is outdated.
|
On December 07 2012 07:29 Danglars wrote:I'm having a little trouble understanding you in light of what I wrote. Real spending cuts have been few and far between, tax increases, particularly those disproportionately affecting the rich, and the steady march of increasing regulation have been plentiful and widespread. Spending increases constitute a core part of the tax and spend, pork-barrel culture in Washington. Consider the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, promising to keep unemployment below 8%, as well as Dodd-Frank, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Consider also the regulations from numerous government agencies hurting the coal and oil industries, mentioned in the debates more than once. Companies are seeing their costs skyrocket, and all we get for compromise are temporary tax cuts set to expire, temporary budget deals that lower costs like doc-fix, and others. I'm saying Republicans are known to their base for being the worst negotiators in the country, giving away the farm at every turn. The tax increases stay when passed, the spending cuts fade away. Obama's compromise? No spending cuts, no entitlement reforms, no compromise on rates. Yes, that is the new era of compromise. One side gets what it wants. Well, if Democrats do want to play ball, my advice to Republicans is wait for entitlement reform to be put on the table, if the president wants to stop just talking and start doing on spending cuts. I mean, please, the President talks about reforms like they were just spending cuts by another names? It's fee increases. Ending wars I'm already ending? Spending cuts! Put in 600Billion in new spending, while cutting 400Billion of old? That's a spending cut compromise too. Some compromises are just giving away the farm. That's perfectly normal when you control both houses. All this smoke and mirrors stuff masks what isn't really a compromise at all. Boehner, who long ago lost my support, occasionally delivers some gems. Show nested quote +“If we gave the President $1.6 trillion of new money, what do you think he’d do with it?” Boehner asked. “He’d spend it.” On dynamic scoring, I'll have to spend some more time reading about it to really give my thoughts. My current problem is with the size of projected budget increases just being consider the natural thing to do, such that cutting a scheduled growth of 6% to 5% is so and so billion dollars of spending cuts. So if this has a chance to be the OMB's new way of mapping agency budget increases I'll take a look. For carbon taxes, I really just see these being passed straight on to consumers in the form of higher product and energy costs. I'd like to see a reduction in old and outdated nuclear energy regulations, and start fresh with new ones for safety. A gradual replacement of coal and natural gas fuels combined with policies designed around economic growth to fund ongoing research into industry reforms is the start. In my opinion, it's a wide and complex issue considering the growth of the economies of India and China and their contributions to worldwide CO2 emissions. A tax increase on companies that by their business produce carbon dioxide gas would mean much pain on the American citizen and a decrease in growth and increase in unemployment.
I wrote up a larger response to this earlier, but I fucked up and forgot I hadn't posted it when I closed my browser. So this will be kind of short. Nevermind, its not short, but still shorter than it was.
So first off, I love your tone, Danglars, you have so far been one the most cordial and respectful posters in the thread (better than me and most of the other liberals too) way to go man! That said, I feel like there is a lot of criticism but I am struggling to understand what you think should be done instead and what specific problems you have with some things.
The ARRA projections were based on an economy that was better than reality. Models fuck up, it happens. The effectiveness of the stimulus is not determined by what politicians say it will do. The effectiveness if based on the real macro effects of the stimulus. Did it work? My answer is: its complicated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html
You might not like Ezra Klein and his wonkblog but he gives a decent overview of the studies. For an impartial source here is the CBO estimate.
It did not keep unemployment below 8% but that criticism isn't a reasonable criticism of the fiscal stimulus policy on the whole, its just a sign politicians should be careful what they say when the models aren't as definitive as they think.
I don't really like Obamacare either, far to right-wing for me. I mean, the idea was from Heritage foundation and supported by Orrin Hatch!
Can you give some specific criticism of the Dodd-Frank bill? It has pros and cons but I believe that we needed to change the financial regulations in the wake of the housing crash. I like it overall I think, not really sure about that one, certainly no strong feelings here.
You can criticize Obama's math on spending cuts but the Republicans look no better to me with their utter lack of specifics. The truth is that neither party puts forth good clean numbers, but at least Obama's math is understandable even if he does include some questionable numbers, the war spending reductions in particular, which is the worst one in my opinion. Honestly, I would hope both sides are willing to break from their public positions to reach a goal, but it seems like neither one is. Then again, we don't know what is going on during their real negotiations.
That op-ed on the Bush tax cuts was terrible. Just awful stuff. He attributed all economic and tax revenue growth to the Bush tax cuts and did not make any effort to control for any variables. Acted like GDP growth would have been 0% every year without those cuts. If you want to discuss the economic effect of the Bush tax cuts we can do that, but let's try to set a higher bar for discourse and use more realistic estimates of their effect than what that guy did. He could of switched out the tax cuts with No Child Left Behind and it would of been as intellectually honest.
Coal and oil industries should have to cover their environmental costs. They get to externalize too much, and while some Republicans have tried to claim their industries suffering is due to the Democrats the truth is that if Republicans would let the regulatory hammer come down on fracking then coal would be doing better all of a sudden. The truth is that natural gas has been ruining coal, not really regulations. I hate coal anyways, you're not going to get me to cry a single for the dirtiest energy source we use. (not even talking carbon here) I am having trouble finding any good sources on the regulations, all I can find is angry coal groups and Republicans who have no substance to their criticisms just say it kills jobs, God forbid they say what it actually is. We should probably have a discussion about fracking in this thread at some point, really make it live up to that "megathread" title.
Do you think a balanced budget is a reasonable goal in this economy? I'm not sure I understand what policy solutions you are advocating. Low taxes and low spending is arguably good but its difficult to control spending when so many more people than normal are relying on the safety net/automatic stabilizers with the economic situation (food stamps/unemployment insurance/etc) I don't see how a balanced budget is reasonable right now but in the near future I don't see why a carbon tax isn't a good part of a deficit reduction program.
I would hope carbon taxes would be passed on to the consumer, providing a price difference between goods with more carbon and those with less I don't believe the deficit can be solved only with cuts, that is a brutal proposition when you look at the numbers. This is essentially exactly how I feel except I might have a little more faith in markets:
On December 08 2012 01:39 sam!zdat wrote:
I just feel like if you are going to go around pretending that markets reflect some sort of rational utility calculus for civilization, you have got to input cost data into the system. Right now the market doesn't get any information about costs of carbon emissions, so even if I believed in this hidden hand stuff, I wouldn't believe that it was working in this case.
I think the US is going to have to lead the way on stuff like this, I don't think we can just sit around going "Well China's not doing it! no fair!!"
I say start the carbon tax and fix whatever other things as they shake out.
Also: Jobs report beats expectations!
@BluePanther and OneOfThem: C'mon you guys, this kind of sourcelss partisan bickering over something incredible vague like "who makes the tax code more complicated" with no real information is something we should be avoiding. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties support the largest distortions in the tax code.
edit: wouldn't be surprised.
|
On December 08 2012 05:32 acker wrote:
Yeah, that struck me as weird. I corrected the post for actual numbers for carbon taxes between 15 and 20 dollars per ton before you posted, your post is outdated.
OK, as long as its a reasonable number I think a carbon tax would be a good thing. Right now solar tax credits expire at the end of 2016 which sets up nicely for a transition to a carbon tax. My suspicion would be that the carbon tax would be less complex than the credit too so both issues (climate and tax simplicity) would see improvement.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well i tried to be fair and point out that tax code complications are created/used by both the poor and the rich. it's not really a partisan attack. :3
|
On December 08 2012 05:29 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 05:27 BluePanther wrote:
I'll make it simple for you: The more you tinker with a tax code, the more difficult it becomes for the average person to work with it.
It's pretty simple logic. I'll make it even simpler for you: you can't think of any way to implement a carbon tax so benefits exceed costs?
Of course I can. But that's a completely different issue than the one I was talking about.
|
Ayn Rand was America's most important intellectual of the 20th century.
|
On December 08 2012 05:34 TheFrankOne wrote:
@BluePanther and OneOfThem: C'mon you guys, this kind of sourcelss partisan bickering over something incredible vague like "who makes the tax code more complicated" with no real information is something we should be avoiding. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties support the largest distortions in the tax code.
I'm not even being partisan... And this isn't exactly source-worthy. It's common knowledge that Democrats are more hands-on with the economy and prefer using tax credits/hikes to encourage good behavior. It's common sense really. The statement I made is that you need to be careful you don't make it so complex that average people can't work with it (which it is getting to that point).
Think about all the Democrat proposals to simplify taxes in the past 10 years. I can't name one. Sure, they want to make it "more fair", but they don't have any proposals that actually simplify the system currently in place.
Now the Republicans: Flat+NIT, Flat, National sales tax, 9-9-9, etc. Not that they're smarter, but they sure are simpler. How you can say I'm being partisan is beyond me.
|
The current tax code was substantially implemented by the republicans, but at least their pure goal/ideology is simplification.
The democrats want to simplify, but also want to use taxation to mold behavior, which inherently makes it somewhat more complicated.
|
For a long time now I have been of the opinion that taxation should be greatly simplified. There are several reasons for this, not least that the more complex a tax system is, the more ways there are to abuse it.
I do not know whether this have made the US media, but there has been a lot of media attention in the UK on companies that are incorporated in the US, trade in the UK yet pay little or no taxes in the UK. Examples would be Google, Amazon or Starbucks, but I am sure that there are many others. Under current taxation systems they are not breaking the law, and the law cannot easily be changed to force them to pay taxes because this in an international problem and would requires all countries to implement the same laws in order to solve it.
My opinion is that corporation tax should be scrapped, along with income tax, road tax and many others. Basically, I would remove taxation on income and profits and increase taxation on consumption. So I would like to see value added tax increased to replace income tax, and have several bands of VAT (little or no taxation on necessities, high taxation on luxuries). Value added tax is easier to enforce and tax avoidance would be greatly reduced.
I do not see the point in having road tax along with tax on fuel. Why not scrap the road tax and increase fuel duty? It's a minor issue, but I think it is a simple example of showing how tax systems are overcomplicated.
|
On December 08 2012 06:39 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 05:34 TheFrankOne wrote:
@BluePanther and OneOfThem: C'mon you guys, this kind of sourcelss partisan bickering over something incredible vague like "who makes the tax code more complicated" with no real information is something we should be avoiding. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties support the largest distortions in the tax code. I'm not even being partisan... And this isn't exactly source-worthy. It's common knowledge that Democrats are more hands-on with the economy and prefer using tax credits/hikes to encourage good behavior. It's common sense really. The statement I made is that you need to be careful you don't make it so complex that average people can't work with it (which it is getting to that point). Think about all the Democrat proposals to simplify taxes in the past 10 years. I can't name one. Sure, they want to make it "more fair", but they don't have any proposals that actually simplify the system currently in place. Now the Republicans: Flat+NIT, Flat, National sales tax, 9-9-9, etc. Not that they're smarter, but they sure are simpler. How you can say I'm being partisan is beyond me.
I'm not really big on common sense man, I like sources or at least details so I can look things up and if you call me out on having no sources, I will find some or apologize. So I disagree about the "source-worthy thing".
Your examples of tax distorting policies is largely why I called you partisan. I really doubt a production tax credit for wind energy has much effect on how a regular guy does his taxes. Make those kinds of comments and I will call you partisan every time. Plus it tends to help not get people riled up if you call two people partisan, one from each side.
Except for Flat+NIT those Republican proposals are jokes, I'm not even talking about them on policy grounds. They simply never had a hope of becoming real, its like saying Democrats have actually tried to fix the health care system because some primary candidate proposed single payer.
National sales tax is the FAIR tax proposal right? That's the one where the math only works if the government receives the revenue from it paying the tax on its own expenditures and only then if prices that the government pays doesn't go up because of the tax, its a joke no one takes seriously.
Democrats are not really opposed to simplifying the tax code, Republicans proposals need to stop looking so much like an excuse to decrease the progressiveness of the tax code with the paper thin excuse of "simplifying it". Or just not making a damn bit of sense, they really, really need to stop that. Tacking on things to make it more progressive without changing the base rates, like Herman Cain suggested when the math doesn't seem to work in the first place just wrecks the budget.
Plus the bipartisan Simpson Bowles commission had massive tax reform as part of the plan. Also, there is the vote on the tax reform act of 1986. Simplification was huge part of that plan.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/s529
Yes, three dems voted against it but that's less than 10% of their members. Why might they be opposed to the "tax reform" proposals today?
From The Craze for Flat Taxes
+ Show Spoiler +That, by all reckonings but Mr Cain's, would provide the rich with a whopping tax break (chiefly because tax on capital gains and dividends would be eliminated), paid for by higher taxes on everyone else. It was concerns about how regressive the switch to a flat tax would be that caused Mr Forbes's campaigns to founder. At the time, a certain Mitt Romney called it “a tax cut for fat cats”.
This time around, however, raising taxes on the poor seems to be a point of pride among Republican candidates, although Mr Cain has modified his original plan slightly to make it less regressive. In launching his campaign, Mr Perry expressed dismay at “the injustice” that 47% of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. Most of the people Mr Perry is referring to live below the poverty line, and still pay payroll taxes on what little they earn. Yet an indignant campaign called “We are the 53%” has sprung up online, to complain about the loafing remainder. Most of the Republican candidates, including Mr Romney, the erstwhile scourge of the fat cats, argue that more of the poor should pay at least some income tax. Mr Gingrich goes even further, accusing both Mr Perry and Mr Romney of “class warfare” for putting upper limits on certain tax breaks in their plans.
Simplifying the tax code is not high on the Dems agenda but that's because they don't believe tax reforms are magic things that immediately fix the economy.
Plus Conservative economists really like the idea of using the tax code to effect incentives. A former chairman of the council of economic advisers under Bush supports a $1 federal gas tax. He also has compiled a helpful list of economists who agree with the general principle of using taxes to influence behavior. (the majority of them, left right and center)
Why gas tax is good:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html
List:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html
+ Show Spoiler +. I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade. Campaign consultants aren't fond of this kind of proposal, but policy wonks keep pushing for it.
Finally here is quote from Obama: "We’ve got to have tax reform"
That got a little ranty because Republican tax policies really grind my gears.
TL;DR: I called you partisan because your vague and sourceless examples of tax credits that Dems pushed through do not support your conclusion about the average guy being able to do his taxes. IMO anyways. Plus serious people on both sides support using the tax code to influence some behavior while reducing the complexity of our current, outdated tax code.
|
On December 08 2012 06:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ayn Rand was America's most important intellectual of the 20th century.
William F. Buckley Jr. stomps her face. Metaphorically, of course.
|
On December 08 2012 06:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ayn Rand was America's most important intellectual of the 20th century.
I cringed at this at first.
But if the metric for how important an individual is is how frequently her ideas are misconstrued and misapplied combined with the total revolutions she makes in her grave, I'm pretty sure she was. Can't believe Randian Paul Ryan already did a full turnaround to compassionate conservatism.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
felt a stabbing pain in my liver after reading that post. further exposure may lead to various spontaneous hemorrhages.
|
On December 08 2012 09:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 06:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ayn Rand was America's most important intellectual of the 20th century. William F. Buckley Jr. stomps her face. Metaphorically, of course.
Not sure William F. Buckley was so much of an intellectial. Supporting Franco and Pinochet is not exactly the definition of a good judgement and though he might have had a strong influence on the definition of conservatism I don't believe that any real intellectual in USA would be a person with strong political ties. Lee Atwater would be even more influential on the rhetoric, though anti-intellectualism is closer to his style.
As for Ayn Rand, I have only read little of her work and I truely doubt her objectivity in her statements on publishing, films and other creative endeavours. Holding that copyright should be lifetime +50 years seems completely out there with her complete lack of proof or even reasoning for especially the +50 years. So much for her "Objectivism"!
If you want to go to the less mainstream intellectual world in USA, I would plead for Saul Kripke or David Kelogg Lewis. None of them actually worked in political circles.
|
not sure ayn rand was so much of an intellectual, either
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
