After Nagasaki, the US entered decades of peace, love, blossoming arts, an economic boom. There were no wars, and no fights.
Waidaminit....
Where Do You Stand? (2016 Election)
- Thread starter AshburnerX
- Start date
Waidaminit....
GasBandit
Staff member
fairtax.org
The general idea (I think) behind most of this type of thing is to have a tax system so simple it's very very hard to "game" and thus you need FAR less bureaucracy to deal with it.
Also, remember that the idea of Income Tax in general is a 20th-century-normal thing. Most "western" nations IIRC didn't have it prior to WWI. I know in Canada at least it was supposed to be a "temporary wartime measure" and then back to normal. But no, once they get your money, they are loathe to give it back. Prior to that Governments generally worked on taxes on imports (exports perhaps too) and a number of other types of taxes. You need very good paperwork to make income taxes more than a farce (well, more than they already are) so that you can reliably track what people are paid, and thus banks are a massive help there.
And the more general idea here is that the less money the government has, the less it can fuck up (and/or patronage/graft/etc, take your pick). You can only fuck up so much when you don't have much money. The more they have, the more they can fuck up. The opposite view is that the more they have the more they can help people who need it. Take your pick.
The government did so for quite a while before the IRS was established in 1862. It could manage again if anyone actually had the balls to do a complete overhaul of the federal governments revenue model and budget.[DOUBLEPOST=1455298944,1455298630][/DOUBLEPOST]
The first income tax in the US was the same thing, temporary to pay for costs incurred during the Civil War. It actually expired and the next couple of attempts at an income tax failed at the Constitutional level, leading to the passing of the 16th Amendment.
Prior to these most of the Federal revenue came from tariffs, which probably won't work now, not just because of the bloated top-heavy mess the federal government has become, but because of the nature of the world economy. A national sales tax like the fairtax proposal would be more efficient.
Efficient is seldom fair or just though. The ultimate stumbling block for basically all tax proposals I've seen is that they place an undue burden on the poorest of society (raising the sales tax on people who have trouble making rent/buying food is recipe for social discord) and doesn't ask enough of those who have benefited the most (basically every flat tax proposal I've ever seen). This is because they are all scams, more or less.
GasBandit
Staff member
The fairtax has a poverty line prebate.
Necronic
Staff member
The whole idea of flat taxes and fair taxes and whatnot is usually indicative a very fundamental misunderstanding about how money works. Don't get me wrong, the tax system as it is is not good, and it needs work, but most of the options I've heard from other people would be the equivalent of setting off a nuclear bomb on wall street. Consider this. One of the most well known, and generally least liked and understood to be problematic tax breaks around is the mortgage interest deduction. I can't remember the numbers but a LARGE majority of economists think it's a really bad idea. But removing it? Pretty much impossible. It would absolutely cripple the economy. You could slowly phase it out over many years, but doing something quick would be catastrophic.
The same is true for most other items. The only way to change them is to undertake very slow systematic changes. Any fast change would be very VERY bad. And slow changes? Not really much better because each year a new set of cooks will come in and add a little seasoning to the soup. You either do it all in one stroke and destroy the economy, or do it slowly and deliberately and pretty much guarantee it will be garbage by the end.
There are no silver bullets.
ed: And this doesn't even talk about the fact that for a flat tax to not be regressive it would have to include exemptions and whatnot for the poor. Guess what that makes it? A marginal tax....
The same is true for most other items. The only way to change them is to undertake very slow systematic changes. Any fast change would be very VERY bad. And slow changes? Not really much better because each year a new set of cooks will come in and add a little seasoning to the soup. You either do it all in one stroke and destroy the economy, or do it slowly and deliberately and pretty much guarantee it will be garbage by the end.
There are no silver bullets.
ed: And this doesn't even talk about the fact that for a flat tax to not be regressive it would have to include exemptions and whatnot for the poor. Guess what that makes it? A marginal tax....
GasBandit
Staff member
Sounds kinda like the argument about health care reform, too, if you think about it.
A trusted single payer system, where that single payer is acting in the best interest of its beneficiaries, and not trying to enforce some sort of eugenic agendum of its own.
--Patrick
Well, yes and no. The biggest issue with health care reform right now is that medical care providers are in a cold war with the insurance providers and medical suppliers: Insurers don't want to pay because they are obligated to act in the best interest of their investors, providers are forced to overcharge because of the discounts they are forced into just to get insurers into the system, and suppliers have to overcharge because they only get one successful product for every few dozen drugs they have to research. The public doesn't care about any of this (and they shouldn't) because all they know is that it's almost impossible to get quality care because of the fighting, but no one has made any attempts to do anything about it ether.[DOUBLEPOST=1455303959,1455303847][/DOUBLEPOST]
Pretty much. Without a strong, central player to dictate rules there can be no change... but without an obligation to work in the interest of the public, there is no reason to trust it ether.
Last edited:
Are you referencing something in particular, or just the general fact that single payer systems have to set a dollar-per-QALY ceiling?
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't want to derail this thread further into another health care and taxes debate (As it's supposed to just be about the candidates) but I'll just summarize by saying I don't agree that redoing taxes will destroy the economy, and I don't agree that single payer is the "only way."
Right right, let's get back on topic: beautiful sandwiches.
Really I'm referencing that if we give the control to one entity, that entity should be one we trust to do the job well.
I'm not making any comment on the fitness of any current entity, just that we should pick (or construct) one that will do the job well.
--Patrick
There is something very wrong with each word of this snip.
This is making headlines in Canada right now, and I find this hilarious: Marco Rubio campaign taking flak for featuring Vancouver skyline in new ad
And this line from the article is also priceless:
Awesome.
And this line from the article is also priceless:
It's hard to see, but in the image on the article, you CAN see the Canadian flag there if you're looking at the flag being flown. Apparently they are taking to doing California Doubling as much as any TV series these days.
Awesome.
GasBandit
Staff member
Hah, it's been in so many of our movies that people assume Vancouver is what AnyCity, USA just looks like
Gays aren't part of Ted Cruz's America. Or if you want to split hairs (of course you do), they aren't part of the group making the calls in his name's America.
Is culture war really the tactic they want to take to the general election?
Is culture war really the tactic they want to take to the general election?
Really splitting hairs though, not authorized by Cruz or his campaign. It's a questionable tactic by a questionable group that has done similar things stating support for other candidates in the past. I give it as much weight as a guy standing on the corner here in town with a "legalize WEED kills cancer" sign.
Well, if there were any primary season that seems primed to rile up the traditionally not voting fundamentalist crowd into actually voting for culture war positions, it would be this one.
I am legitimately surprised he dropped out before South Carolina. Considering the timing, it's likely he was offered something to drop out now so the Republican establishment can focus on building ether Cruz or Rubio in future primaries so they can try to narrow the lead behind Trump enough for the undeclared voters to swing the election in favor of an establishment candidate.
I do not see the Republican Party surviving a Trump presidency. They simply do not have the force of will to make him follow their agenda. They might think similarly.
His dropping out was in response to a dismal South Carolina finish.
For some reason I thought it was the 19th, not the 20th. *shrug*
GasBandit
Staff member
It doesn't surprise me, Nevada is a state of aging libertines, not young socialists.
Interestingly, Republican analysts are outright calling Trump bad for the party on CNN and Fox News. I guess the gloves have come off and they are preparing to get rid of him at any cost.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's looking like the only way to beat trump would be for every other republican except one to get out of the race. But I get the feeling Cruz and Rubio will both refuse to back down. And even if not, and Trump does lose the nomination, you know it's a near certainty he'll completely disregard his "promise" (or rather accuse the party of breaking faith first somehow) and run as an independent anyway, and thus hand the election to the democrats on a silver platter, a-la Perot '92.
I would not be surprised if the Republicans push for election reform next cycle, entirely to prevent something like this from happening. Instant run-offs or Borda Count would stack the deck for establishment candidates, though it would almost certain mean Republicans lose seats nationally.