US Politics - The Nuclear Option goes pfft

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I haven't seen Huntsman speak on tv, so I don't know how well he comes across there, but his sound bytes from interviews and debates were by far the best of the Republican candidates. I didn't agree with him very often, but at least I didn't feel like he hated me and everything I stand for just because I'm a liberal.

Huntsman might be doing a lot better if he simply talked about this politicies and solutions. Unfortunately, his strategy has been to overtly and deliberately define his campaign as being to the left of all the other candidates. No Democrats win by openly mocking the left wing of that party, and no Republican is going to win by openly mocking the right of the GOP. You don't have to be beholden to the wings, but you can't actively run against them. Huntsman's rhetoric has actually been directed more against conservatives than liberals, despite him actually being a fairly conservative guy.

Policy-wise, he's generally got a good record from Utah, although spending increased more than 10% annual during his term, making him third highest in the nation in terms of spending more money. That's a tough sell in the GOP.

Cap and Trade also is extremely unpopular in the GOP, and in that regard, even the Democrat-controlled Senate wanted to have nothing to do with it during the first two years of Obama's presidency. So that's another issue where he's outside the GOP mainstream.

[TrackerNeil]

Again, I'm not saying that "9-9-9" should be enacted. But I think it's a decent starting point for debate because our tax policies are really hurting us in terms of business competitiveness.

By that reasoning, a proposal to execute anyone to who drives alone to work is a good starting point for the debate over traffic control and infrastructure policy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

By that reasoning, a proposal to execute anyone to who drives alone to work is a good starting point for the debate over traffic control and infrastructure policy.

No, because there is nothing good about executing people.

There are two problems I see with Cain's plan. The first is that, depending on how you run the numbers and projections, it might need to look more like 10-10-10 to be revenue neutral. So the numbers may be too low. But that's more a math issue than a conceptual flaw.

The second is the regressive aspect of a sales tax. But that isn't an insurmountable problem because you could always help counter that by having a basic deduction/rebate/credit that kicks in on the income tax portion. Folks with income below a certain level may get some money back.

It also has some virtues. It greatly simplifies the code, which means less expenses for tax professionals. It reduces our excesssive business tax rate to make our businesses more competetive, helping to keep more jobs here. It also has the huge virtue of capturing at least some taxes from the black market parts of our economy, not only in terms of income earned from illegal activities, but income earned by the millions paid under the table. And it collects taxes from people who come to the country and spend money. It also gets rid of the whole "contractor/employee" game some employers play to avoid payroll taxes, etc.

That's more than what you get out of just putting a bullet in someone's head.

[TrackerNeil]

No, because there is nothing good about executing people.

Tell that to Rick Perry, please.

[TerraPrime]

Tell that to Rick Perry, please.

pwned.

[IheartTesla]

A simple tax code that suddenly needs a few deductions and workarounds to make it happen? I'm pretty sure by the time it gets through committee and on the floor of Congress, these 'few' minor adjustments will make 9-9-9 balloon into an unwieldy beast.

I mean, every concept starts out simple, but when you need to make it comprehensive, it becomes anything but.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

A simple tax code that suddenly needs a few deductions and workarounds to make it happen? I'm pretty sure by the time it gets through committee and on the floor of Congress, these 'few' minor adjustments will make 9-9-9 balloon into an unwieldy beast.

I mean, every concept starts out simple, but when you need to make it comprehensive, it becomes anything but.

That doesn't mean that all concepts are equally complex, or equally meritorious.

[TrackerNeil]

A simple tax code that suddenly needs a few deductions and workarounds to make it happen? I'm pretty sure by the time it gets through committee and on the floor of Congress, these 'few' minor adjustments will make 9-9-9 balloon into an unwieldy beast.

I mean, every concept starts out simple, but when you need to make it comprehensive, it becomes anything but.

Word.

The reason the tax code is complicated is not because of government bureaucrats but because of the influence of special interest groups. Every single tax deduction you can name was put there because of political pressure from one faction or another, and thus has a constituency. It's all well and good to talk about simplification of the tax code, but try yanking the mortgage interest deduction and see what happens.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Word.

The reason the tax code is complicated is not because of government bureaucrats but because of the influence of special interest groups. Every single tax deduction you can name was put there because of political pressure from one faction or another, and thus has a constituency. It's all well and good to talk about simplification of the tax code, but try yanking the mortgage interest deduction and see what happens.

What is your point?

That criticism applies to every effort one could make to reform/improve the tax code. Are you just saying that we shouldn't try? Or that if we do try, it's going to be difficult? Because if its the latter, I think everyone already knows that.

[awesome possum]

Well, Herman Cain has effectively ended his chances

Talking to Piers Morgan about abortion:

No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.

[TerraPrime]

That doesn't mean that all concepts are equally complex, or equally meritorious.

Just as simple is the concept that the tax you pay increases with the proportion of your income earnings. It's as simple as the 9-9-9 idea, far as I can tell. So if it's simplicity you want, why not that? But of course it's not about simplicity - it's about other things like the perceived control of the government have over people's incomes and the alleged unfairness that people with higher income pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes, etc.

So yeah, I'm not buying the "they like it because it's simple" argument.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If you want a more simple tax code, simply eliminate all deductions other than the standard, then lower taxes across the board. Everyone is happy, taxes on the rich go down as percentage, more of the poorest pay no tax, and the government gets out of deciding and subsidizing which behaviors are "moral" or whatever.

Personally, I'm the Republican dream of the overtaxed working man. Middle class, married filing jointly, but we only qualify for the standard deduction. No dependents, no mortgage, etc. Hell, if you want to cut the tax brackets into the quintiles that everyone likes so much.

1st quintile - 5%

2nd quintile - 10%

3rd quintile - 15%

4th quintile - 20%

5th quintile - 25%

Eliminating the deductions would probably hit the 3rd (mortgage, child) and 5th (ludicrous myriad deductions) the hardest.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just as simple is the concept that the tax you pay increases with the proportion of your income earnings. It's as simple as the 9-9-9 idea, far as I can tell. So if it's simplicity you want, why not that?

Progressivity has nothing to do with simplicity. Apples and refrigerators. Progressivity also has nothing to do with trying to obtain taxes from evaders/black market etc.

If you want to make a point about a lack of progressivity, why not just raise that point directly rather than with a faux clever -- and inaccurate -- analogy to simplicity?

In any case, I believe I specifically noted that the system should include something so that lower income people would be getting back money from the government. That means they'd be paying a net lower rate of taxation than people who make more. Hence, progressivity. You could also limit the tax so as not to apply to things like food, which would make it even more progressive. Further, under this plan, you wouldn't have the cap on payroll deductions that you have under the current system, which is something that currently makes the system less progressive.

But of course it's not about simplicity - it's about other things like the perceived control of the government have over people's incomes and the alleged unfairness that people with higher income pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes, etc.

Maybe that's not what it's about to you. But a lot of the appeal of people that support something based on that concept it the capturing of taxes from sources that currently get away with paying very little -- people from overseas, people who come by their money illegally, and people getting paid under the table. That's a virtue independent of "simplicity". And moving to a flatter tax would mean that companies like GM would no longer be able to get away with paying zero. Again, that's not an issue of simplicity, but one of fairness, and eliminating weird incentives to engage in behaviors that otherwise (other than in a tax sense) would be non-productive.

So yeah, I'm not buying the "they like it because it's simple" argument.

Who said that was the only virtue of the idea?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you want a more simple tax code, simply eliminate all deductions other than the standard, then lower taxes across the board. Everyone is happy, taxes on the rich go down as percentage, more of the poorest pay no tax, and the government gets out of deciding and subsidizing which behaviors are "moral" or whatever.

I'm fine with that too. But something has to be done about the corporate tax system as well.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'm fine with that too. But something has to be done about the corporate tax system as well.

The same. Eliminate all deductions, lower taxes across the board. Set up a quintile system with percentages. All that's left is if you're taxing gross or profits.

Edit: maybe set up a similar standard deduction if you want to protect small businesses/sole proprietorships or whatever.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The same. Eliminate all deductions, lower taxes across the board. Set up a quintile system with percentages. All that's left is if you're taxing gross or profits.

A business tax should be flat, regardless of business size, so I can't go with your quintile idea. But I've been in favor of eliminating all the preferences and chopping rates (revenue neutral) for a long time. I say revenue neutral because it's going to be hit or miss in the first year, and you need to aim at the midpoint. After revenue is more predictable, you can have the policy debate about a higher or lower rate.

[Shryke]

The same. Eliminate all deductions, lower taxes across the board. Set up a quintile system with percentages. All that's left is if you're taxing gross or profits.

Edit: maybe set up a similar standard deduction if you want to protect small businesses/sole proprietorships or whatever.

Doesn't your idea create issues with barrier cases where you jump from one group to the next and end up with less income?

That's why progressive taxation is done based on the amount of money, in separate steps.

[TerraPrime]

Progressivity has nothing to do with simplicity. Apples and refrigerators. Progressivity also has nothing to do with trying to obtain taxes from evaders/black market etc.

If you want to make a point about a lack of progressivity, why not just raise that point directly rather than with a faux clever -- and inaccurate -- analogy to simplicity?

Because the 9-9-9 is regressive? At least, the last 9% is, for the national sales tax. In the first two, there supposedly will be "empowered zones" where the 9% gets reduced, so it's a from of exemptions/deductibles.

In any case, I believe I specifically noted that the system should include something so that lower income people would be getting back money from the government. That means they'd be paying a net lower rate of taxation than people who make more. Hence, progressivity. You could also limit the tax so as not to apply to things like food, which would make it even more progressive. Further, under this plan, you wouldn't have the cap on payroll deductions that you have under the current system, which is something that currently makes the system less progressive.

So.... you too, think that the 9-9-9 plan is regressive? Then why are you jumping on me for making a point about the simple plan of 9-9-9 being regressive? And maybe we're just using the word "simplicity" differently, but simplicity means few to no exemptions and uniformity across income levels, i.e., both of which are associated with regressive taxes.

Maybe that's not what it's about to you. But a lot of the appeal of people that support something based on that concept it the capturing of taxes from sources that currently get away with paying very little -- people from overseas, people who come by their money illegally, and people getting paid under the table.

It is not clear to me why a flatter tax structure will be better at capturing loss revenues from things like overseas income or black market wages.

And moving to a flatter tax would mean that companies like GM would no longer be able to get away with paying zero.

I highly doubt it. It's all about accounting. Cain's plan will tax "Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports." I'm not a corporate accountant, but I will guess that what gets counted as any number of these things can be played with to yield some obscene results.

Who said that was the only virtue of the idea?

What other virtues are there? That it's very regressive? That it probably can't achieve what it wants to achieve?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Doesn't your idea create issues with barrier cases where you jump from one group to the next and end up with less income?

That's why progressive taxation is done based on the amount of money, in separate steps.

In hindsight I actually agree with FLOW that business should be taxed flat (possibly with a standard deduction). 10% - 15% seems fair to me, but I'm just pulling that out of my ass.

[Swordfish]

In hindsight I actually agree with FLOW that business should be taxed flat (possibly with a standard deduction). 10% - 15% seems fair to me, but I'm just pulling that out of my ass.

I think that still qualifies you to run for office.