Trump

[ShockingButTrue]

[WuDrWu]

regarding @jdshock: and @WuDrWu:'s convo

Doc is a huge believer that it is all his money, not the governments. That's a perfectly reasonable belief system that I largely share. However, I think the problem is when people get so wrapped up in philosophy that they become nearly impossible to speak with. JD is correct that a tax cut for the 1% benefits the 1%. This shouldn't be controversial as a statement of truth, but somehow Doc is so stuck on philosophical stuff like "a thief leaving a couple bucks in your wallet isn't a benefit" that he can't just find common ground on a basic statement.

It doesn't matter whether you want lower taxes or higher taxes. Whether you believe government has a right to some of your money (JD) or no right at all (Doc). We have a system in place. Every time we tweak the system, some groups "benefit" from that change more than others. We can all disagree whether it is a good thing, but the simple statement "group X will benefit from policy change Y" should not cause so much strife.

We get nowhere in political discussions because we can't even agree to agree on the really simple, straightforward stuff like this. It's like we are stuck arguing if we are going to debate in Spanish or Chinese. The debate never really even gets off the ground.

Since you mentioned me I unblocked your post to see what you said.

Please don't speak for me. I neither need you to speak for me or want you to speak for me.

You and JD both missed the premise of my comments. My point is that the discussion amongst the public is framed and skewed as such to vilify certain people, in this case the "rich". You have NEVER EVER heard something along the lines of " The Government, with their inability to live within their means, reaches out to the wealthiest Americans and asks them to dig deeper to help others out. Their sacrifice is appreciated by the other 99%"

Now, just so you understand, that's hyperbole. My point is that the media (and by extension most of the public) vilifies the wealthiest Americans who contribute the lions share of the taxes. Too few people ask of themselves 'What can I do to help me?". It's so much more "what is someone else doing that isn't fair or how can I get what I deserve from the government". We won't call welfare welfare. We call it earned income tax credits.

Don't blame me for the problems of starting the debate. I want to have the debate. We won't talk about the simplest of issues, like Social Security, because we cannot have the debate. Not because I'm complaining about the definition of benefits.

I want more common sense, not less. I want John Q Public (which is me) to ask of himself before we go back to Mr. Koch for help. I get you may disagree and that's fine. That I disagree, by the way, doesn't make me wrong. That you won't take a stand doesn't make you right either.

I completely believe in a need for taxation. Like many Americans, I believe government is entirely too large, but there are many places that I personally would like to see more tax dollars spent. I'm sure everyone has their own pet projects. While I certainly want to pay exactly not 1 penny more than I owe, I also want to pay every penny that I do in fact have to turn over to the government. Forgive me if I don't smile and ask politely for another. If more people took that kind of approach, I doubt our elected officials would be so quick to spend our money.

Why do you struggle so mightily with the concept that Government is spending OUR money? They work for US. I just don't get your problems, except that you've become so entrenched at being a contrarian that it's just consumed your every day life. I get JD, he's a lawyer, and he lives his life for the argument, no matter where it is. As long as he's getting paid he'll argue child porn is free speech. (Hyperbole again...see Alan Combs).

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You and JD both missed the premise of my comments. My point is that the discussion amongst the public is framed and skewed as such to vilify certain people, in this case the "rich". You have NEVER EVER heard something along the lines of " The Government, with their inability to live within their means, reaches out to the wealthiest Americans and asks them to dig deeper to help others out. Their sacrifice is appreciated by the other 99%"

I did not miss your premise one bit. But just as you despise the way liberals often skew the conversation (I agree with you on this by the way as it is indeed frustrating), your inability to accept straightforward language that a tax cut to rich people... benefits rich people... well, you are just swinging the pendulum to the other side and being ridiculous in your own way as to what phrasing you will accept.

Doc, you want the libs to be straightforward and say "we are asking the rich to dig even deeper and help out the less fortunate even more".

If so, then it is only also fair for you to say "I think the rich are already taxed too much. I support policies that yes, will benefit their pocket book, and no, I'm not ashamed of that. Here's why..."

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I completely believe in a need for taxation. Like many Americans, I believe government is entirely too large, but there are many places that I personally would like to see more tax dollars spent. I'm sure everyone has their own pet projects. While I certainly want to pay exactly not 1 penny more than I owe, I also want to pay every penny that I do in fact have to turn over to the government. Forgive me if I don't smile and ask politely for another. If more people took that kind of approach, I doubt our elected officials would be so quick to spend our money.

You and I are on the same page here.

Why do you struggle so mightily with the concept that Government is spending OUR money? They work for US. I just don't get your problems, except that you've become so entrenched at being a contrarian that it's just consumed your every day life.

Talk about a complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying or what I think. Good grief. Of course gov spending is OUR money. Of course they work for US. Where have I ever said otherwise?

It's like you hate me so much for being the "Texas Tech is better than the Thursday night MVC teams" guy that you are just assigning all sorts of random dumb opinions to me as if they were mine. I'm a Rubio/Sasse conservative and you somehow seem to have me pegged for Bernie Sanders Jr.

[WuDrWu]

Talk about a complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying or what I think. Good grief. Of course gov spending is OUR money. Of course they work for US. Where have I ever said otherwise?

It's like you hate me so much for being the "Texas Tech is better than the Thursday night MVC teams" guy that you are just assigning all sorts of random dumb opinions to me as if they were mine. I'm a Rubio/Sasse conservative and you somehow seem to have me pegged for Bernie Sanders Jr.

Because you sided with JD. You portrayed yourself and JD as the voice of common sense and reason and myself as the crazed closed minded whack job. So my comment about "our money" that was clearly made for JD got forced upon you because you aligned yourself with him.

It's as if you hate me so much that I had the gall to insanely predict WSU would go to the Final 4 years ago that you go out of your way to point out every single instance of a misstep either in perception or reality.

[WuDrWu]

I did not miss your premise one bit. But just as you despise the way liberals often skew the conversation (I agree with you on this by the way as it is indeed frustrating), your inability to accept straightforward language that a tax cut to rich people... benefits rich people... well, you are just swinging the pendulum to the other side and being ridiculous in your own way as to what phrasing you will accept.

Doc, you want the libs to be straightforward and say "we are asking the rich to dig even deeper and help out the less fortunate even more".

If so, then it is only also fair for you to say "I think the rich are already taxed too much. I support policies that yes, will benefit their pocket book, and no, I'm not ashamed of that. Here's why..."

I completely agree, but as a fiscal conservative, where do I get to make that argument? The media has already concluded that there is personal gain to be made by President Trump, without cause to ask or report why it's a good deal. Now, you can argue that the President must sell his ideas better (and I won't disagree) but the starting point is "President Trump is trying to change things so that he can benefit, period. He's out for himself." There is nary a thought that it could be good for America in general. Not even going to entertain the thought, we're going to assign guilt and go from there.

THAT'S what's frustrating.

You can disagree with me on this board, but in my opinion, a good part of the failure of the GOP is allowing the fight to be taken to them (or us). I'm tired of being attacked for things that I believe (or know) will be better for my country and having to defend nonsense before we can discuss the actual problems, which we almost never get to do.

[CBB_Fan]

Now, just so you understand, that's hyperbole. My point is that the media (and by extension most of the public) vilifies the wealthiest Americans who contribute the lions share of the taxes.

While the rich do pay the largest portion of the taxes, they do not pay a majority or close, and the amount they do pay is relative to their income.

If you want to talk about misrepresentation, how about the idea that income tax is the only tax in America? That is a bullet-point that is used to show the plight of the wealthy without showing the truth of the tax burden. It is really useful if you want to rail against the poor and illegals, but the total tax burden looks like this. The point of that graph is that we've basically swapped corporate and excise taxes for payroll taxes, meaning the middle class are the ones paying a larger and larger portion, not the rich.

The other accounting trick we do is to track only federal money. Sure, that is relevant a lot of the time, but it paints a misleading picture. Every state tax system is regressive. None have highly progressive income taxes, and they all rely heavily on sales and consumption taxes for their income. This what that looks like.

When you combine federal and state taxes, and don't look at just income taxes you just something like this. In a more graphical form.

You rail against villifying the rich, but misleading data does the opposite. There is just as much, if not more, disdain for the "moochers" at the bottom, and talking as if rich bear a unique burden under the tax code deifies them unnecessarily.

This isn't a call for a more progressive tax system, but a call for better and more accurate information. I'll talk about my personal favorite tax code in my next post.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I completely agree, but as a fiscal conservative, where do I get to make that argument?

You can make that argument RIGHT HERE IN THIS THEAD. JD and I are listening.

Doc, I'm not criticizing your comments about how frustrated you are with the NATIONAL conversation. I agree with you there. I'm criticizing your comments in this thread where about 3 of us are talking directly to each other. THIS isn't the national dialog, the media narrative, or all that garbage. THIS is regular folks having a conversation. Neither JD or I are appearing on TV each night. We aren't setting the national dialog. Don't treat us like we are.

Politically, in terms of policy preferences, I'm pretty sure I agree with you, Doc, much more than JD. But you know what I've found? JD is one of the best folks on this board and being fair minded, attempting to speak to my points, not twist my words for message board points, etc. I disagree with his policy preferences all the time, but his ability to debate fairly and honestly is superb.

I can ultimately agree with your policies but disagree with how you speak about them, and how you portray your opponents.
I can ultimately disagree with JD's policies but appreciate how he speaks about them, and how he portrays his opponents.

You took offense to the mere idea that a tax cut for the wealthy "benefits" them. I still find that approach absurd. If JD, a liberal, joins me, a conservative, in finding that absurd, then I'm happy to find common ground with him. It's ok to find common ground with those that you mostly disagree with elsewhere.

I "sided with" JD on one specific point regarding you and his specific exchange in this specific thread. Don't pretend that my critism of you extended broadly when it was clearly very specifically defined.

[CBB_Fan]

To be clear on my personal position, I am not in favor of a social justice tax system but I hate tax talks that use bad or incomplete information. The tax code I want is actually likely to be regressive, but it would be regressive on purpose rather than by accidentally cutting federal income taxes too much.

My tax plan would be pretty simple. I would wholly eliminate the corporate tax for starters, and then lower the progressivity of the tax code by simplifying it to two brackets. Bracket A would be income less than a basic standard of living for a given household type and area, Bracket B would income above that mark. A is not taxed, B is taxed at a low percent (10%?).

The bulk of the difference would be made up through a national sales tax or VAT plus a set of externalities taxes (aka Pigovian taxes). The second set of taxes are basically "making up" for negative outcomes that wouldn't show up in market prices. For example take a shipping company that could use a big or a small trailer to move its goods. The larger trailer damages the roads, but is more efficient. They don't pay the costs for damaging the roads, so they choose the larger trailer. A Pigovian tax would tax larger trailers to make the company consider the social cost.

So, to summarize:

* No "double-taxing" with corporate taxes (or anything similar)
* No income taxes on income below a basic standard of living
* Small, flat income taxes above that
* High sales taxes or a VAT
* Pigovian taxes on activities that represent a social cost
* Probably no change to payroll taxes

This would ultimately create a regressive tax system, but one that would better achieve social goals and more efficiently raise money without hurting the economy.

I don't think income taxes should be a tool for wealth redistribution. They aren't efficient enough at that task. Instead I favor achieving social goals through Pigovian taxes and benefits (a negative income tax or basic income being the best).

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

This is a great paragraph and it gets to the heart of my point. If we are going to talk about "fair dialog", then it seems obvious that we have to be willing to be straight forward about who benefits from what policy changes. Is a tax cut for the rich a good thing? Many folks will disagree on that. But is a tax cut for the rich a beneficial change to their pocket book? Of course it is, and if we can't even start with agreement on that point, our conversations are doomed from the start.

If I have income of $1 million in a year, and I owe taxes on that amount, if I can reduce my tax liability by various means, I benefited from those code provisions. I just don't understand your argument. We can objectively know the definition of the word "benefit" and know that a tax cut can benefit someone. If you're shot in the knee you're worse off. If you then have surgery that gets you back to 90% of your original strength, you benefited from the surgery. The surgery made you better than you were prior to the surgery. All in all, you are still worse off than prior to being shot. But the surgery benefited you. The same thing is true of a tax cut. This is just objective truth.

[ShockTalk]

To be clear on my personal position, I am not in favor of a social justice tax system but I hate tax talks that use bad or incomplete information. The tax code I want is actually likely to be regressive, but it would be regressive on purpose rather than by accidentally cutting federal income taxes too much.

My tax plan would be pretty simple. I would wholly eliminate the corporate tax for starters, and then lower the progressivity of the tax code by simplifying it to two brackets. Bracket A would be income less than a basic standard of living for a given household type and area, Bracket B would income above that mark. A is not taxed, B is taxed at a low percent (10%?).

The bulk of the difference would be made up through a national sales tax or VAT plus a set of externalities taxes (aka Pigovian taxes). The second set of taxes are basically "making up" for negative outcomes that wouldn't show up in market prices. For example take a shipping company that could use a big or a small trailer to move its goods. The larger trailer damages the roads, but is more efficient. They don't pay the costs for damaging the roads, so they choose the larger trailer. A Pigovian tax would tax larger trailers to make the company consider the social cost.

So, to summarize:

* No "double-taxing" with corporate taxes (or anything similar)
* No income taxes on income below a basic standard of living
* Small, flat income taxes above that
* High sales taxes or a VAT
* Pigovian taxes on activities that represent a social cost
* Probably no change to payroll taxes

This would ultimately create a regressive tax system, but one that would better achieve social goals and more efficiently raise money without hurting the economy.

I don't think income taxes should be a tool for wealth redistribution. They aren't efficient enough at that task. Instead I favor achieving social goals through Pigovian taxes and benefits (a negative income tax or basic income being the best).

What about Federal Estate Tax?

[RoyalShock]

The bulk of the difference would be made up through a national sales tax or VAT plus a set of externalities taxes (aka Pigovian taxes). The second set of taxes are basically "making up" for negative outcomes that wouldn't show up in market prices. For example take a shipping company that could use a big or a small trailer to move its goods. The larger trailer damages the roads, but is more efficient. They don't pay the costs for damaging the roads, so they choose the larger trailer. A Pigovian tax would tax larger trailers to make the company consider the social cost.

I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, but it did make me wonder if it keeps the door open for corporate cronyism, allowing Congress to treat companies like Kensworth or Peterbilt (18-wheelers) differently than Ford or Merecedes (small-to-mid-sized delivery) by manipulating the tax on the companies who use their products.

I would like to see our tax code overhauled, but as much work will need to be done to make sure any reforms don't devolve into something resembling what we have now, as making sure it will raise the needed revenue.

[CBB_Fan]

What about Federal Estate Tax?

The estate tax is another example of a double-tax and of a tax that is basically just a tax on ultra-wealthy for means of redistribution. Not a big fan. However, I think counting it towards income is a reasonable idea.

[ShockTalk]

The estate tax is another example of a double-tax and of a tax that is basically just a tax on ultra-wealthy for means of redistribution. Not a big fan. However, I think counting it towards income is a reasonable idea.

I believe some countries that do not have an "estate tax" do have a death tax on a % of capital gains. How would you count it towards income and make it a reasonable idea?

[Aargh]

Our beloved Congress will do ANYTHING to avoid taxing their perceived constituency. They will also do ANYTHING to provide government assistance and subsidies to their perceived constituency. I have never noticed those who insist on a balanced budget do anything to move in that direction. "Not In My Back Yard" always dominates.

Everybody wants the government to either give them something or deregulate everything so they can get more. Everybody wants "someone else" to pay for all of that. the vast majority of that $20 trillion debt moved into our economy to satisfy those wants.

You can discuss changes in taxatuion till you're blue in the face. Congress is incredibly unlikely to do anything major. People are accustomed to the current system. There are some complaints, but any method of taxation will have complaints. Staying within the status quo is by far the easiest route for those in Congress to get elected again.

Cutting taxes for the 1% is likely to get a larger portion of the 99% to the voting booth in two years. Trump is likely to motivate a portion of that voting group just by being Trump.

Right now Trump has the Republican party pretty much totally behind anything he does. That support may already be somewhat precarious. What I see as Trump's "shoot from the hip" style of governance and communication has a potential for casualties from friendly fire.