Rep. Stephen Fincher: “If the Poor Want Their Children to Eat Sell them as Slaves.”

[Murky]

Or the attitude could be that everyone should pay their fair share rather than only a small percentage of the population paying for government.

The obvious problem with that line of reasoning is that the rich often take from the poor in the form of penalties for being poor. The poor pay a lot more for just about everything, as a percentage of their income. And what generates the incomes of the super rich? The work that the working class does for them and then the people buy the products and services produced. Most of the profits go into the bank accounts of wealthy investors. Our capitalist system usually helps the rich obtain more and more wealth. It's only logical then that the government gets the money from where it tends to gravitate.

I technically agree with you, and I don't think we could really survive with ZERO revenue. But no income tax =/= no revenue. I get they're still taking SOME money at gunpoint but I want to reduce that as much as possible. On everyone. So I don't really agree with Cruz either. I just don't necessarily believe he's EVIL, at least not for that reason.

It might be more politically correct to just say that he's wrong than evil. Either way the rich people who pad is campaign coffers benefit and the poor suffer that much more the longer people like him are in power.

By the way. I love this new twitter tag #GoodByeGop

 

[El_Machinae]

Isn't it coming up at closer to 4 million words than 3 anymore? If you can get people to agree on just what the entirety of the Federal income tax code actually is?

Maybe! But, keep in mind that only a tiny portion actually applies to anyone specifically. It's the updating and streamlining that's tough. Applying the code isn't as hard as its complexity would suggest. That said, I'd not suggest against simplifying.

 

[peter grimes]

Kind of like what Murky said, the idea of the flat tax itself doesn't solve the core complexity problems within the tax code. The biggest question (and what truly increases the complexity) is how incomes are treated differently--carried interest and capital gains have their own special rules and rates that are not applied to regular wage income. Then you have the additional layer of significant deductions. If you really want to break down the complexity and inequalities in the tax code, you have to start by asking whether all income is simply income or should different income streams be privileged with a lower rate.

I understand the thinking behind having some investment stuff being taxed differently, but if you're taking the gains into your bank account then I think it should qualify as income. I believe currently the term of art is 'unearned income', a phrase that I really wish the progressive taxation people would use as a hammer over the heads of Republicans who fetishize hard work and personal responsibility.

Like how someone who takes advantage of a government food assistance program is a moocher, but someone who writes off a loss is 'savvy'.

I read, a long time ago, a method of computing tax that prioritized and rewarded savings over consumption. Simply put, you sum all your paychecks then subtract the amount in your bank accounts. The result is what you're taxed on.

So, he endorsed a home mortgage subsidy? Why not other subsidies, then? May I have a deduction for my food? My schooling? Why not, if I can have a home deduction?
I'd honestly be okay with a flat tax, too. I think it should start after some minimum, though. Mise very kindly pointed out that any flat tax with a minimum is essentially a progressive tax, but ehn. I was thinking the first $70k should be non-taxed, and then a flat tax after that.
It's honestly true that the tax code is pretty freaking complex.

The home mortgage deduction was originally designed to help people who were paying close to 50% of their income and above for housing costs. It worked as designed for a little while. But now the vast majority of the subsidy goes to families who earn over $100,000, which group also has the least trouble paying their housing costs:



Yes, that's right! In 2012, over $50 billion dollars of tax payer funds went to wealthy families to help them make rent, while only 100,000 of that category would qualify for the deduction if the original intent of the regulation were followed.

Meanwhile, only $1 billion was divvied up among nearly 9,000,000 poor people.

The fact that 2nd homes, vacation homes, hobby estates, and other luxury properties qualify for the tax subsidy is morally shameful.

What else can we get for $50B? That should be a major talking point in the tax reform discussion

 

[Farm Boy]

Agreed Peter.

 

[peter grimes]

#GoodByeGop

"I can't wait to drink a cup of tea and not be reminded of rednecks in colonial costumes screaming BENNNNGHAAAAAAZIIIIIIIIII!"



What's the forum protocol for quoting a 'twit'?

 

[EvenStranger]

I love this new twitter tag #GoodByeGop

Yay, now the Democrats can rule without opposition and become dangerously corrupt!



/sarcasm

I don't think you guys appreciate how seriously the collapse of the GOP could screw us all over, no matter our politics. Like it, or not, we need a release valve to keep the Democrats lean and on-task. One-party rule is nothing to look forward to.

The GOTP needs to get its business together fast.

 

[Murky]

Yay, now the Democrats can rule without opposition and become dangerously corrupt!



/sarcasm

I don't think you guys appreciate how seriously the collapse of the GOP could screw us all over, no matter our politics. Like it, or not, we need a release valve to keep the Democrats lean and on-task. One-party rule is nothing to look forward to.

The GOTP needs to get its business together fast.

Which is worse the collapse of the GOP or the continuation of a dysfunctional GOP? Let the beast die and hopefully replaced with something more reasonable. Maybe a party made up of more moderates and less tea party fanatics?

 

[EvenStranger]

Which is worse the collapse of the GOP or the continuation of a dysfunctional GOP? Let the beast die and hopefully replaced with something more reasonable. Maybe a party made up of more moderates and less tea party fanatics?

Possibility: The more reasonable elements of conservatism are rolled into the Democratic party and the more radical elements ( actual socialists, communists, militant vegans etc. ) leave and form another party. I've got an unscientific hunch that the future might go something like that.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, that's right! In 2012, over $50 billion dollars of tax payer funds went to wealthy families to help them make rent, while only 100,000 of that category would qualify for the deduction if the original intent of the regulation were followed.

Meanwhile, only $1 billion was divvied up among nearly 9,000,000 poor people.

The fact that 2nd homes, vacation homes, hobby estates, and other luxury properties qualify for the tax subsidy is morally shameful.

What else can we get for $50B? That should be a major talking point in the tax reform discussion

That was impressive! It's swayed my understanding of the topic.

 

[peter grimes]

That was impressive! It's swayed my understanding of the topic.

Mine, too. I had no idea it had become so perverted. I think that helping people own homes is a good investment for the government to make - but there should be limits to that largesse.

When I hear conservatives advocating for drug testing SNAP recipients, my first response is to ask them if they're also in favor of drug testing mortgage deduction recipients.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a tough rhetoric. The idea of being taxed less IS intuitively different from getting money from the government.

 

[EvenStranger]

It's not just intuitively different, it is different.

So we just assume that everyone's money is public property now? Is that really how it's going to be?

EDIT: I'm not necessarily defending the mortgage deduction specifically, but I don't like the idea that a tax break is only intuitively different from an actual wealth transfer. It implies that we're already operating under defacto collectivism.

 

[peter grimes]

It's not just intuitively different, it is different.

So we just assume that everyone's money is public property now? Is that really how it's going to be?

EDIT: I'm not necessarily defending the mortgage deduction specifically, but I don't like the idea that a tax break is only intuitively different from an actual wealth transfer. It implies that we're already operating under defacto collectivism.

I disagree. I think a tax deduction is not any different than a check from the Treasury.

The tax code is, effectively, a document that incentivizes some social interactions and conditions while penalizing others. We have come up with a system that rewards some behavior and induces friction on some transactions but not others. We could have a different set up if we wanted.

I don't own a home. I rent. Therefore I don't qualify for the home mortgage deduction. My income taxes go - in some very small way - towards that $50B the government is carving out of the taxable income of the very wealthy. My income has no equivalent carve-out.

It's not saying that there's defacto collectivism, only that my income is not subject to the benefits that some other peoples' are. At the same time, I almost certainly qualify for some benefits that other people don't get. For example, I have a child. The government - the administration of our society - has determined that I should not have as large a chunk of my income subject to taxes because of this. My expenses are higher because of the little poop-machine, and people who don't make the same choices we made don't get that government support.

I don't think there's anything qualitatively wrong with that - we just have to decide, as a society, how we want to prioritize support for eachother.

Personally, I want more of my money going to education and poverty alleviation than rich people's McMansions. Give the help to the people who need it the most - not the people who have the most political power. That's immoral to me.

 

[Farm Boy]

It implies that we're already operating under defacto collectivism.

DNA criminal databases for all!

 

[El_Machinae]

It implies that we're already operating under defacto collectivism.

Yes, and no. There's a 'fair share' of taxes. We all agree that taxes are too damn high, but there's still a fair share. Is getting a deduction on your "fair share" really different from being given more than your "fair share"?

There's an intuitive difference, yes. But is it your intuition that's rebelling?

 

[Azale]

Possibility: The more reasonable elements of conservatism are rolled into the Democratic party and the more radical elements ( actual socialists, communists, militant vegans etc. ) leave and form another party. I've got an unscientific hunch that the future might go something like that.

Actual socialists and communists have no place in the Democratic Party. They never have. FDR did his best to smash their vehicles of power, and red scares plus CPUSA itself finished them off as any kind of mainstream force. Socialism is seen more positively by the youth generation than it has in a while, it is losing its bite as a derogatory term, but they still have no organization or direction. At least not one that involves the traditional avenues of American political power. You won't be seeing the Socialist Party make it to any televised debates in the next 30 years.

Militant vegans WTH?

The plutocrats, neoliberals, and conservatives still have money on their side and local organization. They're not going anywhere, imo. It'll be a slow slow death for the political alliance of evangelical social reactionism and neoliberalism we call the modern GOP, but who needs that when your interests are still largely served by the Democrats and Supreme Court?

That's my opinion anyway. And our political deadlock between far right and slightly less far right has not meant a decline in corruption. One party rule in and of itself does not lead to corruption worse than what we see in multiparty democracies.

 

[Cutlass]

Yay, now the Democrats can rule without opposition and become dangerously corrupt!



/sarcasm

I don't think you guys appreciate how seriously the collapse of the GOP could screw us all over, no matter our politics. Like it, or not, we need a release valve to keep the Democrats lean and on-task. One-party rule is nothing to look forward to.

The GOTP needs to get its business together fast.

The problem being that the Democratic party has become so utterly conservative that they are no longer doing any of the things the country needs to prosper. For the US to remain a prosperous country through the 21st century, there are a million things government needs to deal with. And even the Democrats are currently going in the wrong direction.

We need liberals, or we will just have to abandon the American Dream. And the Republicans have to get crushed before liberalism will make a comeback.

 

[JollyRoger]

Carnival Cruz should know that the average American's tax return is very simple already, but it is generous of him to further simplify the returns by getting rid of all the deductions and credits for successful procreation.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's not just intuitively different, it is different.

So we just assume that everyone's money is public property now? Is that really how it's going to be?

EDIT: I'm not necessarily defending the mortgage deduction specifically, but I don't like the idea that a tax break is only intuitively different from an actual wealth transfer. It implies that we're already operating under defacto collectivism.

We are operating under collectivism. And we're operating under individualism. Both are needed for what we perceive as a society. This is true even in the animal kingdom.

Now in a political discourse it's usual to use phrases like: "So we just assume that everyone's money is public property now?" to emphasize how collective society has become and whether we should not backtrack a little.

The reality of the matter is far closer to what El Mac stated. In a society it is expected of the participants to participate. The actual discussion is how high that expectation should be. Those who reason on the fringes of that debate do not understand the mechanisms that keep society together.

We don't assume everyone's money is public property. But we do realise that the money in your pocket did not get there purely by individualistic effort. While obtaining that money, you cooperated with other people, and you took advantage of the efforts of other people. That is the collectivist part of society. But that doesn't disqualify the effort you put in to obtain that money. It didn't just materialise there. By means of using your specialisms, qualifications, unique abilities and such things you earned that money. That is the individualistic part of the equation.

Now the trouble with us humans is our inability to process the aspects of society on a larger scale. Our selfish nature tends to put ourselves and our loved ones first. Which is of course a very natural thing to do. But that is a sentiment that stems from our tribal ancestors who only had their tribe to consider. The rate at which societies became larger and more complex outgrew our ability to get to grips with all the mechanisms of it. It evolved way faster than we did.

Which is the exact reason why I sympathize with liberalism. It sets a noble goal. It challenges us to be able to find a delicate balance between the needs of the few and the needs of the many, to use a quote from a wise man who is on record saying: "Beep, beep, beep". But judging from for example what I read here and in the papers on a daily basis, we've got a long way to go.

And I'm afraid I got a little distracted by the sound of my own typing and may be guilty of stating the bleeding obvious there. What were we talking about again?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The obvious problem with that line of reasoning is that the rich often take from the poor in the form of penalties for being poor. The poor pay a lot more for just about everything, as a percentage of their income. And what generates the incomes of the super rich? The work that the working class does for them and then the people buy the products and services produced. Most of the profits go into the bank accounts of wealthy investors. Our capitalist system usually helps the rich obtain more and more wealth. It's only logical then that the government gets the money from where it tends to gravitate.

You're assuming implicitly that capitalism is immoral or that government just HAS to get large amounts of income from anywhere.

Granted, I don't care if the tax system is "Progressive". I'd be more than happy to compromise with liberals and put all of the taxes on the rich. But in return, I want huge cuts in government spending, and tax cuts on everyone. I care more about how much money the government taxes than where exactly they get it from, and how equally the burden is distributed.

It might be more politically correct to just say that he's wrong than evil. Either way the rich people who pad is campaign coffers benefit and the poor suffer that much more the longer people like him are in power.

I'm not so much worried about political correctness here as I am just of the belief that you are wrong that malice is the motive here. I think Ted Cruz, along with most flat tax supporters, believe the system as it currently stands to be unfair and punishes success. To a certain extent, I actually agree with them. Its the assumption that "Fairness" is the highest virtue where I split from them.

Taxes are not theft, and anyone who says they are is an utter frakking idiot.

An assumption which assumes the property requires a State. You might be right, but there are plenty who would disagree with you.

Calling a logical claim that at least as first glance is in fact accurate "Idiotic" is not fair, IMO.

A person who wants actual liberty, both for themselves, and for others. Not one who only wants the liberty of the wolf to eat the sheep.

So it seems that he who shall not be named (Not Voldemort, the former congressman of Texas' 14th district) is in fact a libertarian

In all seriousness though, "Wanting liberty" is broad, and almost everyone says they support that.

I don't really care about labels though. I'm probably more specifically a minarchist than I am a "libertarian" anyway. Most people do in fact think of something that is at least close to what I believe in when they think of "libertarian", and so do I, so that's normally what I want to use, but if you want to refer to people like me and he-who-shall not be named (Again, not talking about Voldemort here) as minarchists while referring to some other type of philosophy as "libertarian", I don't really have a problem with it.

So, he endorsed a home mortgage subsidy? Why not other subsidies, then? May I have a deduction for my food? My schooling? Why not, if I can have a home deduction?
I'd honestly be okay with a flat tax, too. I think it should start after some minimum, though. Mise very kindly pointed out that any flat tax with a minimum is essentially a progressive tax, but ehn. I was thinking the first $70k should be non-taxed, and then a flat tax after that.
It's honestly true that the tax code is pretty freaking complex.